EricHiggin said:
I know more than a few of those people. Can't go out for a beer because it's too much of an expense, and they rarely have food in the house when I put the 6 pack in to keep cool, yet they always have the newest most useless tech to show me, because hey, it's important, I guess. Here's my problem with the argument. It's been pointed out with charts etc, that illegal immigration is at a low point right now, relative to the past, so it's not really a problem and nothing to worry about apparently. Yet climate charts show that CO2 levels are low right now, relative to the past, and yet it's an immediate danger that's going to destroy the planet. Umm, ok? Science shows illegal immigrants commit less crime yada yada. Since when does science trump the law when it comes to the illegal acts? Correct, but your basically saying the analysts say the wall is a waste so let's not build it. Science demands you build it multiple times to prove it. Why is there resistance to finish the initial wall by the people who always use science to back up their claims? |
SpokenTruth said:
CO2 levels are lower relative to which point in the past? Do you mean before humans? Then yes. Do you mean at any time during human existence? Then no. Science doesn't demand you build the wall multiple times to prove its functionality. You are thinking of hypothesis testing which is rarely ever full scale. Besides, how you could build it, test, take it down, test, build it, test, take it down, test, etc...and not understand you are introducing your own variables into it? You'd invalidate it as soon as you took it down. Further, you can't account for future variables (politics, climate, war, famine, currency issues, economy, etc...) to normalize your results. You are starting to sound flippant with this line of thinking. |
"Here's my problem with the argument. It's been pointed out with charts etc, that illegal immigration is at a low point right now, relative to the past, so it's not really a problem and nothing to worry about apparently. Yet climate charts show that CO2 levels are low right now, relative to the past, and yet it's an immediate danger that's going to destroy the planet. Umm, ok?"
Have we always known what the climate used to be? Did we always know how far back humans go? Do we still know for sure? If we really are the latest and greatest type of monkey, ape, whatever, then how far back do they go and what was the climate then? What were they before they became monkeys? Could humans have lived in those conditions back then?
Well one way or another the kinks have to get worked out. You can't honestly believe when science makes a prediction that the large majority of the time when put into practice it works perfectly as intended. That's how the tests are done though and have been in the past. If you can't verify it in different set ups then it can't be fully proven. This sometimes is a major headache and a major undertaking but needs to be done to legitimately prove the method. Analysts and experts aren't always scientists and don't always use hard science to come up with their results either.
I'm not the one who brought science into this. I also said the planet not humans. We're working on Mars so is Earth necessary in the future if we can live elsewhere? Since we're talking about the future and what could happen and all.
