View Single Post
Old 2007-03-14, 00:23
problematic's Avatar
problematic problematic is offline
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Aus
Posts: 2,037
Send a message via MSN to problematic
Originally Posted by tmfreak
I agreed with you up until this point. Your last sentence is extremely confusing.

Do you mean:
A. We don't know how the earth works or has worked over the years?
or B. We haven't been "alive and around" to "experience" climatic changes?

Response if its A. Thats probably the most naive assumption ever, not to mention a huge trivialization of the amount of knowledge we've gathered about the earth and its processes. Especially in the field of geology which has a multitude of substational evidence for climatic changes.

Response if its B. So what? What bearing does this have on any arguement what so ever?

Kinda both pretty much. The amount of data gathered may be a lot, but it is only for a short period of time. We don't know how the Earth works over thousands of years. I'm no geologist, but the 'substantial evidence' is only concerned with about... 200? or so years? (since detailed, 'modern' recordings began). The climate may fluctuate unpredictably (which it pretty much does) and that evidence may simply be temporary changes and nothing long term at all.

The B. response... We haven't been around to experience the changes, and this has a bearing to Belphegors
"and before you give me the shit about "oh, well the temp of the planet has risen 1 degree in the last five years", just be hush for a minute. Do you really not believe that earth cycle changes can have a much more profound impact on weather than our use of aqua net?"
Yet he's talking about Earth cycle changes like the Sport.
Reply With Quote