Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rykaird
So, I'm very cautious when it comes to global warming, because the folks pushing that agenda also seem to be unusually interested in the reduction of sovereignty of nations and the establishment of worldwide organizations to dictate new rules on a global basis.
|
I think that its very partisan to think in terms of parties pushing an agenda. I mean if someone said your house is burning down you wouldn't ask him who he voted for to validate his statement. You'd look at your bloody house and see if you needed to get the hose.
I also don't just buy the "coincidence" statement. I mean sure the world is gonna keep changing. But we are a tiny little event in the history of the world. I find it a bit too obvious that within 2 centuries of the industrial revolution the world is suddenly getting warmer fast. If the world is changing naturally then we're expediting the process in an unmanaged way. Life adapts slowly to change. The change we're bringing would see the world get 20 to 50 degrees hotter in 100 years.
The sad reality is that with global warming animal species will die, ecosystems will be changed drastically and if the polar ice caps melt then the shores of out biggest cities will be flooded. Nobody can say that "real life" isn't going to change. Thats just a naiive contrarian point of view. You also can't say that its a normal change in the earth and then say that its not a change at all. Its one or the other, but when a planet's complexion is changing its definitely gonna change things.
Lastly I reject the idea that change to the earth is natural and that we have no business fooling with it because the earth "doesn't need to be saved". I agree that the earth will go on. But what we ought to be saving is ourselves. We could destroy the balanced ecosystems of the world, starve to death, and in a million years life will still exist. But you can't ignore a change that we are expediting rapidly simply because the planet won't be as easily annihilated as the human race.