I feel that this is a confusing, but by no means a complex subject...


Although the evidence of "global warming" has been muddled by "scientists" who have twisted the facts and even fabricated evidence that they claimed are "facts", there is much to be said about the subject that makes me think that our species' actions may very well be having a detrimental influence on our environment.


There are two trees in my yard that are ancient (I don't know the species). There were three but we had to cut one down to avoid the potential for extreme damage to our house. We couldn't be absolutely positive on the age of the tree, but we're pretty sure it was between 900-950 years old. I am a nature lover and really hated to take that tree down, but it was necessary and I lost not one second of sleep by doing so.


We are the dominant species on this planet (to the best of our knowledge) and thus we, by proven laws of nature, must kill other life forms in order to survive and progress as a species...duh. I think that it is very sad when a species becomes extinct and I do not want to see our progression as a species cause the extinction of another, but sometimes such is the course of nature and how arrogant it is of us to think that it is up to us to alter it. Long before mammals emerged on this planet, extinction of some species occured at the hands of more dominant species, so that fact alone leads me to the conclusion that our existence resulting in the extinction of another species is simply nature taking its course. Yes it is sad but obviously a very natural and necessary process to the evolution of this planet and the life it supports. This is my argument to the building of more hydroelectric dams...Let's just be as selective as is reasonable about where we put them.


There is SO much more I wish to say about this subject but I am becoming intoxicated and experience has taught me that it is best to avoid social interactions when my alcohol consumption reaches this point. I do hope that responses to this will occur in the first place and that they will prompt me to express more of my opinions when I am at least mostly sober. But what I do wish to make clear before I submit this subject is that I do consider myself an "environmentalist" who tries to take on the subject and act realistically and rationally rather than emotionally concerning it, although there is a small emotional aspect to my opinion on the environment. I do feel that all life is precious and that taking life should only be done for good reason...And good reasons for doing so are quite abundant...A reasonable balance can be struck...

Views: 65

Replies to This Discussion

You are stating the obvious Jill. Not once did I suggest that we destroy our planet's capacity to support life...I in fact encourage us taking better responsibility for the impact we make on it. I am only stating that what most liberals consider "catastrophic" damage to our environment is for the most part greatly exaggerated.

Our progression as a species can occur while still keeping our planet clean and capable of supporting life. I never said that we should outright rape the planet of its capacity to support life, or that I do not take into consideration our impact on its capacity to do so. What I am saying is that we should take both our need to progress and the damage we must do to ensure our progress in a realisitic and rational manner. Our planet has an uncanny way of "repairing" the damage inflicted upon it, be it by us or other causes. Nature must take its course and we are a part of nature with every right to exist, progress, and take responsibility for the impact we make on the environment. We can co-exist with our planet and the life it supports, but the majority of the liberal views on environmental concerns are very strict and one-sided against the mere existence of our species. In the end the planet will survive with our without us...I would prefer that it be with us.
This topic is full of potential for people going completely batshit crazy :) I am an avid outdoorsman and love to go camping and hiking, and have always taken the effort to make my impact as minimal as possible. We need to conserve our world as much as possible so we can get the best use out of it. Note I said "so we can get the best use out of it." I want us, as a species, to manage the planet and use the resources it has to develop it into a better place. Most species out there have plenty of uses, like for instance cows, chickens, and termites (termites are very important, even if they cause mischief in the wrong places). However, some species are less useful, like for instance: pandas. I love pandas, and I think they are really cute. We should protect them because they are an amazing species, but let's be honest: They are an evolutionary mistake, and that is the main reason they are bordering on extinction (although we humans have helped them a lot closer to extinction).
The single thing we as a species can do to improve and protect the environment is to get off of carbon based energy sources and switch over to nuclear. Global warming may or may not be a problem, but smog, oil spills, coal mining, etc are dirty and messy and kill tens of thousands of people a year. We need to rearrange the regulations on nuclear to a system more similar to that currently in use in France (yes, France does occasionally get something right, and in this area we should be ashamed of not following their lead). Other sources of energy like solar, wind, tide, hydro, etc have their uses and places, but as of yet none of them, singly or combined, can come close to replacing carbon. Only nuclear can do that, and it's about time we did it.
I love the bacteria comment. :)
Bacteria are in some ways dominant, and this is shown by their invasion and dominance of every niche available to them, and their extermination of every form of life that cannot withstand their onslaught. They form the foundation of life on the planet, but being the foundation does not imply dominance. We cannot exist without plants either, but plants have been dominated, not the other way around. Since we have learned to live with bacteria and withstand their onslaught (to the point of forming symbiotic relationships with select species and strains) and have moved into every niche capable of supporting our life (and even some, like Antarctica that cannot) the argument can be made that we are now dominant and have tamed bacteria.
This does not mean that we can live without bacteria, or that bacteria cannot kill us, but since bacteria are trying to kill us every day and not succeeding at depleting our species, I find it hard to agree that they are dominant. Dominance implies control. Bacteria (and plants) are necessary for us to live, but both have been largely brought under the sphere of human control. Not complete control, but enough control for us to thrive and expand.
The main question about global warming: Is CO2 the main driver of the warming we saw in the later half of the 20th century?
So far, no convincing proof has been given, otherwise that study would be touted. Instead, all that is being touted is a 'consensus' of scientists. There have been many consensuses of scientists that have been proven wrong in the past, and the bottom line is this: A consensus is not science!

The best climate related discussion I have seen is at the following link:


a newspaper recap of the debate held in NYC is available here:

Jill, I am a scientist. Consensus is not science. There used to be a scientific consensus that homosexuality was a mental disease, the continents didn't move, God exists, and the sun orbits the earth. The problem with all of these examples of 'science' is that they were from a consensus, and not from experiments and objective data.
Anyone who says a consensus is science is a politician, not a scientist.
So far experimental evidence has failed to show any strong link between anthropogenic greenhouse gases and global warming. I will read your report when I get the time though. I think it's too bad all you want to do is preach guilt and shame. I find that many liberals, after leaving church and becoming atheists, miss the guilt and shame so much they have to invent it from somewhere else.
Jill, are you just trolling in here? You ask a lot of questions, but you don't actually respond to anything anyone else asks. Just curious. BTW, you say you have conservative views, but so far all you have spouted in here are far left wing positions. Could you tell us please about a few of your conservative views? If you are a left wing nut who just wants to stir up the conservatives, that is perfectly fine, but I'd prefer that if you are hiding your true colors that you just be honest about it.
We have no problems with liberals posting in here. :)
Wow this took off...too much for brain...Brain kills beer cells!

Anyway I'm no scientist so I never really looked at the superior killing power of bacteria, so good point. Jill, the fact that the emails were stolen does not invalidate the fact that they allowed their political agenda to get in the way of their obligation to separate fact from theory. Jill you seem very nice and friendly, but it appears to me that the rational and realistic process of thought doesn't completely agree with you, much like theists and liberals...
Hi guys...got out of jail couple of weeks ago (couldn't afford bail...charges eventually droppped...got job back yay!)...anyway...

This oil leak in the gulf thing is freaking ugly. This is one area of discussion where I might sound a bit liberal at times because I am absolutely horrified by the damage this has caused, and the fact that it is something we have done to these creatures (and ourselves) is overwhelmingly heartbreaking. Furthermore the fact that our "great technologies" have still failed to stop the leak leaves me with a feeling of shame on behalf of my species.

Fortunately the glass is half full here...

First look at what this is going to do to ensure that we will have the capacity to plug leaks in wells in a reasonable time in the future. Allowing something like this to happen again through neglegence in the future is simply not an option (but of course human nature will find a way to f*** something else up on such a scale or greater again eventually...amazing how smart and stupid we can be all at the same time). Second, and perhaps most important is the fact that this incident further hastens (regarless of how much or little) our dependence on fossil fuels to supply our energy needs. Least important but still something good to come of it, at least some companies are seeing increased sales as the result of the cleanup effort...IE P&G supplying Dawn dishwashing detergent which is used to break down the oil on some of the creatures covered in it (well...I've done no research but I'm assuming their sales have increased...it only makes sense), and jobs are still getting filled right here in upstate South Carolina to help with the cleanup effort.

Still I can't help but look at the political side of the issue, especially when provided with such ammunition as only politicians like Pelosi/Obama/Reid can provide. Take this comment from Mr. Obama...

"It is as enraging as it is heartbreaking, and we will not relent until this leak is contained, until the waters and shores are cleaned up, and until the people unjustly victimized by this manmade disaster are made whole," Obama said Saturday.

Yes, Mr. Obama it is enraging and heartbreaking beyond words. I do so hope that your resolve to "make whole" the people hurt by this is pure, true, and realized. What bothers me is that I can see before it even happens just how you plan to move in this direction. It will be strictly politically motivated and will result in yet more money being spent to comply with new government regulations that are either overkill or (and more than not) are ineffective...money that could have been spent on payroll but end up costing many their source of income.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service