4 ms·
It's not a question of whether the assertions are unsubstantiated or overblown, it's that they're sufficiently vague as to be unscientific. Things like: Theref
by planetguy 14y ago
It's not a question of whether the assertions are unsubstantiated or overblown, it's that they're sufficiently vague as to be unscientific. Things like:
Therefore, the plausibility of a future planetary state shift seems high, even though considerable uncertainty remains about whether it is inevitable and, if so, how far in the future it may be.
don't seem much more useful than my horoscope for today:
Today you may be wondering just how much you should get involved in a certain conflict between family members or in your career. There's a lot of pressure on you to find an answer to this problem. But all you have to do is not take sides and everything should work out fine. You may finally realize that it's probably best to just let things happen for once.
I mean, what would it mean in real-world terms for either of those to be wrong?
- anthonyb 14y agoJust the first few pages seems to contradict you pretty strongly. The gist as far as I can tell is that complex systems behave in specific ways when changing from one state to another (eg. "an increase in variance in ... fluctuations"), and that the climate currently seems to be undergoing similar fluctuations. It doesn't seem to be particularly vague; I noticed references to things like the inverse power law of species body mass, so they're not just pulling numbers out of their ass. In real world terms? Mass extinctions most likely, just like the last major state shift.