Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JCL
I say partly, and we have to.
While there surely are normal climatic change patterns involved, it is hard to accept that we aren't having some negative impact. That question pales next to the real one, though, your second point, which is the question of whether man can adapt to his surroundings or not. It isn't about fixing it as much as it is about understanding it, and plotting the best course of action given the most probable outcome.
'Fixing' the environment is overstating it, we don't control enough of the variables. However, we have shown that we can lessen our impact (ozone is a good example), and we can make efforts to adapt to ensure our survival. Even parkas in the Arctic, and irrigation systems in California, are examples of adapting. Not worth it? Tell that to the Inuit and the Californians, after you take away their parkas and their water supplies.
|
Good point, but I never said we shouldn't adapt. I said we were wasting our time trying to fix the environment - a completely different concept than adapting.
While I agree that pollution is bad and should be stopped, I don't agree with the greenies that say that anything synthetic is evil (but a hybrid vehicle is not - wtf?), and that we are "killing" the planet unless we all become Luddites, or Quakers.
It's interesting to me that all the scientists that support the concept of global warming are rolling in dough, while the other side of the argument doesn't garner that support.