http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-we-too-stupid.html

Very interesting article asking the basic question, "Are we too stupid", humanity as a whole that is, to take the needed collective corrective actions to prevent tragic global climate change.

What, you have to ask? If we weren't we wouldn't be having the problem would we?

Since humans aren't responsible for climate change, the question is moot. But, feel free to humor yourself.

You cannot dump tons of crap into the atmosphere for hundreds of years and not expect it to have some sort of effect?

The AGW skeptics crack me up.

Why not, you must be doing the same posting in this thread with that conclusion.

I don't know what the definition of stupid is - unless we're talking Gumpisms.

We grow up learning how to live and we grow up dependant on all the things that make our life easier. The actions we take do not consider where all the 'stuff' we accumulate comes from, or the impact on environment or people that producing all that stuff has created. Likewise we never consider what happens to all that 'stuff' or its impact on the environment or people, when we dispose of it. The same is true of all the energy we use, we simply take it and use it without forethought or afterthought.

Then someone comes along and begins tearing down the very actions we have always taken for granted; actions not unlike those of everyone else. Many poeple know how to make adjustments by now, but the adjustments may not be within restricted budgets, or may be too time consuming, or maybe the adjustments require technology and science to catch up. Then there are a great many people who have little to no understanding of science, including those we put in legislative capacities. (stupid is as stupid does) and some stupid people still trust the government to tell them the truth and act in their best interest - biggest Gumpism of all.

Air: a mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, and minute amounts of other gases that surrounds the earth and forms its atmosphere.

Carbon Dioxide: a colorless, odorless, incombustible gas, CO2, present in the atmosphere and formed during respiration, usually obtained from coal, coke, or natural gas by combustion, from carbohydrates by fermentation, by reaction of acid with limestone or other carbonates, or naturally from springs: used extensively in industry as dry ice, or carbon dioxide snow, in carbonated beverages, fire extinguishers, etc.

The earth's climate, for millions of years relied on a balance. Flora vs fauna. Air breathing animals exhale carbon dioxide which is then used by plants during photosynthesis to create sugar and release oxygen back into the atmosphere. Then humans come along ... cut down and remove about 60% of the world's plant life, use manufacturing techniques that release even more carbon dioxide into the air (not to mention sulfur dioxide and hundreds of other--worse--toxins into the atmosphere).

Come on, is it so hard to believe humanity hasn't screwed SOMEthing up? Really?

mmm - ok, so maybe think of it in terms of sustainability. How long can the population continue to grow exponentially, rely on non-renewable enery sources, and continue to produce toxic waste sites on land that is at a premium for supporting the ever growing population?

One way or the other - climate or pollution - we are destroying our future and the future of our species. Deny climte as a non-issue - but you cannot deny the damage we create in our thoughtless hap-hazard, mainstream, middleclass, want it/have it all, just like the Jones's world.

As I said before, it may not be that we are stupid, but more that we have been under-educated.

Well and that is what the paper ended up with its conclusion, that if a 90% confidence level can be established widely amongst the public that a given outcome will pass given certain behaviors, ie if we keep doing x, then outcome y will occur. The conclusion is that we could as a whole modify our behavior, and this requires a lot of education when it comes to the climate, the environment, and sustainability in general.

Also we have to convince people even with this massive propaganda machine in place to confuse the topic.

Since earth is a closed system (check your college biology textbook for a full explanation), it is not possible to "destroy" or "harm" nature. It is possible to convert it into other things, but that is a different question. If you check your physics book, you'll also find that the AGW "theory" violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

WRONG>

Earth is NOT a closed system. Earth receives energy from the sun, thus the sun is a member of the thermodynamic system.

The earth also radiates heat into space.

AGW does not violate any laws of physics. When you copy spam us from some website, please include the link to that site.

Thanks,

Sad. Really, really sad.

My limping PC is unable to reach that article. I am myself opposed to the fad of pronouncing modern problems "unsolvable" on the grounds that we are, as a species, incapable of overcoming OURSELVES. I consider it to be a lazy intellectuals' way to pretend to be above it all, and caring, while at the same time refusing to try to help fix anything.
As to the Global Warming issue itself, I have gone from one side to the other as it has been discussed. Whether it IS happening or not is currently considered no longer in doubt by the loudest voices on both sides. WHY it is happening is still being debated. I have given consideration to it, and am concerned that IF it is true that we are to blame (not yet certain), then it would also be true that it took us hundreds of years to have our effect. If that is so, then it will also likely require many decades of changed behavior to have any effect in the OTHER direction. We still don't know what precisely can work to alleviate things. I have therefore concluded, for the moment, that the only things we SHOULD do, are those things that are a good idea either way. Finding a way to reduce fossil fuel use is one such, because even if G.W. is NOT happening, or due to us, etc, reducing our petroleum use will improve our lives by reducing our dependence on foreign peoples who currently hate us. Unfortunately, there is so much anger between the two main power groups, so much one-upmanship, that neither side is willing to be sensible. They are more concerned with making their opponents cry "uncle," than in solving anything in the real world.

The geology department of every accredited university in America begs to differ with you-earth is a closed system. (not sure about other countries, but my bio Prof was German and he agreed with what I am telling you) You won't find a credible author calling it otherwise except in very theoretical texts.

Obviously.

Considering that we should want to do whatever is needed to save this planet because we cannot live without this planet.

And the stupid?? people want to say it will cost too much.

Or it a hoax for political reasons.

Or a whole lot of crap.

But it is the truth that the earth's climate will change.

And it is the truth that all living things impact their environment.

So basically there is no way it isn't true.

Geology treats earth as a closed system due to it only caring about material and disregarding energy. Its still not a closed system from an absolute sense due to small amounts of material transfer from other planets however its minuscule and thus not counted geologically speaking, but we are speaking of energy transfer when we are dealing with "warming" or "cooling". The earth is not a closed system in regards to energy thank you very much. Not even in the most liberal of terms is that the case.

Please due enlighten us with some links to anything what so ever that will say that the earth including its atmosphere is a closed system in regards to energy.

I was not copy spamming, merely listing definitions before I stated my thoughts. =)

@heavenlyboy - You can destroy and harm nature ... set a forest fire and you'll see an ecosystem destroyed. That doesn't mean its not recoverable, but you break a valuable balance that sustains life in that region.

The point I was trying to make was that to sustain human life on this planet, there must be a balance of chemicals such as that we have been living in for thousands of years. Our atmosphere, for example (and correct me if I'm wrong, its been a while) used to be composed of a much greater amount of oxygen than it is today. The less oxygen in the atmosphere, the less efficiently our bodies (and brains) work.

The earth has had many climates over the millions of years its been around. Many of them not so suitable for humanity. So in that, no you can't really destroy nature, it changes and adapts, the climate in which we survive can change and cause harm to US.

I see you still haven't managed to figure out that 'global climate change' is (1) ALWAYS happening, and that (2) it's NOT the same as 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'. See, the difference is that 'climate' is what 'weather' does OVER TIME ... it's CYCLICAL ... we, as a species, are too weak and too stupid to cause anything to happen on a planetary scale that would effect something like 'global warming'. In case no one has told you, be assured that 'global warming' is a complete FRAUD. It's designed to (1) control you, and (2) relieve you of all your money you thought you had ...

The earth is absolutely not a closed system from a thermodynamic perspective.

In science, we often deliberately and knowingly disregard truths that would have no measurable impact on our results, yet would unreasonably complicate our mathematics.... for example, we don't take relativity into account when we design cars.

So I wouldn't be surprised if there are many situations where geologists knowingly and deliberately pretend that the earth is a closed system; it doesn't make it true, though.

Ah, I see. So we can dump as much crap into the atmosphere as we like and it will have no effect? So I suppose I can go and run my car in the garage with the doors and windows closed and that too will have no effect on any lifeforms inside?