Quote:
Originally Posted by Twitterbait
things happen, don't litter and don't waste. recycle and then roll the bones. the planet has been here longer than we have... it will be fine.
|
what is that, a hunch? what is that based on? We also used to believe we could pollute as much as possible and fish as much as possible without any affect on water quality or food availabilty too because the oceans are so big. Would you also suggest that is true? What year is this?
Do you guys actually believe that some undergraduate enviro science courses that we take gives us a more educated perspective on predominant scientific theories than the finest minds we have in the global scientific community that actually research these subjects for a living?
Scientists around the world have indicated for years now that we are affecting the environment, and honestly in a closed system(our planet) that is not prepared to handle rapid drastic changes(like the ones humanity inflicts on the environment since the industrial revolution) I don't see why that is so hard to believe. I think it's much more of a reach(and frankly an antiquated perspective) to suggest that we cannot in fact affect a closed-system environment like our planet.
Nobody is suggesting that science yields certainty on the first pass - although in essence scientific method is a self-correcting process over time - but we average joes are not the ones to determine anything as complex as the atmospheric impact of humanity....that's why, thankfully, we have real scientists to do the real research, and we just play with aquariums in our livingrooms. We can guess from our uneducated positions...but we should never be as short-sighted as to assume we have the answers that thousands of the finest scientific minds on the subject around the world for years have missed. Certainly not without an ounce of qualifications.
I'm sure there are some scientists who refute the predominant theory...but they have the burden of proving otherwise, not the average joe. So unless any of us have a doctorate in atmospheric or environmental science from Harvard or Cornell, along with years of published data to support our theory, and an entire scientific community to verify our data, we should accept predominant theories dictated by those who are actually qualified, don't you think?
We may in fact find out in the future that the theories of this particular article are off regarding localized temp differences in the Caribbean, but I'm referring to the general indication you gave that predominant science is way off and you have the real answers regarding humanity's impact on global environmental systems.
I agree with one thing: The planet is not going anywhere...and will likely be around long after humanity is gone...the question I guess is, how long until we are gone? What eventually causes the end of humanity on earth? And to what degree do we alter the planet's natural systems while we are here?
If we look far enough ahead...the sun will eventually burn out and prevent the continuation of life as we know it on this rock anyhow...but honestly the chances of so many other end-game scenarios is much greater.
