Slashdot Mirror
Humans Use 83 Percent of Earth's Surface
belloc writes "CNN is reporting on a Wildlife Conservation Society report that states that humans take up 83 percent of the Earth's land surface to live on, farm, mine or fish. The article rerers to a WCS human footprint map, but the WCS site seems to have been CNN'd. Funny: I just got back from a little road trip across the southwest, and from all the nothing you see out there, you would think that 83% is a bit high. I guess Arizona farmlands must look a lot like wild, untouched desert."
That sounds like it could be valid... even land that is not visibly being used for somthing often still has a use...
Obese Slashdotters Use 83% Of Earth's Surface.
...if the Earth was an organism, each of us human beings would be one of its cancerous cells.
Happy people make bad consumers.
95% of statistics are wildly inaccurate or out of context.
this is untrue. a full 87% of statistics are simply *made up* while the remaining 72% are true.
Life is short; think quickly.
Give me a break. The relationship between greenhouse gases and global temperature is ambiguous at best.
Wishful thinking on your part here. The relationship between greenhouse gases and global temperature is quite well known.
Why did the average global temperature go DOWN between 1920 and 1987 despite a 40% increase in "greenhouse gas" emissions at the turn of the century?
Wrong.
The average global temperature started to increase in the 1920's. This site on reconstructing global tempertures from the American Geophysical Union has a graph showing tempertures from 1961 to 1992 showing a steady increase.
Do you want to ignore the fact that the "hole" in the ozone has shrunk to half the size it was 2 years ago?
Because CFC's were cut out (think back to the Montreal Protocol). Interesting the alarmists turned out to be the conservatives who complained about the damage that the phase out would do to the economy.
Do you not remember that 40 years ago, environmentalists like yourself were more concerned about global freezing than they were about global warming?
As an aside, can you name a single peer reviewed scientific publication from that time period which is about this global freezing? I'm just wondering because their are hundreds on global warming, but nobody can cite one on global freezing, and I'm beginning to suspect that the comparisons between the two are just pure propaganda put forward by greenhouse skeptics who have lost the scientific battle, and are now stuck just playing the propaganda game.
The simple fact is that "global warming" is nothing more than a hypothesis that is backed up by ambiguous and contrary facts. There has been no conclusive evidence proving this idea, so why to you treat it as a proven theory?
Scientific theories are never proved. So global warming will always be a hypothesis.
However, the simple fact is that the vast majority of the worlds climatical scientists support this theory.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.