Thread: The Most Important Question of the Century

Originally Posted by 59caddy

when does plain old common sense come into play?

Much later.

There is evidence of one or more mass extension events in the geologic past, so common sense would suggest it will happen again. It could be a partial thing that just sets us back to the stone age, or it could be a total wipe out.

Devout Christians assume God is watching over us. Nothing will happen that isn't according to His plan. When the end comes it will be according to Revelations.

On the other hand, atheists believe that we are on our own. It's just a great big crap shoot. There is no big guy taking care of us!

Either way, we already know that the Earth and the Sun won't last forever. I really doubt our society will last any where near that long. If we rate as an intellectual and scientific people, then we expand into the Galaxy asap. Otherwise we remain here and continue our superstitious ways, at the mercy of fate.

It's interesting to ponder. Saving our way of life might mean merely beaming all the genetic code sequences of the planet's plants and animals and all the historical and scientific knowledge out into space where it could be intercepted and preserved for reconstitution or whatever.

Great question. I think some people have had some good answers. I think it is the responsibility of the human race to realize the situation and the urgency of the problem and come up with some good valid answers. Education, Education and more education is needed, expecially beginning at an early age, and with a broad scope through out academics. I also think we need to tap into new resources for a sustainable future even if it means dealing with some sacrifices.

=xman;526636]No offense intended at all, but men and women of science are in a much better position to offer opinions.

Not always, and generalizations are usually wrong, imho. Scientists are just human like the rest of us and are capable of being wrong. No single person on earth today is perfect, scientist or layman. Once science got linked to politics they lost their un-biased ways. There is no way a scientist who's funding relies on government can be un-biased. No one ever bites the hand that feeds them. Most experiments can be interperted in differing ways, I wonder which one they would choose, the one that shows the governmental policy is wrong so they lose their funding or the one that shows the governmental policy is right so they keep their funding.

You may have heard of a NASA study that showed that 1998 was the warmest year on record, that was until a non scientist looked into it and found that, IIRC, 1932 was the warmest, causing NASA to recind their study.

You also may of heard that in the 1970's, science said we were going into the next ice age if we didnt do anything, then everything started to get warmer. Then in the 90's they started to try and say we were getting too warm, interestingly enough they love to quote the temps from the 70's. Could it be that those cold years showed the highest contrast? It seems science is finally getting sick of being shown to be wrong, instead of staking their claims on something concrete like warming or cooling they just say climate change, so that no matter what happens it proves their point.

And that brings us to the hockey stick that was made famous by AL Gore(a huge CO2 emitter) was shown to be based on faulty science by the discovery of the emails recently(they have been touched on earlier in this thread) that show science trying to get their way even though the data was not agreeing with them.

By the way I am far more worried about the earth cooling down than I am about it warming. Humans can adapt to warmer far better and cheaper then colder. Warmer and plants grow better and there is a german study out their that shows that the higher the CO2 level the more plants grow, it would also lead to less energy use. Whereas colder and we would have to grow everything indoors, leading to high costs and higher energy needs.

I think the modern human is very arrogant, feeling pretty big in his britches, if we actually belive we can control the climate, we are but a speck on this planet. I saw a study that said that as of now if you took the worlds poulation and gave them all 2 square feet to stand, they wouldnt even fill up texas.

This whole argument reminds me of a quote from ben franklin, 'Those that have nothing to trouble them will be troubled at nothing.' As easy as life is nowadays we are constantly inventing problems.

On a side note I would like to look at one of some of the solutions government has come up with. I have a 99 dodge truck that I have souped up a bit. When I got it and it was stock I could get about 18 miles to the gallon. After I upgraded my power(went from aroung 220 t 350hp) I get 20-24 depending on where I am. The new "clean" Dodge Cummins gets around 15 mpg stock, so even though I upped my HP my mileage went up and once the enviromental policies went into effect the mileage went down. So if these 2 trucks took off and drove 1500 miles, I would of burnt 75 gallons, the "clean" truck 100 gallons. I wonder if the new trucks are so much cleaner that they can afford to burn 25 more gallons of fuel and still put out less polution? My thought is gallon/ gallon the newer dodge is cleaner but am not so sure over the long haul, the 25 gallons difference would release lots of CO2.

Some more ideas:

YouTube - Meet the 'Vortex of Despair': Four Predictions for Earth's Future