crac

Have you ever breathed in deeply the polluted air of a busy road and enjoyed the experience???

Does that not give you a hint that it's wrong to pollute the air.

To produce foul gases that would kill you directly and just about any animal that breathed them is therefore wrong and it's wrong because it makes the air we breath bad for us.

Who does not enjoy the experience of nature ? So it's a good thing, nature is, must be because thats where we came from.

To say that the scientific argument has not quite been proven to my satisfaction is hardly the point in my view. your heart should tell you it's wrong to pollute.
It's not dependent on scientific analysis of the least worse scenario or some other double talk.

harryaldridge

Absolutely. But pollution in the sens you just wrote about is good old fashioned environmentalism (i.e. look after the environment, anti-lanfill, etc). Global Warming is slightly different. Carbon Dioxide is not a 'polluting' gas, it is necessary to support life, and whether or not global warming is man made, and if so to what extent, is not yet proven beyond all doubt.

So i agree, we ought to try and stop pumping out horrible gasses, 'pollution', so we have a cleaner environment and better air quality. But don't mix that up with global warming.

__________________
http://vindicovindico.blogspot.com

crac

It's not mixed up, the co2 the scientists talk about is just a scientfically identified product as part of the horrible deadly gases produced.

What i'm saying is that science is not the answer because if you rely on that then you condone what any caring person would not which is the production of polluting gases into the atmosphere which is a deadly in any case to every living thing virtually.

So what i'm saying is i don't condone it and i don't need science to tell me it's wrong to put deadly gases into the atmosphere.

crac

My views are not good old fashioned environmentalism (what ever that is) but based on solid reasoning.

1) I came from nature and so does my food and my drink and so does my air and so does my mother and father , and everything else i need.

2) Therefore i love nature and if i did not i would seriously have to consider that i must have gone mad because then i would be against everything that is for me a positive benefit.

3) Therefore i don't like nature to be polluted, or used up, eg over logged over fished sprayed with poisons etc and i think it's wrong, unless it's unavoidable. Because i have to be realistic and realise that my chair comes from a tree and i don't worry about that fact.

4) This is not an issue of worshipping the planet earth, which i don't, not as some kind of god and it's not an issue of personifying something with my values. Because it is about life and the respect for life. For example, i don't mind how many rocks you hit with a hammer but if you do it to a penguin and you have no good reason then i do mind.

John Connor

Plant some trees and stop whining.

__________________
There are three types of people in this world: Libertarians, fascists and those who haven't been paying attention.

Users on ignore list: Akria, Besoeker, Clippo, david H, Ian C.

harryaldridge

Crac, i understand what you are saying but i think you are mis-understanding me. I agree that the environment is owned in common by all of us and that we must look after it for both our own selfish interest but also we have a moral duty to do so. However CO2 is not pollution and it is not proven beyond all doubt that it is causing (or certainly has any significant affect) on climate change.

If it is proven that CO2 is fundamental in global warming, and that the manmade contribution is so significant to mean we have th epower to change it, then i agree we ought to be seeking to try and do something about it. I even argue that today, in the absence of that concrete scientific knowledge, we should be taking a cautious and prudent approach and attempting to cut our CO2 emissions, but focussing on the easy options such as energy substitution (clean coal/nuclear etc) in the first instance before plunging us all back to the dark ages.

__________________
http://vindicovindico.blogspot.com

crac

That is the damn problem with relying on science. You see a million trees cut down and 50 million tons of poisenous gases put in to the air and the grass goes black and every living thing dies off and people suffer all kinds of respiratory problems and genreral ill health and you say to yourself ,''is it scientifically proven that this has any affect on the environment''??????

Science is playing catch-up as we all know, after a century or so of major industrial expansion all over the world and enormous detriment to ecosystems science is saying, '' Oh is this bad for the environment???''

Like Durr

harryaldridge

Er...i see no black grass and nor am i surrounded by corpses. And i don't dispute that trees are being cut down and gases being punped in to the atmosphere, but that is slightly different to saying that has an affect.

Also if CO2 is the cause of global warming then we should be seeing a trend of increasing temperature in the upper troposphere where CO2 is concentrated. However, and here's the rub, the trend shows rising surface temperatures but declining temperatures in the troposphere. That is the opposite of what the models predict!! It suggests that CO2 is not a cause of global warming, but it may well be a symptom. So the question is what is the cause? Is it man made or part ofa natural cycle?

Don't forget that we had a mini ice age only a few hundred years ago, and the Romans used to grow vines up north. Also don't forget that the hottest year in the last 100 years was 1934.

I agree let's look after our environment, but let's not jump to conclusions and start ignoring the substantial body of science on both sides of the argument.

__________________
http://vindicovindico.blogspot.com