1

Marine Science / Is space or sea exploration the better use of our resources?

« on: 02/08/2016 14:17:39 »

I totally disagree with the point alan raised. It is certainly NOT unbeneficial to find life in underwater vents and in fact discovering these things have branched our knowledge and understanding of microbial life way beyond what we previously had. This knowledge brings understanding and awareness of extremophile behavior and how life adapts to different conditions. AND is the first step in understanding how they could be beneficial to us Humans in a more practical manner, maybe they could produce anti biotics, or chemicals that would improve our lives greatly.. unless you look and study you will never know.

As for space exploration.. the sooner they find a way off this rock to somewhere else, we might be able to jet off leaving all the idiots behind and move to a nicer neighborhood.

2

The Environment / Re: Is the narrative of climate change autogenerated?

« on: 02/08/2016 10:40:35 »

It was proven a while ago that there exists organisations governmental and independent that have actively taken steps to produce and publish inaccurate forecasts and trending data, through means of bullying, data set omission and in basic terms cooking the books.

Someone mentioned that we have centuries of data measurements, where this is untrue, we have only been recording and trending data from the past 60 or so years. We have been using methods of estimating past temperatures that have been shown to be inaccurate and only taken into account by those whose argument it agrees with and ignored or questioned by the other.

Man made climate change remains a strong argument and there definitely appears to be strong evidence even if just localized. The IPPC have changed their tune from 'global warming' to man made climate change due to these false assertions and the fact that we have dropped from having the fact of global warming which has been proven, including the hockey stick diagram, to be a wholly biased report that was generated to prove a group of scientist belief in a dramatically unscientific manner.

Whether or not our beliefs lead us to whatever opinion on the fact is inconsequential. But yes, all future predicitions for climate change are and must be done via statisical analysis of the best information we have available, and although this could be done by an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters (which is sometimes how I feel the public face of 'science' appears) it is invariably done with computers and auto generation. (But I suppose thats' like saying Cars are auto generated by robots)