evasive wrote:
because there was no record of their existence in the first place?
We can only see very common animals go into extinction from fossils because the rare ones (like today) simply have not been found because the chance of finding a fossil is so much smaller.
that's more-or-less along the line of thought/perception i'm trying to draw attention to. just because we think we know something doesn't mean we understand or actually DO know it. we're still finding exotic species that are currently on the planet and thriving. we've identified "extinct" species that are in actuality not extinct.
if you want to group realistic thought with "quitters" and "well, i don't give a $%&*" types, fine. that's your own viewpoint, but i think it's incorrect.
what i stated is merely the realistic outcome. does that stop me from not just dumping my motor oil in my back yard(or someone elses), or not recycling the INSANELY small amount of recycling i can contribute to the "effort"...or purchase a more costly fuel-efficient vehicle although i can easily afford to just pay the offset fuel costs associated to a cheaper, less-efficient one? no. i still do exactly what i'm supposed to as a consciencous environmentally aware consumer.
you say you put your faith in science...my
realistic outlook on where we are and where we're going is purely based on science. you aren't going to change the world's behavior. it's NOT going to happen. sorry. not without a massive game-changer that is better, easier, and cheaper. even if you convince the entire US to be a non-contributor to the negative effects of climate change, you now have a crusade to do the same to nearly 4-5 billion others, most of which are in much less position to take any steps at remediation.
was wondering when the koch's would be mentioned. just mentioning them in a post severely depreciates the value of any argument - it automatically creates known bias. just saying.
Quote:
man is accelerating environmental changes, and idoes have effect
not arguing this "effect". but, how much? do you know? does anyone? no. so...basing fear and conjecture off any inaccurate data(and it is inaccurate) is just bad science. you cannot possibly have accurate data when you do not know the input variables involved, and make assumptions on a variable output. how can you solve for Z on X+Y=Z if you don't know what makes up X, Y or realistically what you assume Z should even be?
-Roach
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
