The problem is that some people want to play God. Scientists and politicians feel like they know what’s better for the Earth than it does. That’s where I find a problem with the entire endeavor.

As I said, I have absolutely ZERO problem with people cutting back on energy use, recycling, doing simple things to help care for the environment. These are things that everyone should do. But people shouldn’t think that by doing so, they will stop global warming. Or they will “make things better.”

Who is to say what is “normal” for the Earth? What right do mere humans have to make such claims? Oh no! Sea levels are rising! Polar bears are dying! So? That’s how the world goes ’round. It’s not up to humans to be stewards of the Earth.

I guess a lot of my problem lies with the idea that we can “STOP” global warming and climate change. Nevermind that I think we shouldn’t mess with mother nature. We will not be able to stop anything.

Alleviate global warming, sure. Stop it, no.

Seriously, if the environment wants to destroy humanity, it will. The ice age wiped out dinosaurs, yet life went on.

The idea that we should stop global warming to “save the planet” is people lying to themselves. Humans are just selfish and obsessed with legacies, and we don’t want our (greatx100) grandchildren to die off.

Nobody in our lifetime, our children’s lifetime, or even their children’s lifetime is going to be wiped out because of global warming (well, I guess I could be wrong, but I’ll be dead anyway). So it pisses me off when alarmists go about claiming THE END IS NIGH!

It’s really not.

Ever the optimist, I believe we can go a long way to solving the problem.

+ lead using hemp and other non-food bios to reduce our need for foreign oil as well as reduce carbon

+ really encourage solar, same results

+ support/encourage research that could get same results and who knows what else., etc. Which could include moving into space I suppose.

Re markets – yes, buying and selling (or trading) seems to be a natural human inclination… and I submit that much of government (law) has developed to support markets… once a market gets beyond a few people, some sort of order needs to be established… hence government.

Easter Island is the most obvious example of a civilization collapsing because of environment… most island economies have the same challenges, but it’s not just islands…
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=civilization+collapse+due+to+environmental+factors&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS226US226&um=1&oi=scholart has all sorts of links, some which fit.

And I have a problem with a government that directs science to produce results…

Back to writing ;)

You could be talking about some kind of huge government project to stop global warming that would invariably be wasteful, sluggish, and ultimately improbable. Or you could be talking about a similar government project to find ways to live in outer space once our planet dies.

See the confusion?

In regards to libertarianism and that article you linked, I don’t buy it.

Government DID NOT create the free market. The market existed before government. The market of ideas is directed by and prospers because of individuals. Sure, people are able to engage in commerce and enterprise because it is necessary that we drive on government created roads, and abide by government created regulations, etc, but that does not mean that the free market exists only because of government, or that government created the free market. It is the individual who controls the market of ideas.

Sorry, that was quite a tangent. Feel free to yell at me if I’m derailing your intended message =/

I don’t recall any civilizations that fell because they ruined their environment. Civilizations usually fall because of some kind of internal or external strife. I never read that Rome fell because they created aqueducts or something. An example might be helpful.

Unless you’re talking about the Great Flood, but that was the Lord’s doing, and He was pissed.

And no, we’re not sure that humans cause global warming. There is no scientific fact, there is only theory and consensus.

It’s true, we don’t know that creating artificial trees or a “sun shade” won’t help the environment. But what if it makes things worse (which is what will probably happen)? Then how will we feel that we’ve actively ruined the planet beyond repair?

My problem lies with the politicians, celebrities, scientists, and others who hijack this consensus, recreate it so it fits their agenda, and then make the rest of the world think that THE WORLD WILL END IF WE DON’T DO [insert whatever agenda they have here] IMMEDIATELY!