Monday, November 21, 2005

But there's no global warming...

For those of you who still think we humans have no effect on our environment, the temperature in Greenland has risen five degrees in ten years.

And keep in mind that it only take a change of a couple degrees to throw everything down the shitter...


Tony said...

Hi Kenneth,

Nobody says that global warming isn't real. (well, i am sure somebody does). What is in question is the cause. Earth has transitioned between two extremes for millions of years. We go from Cold-dry periods to warm-wet periods. This has happened no less that 100 times over the last 2 billion years. So if something happens 100 times when no people are around, then on the 101st time there are people present.....why do you believe that the people are responsible? It happened 100+ times in our absence.

The Ice caps come and go, it is the established cycle. The coming warm-wet period will be good in the long run. More precipitation means more water for people in dry areas. Also, the best soil for faring is found where galciers once stood. Greenland will become the breadbasket of the world one day.....again as it was before. Warmer, wetter climate means more plants to soak up the CO2, which will eventually swing us the other way again.

There was recently a report the the icecap in greenland is THICKENING, by the way:

(sorry, don't know how to link it)

So, yes things are warming up. But the changes are part of the system that has been working for Millions of years. The Earth will bounce back, it alwas does. For gosh sake, a 12 mile rock hit 65 millions years ago that destroyed 90% of the species on the Planet. New life filled the void. We are here because of it.

The glaciers will melt and forests will die and polar bears will disappear and.....on and on. New things will arise to take the place of the old things and 10,000 years from now somebody will be blogging about how terrible it is that the Earth is cooling and how bad it will be when sea levels drop and Glaciers fill the arctic circle.

I don't see any reason to be alarmed about it.
Now, does this mean we shouldn't try to keep things clen? No way. But extreme reactionism is no good.

Kenneth La Salle said...


I don't know where you're getting your information but I've read far too much to agree with you when it comes to matters of such importance.

We're not talking about saving the planet - that will survive with or without us. To throw out a bunch of statistic about how the earth has survived is to confuse the issue. What we're talking about is saving US. Humanity. We need to take care of our home. It's foolish to think that we're invincible and can just do anything - willy nilly - with no consequence.

Tony said...


I understand your point. I just know know how important it is that humanity survives. (Cynical) I think my point is that there isn't much we can do about it outside of adapting to the changes. If we aren't responsible for it then there is nothing we can change to stop it, is all.

I get my information from books on the subject. I like to read. There are two extreme sides on the subject and I like to sit in the middle on most things, where you appear to be comfy on the far, far left. (no judgement here, just an observation).

Anyway, I was just commenting as I do from time to time. I just stumbled onto your blog one day and keep coming back, don't know why.......

Anyway, if I bug you I will stop.

Take care.

Kenneth La Salle said...

While you're correct that there are extreme sides on this issue, I don't see how taking care of our environment could be seen as extreme while allowing corporate interests to rape it is not.

Also, I'm too optimistic to believe that all we can do is try to adapt to a worsening situation. There's a lot we can do to make this world a better place if we choose to do it. In this case, standing up against corporate interests is a good start: consuming wisely and using less for instance.

That is, by the way, FAR from the far, far left. (Though if custodial care of our world is "liberal", I don't know how the so-called "conservatives" can sleep at night.)

Tony said...


I totally agree with you about the custodial role being important. Corporate pollution is a bad thing. We should not purposely destry the environment. Corporations (businesses) afford people (humans) their jobs, homes, food and amenities. Corporations are made up of people. The fight the creation of wealth is counter productive to its distribution. You can't distribute it if you destroy its source. (off the subject)

The issue of Global warming is not a corporate issue. Pollution of rivers, oceans and ecosystems are corporate issues. Global warming is cyclic. Humans have been through it twice before (Younger and Later Dryas periods). The Holocene world is relatively new and unique in the grand scheme of things. it isn't the "norm" for the environment through out most of History. Humans have grown far too numerous in the "New" environment and I think that perhaps the sysytem is repairing itself by reverting to conditions that are less favorable to this many people.

So I differentiate between Corporate abuse of the environment (as well as personl: as a smoker you know that cigarette filters are a VERY bad pollutant....but you still smoke. Again off the subject, sorry)..........and Global cycles that can't be stopped. You appear to believe that they are one and the same.

anyway, We probably will never agree on this so I will move on.