OakRidgeRabbits wrote:
There is no such thing as a "scientific fact". In science, nothing can be proven right, it can only be proven wrong.
Anyway, moving on...the media makes things out to be a lot worse than they are. For millions of years, the Earth has been changing. Species come, species go, it's a part of nature. Did you know that humans actually have very little effect on 'global warming'? Sure, we do affect it to some point. We are, in fact, living here. But if we were to completely stop ALL of our actions related to the progress of global warming, the process would not stop, nor would it make any significant difference in the timeframe of which it's supposed to happen. Pretty much any researched scientist will share this information with you. Unfortunately, the general public is not very well educated on this topice, thanks to the media.
I'm sorry to say that humans are extremely conceded, arrogant beings overall. The Earth does NOT revolve around us.
Everything that is happening is a cyclic effect that has been going on for millions of years. If anything, we are disrupting natural balance by tying to SAVE all the species that are threatened by the cycle at this time.
First of all, there is such thing as scientific fact. As I'm probably not best one to explain it- here is a legitimate definition:
"In the most basic sense, a scientific
fact is an
objective and
verifiable observation; in contrast with a
hypothesis or
theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.
[21] Thus, for example, it is a
fact that objects of smaller mass are attracted to objects of greater mass, and the
theory of
gravitation explains why this is so.
See also Evolution as theory and fact."
What you say about the media is, in a lot of senses, true, however we cannot know that global warming would happen at the same rate if we weren't around.
Scientists know carbon emissions from fossil fuels contribute greatly to global warming, and patterns and graphs have been studied over many years, seeing the link between the rate of fossil fuel usage, and global warming, and undeniably the two are linked. Apparently the link was made after the Industrial Revolution- much work was done on whether humans directly impacted on the earth by causing global warming, and by Feb 2007 the IPCC claimed it was 90% certainty that human activity was the primary cause of global warming since 1950.
If anything, we are disrupting natural balance by tying to SAVE all the species that are threatened by the cycle at this time.
Yep this is totally true, but I didn't imply this. We shouldn't try and save any species. Like I said before, it's the circle of life. Species come and species go- its life.
What I will not agree with is humans causing species to become extinct before their time by their own ignorance and selfishness, then trying to reintroduce them, when the ecosystem has already accounted for their loss. We just don't know enough to meddle in the way we do.
We muck things up, then try to rectify things and muck it up even more.
Missyscove- Yes, it's completely true that cows produce methane, but do you know who else produces methane?
HUMANS
and no one advocates getting rid of them.
If you expel 500 litres of methane each day then I would advocate getting rid of you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL I am joking of course.:biggrin2:
However, cows account for 14% of the world's methane emissions, so reducing that would not help entirely tbh. It is just a very funny concept. Lol i have worked around cows for a while and I swear all they do is fart lol!!
ETS- Wow animal science major sounds great! I'll be started my Zoology degree this year, and then onto either marine ecology or animal conservation year after that.
