Yes, you can argue that if nature is doing it itself, you don't have to hold back either. We're going to die anyway.

Or, you can try to compensate a bit more, and stay alive.

"My argument is the planet has the means to self regulate, and as evidenced by this volcano doing more supposed harm than we can do, it can handle everything we have tossed at it with ease"

The planet will "always" be here... However i am not so sure if "our planet" will...

You'll get enough of that in Hell... Either way, yes, if we are certain the planet can handle itself then we are still pointless as we have been all this time... If that be the case then we are more screwed than before, politicians will steal all our money again for stupid research and political bullshit. Hypocrites. -> either way we lose a lot, though I prefer to stay on the idea that the planet can cure itself. Money is overrated anyways.

The planet will "always" be here... However i am not so sure if "our planet" will...
thats only as long there is no decision that there needs to be some hyperway and the vogons come over:D

> Freelancer wrote:

> "My argument is the planet has the means to self regulate, and as evidenced by this volcano doing more supposed harm than we can do, it can handle everything we have tossed at it with ease"

The planet will "always" be here... However i am not so sure if "our planet" will...

this planet will not 'always' be here.  eventually the sun will either expand so far that we are overtaken by it, or it will go nova and we shall blow up. only way humanity and any lifeforms we care to save (wow playing god again surprise surprise) is to figure out a way to colonise other planets

Ones available right now, or including theoretical ones that have the potential to happen in that time Fokker?

*me waves from just down the road*

sure the planet selfregulates all it wants. though that is luckbased yes.

teh fact is not: if the earth warms up it will be gone.

the fact is: if the earth warms up, we'll be gone.

it's not just simply teh planet we're saving cause taht's rediculous. it's ourselves we are saving.

most humans wouldn't fare well if all the oceans evaporated or hell froze over in a new iceage.

there is no such thing as doing it for the good of the planet. and environmentalists are just as egoistic as your average non environmentalist.

only difference is: you and others who deny everything in all languages stay blind taht if we speed up planet cycle we shorten our own time left on this planet in ideal conditions.

environmentalist: thinks he's helping the planet while in fact he's helping himself and the human race to keep using this planet as their own.

and if you'll excuse me now I'm having a meeting with my dead mother to summon a meteor so I can take the planet back from these worthless creatures( srry couldn't resist)

Humanity cannot stop an ice age or a super heating event if the sun decides to go bonkers on us.

Other than that we will not perish from this planet.

We can tolerate a much bigger temp range deviation than that 'less than 1 degree'.  Just year to year we suffer deviations like the new cold records set this year.

Surprise! We survived a deviation from the norm of a year! Wow!

...Or, Mr. Primo, you can learn that earth isn't going to destroy all life on it because of carbon dioxide, just as it hasn't for millions of years (both warmer and cooler than at present).

Are you honestly posting under the assumption that, because volcanoes produce a lot of "greenhouse" gases, the earth is naturally going to kill off humanity? ("Or, you can try to compensate a bit more, and stay alive.")

There were volcanoes millions of years ago too. And in all this time the catastrophic carbon dioxide global warming crisis you envision has never happened. You're advocating living in the stone age to reduce human emissions to a bare minimum (that would be safest, after all: 0 industrial emissions) because we produce some tiny, nearly statistically insignificant amount of gases. When anyone points out that our emissions are this tiny fraction, you reference the precautionary principle, though advocating stone-age standards of living in order not to produce an insignificant amount of a gas seems a bit alarmist.

I understand why corrupt politicians and people poised to profit from global-warming alarmism make ridiculous scientific claims with no basis, but I never got what motivated people to buy into them.

There have always been different weather patterns that can significantly alter an area's apparent climate for a year or several. But now we choose to be less educated about El Ni

Jupiter just lost a stripe. 

Know how much energy is required to dissipate a gas cloud with more mass than earth?

Let's see...climate change on Earth,  climate change on Jupiter, climate change on Mars...all at the same time... it must be EXXON!!!

Then we can discuss whether any of us should lift a finger for "being careful with the world" when the scientists can't prove it's in trouble, especially since we can make so much loot screwing over the Swiss and the French and all those other green dorks

"Well I give it to scientists. They finally got good equipment.

It seens this single volcano has done a number on our planet.

It eliminated 100% if all gains done by climate groups since the whole global warming scare happened...

But it also did 42 years harm in advance as well.

A single volcano did this."

"My argument is the planet has the means to self regulate, and as evidenced by this volcano doing more supposed harm than we can do, it can handle everything we have tossed at it with ease"

how much Co2 did he release acording to you?

as far as i know it are 150,000 tons per day

funny part is if the air space is closet in europa because of that vulcan, we have around 200,000 tons less Co2 emmision because of non flying aircrafts.

so -50,000 tons

go vulcano!  save us

btw are you claiming that the growing Co2 concentratione in the air is done by an exponetional rising of vulcan activity the last 150 years?