Discussion in 'Environmental' started by xmetalfan99, Mar 8, 2010.
Join 3reef now to remove this notice and enjoy 3reef content with less ads. 3reef membership is free.
maybe its just me but the link didnt work :/
link no work
Fixed...idk the link sent u back to 3reef.com
I dunno... as I get older and read more about the techniques used in biology and ecology I am starting to doubt the validity of much of the research being done.
My reasons are two fold and work together:
1. The Earth is 70-75% water, that's a _HUGE_ area to monitor. Most statistics are the result of extrapolation of a much smaller data set. Unless they're using thousands of billions of real time sensors to monitor changes everywhere all at once the data they get is simply incomplete.
2. The Earth is very old. Geological changes take place over geological time frames, measured in millions of years. Marine ecology is, at best, 120-130 years old, and most of the data used to support apocalyptic claims is from the last decade or two. In geological terms that's insignificant.
Put together we're only looking at an infinitesimal portion of the data available. In any other scientific field such a tiny slice of data would be laughed at and not worth considering.... yet in ecology they get all worked up over it.
How many times has the ocean "died"? Certainly more than once, fossil records show several distinct "ages" where there were massive die offs, oceanic shifts, polar shifts, etc. Are there proto-fossils buried on the sea beds that are only several thousand years old? I think so. Give them a few million years and they will be fossils as well.
It's worth being aware of, and I'm all for collecting data and thinking about the ramifications - but without solid data and only spotty empirical observations it's just not worth worrying about (yet).
As someone in the wildlife and ecology field, I can promise you that most research done is really just a crock of poop. However, some is valid. It really depends on how in depth the biologist goes and how well he/she removes the biasness from their study and making the way they collect data as random as possible.
It really depends on if they're tenured researchers at a university or are just scientist looking to shock people for grant money
Separate names with a comma.