Is Animal Welfare fake?

[anoni]

@Kio: Yes, it is preventable, but unfortunately we didn't prevent it So yes, we could of prevented animals from coming into Australia, and yes we have extremely high customs laws now to prevent that sort of thing from happening. HOWEVER, unfortunately, that doesn't stop past mistakes and yes they were mistakes and yes they were preventable but we still did them  because we didn't know at the time. So whether or not it's preventable now, the problem is that we didn't prevent it and we had cane toads everywhere. Yes, we did use poison and there was a massive controversy about it affecting our environment, I'm not exactly sure what happened tbh, I do know that our environment wasn't effected that much, if it all, so maybe they didn't use poison after all, I'll have to look it up.

2. Ok so I'm doing some research on this. So, first of all, I dunno exactly where you got the idea that the earth has been cooling over history. According to the data received from the national climate data center, the earth is in fact warming, regardless of whether human intervention was involved, it is indeed warming in Land surface air temperature, sea surface temperature, Marine Air temperature and Tropospheric temperature, this is in the last 50 years anyway. While it is said that the earth does go in fluctuations of warm and cool, this unprecedented warming isn't in line with the natural cycle of constant warming a cooling, and that's because of an excessive amount of Carbon Dioxide in the recent years. According to NASA's website our CO2 output presently is more than 400 parts per million, the highest point of CO2 emission in the last 650,000 years has been no more than 300 parts per million. Yes, climate change is natural, it happens a lot, but as I said what we're doing is [speeding up the inevitable], we're not doing anything that's not going to happen anyway, but we're making it happen faster. Just like how medicine delays death, I think we should try delay Global warming.

3. Immigration is heavily controlled in the United States, Australia and even probably Britian. Australia has a very multicultural society, but still many people  who come to Australia have to go through a lengthy process in order to come here. A lot of people come here without going through the lengthy process, known as illegal immigrants, and they are more than often taken back or refused access. I'm not saying human migration is the exact same as animal migration, but what I am saying is there are some key differences, like animal migration, human migration is heavily controlled, in order to make sure that a national identity is still kept intact.

[Kio]

1. Humans fault to first intervene, might as well cull the humans for causing the problem in that logic, but of course humans will scream "no" because they find it more unethical to kill their own kind, even if the responsibility is theirs. Toads will naturally decline, anyway, when a species over-spreads the natural mechanism of disease and starvation can take place.

2. Climate change models at IPCC show there should be a hotspot according to the computer simulation, but this hotspot does not exist and there is plenty of metereologists that will verify this from satellite data, in fact the hot places have reduced so the Earth is actually cooling in the cycle but is slightly warmer on an internal cycle, this is due to something called the "thermohaline circulation", this also shows decline in ice is actually a part of a very natural science no doubt enhanced by underwater volcanoes, hence the volcanic activity North in recent years and ice gain at the south pole. It's actually cooler over europe due to the circulation and slightly hotter over the middle of the US and Australia, yet again this is normal because that's contributed naturally to the deserts in those areas. CO2 counts have always been high, they were highest when the Earth was younger, the levels do actually have to be quite high, there'd be far more to worry about if the world plunged into another ice age. If you gathered all the chemicals humans on Earth, there wouldn't be enough to show much on the map, humans take up a very small surface area, relatively, and think they are a much bigger race than they actually are. Man can have a small contribution, but it's so small it's not much to note, but the biggest contribution is not additive but subtractive, cutting down forests that naturally absorb CO2 will of course cause a large increase in CO2, yet there's not much issue here because the green house effect is automatically corrected by the Earth's far more powerful atmospheric circulation. And despite tax rises, this is not cutting any of their imaginary figures, but rather just allowing them to pocket from the taxpayer.
Yeah, and to think NASA's models can't even forecast weather a day ahead properly most times let alone show something as an increase in man-made global warming.

3. Immigration isn't very well controlled at all, especially in continentally united countries (as opposed to more recent obtain countries like Australia and the US which were first invaded by a multitude of races, anyway), such as Western Europe and Middle Eastern countries, which has lead to more and more religious disturbances in between such countries, see races carry their own culture and while racism is well disagreeable, two or more colliding schools of thought can cause big issues, yet unlike with other species these are not killed. And it's not really necessary, because there hasn't even been a single case of severe natural plague in a highly domestic country in over 200 years.

[anoni]

1. Generally yes, we do believe it's more unethical to kill human kind than other animals, the reason for that is that ethics and morals are defined and created by human kind. So of course we're going value a human life over that of another species. In fact, if we didn't value that, then our species wouldn't exist today! It's an evolutionary necessity to value your own kind, or yourself, over that of other people. Even animals value their own species over other species.

2. Your atmospheric circulation idea is interesting, but according to science magazine global warming is actually accounting to an observable decrease in atmospheric circulation. Actually they found, in the Walker circulation, if you read that article you will notice that the pressures of water caused by such circulation is decreasing, in such a degree that matched [primarily] the global warming theory that assumes man is a significant influence on the global atmosphere. You can read more about it here. However, a lot scientific evidence shows that a lot of atmospheric circulation is changing with the most likely cause being the humans on their environment. A scientific paper goes into quite strong detail about each of these reports, if you are interested in reading it can be found here. So, I don't think the green house effect is going to "automatically corrected" by atmospheric circulation, if the actual warming of earth itself is causing drastic changes with a most likely cause of human intervention to atmospheric circulation.

Yeah, and to think NASA's models can't even forecast weather a day ahead properly most times let alone show something as an increase in man-made global warming.

You need to think about what you just said, what NASA showed was not a prediction of the CO2 emissions but rather actual data of those CO2 emissions. The actual data itself, as you can see, is not saying that "we will get above standard CO2 emissions" but more we ARE above standard CO2 emissions. Also, yes at the beginning of the earth more CO2 was present then now, it was also a hellish disaster of a planet, in which our life today could not even think to inhabit. Also my mate says "Stop blaming NASA for your local weather stations problems", but he's just joking xD.

3. In your scenario with have significant variations of religions and social attitudes which you say causes big issues. I agree, however, these social issues do not cause the imminent death of human kind or a local species, nor does it have any threat to changing the local ecosystem. In fact, it's because of that and because the religion and socials aspects of it only affect human kind that we aren't as concerned about these differences. We don't kill people until they start becoming a threat to our world as we know it, that means either our society to a significant degree, or indeed our environment to a significant degree. When that does happen, we do have wars, civil wars against two separate parties.