tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-579549341020421678.post6429372698682648637..comments2024-01-16T13:06:15.270-06:00Comments on Climate Change: The Next Generation: Newsweek: The Disaster We’ve Wrought on the World’s Oceans May Be IrrevocableTenney Naumerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11843130378338023902noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-579549341020421678.post-16134903141742962342014-07-05T15:59:47.968-05:002014-07-05T15:59:47.968-05:00I can only agree.
Thank you for commenting.I can only agree. <br /><br />Thank you for commenting.Tenney Naumerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11843130378338023902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-579549341020421678.post-76616146118312637062014-07-04T16:22:55.115-05:002014-07-04T16:22:55.115-05:00"The effect of changing ocean chemistry on fi..."The effect of changing ocean chemistry on fish health, longevity and reproduction is not yet certain."<br /><br />Comments like this are very often found in articles that deal with climate change or environmental impacts. <br /><br />They are worse then useless.<br /><br />What more do we need to know? The chemical composition of the surface of the earth (including the atmosphere) has been irrecovably changed - and in no way possible, was it change for the "better". We can easily and safely and most importantly say it has changed for the worse, a situation that is increasing (daily) now, all over the world.<br /><br />While we do not know with "certainty" exactly how far we can continue to pollute the air, water and soil, what we DO know is that what we've already done and what has already been measured is quite bad. Environmental toxins for example, are now found throughout the Earth, even in the remotest regions of the world (carried there by wind and water). And we also know that such things NEVER existed before the supposed "advancement" of mankind. Therefore, being entirely unnatural occurances at these levels, these compounds (of which there are now thousands) can all be considered unnatural and abnormal. We also know that these compounds are quite toxic in varying concentrations. So the "certainty" that we absolute do know, without any hint of doubt - is we are irrecovably changing the biosphere in bad ways.<br /><br />The importance of this singular fact is often overlooked because articles like this one try to downplay just what it means to "change chemistry". Virtually ANY chemistry change caused by man should be considered harmful. It is NOT beneficial in ANY way. It is unnatural and quite often quite toxic, depending on concentrations found - which are usually always increasing.<br /><br />Various studies of just how dangerous these chemical changes are have been undertaken, but that isn't the whole point, i.e., "just how dangerous is this stuff?". Humans continue to escalate these chemical changes, NONE which should even be there.<br /><br />There's always an implication - How far can we go before it's too late? How much damage can we inflict before we (always "we" - species centric) are impacted?<br /><br />These are the wrong questions we are asking. It is clear we have already inflicted too much damage (on everything else) with little regard to how the rest of the biosphere is being impacted. We are only concerned with "us" and that is indeed a huge mistake.<br /><br />The world is not just "us" and never has been and never will be. But we continue to overlook just how flawed our perception of the world we live in actually is. We use a metric that places humans at the forefront - as if that is all that matters. This centrism has it backwards, humans are not the primary metric for life and habitability of the planet. We are in fact, one of the lowest metrics of all (the Earth and the living biosphere does not need any humans in order to survive). But humans DO need the rest of the biosphere to survive, therefore everything else is of the first-order of importance. <br /><br />And this is never discussed, admitted or talked about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com