Author Options:

The "truth" about climate change - a little story Answered

Global warming, climate change, jelly fish attacks, changed ocean currents...
We all know the highlights from the news but what is the real deal behind all of this?

It can't be denied that burning fossil fuels with no regrets has an impact on our globe.
CO2 and other gasses or elements have been trapped for thausands of years.
We release them all into our atmosphere and while doing so keep adding more harmful stuff.
So, of course it is easy to say that if we would have nver used our fossile fuels to this extent then our world would be unharmed and a happy place throughout.

Even if we would ignore the impossible task of making it where we are right now without having used any fossile fuels: How much would it be different?
If we trust the offical climate data that has been collected then it clearly shows a rise in so called climate changing emissions since our industrial revolution started.
Be it data from the ice, core drillings or just sample taken from old canyons - the results are all the same.
Since the late 1800's there is a steady rise in emissions, CO2 and all the other things we don't really want in our air.
And for good reasons all these green advocates try their best to stop us from doing more harm.
Since the 80's we started to actually care more, better engines, catalytic converters, cleaning mechanisms for our industiral waste and chimneys.
But did it make any change or difference?

About 40 years now some countries try hard to do it right, so this must show up somewhere?!
Well it does not.
You see countries like the US never really cared about climate or the enviroment if there was a cheaper and easier option.
Just check how long it took them to even acknowledge that our climate is changing due to our interference...
Then there is China and as we have seen with the olympics they literally have to shut down production so you can see for more than a few km...
But the same is true for so many other countries.
Like everwhere else the industrial revolutions comes sooner or later and as always the cheapest way is done first and for far too long.
And with the delay in reactions and consequences it is now certain that the worst is yet to come.

Of course there is also another side to the entire story - nature itself.
We destroy it where we can to safisfy our need for being cheap.
Ever wondered where all this cheap furniture is coming from?
Or all the wood used throughout the world?
Rainforests are disappearing, flora and fauna is destroyed.
In most cases with a lot of fires as it is still the easiest way to clean up when done.
Now add the vulcanic eruptions that increased over the past 20 odd years around the world.
And if you dare all the bushfires or natural causes.
Combined this causes a higher impact than all our burning of fossile fuels - and it adds to the mix.
And this brings us back in time.

Taking the records of climete conditions all the way back to before the dinosaurs showed us that we had periods of much higher temperatures than what we might see soon.
CO2 level at some periods were so high that the earth literally was a green house.
So why did we humans amke it anyway onto this earth if chance were so bad?
Species adjust, evolve or go extinct, new ones appear...
Well, unless you are a croc or so and really don't care about Darvin and evolution ;)

Does that mean we are on the way to become a new species?
Sadly no, because we are the cause of all our problems.
We now use technology and science to adjust nature and the enviroment to our needs.
It gets too hot? Well add an airconditioner, will you!?
The ground water is too contaminted to drink? Well, why do you think we invented bottled water?!
You need room for new homes? Don't mind the flood planes, just drain them and build, there was no flood in over 30 years...
See, even if we would go fully green and honur nature around the world from today on.
Even if we try to clean up the mess we already created.
The effects of what we did over the last 40 or more years are still in progress and far from over.
Like a good stew it keep cooking until it is ready to serve.
But strenght comes in numbers!
Like a virus we keep multiplying even in areas with very limited ressources.
After all, we just import what we need..
Natural selection is being eliminated so pharma companies can make a living too.
From just over 40 years our "natural" life expectency increased now to well into the 80's.
You are not fertile? No problem we have means to fertilise your eggs with the sperm from hubby!
Already suffering badly from diabetes, asthma or other chronical illness? No problem, have some kids anyway.
And just to top it always make sure to avoid natural foods in favour for processed and artificial ingredients.
In nature the weak, the sick, the old, the malformed and incapable are a food source.
We took this food source away, keet them around, care for them and make sure really everyone has the same chance in life.
In life - but not in nature anymore!
Social evolution meant that natural selection was no longer a requirement to ensure a strong "tribe" or hunting party.
We compensated the drain on ressources and all pharma companies are still very grateful for this.

No this is no weird rant on humanity or the idea of some mad person, it is just the naked reality we like to ignore.
A horse breeder will not accept a weak and constanlty sick horse for his breeding stock.
A broken leg, like for a cow usually just means the animal is put down.
Some dog breeders still prefer to cull a few pups just because the color pattern is not nice enough or the ears are too short.
Even if you just breed fish you o through all sorts of troubles to ensure you have the best genes available in your tanks.
You think this is already going to far with the ideas, I know :(
But we have real world examples highlighting the results of the exact opposite: Inbreeding and ignoring the defects in genes and health.
The british royal family destroyed the italian and russin monarchies the same was the spanish and protugise, even impacted on the french.
In times when there was no clue about genetic defects or deseases that can be dormant in females but very active in males, the british royalty simply kept providing tainted bloodlines to the other royal familes.
No offsprings that are male and of good health meant the end of their monarchies.
The british survived by allowing the common folk to join the blue blood lines and now it is common in all the monachrchies left in the world.
Remove the carries, provide fresh genes to get a better diversity.
Really no offence, but just look at Charles and Camilla ;)
Jokes aside: the story of the european monarchies shows what happens if things go too wrong.
From hunters a gatherers that either kept healthy or died out we eveloved to having a gene pool that is full of nasty surprises.

Again no offence meant in any way or to any person!
If we compare our world with a big aquarium than it might have eveloved like this:
Once there was a bowl full of plants, guppies and lots of other fish and creatures living on each other.
Over time the guppies learnt when the feeding times are and made sure they get most of the food.
Slowly the other psecies had not enough room and food anymore, only the hunter had a good linving with the huge supply of guppies.
Then the guppies managed to reduce the dangers from all predators around and started to really take off.
Soon every guppy had only conerns about having a good life and enough food.
The waste got more and more, the sick and ill too.
The last hunter able to fight them died off as he too suffered from the wasten the changed enviroment and gnetic defects transfered.
Now there is little plants left, guppies everywhere, crap everywhere and even those guppies only living a few months still manages to find a partner to ensure their tainted gene pool spreads into the general population.
We have no tank owner getting the balance right again, removing the sick and weak, we humans just keep going strong and if the crap pile gets too high we put grass and houses on top of it....

We humans don't like to be compared with fish, a virus or any other lower being for that matter.
These hings just don't affect or concern us.
And anyone who dares to do so anyway has a long list of nasty words thrown at them.
Is it because we humans can't tolerate the truth?
Or is because deep inside we all know but refuse to think about it?


The forums are retiring in 2021 and are now closed for new topics and comments.
Jack A Lopez
Jack A Lopez

Reply 2 years ago

Question: If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down?

Answer: Probably not. Unless it was the case that trees screamed all the time for no good reason. If that were the case, then all of Earth's trees probably would have been cut down a long time ago.


2 years ago

About Darwin... The stupidity, laziness, hard to breed, only wanting one kind of food... All this makes the black and white Panda a real candidate for extinction. But they are so cuddly that humans want them to stay alive. So we just try to keep that patient on life-support.
I did think about the less CO2 our cars emit since the 70s, 80s. But I believe the numbers rose. In the 70s, 80s, there were less cars... In the 70s you got about one car per, how many?, maybe 1 car per 5 or 6 people? in the west... In Asia there were even less in countries like China or India. And now? India, China and more countries rose to economical levels that can be compared to the "poorer" western countries. They do a lot of efforts to be more ecological then we were/are in the west.
So I think, it's all about numbers. In the 70s, there were about 4.2 billion people (, now more than 7.7 billion. And the rise in people that have access to cars, use energy and other resources of "our Western lifestyle" is much higher.
So we need (quickly) to find other kinds of energy to give us all the power we need. And, sorry for those who don't like it, the best source at this moment is nuclear. No emissions, very little waste, less deadly than all other power sources combined...

The earth can easily support more than double of the population then we have now. Over the centuries we learned how to fight diseases, wiped out many viruses. One day maybe cancers could be treated like they do no more harm than a common cold. Food can be produced a lot more efficient than even 50 years ago. But we need to stop using up farmland for products like palm oil, that has no nutritional value. We need to get away from people that support Bio or "organic" food. It uses up more farmland, takes more work to produce it, and there is not a single study that proves it is healthier. It's just one of the many hypes that go around. And GMO's are not poisonous, not made to kill us all. They are a scientific (and faster) way to improve foods, what has been done since the beginning of agriculture, when farmer enhanced food by crossing them with other plants to get a better crops.

So... I'm still an optimist :-)


Reply 2 years ago

You are right with several points here.
But these points won't really change things anymore.
As you said, we keep multiplying with no regards to ressources or sustainability.
Medical "advances" only make things worse but not better.
Same for "protecting the enviroment".
Seen it too many times :(
An endangered species is found so no houses can be build, the area is protected as a "nature reserve".
The houses are then just put up somewhere where no one bothered to find endangered species LOL

We developed, if you don' mind the wrong term, from a species living in harmony with nature and those species around.
First we made what we call better use of technologies, like inventing bow and arrow to hunt bigger prey.
Then we learned how to take control of our local enviroment to have it even easier.
Much later came the discovery of how to use and "produce" energy.
The industrial revolution started and from there all went downhill.

Humans like to exist in a clean and protective enviroment, have it easy and in comfort.
Nice clothes, a clean house and a good looking car are for most people essential.
But if you look closely then these essential desires stop for most as soon as they exit their personal enviroment.
(not YOU in person, YOU as in a general term):
You don't smkoke in the house to prevent stains and smell but how often do you care to put your butt in a provided disposal unit instead of stepping it out on the floor where you finnished it?
You like fast food but do you actually care about what is in it or how it impacts the enviroment on endless levels?
Usually no, same for most people when it comes to getting rid of what they picked up in the drive through once they finnished it - look around you and it is hard not to find fast food rubbish.

China, at one stage realised they can't sustain their population, same as Japan did.
So parents were only allowed to have limited numbers of kids.
Funny enough this approach worked quite well on a local level.
At least if you ignore the resulting social problems along the way.
But it was only a patch and nothing you could do without force forever.
Stating that our world could sustain twice the amount of people we have right now is not really correct.
To sustain out current levels we already had to revert back to producing food rather then growing it.
The results from this processing, adding of all sorts of chemical helpers and even providing fully artificial foods and drinks made us pay big time.
Allergies, inability to digest certain types of food, weak bodies and immune systems...
To sustain twice the amount of people we could take care of rising sea levels by harvesting the ice before it melts so people have water.
For the rest it is rather grim looking....
We already need to farm fish because natural ressources are exploided too much.
Same for chickens, beef and most of our vegetables.
Even the basics like bread and milk now have little in common with the original from just 30 years ago.

Take a small fish tank and add some plants and just two breeding pairs of fish.
Make sure they have it good and let them multiply.
You can change the water, you can trim the plants but you can not remove any fish unless it died.
See for how long the tank will sustain life until it collapses and then take a count to know when the point of only half the population was.
You might be surprised to realise how quickly the end came on several levels at the same time - resulting in a dead and stinky tank....