Hi Wesley, > There are good arguments that some of the dating is wrong for most > deposits and fossils.
I don't dispute the dating process may be flawed, but what does that have to do with the quantity and variety of fauna and flora? Either the fossils exist or they don't. And it is equally obvious that regardless of the actual dates, a rich biosystem did not occur at the same time as an Ice Age. > The stability in that case would only be an > illisionary product of massivily distorted dating. Could you provide a more detailed explanation of your reasoning? How do dating errors (not Michel's type of dating errors) cause the illusion of massive amounts of biomatter and diverse species? > It is always safer > to assume a system is unstable and act accordingly that to assume it's > stable and die having discovered your error. More flawed reasoning. Are you telling me that if we don't understand how something works, we are charged with fixing it until we do understand? That is how problems arise, not how they are solved. This is exactly what the GW debate comes down to. There are people who distort their interpretation of the data to prove something is broken, and then seek to fix it. It is the process of fixing things that don't need fixing that actually breaks them. Nature knows what it is doing. The planet Earth does not need the arrogance of our feeble intelligence to fix the climate cycle. Even if we do succeed in altering the climate, such as seeding the oceans with iron, what happens when iron prices go through the roof and the seeding program is cancelled? The resulting huge whale population then starves to death for lack of food. Either that or the Japanese build up a huge market for whale products and drives them into extinction. There were people who played with pure sodium, and when it spontaneously caught fire, they threw water on it, which caused a major explosion. The climate change problem is serious enough without shortsighted humans trying to intervene. Even if we were successful in the short run, it is highly improbable we could keep up our efforts into the long run. The best way to survive global climate change is to adapt, which is the method preferred by all successful species. Dave
