'Humans too stupid to stop climate change'

So are you saying that there is a direct relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature? Because history has shown that CO2 is not the driving force nor the main contributor to temperatures No, that graph just simply doesn't address other factors.

So are you saying that there is a direct relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature? Because history has shown that CO2 is not the driving force nor the main contributor to temperatures Of course there's a relationship. What it will be during any long period of time depends on the factors at work, as Mattshark just said. In an era with historically high methane levels, the importance of CO2 as a forcing will be reduced because methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas (this, incidentally, is why some are concerned about the potential positive feedbacks of melting permafrost ... [More]

Land clearance for agriculture (by burning) cannot be considered natural. Also remember that the objective is to prevent natural regeneration of he tree cover. Additionally, undisturbed forests tend to be immune to fires because they have a microclimate which keeps them moist. Hot dry forests tend to be resistant to ocassional fires, so persist. The very process of agriculture turns natural soils, which tend to be carbon sinks, into carbon emitters (thats what happens when soil structure is destroyed). Rice growing generates methane. Artificial systems tend to be more prone to large fires. A m... [More]

Yes but you forget about lightning, which happens all over the world, and can cause fires anywhere. Also meteors and volcanos. Fire is totally natural. Its whats burning thats the problem. Why burn for agricultural reasons when you can chop. We used to use axes. No carbon footprint there. Fires have burned before man existed. Why on earth do you think these things are forgotten about? They are added into every model.

Id like to see you chop a Whin bush with an axe, without a good burn before, ive had a few bad experiences with them

Well, keeping in mind that life itself started out non-existent and nonliving, I would say if you want to go this route, nothing's natural at all. Just cause we're forcing it doesn't make it unnatural, since we're natural too, and our gift of cleverness wasn't some supernatural or completely foriegn thing, now was it? Is it smart? Not for us if we want to live much longer. But us doing all these things to the environment is as natural as deer eating themselves out of house and home during the absence of many predators.

Hah. Lovelock is such a brainless loser. A kook who believes in GAIA calling US stupid? Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, BIZARRO UNIVERSE.

Why on earth do you think these things are forgotten about? They are added into every model. Sorry I word myself strangely. That's what marijuana does. The guy was talking about burning stuff for agricultural reasons

Natural forest/grassland/shrubland fires are entirely different to man made fires. The reason been that man made fires are specifically designed to terraform that particular parcel of land and there will be no natural regeneration until man's influence is removed. All natural systems which are subject to occassional fires are adapted to withstand them and rapidly regenerate to pristine habitat. Soil structure is rarely effected. Also natural systems are specifically designed to preserve and build soil structure and carbon over millenium, where as agriculture specifically depletes soil structur... [More]

Someone probably said this, but stupid is the perfect word to describe us on this subjct. We KNOW that we're polluting, spewing untold amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, and we have actually observed the effects...but we can't stop ourselves. Knowledge: Yes Potential for Change: Yes Greed: Yes Apathy: Yes STUPID: YES Haha sorry, this was more of a rant than anything else Oh, and I'm pretty sure I`m echoing Cornelius in this sentiment, so yeah...cred for Cornelius