A perfect example of someone who knows nothing about science. Better stick to accounting or whatever it is you do, kaara.
Every scientific experiment that involves quantification has uncertainty. THAT IS A FACT. Our understanding of gravity is based on theory. Yes, we know that if you drop something, it'll fall to the Earth. That's a fact. But it's the THEORY of gravity that allows us to land a probe on Mars. All the calculations are uncertain. They are known with "VIRTUAL CERTAINTY" but there is still uncertainty involved. Does that mean that we didn't actually land a probe on Mars because our calculations weren't 100% certain? Obviously not. Quit trying to present your ignorance of science as understanding.
Let me guess. You also question evolution because it's "only a theory", too, and consider ID to be a theory with equal credibility in the scientific community. I suppose you also question the computer chip in your processor because quantum theory guided it's development, as well. If you don't understand something, kaara, it's o.k. to admit it.
Actually my degree is that of science. I know all about proving of theories etc..... The only one proving ignorance is yourself. I have only shown that I am willing to see all sides, I am willing to accept that all theories are POSSIBLE and willing to give them all the due credit they deserve. I have seen the research and have found the one that I FAVOR. Could the one(s) I favor be wrong, sure . It is not me though that is having the comprehension problem here thoug, it's you. You seem o think only one theiry is possible. Your presenting theory as an absolute, and I have not done that. It's you who are presenting so called "facts" and thinking they are applicable to everything being discussed. You talked in one of your cut and past jobs about measuring of greenhouse gases and that those measurements go back thousands of years and you present them as being the end all of "proof". My problem is the earth has been around MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of years. Even measurements that go back 100,000 years are insufficient to be even remotely accurate. I'll state it again, and I'll talk slowly so you can understand, climate change is real, I don't know anyone with half a brain who disagrees with that, but you trying to claim yours is the ONLY possible working theory is as arrogant and ignorant as those who think climate change doesn't exist at all. In the big scheme I believe that things aren't as simple and clear cut as ANYONE would like to make them. I don't believe any ONE factor creates any given outcome.
Let's just say for a moment that we are contributing to greenhouse gases in significant amounts and that these amounts are in turn contributing to climate change. IF, and I say if, that is true it is still only a contributing factor. It is not the only factor. Solar flares, ocean currents, tectonic plate shifts, and a billion other contributing factors must exist for any given outcome. Again assuming you are right, how do we KNOW these emissions aren't actually creating a BETTER outcome than had we gone the other way, we don't. There are so many variables to comprehend it's almost incmprehensible. So feel free to continue your short sighted view, mine is a much larger picture, if you can;t see the picture, that's fine but please don't belittle those who can. Your viewpoint is one of MANY, I see them all, I favor the ones i favor based on scientific evidence, you are free to do the same. Or in the words of the great Eddie Vedder "I guess there's nothing wrong with what you say, but don't sell me there can't be a better way"
|
