Arrogance

[Afterburner]

Originally Posted by Mephistopheles

Gaia will do it.

During the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum the Arctic Ocean had a temperature of 23 °C and crocodiles in it.
After the climate change there will still be some nice islands left for humans to live and fight with each other.

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.

[Mephistopheles]

Originally Posted by Afterburner

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.

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...

[Afterburner]

Originally Posted by Mephistopheles

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).

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 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...

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.

[NiteStryker]

Originally Posted by Schofield

...

What, you too good to learn from crab people?

[Flash525]

Originally Posted by Afterburner

We ARE nature. Is a beaver's damn unnatural? Is a bird's nest unnatural? Is a Primate's use of sticks to hunt for ants unnatural? Everything is a cause of nature. EVERYTHING is nature. Same thing that gives anyone the right to do anything, more force.

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

Originally Posted by Afterburner

And without technology we'd be... well extinct actually. We're terrible at survival without technology, though I suppose without technology we might simply never have evolved from the chimp's evolutionary line (though even chimps use technology.)

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

Originally Posted by Afterburner

White man mostly hunted Bison for their fur, not for "fun." They are fucking dangerous animals, and very few people would have hunted them for fun. Native Americans put a great deal of pressure on the Buffalo in many areas of the U.S. Also, at least according to Wikipedia (and it has a cite for this) there is evidence to suggest Native Americans essentially created the Buffalo herd themselves by burning down forest areas to make more grassland for them, and then regulating the herds. There is this rather ridiculous notion that the Native Americans had some sort of mystical connection to nature, but there isn't really a great deal of evidence to suggest that. I mean they would stampede the Buffalo off cliffs to kill them, does that sound like a steward of the wilds? Or just a group of people interested in getting lots of food?

Seems I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by Afterburner

Some animals just need to die out anyways. The Panda is such a worthless animal. It is horribly adapted to survival and is only surviving because of humans.

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.

Originally Posted by NiteStryker

Yes it would. Everything that happens in the world is nature. With or without human influence is the astrisk.

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.

Originally Posted by NiteStryker

Is it fair? Nope. Is life fair? Nope.

That is pretty much the gist of it.

Originally Posted by NiteStryker

They deserve to die for not keeping pace with the rest of the world. Natural selection. The strong survive.

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.

Originally Posted by Junk angel

There are some that would argue that diplomacy is merely violence in more polite forms.

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

Originally Posted by Junk angel

So I do agree with those saying that humans act naturally. They currently do.

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.

Originally Posted by Schofield

Oh, and Britain, but once they run out of tea and biscuits *cough* cookies *cough* they'll all die...

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.

[Afterburner]

Originally Posted by Aerilon

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

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.

[Mr. Pedantic]

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

[Flash525]

Originally Posted by Afterburner

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Afterburner

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

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

You're missing my point.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

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

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