David Thomson wrote:
Hi Wesley,
There are good arguments that some of the dating is wrong for most
deposits and fossils.
I don't dispute the dating process may be flawed, but what does that have to
do with the quantity and variety of fauna and flora? Either the fossils
exist or they don't. And it is equally obvious that regardless of the
actual dates, a rich biosystem did not occur at the same time as an Ice Age.
The stability in that case would only be an
illisionary product of massivily distorted dating.
Could you provide a more detailed explanation of your reasoning? How do
dating errors (not Michel's type of dating errors) cause the illusion of
massive amounts of biomatter and diverse species?
It is always safer
to assume a system is unstable and act accordingly that to assume it's
stable and die having discovered your error.
More flawed reasoning. Are you telling me that if we don't understand how
something works, we are charged with fixing it until we do understand? That
is how problems arise, not how they are solved.
This is exactly what the GW debate comes down to. There are people who
distort their interpretation of the data to prove something is broken, and
then seek to fix it. It is the process of fixing things that don't need
fixing that actually breaks them.
Nature knows what it is doing. The planet Earth does not need the arrogance
of our feeble intelligence to fix the climate cycle.
Even if we do succeed in altering the climate, such as seeding the oceans
with iron, what happens when iron prices go through the roof and the seeding
program is cancelled? The resulting huge whale population then starves to
death for lack of food. Either that or the Japanese build up a huge market
for whale products and drives them into extinction.
There were people who played with pure sodium, and when it spontaneously
caught fire, they threw water on it, which caused a major explosion. The
climate change problem is serious enough without shortsighted humans trying
to intervene. Even if we were successful in the short run, it is highly
improbable we could keep up our efforts into the long run. The best way to
survive global climate change is to adapt, which is the method preferred by
all successful species.
Dave
Good points Dave. I can't explain the dating problems here, its a
creationist debate essentually, there are other sites for that. Email me
privately for those details. Suffice to say that I think the errors are
large but the greenhouse effect should still be real. As for human
action I think we tend to want simple answers to complex questions.
Fertilizing the ocean is one such simple answer, far too simple. We need
comprehesive ownership systems if we are going to farm the sea instead
of just hunting it. Your correct, human arrogance is dangerous but there
are times when inaction is equally arrogant and dangerous. The energy
technologies discussed on vortex, peswiki, etc will help solve problems
and give us the leway to fix the problems as they come. If greenhouse is
not a problem then we loose nothing by going to alternative energy;
assuming we are smart enough to keep the oil men and the coal miners etc
from starving or rioting.
