Skip to main content

Human Footprints


.
Scientists inform us that we are damaging our planet. They are probably right, but exactly what are they telling us? They say global warming is the result of human activities, but they are unable to back up the assertion. There is no doubt that the ice mass covering Greenland is melting. There is also no doubt that the ice mass at the South  Pole is increasing. The two opposing facts seem to be off setting.

Scientists also say that we are using many of our natural resources faster than they can be replenished. That may be true, but it is hard to document.

Take oil for example. The known reserves under the thin crust of the earth are being reduced. Yet we can still predict that there is an adequate supply for several more centuries. We can also measure recent years of scientific progress focussed on conservation and alternate energy sources. Continued at this rate we may have enough oil to last many more centuries if not forever.

The world wide effort to educate people on the benefits of "going green" by recycling metallic and non-metallic products may or may not be effective in preserving natural resources. The jury is still out. It takes so much energy, for example,  to run machinery to crush and melt aluminum cans for reuse in another form, that the savings may not cover the costs.

We manufacture millions of products made from thermoplastic resins, then eventually we grind up those products, re-melt and mold them into new products for use once more. The grinding takes machinery that uses quite a lot of electrical energy, the re-melting uses natural gas for heating, the molding into new configurations takes more electrical energy, the re-processing requires at least some workman's labor, and in the end the savings may be little to none. Could it be that by re-cycling to save resources - we are fooling ourselves?

Let's return to global warming. Records suggest that the earth goes through cycles of heat and cold. We still don't understand the reasons behind these temperature changes, but many scientific theories have been advanced. They often involve the activity of what we call sun spots. They are used to explain the ever changing gas fed firestorms that occur on the sun. A more recent theory is that human activities on the earth create chemicals and gases that change the nature of the protective layer of the earth's atmosphere. There seems to be no reason to believe this isn't true. At the same time this does not explain the known history of the earth's passage through the ice age. Nor does it explain why several of today's deserts were once under water. It would be wrong, however, to disregard the possibility that increasing human activity could be changing the atmosphere to allow more of the sun rays to penetrate to the earth itself.

The environmentalists among us may be entirely correct to urge our awareness and actions to reduce the supposed human impact upon the atmosphere. It is entirely logical to recognize that the earth is sensitive to our human footprint.

Every on of us should be aware that the existence of all life forms on our planet requires a rather fragile assortment of conditions. 

End.

Comments

Rain Trueax said…
Your blog updated! :)

And they know it's getting warmer on earth by measurements. We also know that we are deforesting large tracts of land and might end up with water shortages many places as glaciers disappear that used to provide summer melt. The problem with the environmental claims is they cannot prove the why and it might already be too late to change anything. Given that I didn't like the last energy bill from Congress and Obama because it seemed to me profit driven for a few (carbon tax credits) and not sure it'd fix anything. Maybe more we should be preparing different earth regions for change. Watch 'How the Earth was Made' for an idea of what could happen with or without our interference.

Popular posts from this blog

Gloves Off

. OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS BETRAYED OUR TRUST AGAIN. Whether we are Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, makes no difference at all. Our legislators voted according to "what's best for them". It was clear that the people want to reduce the costs and improve access to our overall health care system. It was also VERY CLEAR that they did not want the 2000 page legislative monstrosity that was produced by a small number of far left liberal Democrats, who worked behind closed doors to fashion a pork filled blunderbuss that virtually no one has been able to read, or discuss, or debate, or offer alternatives to specific unreasoned clauses. It is (now) a BAD BILL , passed by BAD POLITICIANS, that compose a BAD MINORITY segment of America's out-of-control government. AND WE HAVE NO LOGICAL WAY TO PAY FOR IT EITHER. The far left liberals like to point at  SOCIAL SECURITY   as a text book success. They are wrong and will not admit it despite the concrete evide

Why Blackwater Mercenaries

Over some years the name Blackwater shows  up in the news. It is, by their own estimation, the largest mercenary group in the world. I think I first noticed it when reports from Iraq mentioned they were employed (by whom?) to escort and protect members of the Iraqi government from place to place. Then I became aware that they had joined several of the firefights between our marines and Iraqi enemies. I wondered just how these mercenaries (that supposedly came from the United States) were  hired by someone (who?) to fight? That led to the question of just who would be responsible if a situation involved the accidental killing of an innocent bystander? It  might be a little sticky for an unauthorised mercenary contracted by the United States but not a member of our military forces.  Or suppose a Blackwater type killed a military Iraqi combatant and was then captured by the enemy. Would he be treated as a spy, or as a American combatant, or whatelse?  And would the Geneva Convention

Peter Arnett Visits The Geezers

PETER ARNETT 7-22-2010 Yesterday our guest at the  Geezer's Book Club meeting was the intrepid journalist, Peter Arnett.  Ray Herndon, one of our regular members, has known Peter Arnett for over  40 years. They were friendly competitive reporters during the war in Viet Nam, and the friendship has survived several wars since.  Peter began speaking with an overview of his time in  Viet Nam, and then briefly related a few highlights of the first 1st and 2nd war in Iraq.  After taking a deep breath, Peter focused on the intended subject of the day, China and the Chinese people.   CHINA Peter is now teaching journalism at a college about 400 miles north of Hong Kong, near the Chinese coast. Peter is 76 years old, in good health, full of energy and enjoys his job as an educator. In that capacity he is able to travel unhindered (not everyone can) throughout China. He has personally observed the daily trials, troubles and opportunities that abound in this huge and complicated countr