The issue isn't whether the planet is changing or not, the issue should be what
to do about it. First off fossil evidence tells me that at one time, in
Canada, where there is now ice and snow, there use used to be lush vegetation
and the area was inhabited by large cold blooded animals. Second geological
evidence, tells me Pittsburgh PA was once covered by a glacier hundreds of
meters thick. Which earth is the one we should be preserving? The planet
changes, it has done so for millions of years without mans interference what
makes anyone think that a few hundred years of mans interference is going to
accelerate or slow down what has occurred naturally in the past. Greenies look
out and say the temp is rising, we must be at fault, we must react, when ample
evidence shows that at one time Canada was a tropical forest. Could the planet
just be trying to go back to that point and we just happen to be living while
it is doing it? Outlawing planet change will not work, the
earth can't read. Instead of wasting time trying to stop the inevitable and
figuring out who or who isn't the blame, time and resources would be better
spent trying to figure the impact of the change and what benefits and
consequences we need to plan for in the future. The earth will change, man can
not stop it. Better to adapt than die. The earth has experienced both ice
ages and periods of great warmth. Trying to preserve a 20-40 year climate
period (1930-1970) in a planet that has seen vast extremes in its millions of
years of existence is ludicrous.
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates
starting at 1"/min.
_______________________________________________
Shotimes mailing list
Shotimes@autox.team.net
http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
|