Re: Arrogance
 

I'd encourage you to look up Burt Rutan's climate change PDF. He is not a climatologist, but he has done data analysis all his life, and that is what he does in the PDF. He takes a look at some of the most graphs used to support global warming and essentially rips them a new one.

Re: Arrogance
 

I gave it a look (I assume you meant this one: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...taanalysis.pdf).
I have read similar things before. Of course Burt Rutan also has an agenda (socialist = bad).

I agree that the existing data can be interpreted differently and that some of the graphs in circulation are simplified (or even wrong). Actually, I cannot say how much humans contribute to the climate change.
But spending more money on alternative energies and conserving existing energy resources before we run out of them makes more sense than wasting important resources by burning them in SUVs or oil power stations.
And I assume Rutan's SpaceShipOne is also not exactly eco-friendly...

Re: Arrogance
 

Yup, he clearly states what his bias is. It's interesting though, that he shows himself to be very environmentally friendly, but is still in opposition to the idea of anthropogenic climate change.
I'm wouldn't suggest we should do nothing(even ignoring climate change being environmentally friendly is a good thing), but I don't think there is nearly as much of danger as many would suggest. I've said before, the poisons we release into the air and water are far more dangerous than the climate change we may or may not be causing (that may or may not exist) depending upon how you read the graphs.

Energy efficiency has always actually played a major role in his aircraft designs. I'm sure SpaceShipOne was as efficient as it could be. He has one of the most energy efficient houses, and a pure electric car as well.

Re: Arrogance
 

What, you too good to learn from crab people?

Re: Arrogance
 

I think there is a fine line between our points of view.

We didn't have technology (as such) back in Medieval times, yet we managed perfectly well back then (at staying alive).

Seems I stand corrected.

To be fair, you could say that about any creature. The Panda is no different from a Wolf, a Shark, an Owl, or a Dodo. These creatures would probably be living just fine if it weren't down to us getting involved, and screwing up their territory. Yes the Panda (as well as a few other species) do have problems now, but that isn't down to them, its probably down to us.

As above, you, Afterburner, and me have a different view. I see where the two of you are coming from though. Allow me to explain.

In my view, something that is of nature, is something that grows, or is born without the help of technology. The rain, tree's, clouds, grass, mountains, volcano's, wildlife etc... All this simply 'exists'. Animals are born, reproduce, and die, tree's grow, reproduce (via non intercourse-methods) and die. Water travels throughout the planet, through streams, rivers, the ocean etc.

Buildings aren't something that just start growing one day, they're man made. I don't consider them (or anything else technological) to be based off nature. I know the materials used to build them are (to a point), but they aren't natural.

That is pretty much the gist of it.

Natural Selection... You'd first need to define that I think. Getting back to the Panda or Dodo. If it wasn't for us, chances are, they'd be doing fine. We weren't really their natural predators, we just hunted them, or colonized around them, complicating their way of life. This lead to their downfall.

Perhalps, but at least nobody needs die because of it.

We act the way we do because of the age that we are in. We'd be completely different if we were still back in the stoneage.

Chances are, by that time, British will have been taken over by Immigrants, and the 'English' will have moved elsewhere. I needn't worry, I'll just be relocated. :rolleyes:

Re: Arrogance
 

A digging stick or stone axe is technology. Medieval Europe was rife with technology, and besides their fields people are was disconnected from nature as they are today. Actually the very act of cultivation shows the tendency towards human "arrogance" that you are suggesting technology shows . We can take plants and decide how we want them to grow and develop, or take animals and breed them to be exactly how we want them. We can override(or take control of, rather) evolution itself, on of the fundamental principles of nature.

Re: Arrogance
 

So...say goodbye to domesticated cereal crops, then.

I don't get this. Why aren't metals natural? They are made of 'natural' stuff like everything else, it's just that they have a few more electrons, protons, and neutrons per atom than other stuff. Water isn't alive, is that not natural?

Quoting Nite, is that fair? Nope. Is life fair? Nope.

And we're still acting 'naturally', regardless of where we are.

But we are creatures as well. So how is this different to a selection pressure exerted by any other species of animal?

Re: Arrogance
 

A digging stick is something that we find lying around. I wouldn't class it as 'technology'. Technology (in my opinion) is something that is built for a specific purpose. I suppose the axe would be technology, but not so much as items we have at our disposal today.

We can do all of that, yes. But that wasn't my point.

If we took a step back, plants and wildlife would continue to live and grow as they see fit, or, they may end up extinct. The point is, we wouldn't be choosing how it would go down. Nature would just get on with it, and those animals that do become extinct would do so via natural selection.

You've highlighted the word perfectly right there. Metal is MADE. It isn't found. Yes the elements that are used to make metal are lying around by the choice of nature, but it is us that puts said elements together, and creates metal, steal, aluminum and what not.

You're missing my point.

Because we have the power to change things and make a difference, be it the correct, or incorrect thing to do.