Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
This is a much more complicated issue than is being portrayed, and to suggest anyone has this figured out is like having faith the weather man is able to predict the weather with any accuracy for next month.
There are some basic concepts that have to be answered first, and then we can hypothesize some explanations and then test them, and so forth until we come to a theory that seems to hold up. Kind of like using the Scientific Method.
One of the first questions to be answered is "are humans part of Nature's scheme or not" and if the answer is "yes" we should realize that humans on earth are like the locusts and gypsy moths and other things that have perodicities to their populations. We will do our part to use order to create disorder, and live on only if we are working within the rules of nature.
Change is natural and consistency is not. Climate changes have occured in the past and we calmly classify them as "natural" or due to some external influence that is also natural, like a huge meteor strike or the like.
Our recognition that we are causing a climate change is probably good. It will probably lead to efforts to control the rate of the upcoming climate change and possibly reduce the scope of its effect on human populations. But almost every solution will lead to a condition where our population size is going to cause a climate change by one means or another.
Your solar energy panels, if they became the chief way to power all of our industrial and private energy needs would eventually change the albedo of the entire Earth, which will influence global warming. The same for any alternate energy source. The more successful we are as a species, the greater our influence on these global mechanisms. When there are just too fucking many people, we will break the back of whatever is maintaining the environmental conditions favorable to humans procreating, and the problem will be solved.
It is unnatural for any system in nature to be stable. The time span for this observation is different for different systems, but the whole point of time is to make these changes apparent. To try to resist something as forceful as Nature's pursuit of change is futile - we can't even get our asses moving when a big storm is coming, and we have days of warning. Relative to the range of forces available in nature to make change, storms are pretty benign.
So, Al Gore's premise is we should avoid speeding the process up and be faced with a rate of change that exterminates either us directly or essential elements of our life supply line, either food, water or shelter. That is also the message of environmentalists. And they are both correct. If left to its own devices, nature will enforce its rules at a rate that we may be able to survive as a species if we are really clever and vigilant. Otherwise, we are going to go the way of the Dodo bird, but at our own hand. Even the fucking Dodo bird didn't do himself in. Jim