Comments on: A world imploding?

By: Rox

Rox — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 06:57:26 +0000

I hear you, and believe that knowing as much as possible is essential (even if it is hard to know so much!).

And ye, CPT is having global cooking right now.

By: Champagne Heathen

Champagne Heathen — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:05:46 +0000

I’ve thought about this, and I reckon my overuse of the words “valid” “science” and “methodical” come from me having to read a whole lot about AIDS Denialism again. It always gets me so on edge. When bad theories keep up a deathly fight with a good sound theory.

So sorry about if I seemed a bit to Ra-Ra-Science-Ra’ing there.

I don’t know what I think about the Global Warming theories & anti-theories, so I prefer to stay out of it. But I do know that, as you said at the end of your post, if the global population tries to improve our consuming ways, become more sustainable, more “green”… even if we are not the major cause of the globe overheating, it can only be a better healthier approach.

(Ha! Bet every Cape Townian believes in Global Warming at the moment!)

By: Rox

Rox — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:12:32 +0000

Think that talk may have been about tectonic or whatever shifting perhaps.

I honestly don’t know whether I buy in to all this end of world stuff, I think that what is most likely to happen before we really see much evidence of that happening from climate change alone is that we will either be hit by an asteroid, obliterated by aliens, or maybe we will manage to kill off the ocean when the last remaining sharks go extinct.

But I do like the idea of renewal, maybe it’s a natural process – the earth starts again with a new primary species.

That’s why I try to form my own crack pot theories, and read as much as I can about various other theories – unbased or valid.

By: Champagne Heathen

Champagne Heathen — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:31:01 +0000

Or its just the tectonic (sp??) plates moving about as they’ve done for millions of years.

In geological time, these two events are not that significant. Now link them with events over the past 1000 to hundred thousand years, and maybe patterns start to emerge, and conclusions can start to be drawn.

As for conspiracy theories & pseudo-science theories (invalid research), everything can be linked. Which is why only peer-reviewed & peer-accepted scientific theories should be relied on – if you are going to look at it from a scientific perspective. If you are going to look at it from another perspective, then you must accept what that perspective’s “validity” tests are.

I just find that many theories found on the web are so lacking in rigorous & methodical research that even if they had any decent basis to them, all the gaps in reaching their conclusions just leaves the margin of error to wide for us to accept. Let them do proper research and then present the theories. Instead of them presenting the theories & us trying to do research to back up this “nice” “Makes sense” idea for them.