Oceans losing oxygen due to climate change

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



The Dark Cloud
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100307/sc_mcclatchy/3444187

The Nuul
Its the white peoples fault!

Symmetric Chaos
No amount of evidence will ever convince me that humans are capable of altering their environment. Now excuse me while I drive into a city via major highway to buy seeds from Pakistan that have been adapted to my local climate which I will plant around the town reservoir.

Robtard
Nope, there's no proof that humans affect the climate.

Now I invite those US Politicians and Rush Limbaugh to drink from certain "natural" lakes and waters. Maybe eat certain fish and game, while they're at it.

The Nuul
Its another scam, thats it.

The Goverments kill the fish etc....and then blame use so us have to buy their stuff.

The Nuul
Al Gore anyone?

Shakyamunison

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"Scientists are unsure how low oxygen levels will affect the ocean ecosystem."

I thought we just read that it was bad. confused

Imagine taking the oxygen out of the air. The exact effects are hard to pin down but as far as pretty much every animal on the planet is concerned it would be bad. They're called "dead zones" for a reason.*


*Because stuff living there dies

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Maybe this is the real reason.

"Commonly, ocean "dead zones" have been linked to agricultural runoff and other pollution coming down major rivers such as the Mississippi or the Columbia . One of the largest of the 400 or so ocean dead zones is in the Gulf of Mexico , near the mouth of the Mississippi ."

I'm inclined to agree with this.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Imagine taking the oxygen out of the air. The exact effects are hard to pin down but as far as pretty much every animal on the planet is concerned it would be bad. They're called "dead zones" for a reason.*


*Because stuff living there dies


I realize that, but I was just amused by how much "dancing on the fence" the writer of the article was doing. laughing

Mindset
We should plant some trees in the ocean.

chomperx9
everyone stop pissing in the water. if your in a pool its ok. just dont do it in the lakes or ocean.

leonheartmm
changing the equilibrium of a large system supporting life is ALWAYS a bag thing for the life in it. at least in the forseeable short term {i.e. couple of centuries}

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Robtard
Nope, there's no proof that humans affect the climate.

Now I invite those US Politicians and Rush Limbaugh to drink from certain "natural" lakes and waters. Maybe eat certain fish and game, while they're at it. it's okay it's nature water...


CAPJ6nkViTw

2:30 to 2:50

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by chomperx9
everyone stop pissing in the water. if your in a pool its ok. just dont do it in the lakes or ocean.

NWFXf2qjXeg

Wild Shadow
just b/c urine is sterile it doesnt mean certain chemicals dont make it through the system like medications, maybe that is what is killing the the fishies.

Bicnarok

dadudemon
Originally posted by leonheartmm
changing the equilibrium of a large system supporting life is ALWAYS a bag thing for the life in it. at least in the forseeable short term {i.e. couple of centuries}

I think homeostasis is the word you're looking for.


And, that would still be a slight misnomer. On just a slightly larger timescale than a human life, we can compare the "present" state with the "original" state and see a change...in many different ecosystems.

It's just a "different" homeostatic state, but it does change.


On topic: Humans disturb the homeostasis and the nautral changes to the homeostatic dynamic (seems like an oxymoron..lulz). We are turds that stink up places.


But that reminds me of this:

http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/caveman-comic.gif


It's humor, don't knock it for seriousness!

leonheartmm
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think homeostasis is the word you're looking for.


And, that would still be a slight misnomer. On just a slightly larger timescale than a human life, we can compare the "present" state with the "original" state and see a change...in many different ecosystems.

It's just a "different" homeostatic state, but it does change.


On topic: Humans disturb the homeostasis and the nautral changes to the homeostatic dynamic (seems like an oxymoron..lulz). We are turds that stink up places.


But that reminds me of this:

http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/caveman-comic.gif


It's humor, don't knock it for seriousness!

i thought homeostasis only applied to living things. dont tell me ur a gaia theorist now.

1. that wud still in all probability lead to mankinf dying out, now u can be non human and not care but if were human.......

2. this isnt the kind of change that has happened before though, poisioning the system, changing the oceaning currents, etc, who knows what wud be left after the biotic life has had time to adjust.

3. most species just barely survived the last few BIG changes that happened. seeing as the oceans are the most "protective" regions that can be provided to life to survive in large changed, poisioning them migh unravel all life.

Ms.Marvel
bet thise pesky whales wished they lived in captivity now... shifty

Robtard
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
bet thise pesky whales wished they lived in captivity now... shifty

Whales are mammals, they don't have gills.

I just eSodomized you.

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
bet thise pesky whales wished they lived in captivity now... shifty some one should seriously slap ur elementary teacher.. reading

P.S. i hope ur pretty and young for ur sake.

Robtard
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
some one should seriously slap ur elementary teacher.. reading

P.S. i hope ur pretty and young for ur sake.

If she's fat (I'm guessing no), you can pay her to slap you around, since that's your kink.

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Robtard
If she's fat (I'm guessing no), you can pay her to slap you around, since that's your kink. i was only attracted to big girls when i was in the military but i am over it now and i did it b/c of lack of quality and quantity.. cool embarrasment

only other option was men....

Robtard
See, first it was never, now it was 'back then', we keep digging, who knows what skeletons will fall out of the closet.

Ms.Marvel
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
some one should seriously slap ur elementary teacher.. reading

P.S. i hope ur pretty and young for ur sake.

i bet you say that to all the ladies love

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Robtard
See, first it was never, now it was 'back then', we keep digging, who knows what skeletons will fall out of the closet.

the girl that i told you about was tall and fit not what ur average teen or early 20 yr old girl normally look like small slender non athletic .... no expression

you might as well call real women who arent model skinny, fat..

Robtard
Bro, there's nothing wrong with being attracted to and chasing plus-sized women, don't let the fashion industry's hype fool you.

Black guys do it all the time; them seem to enjoy it.

Ms.Marvel
i wish i was +sized sad

Robtard
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
i wish i was +sized sad

Why?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/caveman-comic.gif


It's humor, don't knock it for seriousness!

I love it.

dadudemon
Originally posted by leonheartmm
i thought homeostasis only applied to living things. dont tell me ur a gaia theorist now.

lol

No. That's a very uncommon and little used version of homeostasis, as it's applied to the entire Earth, not an ecosystem.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
1. that wud still in all probability lead to mankinf dying out, now u can be non human and not care but if were human.......

Ice-cold watermelon is awesome during the summer because doorknobs can usually open doors.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
2. this isnt the kind of change that has happened before though, poisioning the system, changing the oceaning currents, etc, who knows what wud be left after the biotic life has had time to adjust.

Wha....?

Yes. The "system" has been poisened both literally and figuratively, multiple times. Dozens, hundreds, maybe even thousands of times.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
3. most species just barely survived the last few BIG changes that happened. seeing as the oceans are the most "protective" regions that can be provided to life to survive in large changed, poisioning them migh unravel all life.

Wha....?


So confused. There were periods in Earth's history that had massive massive extinctions (ELE) in the oceans, but not so much on land, and vice versa.

Venomanser
penis

Venomancer
people this is a troll using a name close to mine....note his has a S mine has a C.His sig is avatar is much smaller than mine

Ms.Marvel
Originally posted by Robtard
Why?

because id be healthier than i am now

Robtard
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
because id be healthier than i am now

Hmm... may I have your height, weight and dress size?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
Hmm... may I have your height, weight and dress size? Or just a picture....

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
because id be healthier than i am now pls post a picture so we can judge. embarrasment

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
Or just a picture....

Or that.

Ms.Marvel
i will do so if i receive money in return. otherwise no!

Bardock42
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
i will do so if i receive money in return. otherwise no!

Money, eh?

So you can pay some young pretty girl to take a picture of her? Yeah right, I can and do do that myself uhuh

Mindset
noods

Ms.Marvel
Originally posted by Bardock42
Money, eh?

So you can pay some young pretty girl to take a picture of her? Yeah right, I can and do do that myself uhuh

google is free kthx mhm

KidRock
Man made global warming has been debunked, it's time to move on.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by KidRock
Man made global warming has been debunked, it's time to move on.

Because it's not like the evidence is support of climate change overwhelms that against it. Oh, wait yes it does.

Well at least most people who spend time study the data raw it think it's made up. What's that? They don't?

Oh, I know: the scientists who deny it have never said they were being pressured to do so by the government or employer who found the information inconvenient. No, no the majority of them say that.

Too bad, so sad. Time to accept reality and move on.

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by KidRock
Man made global warming has been debunked, it's time to move on.

And the Holocaust never happened either

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
And the Holocaust never happened either

There is no question global warming is going on. It has been happening for the last 12,000 years. It's strange, however, how humans caused global warming 12,000 years ago.

Liberator
Originally posted by Mindset
We should plant some trees in the ocean.

i agree.

Robtard
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no question global warming is going on. It has been happening for the last 12,000 years. It's strange, however, how humans caused global warming 12,000 years ago.

No one denies that the Earth goes through cooling and heating cycles, the question is, whether all the pollutants we release throw that off balance.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Robtard
No one denies that the Earth goes through cooling and heating cycles, the question is, whether all the pollutants we release throw that off balance.

I know it does, but the hype about global warming is manufactured by people like Al Gore to make millions of millions of $$$$$$.

I am 100% for cleaning our environment. I want clear water, and clean air, but no one should ever buy carbon credits. It is nothing but a scam.

King Kandy
Even if everything about global warming is 100% correct, carbon credits would still be a scam.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because it's not like the evidence is support of climate change overwhelms that against it. Oh, wait yes it does.

Well at least most people who spend time study the data raw it think it's made up. What's that? They don't?

Oh, I know: the scientists who deny it have never said they were being pressured to do so by the government or employer who found the information inconvenient. No, no the majority of them say that.

Too bad, so sad. Time to accept reality and move on.

But what we do know that an anthropogenic cause is still a theory, not a fact.

We also know that the large majority of the global warming, from the past 100 years, occured before 1940 (which happens to be before the majority of greenhouse gases were emitted by man.)

We also know that periods in Earth's history had many times the amount of CO2 present, yet we had record low temperatures or temperatures around the same time period.

We do know that it has yet to be proven that CO2 really does cause global warming.

We do know that man is polluting the environment at absurd levels and that we are in the fastest ELE in all of Earth's history...caused by man.

We do know that other planets have shown some warming, too.

We do know that the temperatures in the past decade have been about the same or even cooled.

We do know that we are exiting an IceAge.



So what does that tell us?

Anthropogenic global warming is a theory, not a fact, and has contradicting evidence and holes. Global warming is a fact. Man is causing the most rapid ELE in all of Earth's History.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: man is probably causing some of the global warming, but it is a very small portion of the total picture. As inimalist said, just chaning it by 1% could make a huge difference, and I agree there...but there's no evidence for or against that.

To say that


anthropogenic global warming has been debunked is definitely false. To say that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, is definitely false. It's a theory with evidence that can be used to support the theory. What we should do is ensure that our impact on what we do, does not damage our ability to survive in the future: we should also try our best to preserve life on the Earth because, as far as we know, it's the only planet in the universe that has life so it's very arrogant and horrible that we cause so much life to become extinct.



Also, poop.

inimalist
/facepalm

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
But what we do know that an anthropogenic cause is still a theory, not a fact.

We also know that the large majority of the global warming, from the past 100 years, occured before 1940 (which happens to be before the majority of greenhouse gases were emitted by man.)

We also know that periods in Earth's history had many times the amount of CO2 present, yet we had record low temperatures or temperatures around the same time period.

We do know that it has yet to be proven that CO2 really does cause global warming.

We do know that man is polluting the environment at absurd levels and that we are in the fastest ELE in all of Earth's history...caused by man.

We do know that other planets have shown some warming, too.

We do know that the temperatures in the past decade have been about the same or even cooled.

We do know that we are exiting an IceAge.



So what does that tell us?

Anthropogenic global warming is a theory, not a fact, and has contradicting evidence and holes. Global warming is a fact. Man is causing the most rapid ELE in all of Earth's History.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: man is probably causing some of the global warming, but it is a very small portion of the total picture. As inimalist said, just chaning it by 1% could make a huge difference, and I agree there...but there's no evidence for or against that.

To say that


anthropogenic global warming has been debunked is definitely false. To say that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, is definitely false. It's a theory with evidence that can be used to support the theory. What we should do is ensure that our impact on what we do, does not damage our ability to survive in the future: we should also try our best to preserve life on the Earth because, as far as we know, it's the only planet in the universe that has life so it's very arrogant and horrible that we cause so much life to become extinct.



Also, poop.
Gravity is also a theory, not a fact.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
facepalm

Fixed it for ya.



I still have the response to your post, in that other thread. It's mostly done. It's not complete, but I work on it when I get bored, at school.




And, feel free to disagree with anything I've stated above. Correct it. Pwn it. Etc.

Robtard
Originally posted by King Kandy
Gravity is also a theory, not a fact.

You sure?

Robtard
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I know it does, but the hype about global warming is manufactured by people like Al Gore to make millions of millions of $$$$$$.

I am 100% for cleaning our environment. I want clear water, and clean air, but no one should ever buy carbon credits. It is nothing but a scam.

I'd like to retract my "no one denies", certain religious groups probably do, as the Earth possibly couldn't heat and freeze in cycles, if it's only around 6k years old.

I somewhat disagree, while Gore is a fat greedy pig, his shenanigans on the matter doesn't mean man-mad Global Warming is complete bullshit.

Agreed on Carbon Credits.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
Fixed it for ya.



I still have the response to your post, in that other thread. It's mostly done. It's not complete, but I work on it when I get bored, at school.




And, feel free to disagree with anything I've stated above. Correct it. Pwn it. Etc.

its the same argument, though

you are denying the scientific consensus, which you are free to do, simply because a well funded campaign has convinced you there is something wrong with it.

There might be an interesting discussion of memes with regard to why anti-global warming ideas have spread so forcefully while the wedge strategy for intelligent design didn't, but other than that, I'm not really interested in a debate on the issue.

Its like ID again, don't take this personally, but its just I don't want to give people a forum to discuss these things, as it lends credibility to them to even address it like that. Lol, I'll get bored and do it from time to time, but I know I'm not going to convince you or anyone of anything. Hell, best case scenario, I don't make a word slip and give people a reason to discredit everything I say.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
its the same argument, though

you are denying the scientific consensus, which you are free to do, simply because a well funded campaign has convinced you there is something wrong with it.

Wha...?

That's an awful lot of assumptions, considering I believe in anthropogenic global warming. I just don't believe it to the extent as some of the libtards take it.

On top of that, I haven't been campaigned at all. That's absurd. I just recently ran across anti-man-made global warming stuff (about 2 years ago). My opinion of it still hasn't changed.

Originally posted by inimalist
There might be an interesting discussion of memes with regard to why anti-global warming ideas have spread so forcefully while the wedge strategy for intelligent design didn't, but other than that, I'm not really interested in a debate on the issue.

Wait, I thought it was the opposite: we need a discussion on the memes with regard to man-made global warming ideas spreading, quite literally.

Originally posted by inimalist
Its like ID again, don't take this personally, but its just I don't want to give people a forum to discuss these things, as it lends credibility to them to even address it like that. Lol, I'll get bored and do it from time to time, but I know I'm not going to convince you or anyone of anything. Hell, best case scenario, I don't make a word slip and give people a reason to discredit everything I say.

Lulz.

It's like, you think I think anthropogenic global warming doesn't exist.


I don't like to give a forum to people that are ape-shit over man-made global warming because they are usually idiots that focus too one sided, won't listen to reason, and deny contrary logic and evidence. I'm not saying that's you, but I've run across those idiots in my "travels."

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist

There might be an interesting discussion of memes with regard to why anti-global warming ideas have spread so forcefully while the wedge strategy for intelligent design didn't, but other than that, I'm not really interested in a debate on the issue.


Because people aren't that easily fooled by a masked "God did it!" idea, even if a supposedly genius-like individual like Ben Stein uses Argument ad Nazium to try and force the point onto us.

That and the orginal watch-argument being a rediculous comparison to a biological.

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no question global warming is going on. It has been happening for the last 12,000 years. .

This is true. However it's accelerated geometrically in the last 100-150 years, I have a hard time believing that is part of natural cycles.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
This is true. However it's accelerated geometrically in the last 100-150 years, I have a hard time believing that is part of natural cycles.

There have been four ice ages in the last ~2 million years (maybe more). In between each one of these ice ages the sea level rose to a level higher then they are today. Why would this inter glacier period be any different?

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There have been four ice ages in the last ~2 million years (maybe more). In between each one of these ice ages the sea level rose to a level higher then they are today. Why would this inter glacier period be any different?

You will get no argument from me that the earth has natural cycles of cooling and warming. What's differet about this one is the rate it's happeing. What's happened in the last couple hundred years should take several thousand.

dadudemon
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
This is true. However it's accelerated geometrically in the last 100-150 years, I have a hard time believing that is part of natural cycles.


Whaaaa?


It has?


Evidence, or it didn't happen. It's kind of leveled out in the last 10 years. Also, much more warming occured up to 1940 than in the years since then.

RocasAtoll
Well, you can easily blame that on industrialization.

dadudemon
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Well, you can easily blame that on industrialization.

But, the greenhouse gases emitted during the industrial revolution doesn't even come close to what we produce in a year.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wha...?

That's an awful lot of assumptions, considering I believe in anthropogenic global warming. I just don't believe it to the extent as some of the libtards take it.

On top of that, I haven't been campaigned at all. That's absurd. I just recently ran across anti-man-made global warming stuff (about 2 years ago). My opinion of it still hasn't changed.



Wait, I thought it was the opposite: we need a discussion on the memes with regard to man-made global warming ideas spreading, quite literally.



Lulz.

It's like, you think I think anthropogenic global warming doesn't exist.


I don't like to give a forum to people that are ape-shit over man-made global warming because they are usually idiots that focus too one sided, won't listen to reason, and deny contrary logic and evidence. I'm not saying that's you, but I've run across those idiots in my "travels."

uggh, ya, sorry man, bad day, lol

crazy extremists

King Kandy
Originally posted by Robtard
You sure?
Quite sure. Well, the fact that there is some force that pulls us to the ground is self evident. That it is gravity that causes this and it obeys the laws of gravity is a theory.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
Quite sure. Well, the fact that there is some force that pulls us to the ground is self evident. That it is gravity that causes this and it obeys the laws of gravity is a theory.

No, gravitational laws are not theories, they are laws.


Scientific Theories and laws are not the same.

I learned that, also, in 8th grade physical science. It was the chapter 4 test: the test that occured after the IU test.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, gravitational laws are not theories, they are laws.


Scientific Theories and laws are not the same.

I learned that, also, in 8th grade physical science. It was the chapter 4 test: the test that occured after the IU test.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
I never said that the laws of gravity was a theory (though in the 'theory, not a fact' sense you were using the word, they still are). I said that the notion that there is a force called gravity that obeys the laws, and it is responsible for the numerous interactions between masses we see is a theory.

inimalist
there are no immutable laws in science

the law of gravity is still subject to the fact that better observation could replace it

but technically, "graviton", "loop", and "quantum" are the theories of the gravitational law (the mechanisms that describe the concept)

Gestalt laws of perceptual grouping are a good example of this

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
I never said that the laws of gravity was a theory (though in the 'theory, not a fact' sense you were using the word, they still are). I said that the notion that there is a force called gravity that obeys the laws, and it is responsible for the numerous interactions between masses we see is a theory.

K. no expression


But you described the laws of gravity when talking about the pull you get from some force. I don't care what you say after that, you just described one of the Newtonian Laws of Gravity, but called them a theory.

I won't post on this again because it will be more annoying back-pedaling. It gets bothersome...and everyone does it here, including myself.

The aind.

Originally posted by inimalist
there are no immutable laws in science

the law of gravity is still subject to the fact that better observation could replace it

but technically, "graviton", "loop", and "quantum" are the theories of the gravitational law (the mechanisms that describe the concept)

Gestalt laws of perceptual grouping are a good example of this


Yeah, I never said that. Jsut that, there's a difference between laws and theories. Usually, there will only be exceptions to laws, but the scienfitic laws will still remain.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, I never said that. Jsut that, there's a difference between laws and theories. Usually, there will only be exceptions to laws, but the scienfitic laws will still remain.

not necessarily. I know, at least in the fields I am familiar with, the term "law" is never used in academic writing. The term comes from an earlier time in the philosophy of science, when they thought the universe could be broken down into independent laws of action (which it can and can't). So, a lot of the physics of that time has remained good, as in, the "law" of gravity is still observed through experimentation (though we have no idea of why it works that way), though others have not.

For instance, the "Gestalt Laws" of perceptual grouping, owing their name to the same tradition of science that named things laws (re: Victorian science), were very basic ways that items in a scene are grouped into perceptual wholes. They generally hold up, though no mechanism is proposed, but they are not always correct. Because the context was so important, the laws were renamed "heuristics", and today, the tendency is to do away with talk of laws altogether. Gravity has shown to be less context dependent, but that doesn't make it, in a philosophical sense, any more "law-like" than the Gestalt principles were. Another instance of this is with regard to the term "Natural Selection", which is interchangeably called a law and a theory in lay terms, but this is owed to its origins in Victorian science.

There may be definitions that you can look to as an authority on what differentiates a law and a theory, but even then, "law" isn't the appropriate term in the modern application of scientific theory. Not to be cynical, but this is probably an anachronism due to how easy it is to think of the universe as being run by these laws, but it is all just folk-science.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
There may be definitions that you can look to as an authority on what differentiates a law and a theory, but even then, "law" isn't the appropriate term in the modern application of scientific theory. Not to be cynical, but this is probably an anachronism due to how easy it is to think of the universe as being run by these laws, but it is all just folk-science.

We are saying the same things with different words with a different emphasis.

I posted "usually" in my post for a reason: the scientific laws we have in place now will, almost all of them, remain in place 100 years from now. That means that some could be "de-canonized". lulz

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
We are saying the same things with different words with a different emphasis.

I posted "usually" in my post for a reason: the scientific laws we have in place now will, almost all of them, remain in place 100 years from now. That means that some could be "de-canonized". lulz

my point is a bit different: The "laws" of science are only named such because of the era they originated in. There is no academic or scientific reason to call them laws, and it really only serves a purpose in folk-science.

jaden101
Originally posted by inimalist
my point is a bit different: The "laws" of science are only named such because of the era they originated in. There is no academic or scientific reason to call them laws, and it really only serves a purpose in folk-science.

There's only 1 law that matters...Tucker's Law.

xe3Ou9xBAlI

Robtard
Originally posted by jaden101
There's only 1 law that matters...Tucker's Law.

xe3Ou9xBAlI

Don't know what the **** that is from, but LuLz.

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
K. no expression


But you described the laws of gravity when talking about the pull you get from some force. I don't care what you say after that, you just described one of the Newtonian Laws of Gravity, but called them a theory.

I won't post on this again because it will be more annoying back-pedaling. It gets bothersome...and everyone does it here, including myself.

The aind.
No, I respectfully decline to be part of your hallucinations about what I said. Read my post again, and it should be clear to anyone who has passed first grade that I said that:



THAT IT IS GRAVITY THAT PULLS US TO THE GROUND is the theory. That is what this post says. Stop trying to force your misreadings upon others.

jaden101
Originally posted by Robtard
Don't know what the **** that is from, but LuLz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thick_of_It

Robtard
Originally posted by jaden101
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thick_of_It

Thanks, will have to give it a go, when time permits.

jaden101
You could always go straight to the film spin off....In the Loop.

Pure genius.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, I respectfully decline to be part of your hallucinations about what I said. Read my post again, and it should be clear to anyone who has passed first grade that I said that:



THAT IT IS GRAVITY THAT PULLS US TO THE GROUND is the theory. That is what this post says. Stop trying to force your misreadings upon others.

Oh, hi, KK. How are you today?


About the climate change....

King Kandy
About climate change: it's a theory. Much like atom theory or gravitational theory, or the theory of relativity. Something being a theory in science is certainly not something that makes it less true.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
About climate change: it's a theory. Much like atom theory or gravitational theory, or the theory of relativity. Something being a theory in science is certainly not something that makes it less true.

Or more true.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
Or more true.

well, considering truth is relative, I would disagree with you. Something being a valid scientific theory certainly makes it more "true" than that which is not, in almost all cases.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
well, considering truth is relative, I would disagree with you. Something being a valid scientific theory certainly makes it more "true" than that which is not, in almost all cases.

Why would you disagree with me when I was extending to King Kandy's post?

And, everytihng is relative.

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
Or more true.
Hey, i'm not the one who tried to demean global warming by saying it was a "theory, not a fact". In science there is no fact.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
Hey, i'm not the one who tried to demean global warming by saying it was a "theory, not a fact". In science there is no fact.

I didn't demean global warming. And, in science, there are facts. I don't care for these lame "deep philosophical" word semantic games being attempted. That's so stupid, like doodoo butter.

King Kandy
No, there are no facts. If something is a fact, that means it can never be refuted and thus is not falsifiable. That makes it a dogma. The possibility of something being proved wrong must always be left open.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, there are no facts. If something is a fact, that means it can never be refuted and thus is not falsifiable. That makes it a dogma. The possibility of something being proved wrong must always be left open.

So how does that change anything I sad?

Edit - Just re-read what you posted. You pretty much agreed with what I said.

Bardock42
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, there are no facts. If something is a fact, that means it can never be refuted and thus is not falsifiable. That makes it a dogma. The possibility of something being proved wrong must always be left open.

I don't know it still seems like there could be facts we just can't know, so we treat them as refutable, even though they are possibly fact. Might also not be the case though.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
And, everytihng is relative.

Nonsense, the speed of light is invariant.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nonsense, the speed of light is invariant.

I think you're joking. However, I am having a hard time figuring out where the joke is. I'm usually good at these SC jokes... sad

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think you're joking. However, I am having a hard time figuring out where the joke is. I'm usually good at these SC jokes... sad

That the speed of light is invariant is the basis of Relativity.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why would you disagree with me when I was extending to King Kandy's post?

because I agree with his point but not yours. Something being a "theory" in science does not make it less true, but in fact does make it more true than things which aren't scientific theories.

In respect to the topic at hand, the general acceptance of man's role in global warming is a scientific theory with strong bodies of evidence and little apparent contradiction, and is holds a strong consensus among relevant academics.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, everytihng is relative.

fair enough, that was sort of my point, relatively speaking, something being a scientific theory makes it more true.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, in science, there are facts. I don't care for these lame "deep philosophical" word semantic games being attempted. That's so stupid, like doodoo butter.

while you might not care for them, what you deem "word semantic games" and "doodoo butter" are actually the foundations of proper scientific rigour and methods.

you were the one who brought up the "just a theory" argument. I can't believe you would, as you should know how meaningless the phrase is. You can't make statements about philosophy of science and then back out of the discussion because it is stupid

jaden101
That's not 100% accurate. I don't think anyone will doubt man's role in global warming but it's the quantification of that role that the problem lies.

I don't think it's helped matters that the IPCC keep making complete balls ups of their reports.

1st the Himalyan glacier report that was based on an article in a climbing magazine and an undergraduate's university paper.

Now there's the issue with the rainforest report in which they used an unreferenced WWF article as the basis for the report.

It makes the IPCC seem like a bunch idiots just blindly googling things and then making reports on what nonsense they find.

I wouldn't be surprised if they write a report based on this video.

w3qFdbUEq5s

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
because I agree with his point but not yours.

Despite the fact that my point is exactly the same as his? That's odd.

He said, "50% of poop is brown." I said, "50% of poop is not brown."

Same exact point, just worded differently.

Originally posted by inimalist
Something being a "theory" in science does not make it less true, but in fact does make it more true than things which aren't scientific theories.

And, on the same exact token, something being a theory in science doesn't make it any more true than it already was. It is a theory, hopefully, with supporting evidence. It is not a scientific law, it is not a fact. It is a theory. Supporting facts are certainly helpful, but lets not put the cart before the horse. A stronger, more credible theory could come along that is supported, even better, by facts. This is the bane of theory. This is all very much a word semantics argument. I don't like it. The reason: we can argue about it forever and still not get anywhere.

Originally posted by inimalist
In respect to the topic at hand, the general acceptance of man's role in global warming is a scientific theory with strong bodies of evidence and little apparent contradiction, and is holds a strong consensus among relevant academics.

That's worded a tad biasedly, don't you think? Why wouldn't you say:

Anthropogenic global warming theory has a large body of empirical support and credible scientific community support. The opponents and critics also contain valid empiricisms and scientific supporters, but not to the extent as the proponents. Each "side", however, has lots of hot air (lulz, pun), lies, and overly zealous morons with the anthropogenic side wining in a numbers contest (simply due to the much large support for it).


Me, personally, I fall closer towards the anthropenic side, but closer towards the center. I think there's major idiots on both sides and it can be a large waste of time.



Originally posted by inimalist
while you might not care for them, what you deem "word semantic games" and "doodoo butter" are actually the foundations of proper scientific rigour and methods.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves and apply a meaning to my words that were never there.

Originally posted by inimalist
you were the one who brought up the "just a theory" argument. I can't believe you would, as you should know how meaningless the phrase is. You can't make statements about philosophy of science and then back out of the discussion because it is stupid

If that's how you view my opinion, than you didn't quite understand it the first time around.

1. I was being facetious.
2. I was passively aggressively making fun of the libtard sentiment that i was observing.
3. Some people seem to think that just that side is the end all be all of the argument/debate and that's simply not the case. Theories are still just theories. Some theories have much more support than others but, let's be honest, there's two types of theories that are being discussed here: theories and solid theories.

Made man global warming is NOT a solid theory. It's can be a strong theory, in some aspects, and very weak in others.


Damnit. You bastard. You've got me arguing the word semantics of it, just like I did NOT want to. laughing




Originally posted by jaden101
I don't think anyone will doubt man's role in global warming but it's the quantification of that role that the problem lies.

Bingo.

Edit - Just watched that youtube vid. Holy shit, that b**** is annoying. We need a code 187 at her residence, stat.

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
And, on the same exact token, something being a theory in science doesn't make it any more true than it already was. It is a theory, hopefully, with supporting evidence. It is not a scientific law, it is not a fact. It is a theory. Supporting facts are certainly helpful, but lets not put the cart before the horse. A stronger, more credible theory could come along that is supported, even better, by facts. This is the bane of theory. This is all very much a word semantics argument. I don't like it. The reason: we can argue about it forever and still not get anywhere.
It being a theory makes it as valid as anything else in science including laws. In fact as a theory encompasses a large variety of evidence, it is actually much more difficult to refute, since a law is merely a mathematical relationship that could be shown not to be true. Laymen have the idea that law>theory because they have the "theory=guess" definition stuck in their mind, but it is not so in any way.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
It being a theory makes it as valid as anything else in science including laws. In fact as a theory encompasses a large variety of evidence, it is actually much more difficult to refute, since a law is merely a mathematical relationship that could be shown not to be true. Laymen have the idea that law>theory because they have the "theory=guess" definition stuck in their mind, but it is not so in any way.

No, you're right.


I'll continue to incorrectly believe that not all theories were created equal and that some people give to much credence to theories that shouldn't be given. If I'm wrong, I'll learn eventually.


Peace, bro.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.