***CAUTION: a couple of Small movie SPOILERS below***

As I go through the memory banks thinking of some movies and topics of the past, I was thinking...

How much control do we really have?

Now for everyone who may not know, I actively dissent with people who promote Anthropogenic Global warming.

I have been thinking about the plot lines of a couple of recent movies, of those of the past, and in general media. I see a lot of the promotion of the idea that, if man dosent do something, we are going to ruin the earth and cause massive extinctions, Armageddon, ect ect.

Some examples:
Recent:
"Wall-E" Classic "Landfill Earth" theme, (havent seen just heard)
"The Happening". Trees release Neurotoxins because we "hurt" them (haven seen as well)
"The Day After Tomorrow" Mainstream Global warming scare movie.
Older:
"Spaceballs" Capitalistic (looking) planet ruined its air so it needs to be "imported" and said planet is corrupt... of course.

Of course none of those examples have any scientific support whatsoever, but have promoted the concept of mans impact and control.
Im just curious, in the truly epic, widespread and exponential development of mankind, there would HAVE to be SOMETHING that we have UNARGUABLY, UNWAVERINGLY, 100% UN-DISPUTABLY, done to negatively impact our ecosystem, or climate.

But I haven't found ONE,

With all the bright minds in this O/T section (misguided or not ) someone should be able to show me one.

NOTE:
This DOES NOT include inconveniences, that have either been rectified, or is an extremely small inconvenience.
For example: bad Japanese beetle infestation in Central MN to kill Aphids, now beetles clump together and die in warm cracks of houses. They dont kill anything else, they just stink. They have inadequate natural predators.

More on the topic of Control; I dont think we could even effectively intentionally destroy the earth,

Everybody's heard that "we have enough nukes to rip the earth apart".... do we really? Do we even have enough to effectively destroy ALL life on earth? Wouldn't SOMETHING survive and Live? Even if we rip it all the way through, would it even split apart?

What about any sort of gaseous "contamination" of earths atmosphere? Even if we somehow were able to produce enough "literally" poisonous gas (insta-kill kinda stuff) wouldn't SOMETHING survive?

The only way I see that happening at all (Anthropogenic or not) would be if temperature went to a Venus or Mars temperature extreme. Which there is no evidence that man has enough control to cause something as radical as that. The Earth has adapted to much more radical events in the past.

I think it comes back to the mentality that our Solar / Eco / Climate system is a disruptable "Balance" (Popular belief) vs an unaffectable FORCE.

Man has 100% destroyed the water table in my city with its heavy metal poisoning by dumping flyash.

The Ganges river is an environmental catastrophe. Many other rivers are also polluted to a point they are unsafe to drink from or go in. The Chesapeake Bay is to the level where it may become a dead zone. All over the world human pollution is making potable water harder to find. This isn't just bad for people directly but indirectly too. China has nearly killed of the river dolphin. The introduction of some non-native species is devastating some ecosystems. Two from china would be the mitten crap and northern snake head. Man is indeed creating big time problems.

quote Originally posted by 4-mulaGT: More on the topic of Control; I dont think we could even effectively intentionally destroy the earth, Everybody's heard that "we have enough nukes to rip the earth apart".... do we really? Do we even have enough to effectively destroy ALL life on earth? Wouldn't SOMETHING survive and Live? Even if we rip it all the way through, would it even split apart? What about any sort of gaseous "contamination" of earths atmosphere? Even if we somehow were able to produce enough "literally" poisonous gas (insta-kill kinda stuff) wouldn't SOMETHING survive? The only way I see that happening at all (Anthropogenic or not) would be if temperature went to a Venus or Mars temperature extreme. Which there is no evidence that man has enough control to cause something as radical as that. The Earth has adapted to much more radical events in the past. I think it comes back to the mentality that our Solar / Eco / Climate system is a disruptable "Balance" (Popular belief) vs an unaffectable FORCE.

We could destroy the Earth 'as we know it'. We have the manufactoring capacity to chemically defoliate all plant life above the surface.
We have the manufactoring capacity to chemically pollute all the surface fresh water on the planet. This will also poison the oceans' estuary systems, thus killing off the breeding ground of most saltwater species of fish.
We certainly have the chemical knowhow to biologically kill off at least a very large percentage of fowl on earth, and could probably very easily
kill off most if not all pollinating insects (bees, butterflies etc).

However, there would most likely remain a few species as survivors. Not some of each species--just a few species total.
I firmly believe that homo sapian would be the most easily extinquished life form on the planet--and the most deserving of such an experiment.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-30-2008).]

We cannot destroy earth. We can only destroy ourselves. The earth doesn't care how polluted it is. It doesn't care which pole is up or down. It doesn't care if the whole surface is scorched and charred. We aren't even capable of destroying all life. In a few million years after we are gone the earth will return to "normal" and a new dominant species will exist. Maybe one like the dinasaurs, that just lives and doesn't try to control every aspect of their environment. Maybe that species will live until an astroid or comet or something hits the earth.

yeah, I think when people talk about saving the planet, they are talking about saving mankind. The planet has been here long before us and will continue long after us. I think most Greenies are worried about the planet and its effects on people. We would never be able to destroy all life on earth, but we could easily destroy ourselves.

Do an earth fly over.......?
If'n you gave 1 vote vs. 1 hunk of ground, you might see how small our effects are!
People, in high density areas like NY City and the L. A . area?
Just because you have a dense view-point doesn't mean you see the Earth as a whole? You Vote as you see things, and I'll admit, some things could could change for the better?
If you gave a voted based on square area?
Alaska would have something to over-ride California and New York, combined with a couple of more populous states States?
Sorry 'MJ', Texas would come in still a smaller area to Alaska, altho the voter your voter density is higher?

What's being foisted as good for the 'Envronment' should be seen with 'Voter Density' taken into consideration?

BTY Iowa maybe come energy neutral by 2012 due to wind farms, bio-diesel, ethanol,etc....?
Food wise,.......? Carbon sequestration....?
Flamesuit on, awaighting the comments by some?

------------------
Ol' Paint, 88 Base coupe auto.
Turning white on top, like owner.
Leaks a little, like owner.
Doesn't smoke....... OK, we're trying to quit.

[This message has been edited by DtheC (edited 07-01-2008).]

It's amazing the arrogance of some people to think humans are so superior that we can control the very earth on which we live. Sure we can defile a localized area but destroy the entire planet? We can't even stop a single drop of rain from falling but we're supposed to be able to change the climate by driving our cars and using hair spray.

I think Hollywood lacks perspective.

i.e. I shoveled dirt the other day, The Earth is my ***** !

Ever see those Discover channel shows about asteroids, it would take an enormous one to knock a chunk out of the earth, nukes can not create that blow. We could incinerate and mutate everything on the surface, thats about it. There are probably many definitions of "destroy". But no we can't obliterate it, floods, quakes, fires, volcanoes, they do more than we do.

A mouthful said! And true it is! But that is the premise on which "Western Civilization" operates. That we are in control and can destroy or remedy the environment. That is how do busines, work with associates, customers, employees. All of our relationships either professional or personal, with people or objects reflect this phylosophy. whether we are trying to save, or take andvantage of, or just survive. This will eventually be our downfall. Attempting to "save" the environment is as dangerous as trying to destroy it. Tolerating and adjusting to it is what makes for longivity, no matter the application.

quote Originally posted by Puglet01: It's amazing the arrogance of some people to think humans are so superior that we can control the very earth on which we live. Sure we can defile a localized area but destroy the entire planet? We can't even stop a single drop of rain from falling but we're supposed to be able to change the climate by driving our cars and using hair spray.

Make a long rope, lasso the moon, and then just pull it into the Earth. It will cause a fair amount of damage, and the orbit will be affected. maybe we can use complex math to figure out a way to time things so we end up bouncing into another plant, or better yet - have the moon knock us into the sun. That would be pretty neat.

Ker-Plowie!

it would not take all that much to make things miserable. as shown - local ecologies are easy to muck up. and, it takes much more the clean the up than it does to muck them up.

to me - I think the nest way to inflict "earthwide" damage is thru attacking the earths magnetic poles. that is what keeps our atmosphere from being stripped away.

quote Originally posted by Puglet01: It's amazing the arrogance of some people to think humans are so superior that we can control the very earth on which we live. Sure we can defile a localized area but destroy the entire planet? We can't even stop a single drop of rain from falling but we're supposed to be able to change the climate by driving our cars and using hair spray.

This is probably the viewpoint I most agree with, I understand we would probably have organized capability to (for the most part) end mankind and life as we know but that would take widespread organized Psychosis.

I think the real problem is that the huge majority of the population is In a city or urban suburb... The problem is perspective...

Its funny you talk about Iowa... I just drove 7 hours (3.5 there n back) through Iowan countryside, and had alot of time to think, the overwhelming feeling was the sense of the old way of American life, when we moved into the wilderness, and individually molded and shaped it and produced better lives for our family. Industry progressed, and we actually built the American country into what it is today.

I got that feeling of Rugged Individualism, I wondered when the value of owning land went away, there were abandoned or collapsed farmsteads almost every mile. nowadays many are happy just to own their own apartment, or even just 1 or 2 acres, There is so much land out there, people really really just dont realize it. We are simply too cramped, I dont believe most Americans are designed as humans to live so close together. If we only moved out of the cities, just think of all the problems that would be solved.

Heres some perspective for you, if all 6 billion people in the ENTIRE WORLD were fit into the state of texas, we would all have just over 3 ft to move.

Anyway, back to Iowa again, I paid 2.60 a gallon for e85 approx 1mi away from a refinery, and I also drove past a huge wind farm,
My opinions on this is that if its making the owners of the wind farms / refinery's money without government assistance than more power too em. (no pun intended)

I do not believe mankind can control or even influence weather. The Sun does this very well and we tend to forget the sheer magnitude of our solar neighbour. There is hard science to show the sunspot activity actually controls global warming and cooling as in the warming period in the 1800's in Europe and the mini-ice age in the 1400's.

What I do believe is that we can create and disseminate chemicals to poison ourselves and are doing it.

Arn

quote Originally posted by Phranc: Man has 100% destroyed the water table in my city with its heavy metal poisoning by dumping flyash. The Ganges river is an environmental catastrophe. Many other rivers are also polluted to a point they are unsafe to drink from or go in. The Chesapeake Bay is to the level where it may become a dead zone. All over the world human pollution is making potable water harder to find. This isn't just bad for people directly but indirectly too. China has nearly killed of the river dolphin. The introduction of some non-native species is devastating some ecosystems. Two from china would be the mitten crap and northern snake head. Man is indeed creating big time problems.

Hmmm,

The Ganges river and problems in China seem too be easily attributed to overpopulation, and while this may sound un-compassionate, but those problems will probably answer themselves... widespread disease and other effects will probably kill off many of those people. and when the population is reduced, the pollution (which is for the most part human waste) will cease and the system will resume.

The Chesapeake bay already has some declared "dead Zones" (not enough oxygen in the water to support life)
After researching, I find it is caused by a couple of primary chemicals, Phosphorus, and nitrogen, both of which ARE used for farming, however it seems that that area of the country also has a high [i[natural[/i] phosphorus content, and while im sure farming practices have exacerbated the problem, I don't think it is the only cause.
I dont think it would hurt to do some small things that would help the bay, but there are factors we just cant control.

The Crab and Snakefish, Are they really as devastating as you say? While they are certainly a problem but are they "devastating"? Im not trying to split hairs but Devastating is a big word. We really didnt have much control over introducing the crab.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: it would not take all that much to make things miserable. as shown - local ecologies are easy to muck up. and, it takes much more the clean the up than it does to muck them up. to me - I think the nest way to inflict "earthwide" damage is thru attacking the earths magnetic poles. that is what keeps our atmosphere from being stripped away.

You might not be aware that (geological time frame) the Earths Magnetic Poles have swapped polarity many times, without any noticable extinction events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...rth's_magnetic_field
Earth's magnetic field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

------------------
Ol' Paint, 88 Base coupe auto.
Turning white on top, like owner.
Leaks a little, like owner.
Doesn't smoke....... OK, we're trying to quit.

quote Originally posted by DtheC: You might not be aware that (geological time frame) the Earths Magnetic Poles have swapped polarity many times, without any noticable extinction events. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...rth's_magnetic_field Earth's magnetic field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

swapped - yes - but - should the poles NOT be near the spin axis - there will be big trouble

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: swapped - yes - but - should the poles NOT be near the spin axis - there will be big trouble

Yes, there would, but the fact is that it can't happen. Most of what makes the magnetic field is the spinning of the Earth itself. Sure, the iron core has a lot to do with it, but even if that stopped spinning there would still be some magnetic field left. The end result is that True North will always stay somewhere near magnetic north.

What would REALLY be bad (and this actually happened at one point many millions of years ago) is if the axis suddenly flipped 90 degrees. The storms, flooding, and widespread devastation would be unthinkable. Imagine Latin America becoming like the Arctic Circle, and Antarctica turning into a lush jungle like the Amazon. Imagine Alaska becoming prime vacation property. In the meantime, all the ice would melt and take decades to reform at its new locations.

The climate, when it was all said and done, would be nothing like what we now know. Wherever you live right now could turn out randomly like any other spot on the globe. This doesn't sound so bad yet, but the decades immediately after it happened would feature starvation and mass extinction of species. The lack of food would send third world countries and unstable dictatorships right over the edge, with wars breaking out in dozens of places simultaneously.

No, I don't think this will happen. No, I don't think we're doing anything bad enough to planet for some wacky scenario like this to occur. But I like this hypothetical event because it matches rather uncannily some of the nightmare situations that the environmentalistas want us to believe could happen.

[This message has been edited by Blither (edited 07-01-2008).]

There have been many times in Earth's history when the planet itself almost wiped out all living things. The Earth has been completely frozen (a period in history that scientists call "Iceball Earth"). It's been slammed by asteroids and comets. It's had volcanic eruptions powerful enough to poison the whole atmosphere. Scientists also believe that at one time, the oceans warmed up enough to release humongous amounts of methane into the atmosphere, which subsequently caught on fire, scorching most of the Earth's surface.

Yet life continues on Earth. Not only did life survive all these cataclysms, but it also was able to evolve into creatures like ourselves.

We humans can't even control the weather. We can't affect the continental drift. We can't prevent earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, asteroid strikes, etc. We are powerless against these forces... the very same forces that have tested life on Earth, and failed to extinguish it.

Maybe one day humans will be able to rival Mother Nature's power. But that day hasn't arrived yet.

[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 07-01-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Cadillac Jack: A mouthful said! And true it is! But that is the premise on which "Western Civilization" operates. That we are in control and can destroy or remedy the environment. That is how do busines, work with associates, customers, employees. All of our relationships either professional or personal, with people or objects reflect this phylosophy. whether we are trying to save, or take andvantage of, or just survive. This will eventually be our downfall. Attempting to "save" the environment is as dangerous as trying to destroy it. Tolerating and adjusting to it is what makes for longivity, no matter the application.

Here I agree, the messing we will do trying to "save" it will cause more damage to what counts for our race. Look at the idea of harnessing ocean currents for power. If ocean currents change much we are all in for a rough ride.