Its about how much we are affecting our planet and what we need to do.
Charcoal, watercolor, CS6
It can be argued that the Earth is a living organism. Most of it is made out of rocks and dirt but it also made up of all kinds of living things, like cells in our body. To say the Earth is not a alive is all a matter of perspective.
Of course, it has survive asteroid impacts. It's a large planet but that doesn't mean those impacts didn't cause irreversible damage to the ecosystem. The earth will remain whatever we do, it doesn't mean that it will be able to support life.
"If animals never went extinct, no more new animals would come," is probably the most arrogant comment you can make. Animals just don't appear, they evolve. Every time an animal goes extinct, we lose an endless possibility of new animals. The passenger pigeon was once the most abundant bird in the world, they went extinct in the early 1900's and since then been no new birds in North America that weren't introduced by humans. If your statement was true, we should have a new bird to take it's place.
Life does not always thrive because it’s warm; to say that is to say where it’s cold, it’s devoid of life which is not true. Antarctica and the Arctic Circle are teaming with unique life forms and advanced eco-systems. Life is thriving just as much in the winter as it is in the summer. The animals maybe different but it’s possible to have thriving life in climates that are not warm.
Human destroying life form because they are pests or for their hide, fur, horns, tusks, bone, etc. and survival of the fittest do not go hand in hand. Survival of the fittest applies when two animals compete for the same food source, one animal may out compete the other which means the other has one of two choices: adapt or die. Purposely causing the extinction of an animal in a mass extermination campaign is not survival of the fittest; it’s an abuse of power.
To clear that up, I was not calling you arrogant; I was calling your statement arrogant. Anyone can make an arrogant statement even if the person is not.
Is propaganda so bad? When people today have less attention span than a goldfish are they actually going to sit down and read the facts unless they feel compelled to do so? Something short and catchy that catches their eyes might be the best way for them to learn there is an issue.
A lot of people in the environmental field don’t believe in using shock or doom-and-gloom advertising to get the message out, I do. We, as a society, are so use to having things sugar-coated that we can easily ignore the truth and that is why the problem of human-made climate change has persisted for so long. I think sometimes people need a reality check and that’s why I believe we need it.
I don’t know where you get your information from but I would love to see a peer-reviewed study regarding this cloud since not once in my four years of environmental studies did any other my professors mention this.
The real reason that the earth is warm is something called the greenhouse effect. Some heat from the sun enters the earth through light rays and the carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere causes some of the heat to be trapped therefore keeping the earth warm. Climate change is caused when people burn things that store carbon dioxide (oil, trees, etc.) causing more carbon dioxide to build up in the atmosphere and thus more heat is trapped. By the way, this is scientific consensus on the issue.
The first minute of this video here (although being a clip from “Futurama”) does an excellent job explaining it even if it is a little simplistic: www.youtube.com/watch?v=2taViF…