NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/24/climate.change.ap/index.html

Doesn't this scare the piss out of you just a tad?

Is that what it's supposed to do? Cause fear?

How useful!

It hasn't broken -2C here in NYC for a few weeks. It's been -15C most mornings. Global warming? Bring it on!!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/24/climate.change.ap/index.html

Doesn't this scare the piss out of you just a tad?

It's even worse when you consider it all happened before (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12010848%5E30417,00.html) -- 250 million years ago.

It's even worse when you consider it all happened before (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12010848%5E30417,00.html) -- 250 million years ago.

Stupid ancient animals and their fancy pants deoderants, they ruin it for everyone else

How is this any different from the doomsayers in the 70's saying that we would be plunged into an ice age? The quacks don't know what they're talking about.

How is this any different from the doomsayers in the 70's saying that we would be plunged into an ice age? The quacks don't know what they're talking about.

Apparently that Ice-Age may still be in the pipeline if the gulf steam is affected by falling sallinity levels in the North Sea. Hod on I'll try and find an article...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/24/climate.change.ap/index.html

Doesn't this scare the piss out of you just a tad?

Not really. I only see the positive side of global warming. Less snow each winter, blahblahblah. By the time it really gets bad I'll be dead and really couldn't care that much anyway. Damn my children's children. What have they done for me anyway?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/bigchilltrans.shtml

Damn my children's children. What have they done for me anyway?

They haven't come back in time to kick your ass.

We should all be terrified of violent and pissed off descendants.

Not really. I only see the positive side of global warming. Less snow each winter, blahblahblah. By the time it really gets bad I'll be dead and really couldn't care that much anyway. Damn my children's children. What have they done for me anyway?
Sounds like you will be the first in line to scream "Why didn't anyone do anything to stop this from happening?" when the shit hits the fan (pan-ecologically speaking, that is) during your lifetime. Now that would be ironic.

It hasn't broken -2C here in NYC for a few weeks. It's been -15C most mornings. Global warming? Bring it on!!

The jet stream going south one season is apparently enough reason to dispel global warming.

Is that what it's supposed to do? Cause fear?

How useful!
How about you try to discuss the issue?

How is this any different from the doomsayers in the 70's saying that we would be plunged into an ice age? The quacks don't know what they're talking about.
Sure, yeah, reject all the evidence. I'm sure that if Bush was in favour of Kyoto you would be fully behind the environmentalists, you partisan American.

And yet, I found a report that stated that satellite data indicated that the temperature in the atmosphere DROPPED instead of climbing!

Global Warming?

Not believing it after all it is only a THEORY and not fact.

The kyoto treaty was so full of holes it wasn't worth a dime. It allowed developing countries to pollute as much as they wanted to and 1st world countries could buy their polluting rights to continue polluting themselves.

He probably doesn't live in a coastal city...

London's flood defences, at current rate of water level rise are good for another 10 years at most. When water in the alps melts, flows down the Rhine and into the North Sea, collects in the Thames Estuary and then floods the city, swamps the tube, causing pathogen laced sewage to get into the streets, cholera outbreaks...

Well they won't get much from here until at least Jan 2009.

He probably doesn't live in a coastal city...

London's flood defences, at current rate of water level rise are good for another 10 years at most. When water in the alps melts, flows down the Rhine and into the North Sea, collects in the Thames Estuary and then floods the city, swamps the tube, causing pathogen laced sewage to get into the streets, cholera outbreaks...
And I was wondering where all our snow goes every year...:p

Not really. I only see the positive side of global warming. Less snow each winter, blahblahblah. By the time it really gets bad I'll be dead and really couldn't care that much anyway. Damn my children's children. What have they done for me anyway?Well, some of the earlier effects of the warming trend could possibly be unusual weather patterns such as increased rainfall, more powerful and numerous hurricanes, extreme flooding in some areas, &c. Some of this may well show up within your lifetime, perhaps within the next twenty or so years. Who knows? We might even be seeing it already.

Funny...I'm not scared at all.

Global warming isn't real.

Well, some of the earlier effects of the warming trend could possibly be unusual weather patterns such as increased rainfall, more powerful and numerous hurricanes, extreme flooding in some areas, &c. Some of this may well show up within your lifetime, perhaps within the next twenty or so years. Who knows? We might even be seeing it already.

And some of this could all be part of a cyclical Weather Pattern. We do not know much about weather events unless there are records that we have uncovered. We do know about those from the 1860s on luckily enough and they show certain storms and weather events every so number of years.

So is it really Global Warming or is it all part of one massive Weather Cycle?

Here's some links to sites detailing some of the problems with Kyoto:

http://www-pub.naz.edu:9000/~nanatoli/us.htm

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/12.02/05-warm.html

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.15495/article_detail.asp

http://www.freedominst.org/2004/12/climate-change-and-kyoto-treaty.html

http://www.ct-yankee.com/manfctry/kyoto.html

Well, since I happen to know the people who found the ozone hole in the Antarctic all those years ago, I'm not worried at all. The latest theory is that isn't in fact enough fossil fuels left in the world to cause that 'dreaded 2 degree rise'.

But, even so, we do need to cut down on emissions anyway, especially the US. If we can get the same power out of an 2 litre engine that they need a 4 litre for, perhaps American engineers ought to start focusing on smaller, far more efficient engines?

well its most likely a combination, a natural weather pattern, sped up and intensified by the pollution in our water, air, etc. and the ever-growing hole in the ozone.
and im no scientist, but i live in norway and every year its snows, sometimes tons and sometimes not much, but this year there was almost no snow over christmas, and then there were a few weeks with no snow and temperatures of around +4'C, so quite a bit of rain. it is projected that this will become the norm for norwegian winters...is something not right or is it just me...?

Quote:
U.S. President George W. Bush has rejected the Kyoto accord, arguing that the carbon emission cuts it demands would damage the U.S. economy

Yes, what would they do without their cheap gas and low taxes?
Probably die, since they don't mind killing the rest of us.

He probably doesn't live in a coastal city...

London's flood defences, at current rate of water level rise are good for another 10 years at most. When water in the alps melts, flows down the Rhine and into the North Sea, collects in the Thames Estuary and then floods the city, swamps the tube, causing pathogen laced sewage to get into the streets, cholera outbreaks...


Ummmmm ok. The alp's runoff would flood the north sea , lol :rolleyes:

Quote:
U.S. President George W. Bush has rejected the Kyoto accord, arguing that the carbon emission cuts it demands would damage the U.S. economy

Yes, what would they do without their cheap gas and low taxes?
Probably die, since they don't mind killing the rest of us.

Quote:
US President Bill Clinton Signs Kyoto

Quote:
Senate Resolution 98 passed in 1997 with a vote of 95-0! The Byrde-Hagel Resolution was a denouncement of Kyoto

So you see, not only did Bush Reject it (Thank God) but the US Senate Rejected it FIRST in 1997!

Well, since I happen to know the people who found the ozone hole in the Antarctic all those years ago, I'm not worried at all. The latest theory is that isn't in fact enough fossil fuels left in the world to cause that 'dreaded 2 degree rise'.

But, even so, we do need to cut down on emissions anyway, especially the US. If we can get the same power out of an 2 litre engine that they need a 4 litre for, perhaps American engineers ought to start focusing on smaller, far more efficient engines?

I can assure you that we do indeed have TONS of fossil fuels left. I live in a area with some of the highest deposits in the world, 2nd to the saudis. (one reason we are rich)

I can assure you that we do indeed have TONS of fossil fuels left. I live in a area with some of the highest deposits in the world, 2nd to the saudis. (one reason we are rich)

Yes, I know we do. But one theory is that there isn't enough to cause the fabled Ice Age.

And yet, I found a report that stated that satellite data indicated that the temperature in the atmosphere DROPPED instead of climbing!

Global Warming?

Not believing it after all it is only a THEORY and not fact.Okay, then keep your head buried in the sand. Fine by me. I'm still getting a Sequel. The temperature of the atmosphere tends to rise and fall, and it takes several measurements to acquire enough data to make a good estimate as to where it may be going. If you want to trust the results of one measurement, though, hey, go right ahead.

Okay, then keep your head buried in the sand. Fine by me. I'm still getting a Sequel. The temperature of the atmosphere tends to rise and fall, and it takes several measurements to acquire enough data to make a good estimate where it may be going. If you want to trust the results of one measurement, though, hey, go right ahead.

Dude, the same people that are spouting Global Warming are the exact same ones that were spouting Global Cooling. I'm not the only one that needs more data but from the data that I am seeing, alot of our massive weather phenomona are caused by weather cycles.

My hometown gets hit with a blizzard every 10 years roughly! Denver gets one every 20! These are but 2 examples of weather events that these people try to pin on Global Warming and it has been debunked thanks to weather records that have been kept.

Quote:
US President Bill Clinton Signs Kyoto

Quote:
Senate Resolution 98 passed in 1997 with a vote of 95-0! The Byrde-Hagel Resolution was a denouncement of Kyoto

So you see, not only did Bush Reject it (Thank God) but the US Senate Rejected it FIRST in 1997!

Exactly.
You remind me of the old Romans: It's all bread and games to you.
And we're the gladiators out there, fighting for our survival.

And some of this could all be part of a cyclical Weather Pattern. We do not know much about weather events unless there are records that we have uncovered. We do know about those from the 1860s on luckily enough and they show certain storms and weather events every so number of years.

So is it really Global Warming or is it all part of one massive Weather Cycle?It really isn't easy to tell for certain, to tell you the truth. It may be one, it may be the other, and it may be both. Either way, I suggest going for the more efficient vehicle, though. It'll save you money in the long-run even if it is proven that we won't start seeing any effects before mid-century.

Yanks will fuck up the planet before they renounce one of their AC or four-wheel drive. :rolleyes: "American way of life is not negociable" dixit an Alzheimer patient.

Dude, the same people that are spouting Global Warming are the exact same ones that were spouting Global Cooling.A broken clock tells the right time twice a day.

I'm not the only one that needs more data but from the data that I am seeing, alot of our massive weather phenomona are caused by weather cycles.

My hometown gets hit with a blizzard every 10 years roughly! Denver gets one every 20! These are but 2 examples of weather events that these people try to pin on Global Warming and it has been debunked thanks to weather records that have been kept.Yes, I've heard of the weather cycles. I'm pretty confident that there's some substance to it. However, there is also evidence that humans could be having an impact on the weather patterns as well, and I don't think that we should put ourselves more at risk than we have to.

It really isn't easy to tell for certain, to tell you the truth. It may be one, it may be the other, and it may be both. Either way, I suggest going for the more efficient vehicle, though. It'll save you money in the long-run even if it is proven that we won't start seeing any effects before mid-century.

Your right! It isn't easy to tell. We've only been studying Atmospheric Temperatures since we started putting up Satellites which means we only have 40 odd years of data.

In the grand scheme of things, not enough time to formulate patterns.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/24/climate.change.ap/index.html

Doesn't this scare the piss out of you just a tad?

I had a feeling it might be coming anyway. I only hope I get to see the "global warming isnt real" people suffering before I die.

Dude, the same people that are spouting Global Warming are the exact same ones that were spouting Global Cooling.

A broken clock tells the right time twice a day.

Your right it is right twice a day but I find it suspicious that the people spouting Global cooling are now spouting Global Warming.

Yes, I've heard of the weather cycles. I'm pretty confident that there's some substance to it. However, there is also evidence that humans could be having an impact on the weather patterns as well, and I don't think that we should put ourselves more at risk than we have to.

We don't have enough data to know for sure that what your saying is going on. Till there is more data, I'll remain suspicious.

Well, since I happen to know the people who found the ozone hole in the Antarctic all those years ago, I'm not worried at all. The latest theory is that isn't in fact enough fossil fuels left in the world to cause that 'dreaded 2 degree rise'.

But, even so, we do need to cut down on emissions anyway, especially the US. If we can get the same power out of an 2 litre engine that they need a 4 litre for, perhaps American engineers ought to start focusing on smaller, far more efficient engines?
Thats pretty cool, maybe you could answer a question thats been bugging me. My chemistry teacher freshman year of highschool said that the hole in the ozone layer was caused by the space shuttle. Is there any credence to this? It was hard to tell with the him, since he accused us of turning him into an alcoholic and cursed at us in Polish and Italian. :D

Thats pretty cool, maybe you could answer a question thats been bugging me. My chemistry teacher freshman year of highschool said that the hole in the ozone layer was caused by the space shuttle. Is there any credence to this? It was hard to tell with the him, since he accused us of turning him into an alcoholic and cursed at us in Polish and Italian. :D

No, the Space Shuttle DID NOT cause the hole in the Ozone Layer.

I'm sorry, I'm recovering from the flu I got shoveling through the snow this weekend. Global Warming doesn't scare me.

Thats pretty cool, maybe you could answer a question thats been bugging me. My chemistry teacher freshman year of highschool said that the hole in the ozone layer was caused by the space shuttle. Is there any credence to this? It was hard to tell with the him, since he accused us of turning him into an alcoholic and cursed at us in Polish and Italian. :D

It's caused by CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) which act as a catalyst and make ozone break down into normal oxygen. That space shuttle stuff was probably bollocks.

My personal views:

`There isn't as much proof of the phemonomon of Global warming as most of it's supporters make out
`It's better to be safe than sorry
`Even if global warming specifically isn't a threat, the massive amount of pollution currently happening isn't a good thing
`A large motivating factor in America's decision to abandon Kyoto was a purely selfish concern with their economy, along with a well-documented disdain for being told what to do by other countries - right or wrong
`There's a lot of filthy-rich Americans with their hands in oil (so to speak) and an undue amount of political power
`Kyoto wasn't perfect

It's caused by CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) which act as a catalyst and make ozone break down into normal oxygen. That space shuttle stuff was probably bollocks.

And yet, the Northern Hemisphere produces far more CFCs than the Southern Hemisphere and most people said it was caused by the CFCs traveling from North to South which is impossible to do considering the rotation of the Earth. So why isn't there a hole in the Ozone Layer over the Artic?

Besides, some years it is shrinking and in other years, expanding. Why is that?

Your right it is right twice a day but I find it suspicious that the people spouting Global cooling are now spouting Global Warming.Well, it's not just one group. Don't listen to the hippies because they are Richard Craniums and will say it's the end of the world no matter what kind of car you're driving. They're like Amish with long hair. A lot of legitimate research has been put into the Global Warming theory, however, and though there is always a chance that it will be deemed incorrect after the next paradigm shift, I'm hedging my bets with the strongest theory of the day.

We don't have enough data to know for sure that what your saying is going on. Till there is more data, I'll remain suspicious.Go ahead and remain suspicious, but more efficient cars are cheaper to drive and usually easier to park. This isn't something that some hippie came up with while he was stoned, you know.

Nope, because this "global warming" thing is BS. Why are some regions getting colder? Look at the evidence, especially temperature timelines, and you'll see why it's not a real issue.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8031222&postcount=11

And yet, the Northern Hemisphere produces far more CFCs than the Southern Hemisphere and most people said it was caused by the CFCs traveling from North to South which is impossible to do considering the rotation of the Earth. So why isn't there a hole in the Ozone Layer over the Artic?

Besides, some years it is shrinking and in other years, expanding. Why is that?

Well there sure as hell aren't any space shuttles taking off from Antarctica. I'd say they moved by wind currents, but I'm no geography expect.

I guess it's expanding and shrinking because it's a gas, and gas has a tendency to move around. Expansion and shrinking is caused by changes in temperature.

Well, it's not just one group. Don't listen to the hippies because they are Richard Craniums and will say it's the end of the world no matter what kind of car you're driving. They're like Amish with long hair. A lot of legitimate research has been put into the Global Warming theory, however, and though there is always a chance that it will be deemed incorrect after the next paradigm shift, I'm hedging my bets with the strongest theory of the day.

I rather like the Amish and my university is in the middle of Amish Country. As for hinging your bets, mine is the other way. I'm glad that we are discussing this rationally though. :)

Go ahead and remain suspicious, but more efficient cars are cheaper to drive and usually easier to park. This isn't something that some hippie came up with while he was stoned, you know.

I won't argue there but what would you use as a power source? Hydrogen? I saw a report somewhere that it may not be as clean as people are saying it is but I'm going to have to find it.

I won't argue there but what would you use as a power source? Hydrogen? I saw a report somewhere that it may not be as clean as people are saying it is but I'm going to have to find it.

Depends how you make the hydrogen. If it's made by solar, and stored in rechargeable fuel cells, it's fine. If it's made from fossil fuels, and the waste (water vapour) is let out as exhaust, it's crap.

But you don't have to use different fuel to get more efficiency, just a more efficient engine.

Well there sure as hell aren't any space shuttles taking off from Antarctica. I'd say they moved by wind currents, but I'm no geography expect.

Can't be done by wind currents. The Coriolis Effect prevents winds from the Northern Hemisphere to go over the equator into the Southern Hemisphere and vice Versa. Therefore, why isn't there a hole in the Ozone of the Artic and the Northern Hemisphere but only over the Antartic in the Southern Hemisphere?

I guess it's expanding and shrinking because it's a gas, and gas has a tendency to move around. Expansion and shrinking is caused by changes in temperature.

Or another possible theory, and that is all it is, is that it has always been there and it is like a release valve. Some years, it'll let it more UV Rays and other years, it blocks most of it out. I'm not sure if there is a way to test this theory but in some ways, it seems logical but in other ways it isn't.

Ummmmm ok. The alp's runoff would flood the north sea , lol

You ever heard of the River Rhine?

Or another possible theory, and that is all it is, is that it has always been there and it is like a release valve. Some years, it'll let it more UV Rays and other years, it blocks most of it out. I'm not sure if there is a way to test this theory but in some ways, it seems logical but in other ways it isn't.

Anyway, the CFC's thing I was taught in a chemistry lesson. I didn't just read it in a tabloid newspaper or anything.

At least if it's over Antarctica, there's not much risk of it giving sunbathers skin cancer.

Anyway, the CFC's thing I was taught in a chemistry lesson. I didn't just read it in a tabloid newspaper or anything.

I did too till I got ahold of the Coriolis Effect and realized that it is impossible for CFCs from the North to travel into the Southern Hemisphere.

At least if it's over Antarctica, there's not much risk of it giving sunbathers skin cancer.

Think of the Penquins :D

you know, if some of you people had any brains, intelligence, foresight, whatever, to actually do some research on global warming before you go around saying "blah blah yeah global warming is rubbish, why is it getting colder here?" then you would have understood already, that GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT MEAN WARMING EVERYWHERE.

Global warming means an average rise in the temperature of the planet, WHICH MEANS that SOME AREAS WILL GET HOTTER ON AVERAGE which will divert certain streams of air and ocean currents, and therefore OTHER PLACES WILL GET COLDER ON AVERAGE.

It has to do with balances and such, because in the case of global warming, the balance is reset in some areas at a higher temperature, but at a lower one in others.

The jet stream going south one season is apparently enough reason to dispel global warming.

How many winters have you spent in New York and New England?

I wouldn't mind a fine Connecticut merlot... the kind that hasn't really existed for the past 1000 years. (Thank you, Lief Erikson!)

you know, if some of you people had any brains, intelligence, foresight, whatever, to actually do some research on global warming before you go around saying "blah blah yeah global warming is rubbish, why is it getting colder here?" then you would have understood already, that GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT MEAN WARMING EVERYWHERE.

Global warming means an average rise in the temperature of the planet, WHICH MEANS that SOME AREAS WILL GET HOTTER ON AVERAGE which will divert certain streams of air and ocean currents, and therefore OTHER PLACES WILL GET COLDER ON AVERAGE.

It has to do with balances and such, because in the case of global warming, the balance is reset in some areas at a higher temperature, but at a lower one in others.

And why is it, that when someone does not agree with someone else, the second person usually does this and accuses them of not being versed in the subject?

Remember, this is still a theory, not a law. One can't dispute entropy or gravity, but this is fair game.

And why is it, that when someone does not agree with someone else, the second person usually does this and accuses them of not being versed in the subject?

Remember, this is still a theory, not a law. One can't dispute entropy or gravity, but this is fair game.

I will agree with you there Markreich

And why is it, that when someone does not agree with someone else, the second person usually does this and accuses them of not being versed in the subject?

Remember, this is still a theory, not a law. One can't dispute entropy or gravity, but this is fair game.

i know it is just theory, but if i am going to give an opinion of that theory, and the people who espouse it, i would rather know it well than not, and come off looking silly.

i can look silly on my own, as you have pointed out.

If this whole Global Warming issue is so damn important, then why isn't it the main CNN science headline? Instead, some article about the mars landings takes prime position.

I concur

It hasn't broken -2C here in NYC for a few weeks. It's been -15C most mornings. Global warming? Bring it on!!

Ok, let's bring on Global Warming. Bingo. Now, instead of a metre of snow, you have a metre of water..

Also, a theory is an accepted hypothesis. Which can mean it's as good as fact. The Theory of Gravity is not disputed is it? Face it: the world is getting hotter, because of us. And it'll come back to kick us in our lifetimes.

Sure, yeah, reject all the evidence. I'm sure that if Bush was in favour of Kyoto you would be fully behind the environmentalists, you partisan American.
No I wouldn't you Irish hack. Kyoto didn't limit the output of third world countries that are rapidly starting to produce massive amounts of CO2 and some of them are producing a hell of a lot of CFC's. Ergo in the long run it wouldn't change anything.

It hasn't broken -2C here in NYC for a few weeks. It's been -15C most mornings. Global warming? Bring it on!!

Yes. That's it! Insulate myself from the problems of the world because it's too hard to see past the end of my own nose! That's the American way!

Quote:
US President Bill Clinton Signs Kyoto

Quote:
Senate Resolution 98 passed in 1997 with a vote of 95-0! The Byrde-Hagel Resolution was a denouncement of Kyoto

So you see, not only did Bush Reject it (Thank God) but the US Senate Rejected it FIRST in 1997!

So, what you're essentially saying is that the whole idea of preserving the environment is bad? Why?

Look, the world won't "end" if all this comes to pass. But, it will be OUR end on this world. We're not ruining the planet, we're just ruining it for us, and that is the concept that contiually slips through the grasp of those who are against the environment. Sad, just sad.

Remember, this is still a theory, not a law. One can't dispute entropy or gravity, but this is fair game.
At this point it's more like a hypothesis than a theory.

i know it is just theory, but if i am going to give an opinion of that theory, and the people who espouse it, i would rather know it well than not, and come off looking silly.

i can look silly on my own, as you have pointed out.

And there's nothing wrong with that... I'm just pointing out that not everyone who doesn't "see the light" is ignorant. Only fifty years ago, TV was a fad. A hundred? Most people believed man would never fly. Five hundred? The Earth is flat and you'll fall off if you sail too far. :)
Is Global Warming true? Who knows. It could be as right as 2+2=4, or as flawed as eugenics...

None of it. You're as entitled as anyone to your say.

There is some evidence of global warming. There is some evidence that it's caused by human waste. Is this conclusive evidence? No, but it's very good evidence, but we won't know for sure before some years or decades.

The thing is that this is one of those things for which it's better to do something now even if nothing happens in the long run, than doing nothing and then it's too late.

The economy of the US and other countries won't be as badly hurt, since the old polluting technologies would be replaced with new ones that would generate their own profit and employee base.

It's also an excellent pretext to invest in alternate sources of energy, like biosources, deep-sea methane, and hydrogen; which will dominate the energy market for the next two centuries or so.

Yes. That's it! Insulate myself from the problems of the world because it's too hard to see past the end of my own nose! That's the American way!

As soon as you solve a single of the world's problems, you drop me a line. Until then, I'll work on solving my own/family's/friend's problems : at least those I can make a difference in.

PS: Complaining about Americans: that's the un-American way! :p
(I really don't care for you anti-American racists...)

As soon as you solve a single of the world's problems, you drop me a line. Until then, I'll work on solving my own/family's/friend's problems : at least those I can make a difference in.

PS: Complaining about Americans: that's the un-American way! :p
(I really don't care for you anti-American racists...)


Where did racism enter this in any way. Please feel free to re-read my post, and then point out where racism came into anything I said at all. And all it takes to make a difference in any problem is to make an effort. Which is where the whole "end of my own nose" thing comes into play again. :p

Where did racism enter this in any way. Please feel free to re-read my post, and then point out where racism came into anything I said at all. And all it takes to make a difference in any problem is to make an effort. Which is where the whole "end of my own nose" thing comes into play again. :p

Maybe you accidentally used irony.

I concur

Ok, let's bring on Global Warming. Bingo. Now, instead of a metre of snow, you have a metre of water..

Also, a theory is an accepted hypothesis. Which can mean it's as good as fact. The Theory of Gravity is not disputed is it? Face it: the world is getting hotter, because of us. And it'll come back to kick us in our lifetimes.

Aha. Like Pangenesis? http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861723474/pangenesis.html
Or the Obtuse Angle? http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/saccheri.htm
Or any one of thousands of "truths" that have been disproved in time?

Face it: the world is getting hotter. Maybe. :)

Ok, let's bring on Global Warming. Bingo. Now, instead of a metre of snow, you have a metre of water..

Also, a theory is an accepted hypothesis. Which can mean it's as good as fact. The Theory of Gravity is not disputed is it? Face it: the world is getting hotter, because of us. And it'll come back to kick us in our lifetimes.
A meter of ice means less than a meter of water, first of all. Secondly, there is no Theory of Global Warming like there is a Theory of Evolution. Instead, someone has a theory that global warming may be being caused by human activities and that it may have catastrophic effects. Not nearly in the same class of idea.

what I dont get about this debate is that both sides seem to be full of retards.

On the one hand if emissions are causing global warming, and while the science is a little divided and fruity on the subject, why the fuck would you not try and reduce emissions just in case?

On the other side, why are all the environmentalists making global warming out like its PROVEN. Its not its a theory. That does not mean we shouldnt plan for it but you sound like fucking knuckleheads with all this doomsday crap.

That being said, Canada could do its part by closing a SINGLE powerplant in ontario, I believe its the pickering plant and it contributes about 5% of our CO2. Build a natural gas plant or a another nuke plant and our job is done.

Where did racism enter this in any way. Please feel free to re-read my post, and then point out where racism came into anything I said at all.

[QUOTE=Molnervia]Yes. That's it! Insulate myself from the problems of the world because it's too hard to see past the end of my own nose! That's the American way!
Your statement was pure anti-American bigotry. So, you got a little thown back at you, you close minded xenophobic racist.


And all it takes to make a difference in any problem is to make an effort. Which is where the whole "end of my own nose" thing comes into play again. :p

A difference? What do I have to do? I take public transportation 80% of the time. I cut and split my own firewood and keep my house at 60F at all times. I do not own an SUV. Oh, and I eat the fish I catch.

So what the heck else do I need to do in order to make myself "acceptable" for your little (as yet unproved!) theory? Feh. The point of the matter is that your post said nothing constructive. Therefore, I am replying in kind.

A meter of ice means less than a meter of water, first of all. Secondly, there is no Theory of Global Warming like there is a Theory of Evolution. Instead, someone has a theory that global warming may be being caused by human activities and that it may have catastrophic effects. Not nearly in the same class of idea.

Nota bene: Evolution is also still a theory that has not been proven beyond a doubt.

While I do believe in it, I also know some who don't.

[QUOTE=Molnervia]Where did racism enter this in any way. Please feel free to re-read my post, and then point out where racism came into anything I said at all.


Your statement was pure anti-American bigotry. So, you got a little thown back at you, you close minded xenophobic racist.



A difference? What do I have to do? I take public transportation 80% of the time. I cut and split my own firewood and keep my house at 60F at all times. I do not own an SUV. Oh, and I eat the fish I catch.

So what the heck else do I need to do in order to make myself "acceptable" for your little (as yet unproved!) theory? Feh. The point of the matter is that your post said nothing constructive. Therefore, I am replying in kind.

you keep your house at 60F ? thanks jesus! lol

And yet, the Northern Hemisphere produces far more CFCs than the Southern Hemisphere and most people said it was caused by the CFCs traveling from North to South which is impossible to do considering the rotation of the Earth. So why isn't there a hole in the Ozone Layer over the Artic?

Besides, some years it is shrinking and in other years, expanding. Why is that?

http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs/Assessment98/faq6.html

"Why Has an Ozone Hole Appeared over Antarctica When CFCs and Halons Are Released Mainly in the Northern Hemisphere?"

read it.

Nota bene: Evolution is also still a theory that has not been proven beyond a doubt.

While I do believe in it, I also know some who don't.
Ultimately, it is impossible to prove beyond a doubt that humanity evolved from primates because there is no know time machine that would allow us to find out. The only way to determine if evolution really works on a truly massive scale would be to have a continous study that lasted anywhere from a couple hundered thousand years to a couple million years. That is highly unlikely to occur.

Dude, the same people that are spouting Global Warming are the exact same ones that were spouting Global Cooling.

then how do you explain the abundance of papers on the evidence for (and effects of) global warming that are published in peer-reviewed journals? and the lack of such for 'the coming ice age' a few decades back?

A meter of ice means less than a meter of water, first of all. Secondly, there is no Theory of Global Warming like there is a Theory of Evolution. Instead, someone has a theory that global warming may be being caused by human activities and that it may have catastrophic effects. Not nearly in the same class of idea.

Global Warming is not a theory, it's a phenomenon that's being observed. The question remains on whether this is a real definite trend or just a bump and on what causes it.

The most accepted hypothesis on the cause (I don't think there's enough evidence to call it theory, since there is so little experimentation) is that human CO2 emmissions are the cause.

Remember, this is still a theory, not a law. One can't dispute entropy or gravity, but this is fair game.

someone needs to learn the scientific meanings of the words 'theory' and 'law'...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/24/climate.change.ap/index.html

Doesn't this scare the piss out of you just a tad?
I didn't read it, but it should scare the pissing hell out of you! We are in denial about global warming.

http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs/Assessment98/faq6.html

"Why Has an Ozone Hole Appeared over Antarctica When CFCs and Halons Are Released Mainly in the Northern Hemisphere?"

read it.

Problem!

The Coriolis Effect would prevent anything from the Northern Hemisphere from entering the Southern Hemisphere.

Its a nice explaination but anyone with a brain would see that it is impossible for crap from the Northern Hemisphere to move into the Souther Hemisphere, regardless of wind patterns.

Read up on the Coriolis Effect.

then how do you explain the abundance of papers on the evidence for (and effects of) global warming that are published in peer-reviewed journals? and the lack of such for 'the coming ice age' a few decades back?

Take a look at the journals that also pointed to evidence of another Ice Age! I'm sure you'll see the same names on them.

Besides, aren't we coming out of an Ice Age anyway?

someone needs to learn the scientific meanings of the words 'theory' and 'law'...

The LAW of UNIVERSAL GRAVITY ring a bell?

How is this any different from the doomsayers in the 70's saying that we would be plunged into an ice age? The quacks don't know what they're talking about.



EXACTLY. Global warming is a fallacy created by the liberal media. For what reasons, I don't know. But then again, does the liberal media have reasons for what they do?

I didn't read it, but it should scare the pissing hell out of you! We are in denial about global warming.

Then run around scared!

Its nothing more than a Theory!

[QUOTE=Markreich]

you keep your house at 60F ? thanks jesus! lol


Thanks. ;)

(Actually, I just hate buying heating oil...)

Then run around scared!

Its nothing more than a Theory!
It's not a Theory. It's a theory.

Ultimately, it is impossible to prove beyond a doubt that humanity evolved from primates because there is no know time machine that would allow us to find out.

The only way to determine if evolution really works on a truly massive scale would be to have a continous study that lasted anywhere from a couple hundered thousand years to a couple million years. That is highly unlikely to occur.

Not necessarily true.
As we unravel the genome, we gain insight. There are already comparitive studies between the human genome and the genome of other creatures, such as the mosquito/fly. There's no reason not to expect that someone will do a historical genome comparitive study in the near to medium-term future.

Ok, let's bring on Global Warming. Bingo. Now, instead of a metre of snow, you have a metre of water..

Also, a theory is an accepted hypothesis. Which can mean it's as good as fact. The Theory of Gravity is not disputed is it? Face it: the world is getting hotter, because of us. And it'll come back to kick us in our lifetimes.
It is to my knowledge that fluffy snow tends to be less dense than liquid water. Also, you might want to check your definition of theory.

theory 1 a mental viewing; contemplation. 2 that branch of an art or science consisting in a knowledge of its principles and methods rather than in its practice; pure, as opposed to applied, science, etc.

Over the course of three hundred years, the earth goes from quite coldish to rather warmish. Then it goes back again. True, emissions don't help, but it's mostly a drop in the ocean. Not to say that emissions shouldn't be controlled and more renewable energy should be implemented, but there are many more serious problems to attend to.

someone needs to learn the scientific meanings of the words 'theory' and 'law'...

Yes. Obviously, you do.
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/Biol%203380/3380theory.html

(I've truncated these for brevity)

LAW
1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)

2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).


THEORY
3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].

Hmm.
Law: appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing;
vs.
Theory: accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation

You were saying? :D

EXACTLY. Global warming is a fallacy created by the liberal media. For what reasons, I don't know. But then again, does the liberal media have reasons for what they do?

It may be true, it may not be true. But it sure does help the ratings!

It may be true, it may not be true. But it sure does help the ratings!

No arguement here!

EXACTLY. the liberal media is a fallacy created by the Fox news network. For what reasons, I know. Its good for the ratings.








Think about it. They say all other media are all biased to the left then be biased to the right which over 50% of americans agree with, its very smart.

Well, allow me to simply point to the Oregon Petition, and then calmly exit the debate on global warming. I think that it does make it reasonably clear that global warming due to CO2 emissions is by no means an undisputed fact in the scientific community.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm

Still, there is a limited amount of fossile fuel and such on the planet, so using what we have as efficiently as possible is just sensible.

EXACTLY. the liberal media is a fallacy created by the Fox news network. For what reasons, I know. Its good for the ratings.

Think about it. They say all other media are all biased to the left then be biased to the right which over 50% of americans agree with, its very smart.

Well, bias is almost inevitable in reporting news, and bias is also very subjective. Someone who leans to the left might say that Fox News is radically right-wing while CNN is always fair and balanced. Likewise, a right-wing person will find Fox News fair and balanced and CNN biased to the left.

Basically everyone is biased, Fox News just gets noted for being biased more to the right than the rest of the networks, and being more obvious about it. Of course, I prefer networks with a blatant bias, since all news is biased it is better to listen to news with an obvious bias that can be detected and dismissed than subtly biased news where you might not note the bias and thus be effected by it.

Hmm.
Law: appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing;
vs.
Theory: accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation

You were saying? :D

which means that a law is sort of like a theory but not as robust. a law is a relation between data without necessarily containing much explanatory power. in other words theory > law.

the fact of gravity is that masses attract each other.
the law of gravity is the mathematical relation of that attraction.
the theory of gravity is the explanation thereof that makes testable predictions and so far has passed all the serious tests thrown at it.

to (accurately) say that global warming is a theory is merely to say that it is currently the best available explanation for the data at hand.

Take a look at the journals that also pointed to evidence of another Ice Age! I'm sure you'll see the same names on them.

ah, excellent, then you must have some sources at hand. cite them please. i dare you.

I rather like the Amish and my university is in the middle of Amish Country. As for hinging your bets, mine is the other way. I'm glad that we are discussing this rationally though. :)Well, neither of us really has much of an emotional investment here. Personally, I think that it would be wisest to make plans for the future. I think that Kyoto, while not perfect, is an important first step toward creating standards for this sort of thing, and I think that, after much revision, it is likely to be of great value. I have a different scope from most here, though. I think that, while we'll probably see some bad weather in the near term, a long-term plan is needed to secure the future, and that's going to require planning, planning, study, planning, planning, and more study. Personally, I'm one to plan for the worst, and it's looking to me like Global Warming is quite real.

I won't argue there but what would you use as a power source? Hydrogen? I saw a report somewhere that it may not be as clean as people are saying it is but I'm going to have to find it.I've caught wind of that myself, but I'm not clear on the details. I'll have to see. At this point, I think that the best bet is to stay with the Prius. However, if the oil reserves start to run dry, it'll be necessary to switch over to alternative feuls, such as biodiesel and hydro. Hey, nobody's going to force you to switch; your wallet can manage that just fine on its own, so I'm not even going to make a bugger over it.

Problem!

The Coriolis Effect would prevent anything from the Northern Hemisphere from entering the Southern Hemisphere.

Its a nice explaination but anyone with a brain would see that it is impossible for crap from the Northern Hemisphere to move into the Souther Hemisphere, regardless of wind patterns.

Read up on the Coriolis Effect.

who to believe? the national oceanic and atmospheric administration, national aeronautics and space administration, world meterological organization, european commission, and united nations environment programme - or some guy on the internet? hmm, that's a tough one.

who to believe? the national oceanic and atmospheric administration, national aeronautics and space administration, world meterological organization, european commission, and united nations environment programme - or some guy on the internet? hmm, that's a tough one.

Coriolis Effect:

As warm air from the equator rises and moves toward the poles, cooler air moves from the poles towards the equator to replace it. This cooler air is gradually warmed, and it too moves toward the poles, creating a cycle that is repeated again and again.

The rotation of the earth breaks the north-south movement of the wind into several large, circular wind systems, which flow in an easterly or westerly direction. The earth spins on its axis in a counterclockwise(eastward) direction. Because of this rotation, the movement of wind systems, rockets, hurricanes, and so forth across the surface of the earth is affected. This is called the Coriolis Effect.

I hope this helps you to understand the Coriolis Effect more Soviet because it is impossible under the laws of physics for anything that is carried by wind to cross the equater. Besides, how else do you explain that the water drains clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere and counterclockwise in the Northern Hemisphere?

which means that a law is sort of like a theory but not as robust. a law is a relation between data without necessarily containing much explanatory power. in other words theory > law.

So... a Law, which has proven to be true is less than a theory which fails under some testing conditions?!? (<blank look> like someone saying that the US is a metric country or that pork rinds taste good)


the fact of gravity is that masses attract each other.
the law of gravity is the mathematical relation of that attraction.
the theory of gravity is the explanation thereof that makes testable predictions and so far has passed all the serious tests thrown at it.

Sort of:
There is no "fact" of gravity.
The Law of Gravity states that masses attract each other. The math is the proof, or more accurately, the description of the law. The same as "an equalateral triangle has 3 sides of the same size" and the angles are the proof.


to (accurately) say that global warming is a theory is merely to say that it is currently the best available explanation for the data at hand.

Right. Which is why I don't understand why you went off on a tangent of law vs. theory. The fact that it IS testable and not proven is why it is a theory and not a law. Therefore, since it is not a law, it is debatable.

So it's happening. Great! Humans will adapt, and as I see it, it is better than an ice age. Besides, our climate on earth has been stable for too long.

Besides, our climate on earth has been stable for too long.
A stable climate is sort of a good thing, what with the whole "we'll die if it floods" thing and all that.

I have no problem believing thaht we will adapt.

So it's happening. Great! Humans will adapt, and as I see it, it is better than an ice age. Besides, our climate on earth has been stable for too long.
BAH! Screw global warming!

Bring on the ice! :D

@Mother Nature
I'll give you TEN fluffles for an Ice age! :D

BAH! Screw global warming!

Bring on the ice! :D

@Mother Nature
I'll give you TEN fluffles for an Ice age! :D
You know, though, global warming isn't all bad. Good things will happen, like the opening of shorter sea routes around the North Pole, or warmer temperatures in Siberia (where the average January temperature in Ulan Ude is -38 degrees).

You know, though, global warming isn't all bad. Good things will happen, like the opening of shorter sea routes around the North Pole, or warmer temperatures in Siberia (where the average January temperature in Ulan Ude is -38 degrees).
Why not drop sea shipping and just use planes and spaceships instead?

I can just say we are pests to the earth so we will pay with our lives as you can plainly see! Hooray Death!!! :headbang:

I had a feeling it might be coming anyway. I only hope I get to see the "global warming isnt real" people suffering before I die.

No disagreements here!!!!! :p

Have none of you read State of Fear?

Here are the facts:

1. The Earth is getting warmer, and has been for 250, 000 years.

2. Part of that warmth is due to the greenhouse effect.

3. The part of that warmth that is due to the greenhouse effect is relatively small. Smaller than you would imagine.

4. Never try to predict things about the weather more than a week or so in advance.

Is global warming happening? Yes. Partly due to human interference? Yes. Does this mean you should be worried? No. There are just as many places that are getting colder (Antarctica, for one) than there are places that are getting hotter. And recent evidence is being shown that the heat increase around big cities (where most of the data regarding temperature increase is actually collected) is due to urban sprawl. 100 and 150 years ago cities were obviously smaller, and smaller cities means smaller levels of concrete and metal, materials which heat up faster than the ground. More development means more concrete and metal, which means higher temperatures. That means the average temperature for, say, New York, goes up when viewed from 150 years ago, while Death Valley's temperature has remained pretty much constant.

So... a Law, which has proven to be true is less than a theory which fails under some testing conditions?!? (<blank look> like someone saying that the US is a metric country or that pork rinds taste good)

1) there is no such thing as a scientific law which has been proven true. it is logically impossible. see also: the problem of induction

2) a theory does not fail under some testing conditions.


a theory is a hypothesis that explains all of the current evidence, makes testable predictions, and hasn't failed when any of its predictions have in fact been tested.

a law is a relation (usually expressed mathematically) between observable entities under certain conditions. it makes the prediction that this relation always hold, but we can't know if that is true until the end of the universe. however, it does not include an explanation as to why this relation exists.

seriously, this is what the terms mean.

Sort of:
There is no "fact" of gravity.
The Law of Gravity states that masses attract each other. The math is the proof, or more accurately, the description of the law. The same as "an equalateral triangle has 3 sides of the same size" and the angles are the proof.

no fact of gravity?! then what then hell do you observe when you drop something? there could be no theory of gravity or law of gravity without the fact of gravity.

your understanding of 'law' would be much better if you totally got rid of the word proof. you cannot prove that in the future two objects will attract each other with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between them. though you're welcome to try.

laws have nothing to do with geometry proofs. given the definitions of the terms involved in geometry, the proof follows of logical necessity. not so with science.

The fact that it IS testable and not proven is why it is a theory and not a law. Therefore, since it is not a law, it is debatable.

one more time, just for emphasis. theories do not grow up to be laws. theories and laws are seperate things, with laws often being part of a theory, but theories never being part of a law.

and the use of the term law is at least partially out of favor these days anyway.

Why not drop sea shipping and just use planes and spaceships instead?
That might happen by 2200. By then, however, the sea routes may close back up :). Or maybe we can teleport goods.

it is impossible under the laws of physics for anything that is carried by wind to cross the equater

bull-fucking-shit. what caused you to think that weather generalities are hard and fast physical laws? go check a weather map - wind is currently blowing across the equator in south america

bull-fucking-shit. what caused you to think that weather generalities are hard and fast physical laws? go check a weather map - wind is currently blowing across the equator in south america

Didn't you read my speal about the Coriolis Effect? It PREVENTS winds from the Northern Hemisphere from going into the Southern Hemisphere and vice Versa.

As for the Wind blowing across the Equator, isn't that area normall called the Doldrums which is An area of calms, light breezes and squalls. One of the world's rainiest regions. Sailing ships often get stuck here from lack of wind.

That is what goes on at the equator.

I do know what a weather map shows my friend. Meteorology WAS my major before I switched but I still do forcasting for the Campus Weather Service here at the University I attend and it is also a state of the art facility too.

Check the map of the Coriolis Effect. You will see clearly that what you are saying is impossible to do.

1) there is no such thing as a scientific law which has been proven true. it is logically impossible. see also: the problem of induction

2) a theory does not fail under some testing conditions.

1) No physical body (especially on Earth) can escape the laws of entropy, gravity or intertia without manipulation. None of these 3 laws has ever been proved false, and has/can be proved true countless times.

2) A theory MAY fail under SOME testing conditions. A law NEVER fails under ANY testing conditions.


a theory is a hypothesis that explains all of the current evidence, makes testable predictions, and hasn't failed when any of its predictions have in fact been tested.

Absolutely, barring that one must bear in mind that the theory MAY fail under some very certain circumstances.


a law is a relation (usually expressed mathematically) between observable entities under certain conditions. it makes the prediction that this relation always hold, but we can't know if that is true until the end of the universe. however, it does not include an explanation as to why this relation exists.

seriously, this is what the terms mean.

Same as above. Laws cannot be broken without outside interference. Theories can fail under some circumstances.



no fact of gravity?! then what then hell do you observe when you drop something? there could be no theory of gravity or law of gravity without the fact of gravity.

I agree: it is a fact that there is gravity.

I disagree with your nomenclature. It's the Law of Gravity.


your understanding of 'law' would be much better if you totally got rid of the word proof. you cannot prove that in the future two objects will attract each other with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between them. though you're welcome to try.

Well damn my classical education.

But further, why does one need to prove "in the future"? I can go into an entire debate with you on non-linear time, if you like.
Consider: if it's true today and was true yesterday, the likelihood is that it will be true tomorrow. Very little in science (as opposed to human scientific knowledge!) changes abruptly.


laws have nothing to do with geometry proofs. given the definitions of the terms involved in geometry, the proof follows of logical necessity. not so with science.

I think you're missing the point: I'm not saying it lies in geometry, but that you CAN prove laws true in all instances, but not theories. That was an example.

not so with science.
Now science is illogical?? Wow,the creationists are gonna love you!! :D


one more time, just for emphasis. theories do not grow up to be laws. theories and laws are seperate things, with laws often being part of a theory, but theories never being part of a law.

I never said that they did "grow up", now did I? I simply pointed out that they are different from each other.

So... there's no theory of gravity, but there's a law of eugenics? No theory of entropy (funny how I used to measure that....) but a law of evolution?

I think your ideas are correct, but that your terminology is backwards.


and the use of the term law is at least partially out of favor these days anyway.

Yeah. Damn Political Correctness.

That might happen by 2200. By then, however, the sea routes may close back up :). Or maybe we can teleport goods.

Bulk shipping needs to be CHEAP. That's why that Chinese-made boombox costs less than an American made one. Large ships and trains are still the cheapest way to move most goods -- only time-sensitive goods benefit from airlifting.

Until something becomes cheaper, it will not be used. This is why we still have internal combustion engine cars, lead-firing guns and PCs that aren't out of Star Trek. However, as prices drop, things change. (Ie: Pagers to cell phones, VHS to DVD, b&w CRTs to color LCDs...

Laws cannot be broken without outside interference. Theories can fail under some circumstances.

the ideal gas law fails. newton's laws of motion fail. but they are useful mathematical approximations of much more complicated relations (under certain circumstances) and so are still used as laws.

I agree: it is a fact that there is gravity.

I disagree with your nomenclature. It's the Law of Gravity.

you have mistaken the model of the thing for the thing itself. the fact of gravity exists, even if the inverse square law doesn't hold. and the volume, temperature, and pressure of gases are still related somehow, even though there are no ideal gases.

But further, why does one need to prove "in the future"?

because the claim that "law x has been proven true" is the same as the claim that "law x always holds". but stuck in with the word 'always' is a claim about the future - "law x will hold at time t (which is 2 weeks from now)" or "law x will hold in situation s (which is an as yet unobserved experiment)".

so saying that some law is 'proven true' necessarily means that you are making the claim that you have proven things that haven't happened yet or that haven't been observed yet.

Consider: if it's true today and was true yesterday, the likelihood is that it will be true tomorrow. Very little in science (as opposed to human scientific knowledge!) changes abruptly.

I think you're missing the point: I'm not saying it lies in geometry, but that you CAN prove laws true in all instances, but not theories. That was an example.

then do so. a number of scientists and philosophers of science would love to see it. you are quite quickly going to run into the problem of induction.

but come on, i'd like to see your argument that proves some scientific law true in all instances, including as yet unobserved ones.

Now science is illogical??

no.

the findings of science do not come about a priori (before experience). you cannot derive the inverse square law from the concept of gravity. you can, however, prove all sorts of things about triangles and other bits of math, just from the definitions of the terms - even if there were no triangles in existence.

the proofs of math and pure logic are termed logically necessary, because they are logical consequences of the premises. given the premises and the definitions involved, it is logically impossible for the conclusion of a well-constructed proof to be false.

the conclusions of science, on the other hand, are logically contingent. it is logically possible for it to be either true or false that objects attract each other in proportion with their masses and the inverse square of the distance between them. we cannot know which way it goes without checking. and further more, we cannot know which way it will go next time until we have observed it, because it is still logically possible for our prediction to be false.

Check the map of the Coriolis Effect. You will see clearly that what you are saying is impossible to do.

i know all about the coriolis effect. it does not say that it is impossible for wind to cross the equator. yesterday i was pointing out the actual existence of a wind blowing from peru north across the equator and on towards panama - which throws your claim flat on its back. but since that didn't work for you, maybe i should ask a question of you. how did wind powered vessels get out of the doldrums? considering they did so quite regularly when engaged in the triangular trade route between europe, africa, and the americas. the winds are inconsistent in the doldrums, but that doesn't mean there is never any wind crossing them at all.

the ideal gas law fails. newton's laws of motion fail. but they are useful mathematical approximations of much more complicated relations (under certain circumstances) and so are still used as laws.

Do you mean that an object can be accelerated even if there's no force applied to it? Or that it will accelerate at a rate not related to its mass? Can you give some examples?

Do you mean that an object can be accelerated even if there's no force applied to it? Or that it will accelerate at a rate not related to its mass? Can you give some examples?

newton's laws don't work very well at all for sub-atomic particles.

My chemistry teacher freshman year of highschool said that the hole in the ozone layer was caused by the space shuttle. Explain to me how a little space shuttle would create a hole twice the size of Europe.

newton's laws don't work very well at all for sub-atomic particles.
Actually, they do. Otherwise, how do they measure their masses or take them through a particle accelerator? It's not easy to do, but that has more to do with our instruments than with the Laws of Motion themselves.

Actually, they do. Otherwise, how do they measure their masses or take them through a particle accelerator? It's not easy to do, but that has more to do with our instruments than with the Laws of Motion themselves.

quantum mechanics

quantum mechanics
What quantum mechanics say is that for subatomic particles we can only know their position or their velocity, but not both. f=m*a still holds, we just can't measure the effects accurately.

What quantum mechanics say is that for subatomic particles we can only know their position or their velocity, but not both. f=m*a still holds, we just can't measure the effects accurately.

that is just one part of qm, the uncertainty principle. there is much more to it than that.

electrons behave in ways that are unpredictable by newtonian mechanics, and it gets worse the smaller you go. its not that newton's laws are wrong in general, its that at certain scales and velocities, there is more going on than you can get out of newton.

the ideal gas law fails. newton's laws of motion fail. but they are useful mathematical approximations of much more complicated relations (under certain circumstances) and so are still used as laws.

Nice blanket statements. Give me an example. Or are you saying that objects at rest suddenly spring into motion? Or that PV does not equal nRT?


you have mistaken the model of the thing for the thing itself. the fact of gravity exists, even if the inverse square law doesn't hold. and the volume, temperature, and pressure of gases are still related somehow, even though there are no ideal gases.

Care to cite a link refuting the inverse square law? I couldn't find one in Alta Vista...


because the claim that "law x has been proven true" is the same as the claim that "law x always holds". but stuck in with the word 'always' is a claim about the future - "law x will hold at time t (which is 2 weeks from now)" or "law x will hold in situation s (which is an as yet unobserved experiment)".

so saying that some law is 'proven true' necessarily means that you are making the claim that you have proven things that haven't happened yet or that haven't been observed yet.

By that logic nothing is certain, nor can even be presumed. You now must start everything you do by redetermining EVERYTHING. IMHO, that's not a very good methodology.

Or are you saying that you can not count on there being a noon tomorrow? If so, you may as well just chuck all of science and experience.
And, to be precise, I'm not making that claim. I'm claiming that I've proven X=X in all cases for all of time until it is proved to have changed. I'm not saying that because X=X that Z=Z, or that X+Z=Q.

But using my means, I can still tell you that next week, next year, or in 50 years or whenever that when the thin-hulled supertanker hits the reef that an oil spill WILL result.
Meanwhile, you're still trying to figure out if oil is effected by gravity, and just what gravity is. (Because you can't just assume anything, right?)
Sorry, I'll take my 99.999999999999999999...% certainty. It's better than Six Sigma.


then do so. a number of scientists and philosophers of science would love to see it. you are quite quickly going to run into the problem of induction.

but come on, i'd like to see your argument that proves some scientific law true in all instances, including as yet unobserved ones.

Huh? Do what? :confused:
If you mean "do" prove that things don't change drastically in science:
Postulate: Water freezes at zero centrigrade.
Proof: There is no way that this will not naturally occur. Since it has never changed, it is always true. Since no one can travel into the future at a rate of greater than one minute per minute, no future that does not hold can be shown to exist.
Conclusion: Unless one could model a future where it COULD change, it must and will always be true. QED.

Now, feel free to do a proof concluding that things can change in science rapidly without an outside influence.

The second is a spurious debate, equivilent to my manager asking me to document all unforseen problems with our new project.


no.

the findings of science do not come about a priori (before experience). you cannot derive the inverse square law from the concept of gravity. you can, however, prove all sorts of things about triangles and other bits of math, just from the definitions of the terms - even if there were no triangles in existence.

That's not answering the question. I specifically asked if science was illogical due to your own statement: that scientific proof does not follow logical necessity.
If so, then observation is no longer a valid tool of science. Ergo (therefore) you need to quid pro quo (give something to take something) in your conundurm (problem). Either this statement was incorrect, or your statement below is.


the conclusions of science, on the other hand, are logically contingent. it is logically possible for it to be either true or false that objects attract each other in proportion with their masses and the inverse square of the distance between them. we cannot know which way it goes without checking. and further more, we cannot know which way it will go next time until we have observed it, because it is still logically possible for our prediction to be false.

So you now NEED observation.
Two posts ago, you say scientific proofs do not follow logical necessity, now the conclusions are logically contingent.

Please make up your mind.
It's hard enough to debate someone who wants to debate my side with his own perpective instead of mine, it is much worse when they keep changing position. :D

The kyoto treaty was so full of holes it wasn't worth a dime. It allowed developing countries to pollute as much as they wanted to and 1st world countries could buy their polluting rights to continue polluting themselves.

Considering 1st world nations have a very dispropotinate population to what they consume ratio, I would say that's fair.

electrons behave in ways that are unpredictable by newtonian mechanics, and it gets worse the smaller you go. its not that newton's laws are wrong in general, its that at certain scales and velocities, there is more going on than you can get out of newton.
Exactly, there are more things going on than Newton, but it doesn't mean that no Newton is going on.

Nice blanket statements. Give me an example. Or are you saying that objects at rest suddenly spring into motion? Or that PV does not equal nRT?

the ideal gas law fails utterly to accurately model real gases at high pressures or low temperatures. it doesn't predict phase changes at all.

Care to cite a link refuting the inverse square law? I couldn't find one in Alta Vista...

the orbit of mercury - failure for newton, points for einstein.

but that isn't the point. the point is that if newton's law of gravity didn't model the gravitational relation between objects accurately, that wouldn't cause the phenomena 'gravity' to cease to exist. science deals with creating predictive and explanatory models of the universe. but you must never imagine that the model is the universe.

By that logic nothing is certain, nor can even be presumed. You now must start everything you do by redetermining EVERYTHING. IMHO, that's not a very good methodology.

Or are you saying that you can not count on there being a noon tomorrow? If so, you may as well just chuck all of science and experience.

it may not make things easy, but as of yet nobody has come up with a sound argument showing that the future will always resemble the past.

And, to be precise, I'm not making that claim. I'm claiming that I've proven X=X in all cases for all of time until it is proved to have changed. I'm not saying that because X=X that Z=Z, or that X+Z=Q.

no you didn't. "the law of gravity has been prove true" is in no way the same as "x=x"

Huh? Do what? :confused:
If you mean "do" prove that things don't change drastically in science:
Postulate: Water freezes at zero centrigrade.
Proof: There is no way that this will not naturally occur. Since it has never changed, it is always true. Since no one can travel into the future at a rate of greater than one minute per minute, no future that does not hold can be shown to exist.
Conclusion: Unless one could model a future where it COULD change, it must and will always be true. QED.

relativity actually disagrees with one of your steps - time is just another dimension and it is quite possible to move through it at different rates.

but anyway, pretend that someone claimed the following:

in the past, pure water has frozen at 0 centigrade. however, starting next week, pure water will freeze at 20 centigrade.

in order to argue against this you need to prove that this is wrong. the argument you probably would want to make looks like this:

1. in all past observations, pure water has frozen at 0 centigrade
2. the future will resmble the past.
3. since it has always been true in the past that pure water has frozen at 0 centigrade, it will remain true next week (and any time after that)

unfortunately, this argument begs the question. the point in contention is the claim that things next week will be just like they have been in the past. so you would have to seperately argue for the conclusion that in general the future will resemble the past. unfortunately, the only means you have to do this would be through an inductive argument. which makes the whole thing viciously circular.

look up the problem of induction. its a well known issue, and is the reason scientists don't claim to deal in proof.

So you now NEED observation.
Two posts ago, you say scientific proofs do not follow logical necessity, now the conclusions are logically contingent.

Please make up your mind.
It's hard enough to debate someone who wants to debate my side with his own perpective instead of mine, it is much worse when they keep changing position. :D

perhaps you should look up terms you don't understand. like, apparently, 'necessary' and 'contingent'.

Exactly, there are more things going on than Newton, but it doesn't mean that no Newton is going on.

newton's laws will not tell you much of anything that is true about the motion of electrons. not because other forces are interfering with them, but because they just don't apply. same thing for anything moving fast enough. that's why we have general relativity and quantum mechanics.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae392.cfm
http://www.physics.nus.edu.sg/~phybeb/core/node12.html

Wait, why are we talking about Newton's Laws?

I step out of the thread for a few pages, I come back, and we're talking about something totally different!

Oh well, I guess it means it never gets boring...

Wait, why are we talking about Newton's Laws?

I step out of the thread for a few pages, I come back, and we're talking about something totally different!

Oh well, I guess it means it never gets boring...

So very true.

Global Warming is a Theory and will remain as such. It'll never be proven as fact so I will not worry about it.

Wait, why are we talking about Newton's Laws?

I step out of the thread for a few pages, I come back, and we're talking about something totally different!

Oh well, I guess it means it never gets boring...

because somebody was misusing science terminology. and not many people can even attempt to hold forth in a conversation about scientific laws if the example is anything other than newton. i mean come on, snell's law?

the ideal gas law fails utterly to accurately model real gases at high pressures or low temperatures. it doesn't predict phase changes at all.

Would this be before or after the gas becomes a plasma or a near liquid?
And why should it predict phase change? The Van der Waals (sp?) equation permits such a phase transition, and it came GENERATIONS after the Ideal Gas Law.

Sorry, this example obviously fails: or can laws never be expanded upon as human knowledge advances?


the orbit of mercury - failure for newton, points for einstein.

First, you failed to provide a link.
Second: Failure? Hardly. Improvement? Yes!
“The direction of the axis of Mercury's orbit is not fixed in space (as it should be for a pure inverse-square-law force) but precesses by 575 arcseconds in a century. This about 40 arcseconds more than can be explained by taking into account the effects of the other planets. Suggestions of another planet even closer to the Sun, a dust cloud or significant deviations from a spherical shape for the Sun were ruled out by observations. General relativity leads to corrections to Newton's inverse-square law in strong gravitational fields. Einstein was able to show that these were just what was needed to explain the behaviour of Mercury.” http://theory.ph.man.ac.uk/~mikeb/lecture/pc167/gravity/solarsys.html

Your example does *not* prove the inverse square law wrong, only that it is slightly imprecise. While Einstein was able to show an answer, it is also not outside the realm of possibility that whatever is effecting Mercury is a force or law we currently have no knowledge of.

Sorry, but you have to do better than that.


but that isn't the point. the point is that if newton's law of gravity didn't model the gravitational relation between objects accurately, that wouldn't cause the phenomena 'gravity' to cease to exist. science deals with creating predictive and explanatory models of the universe. but you must never imagine that the model is the universe.

We both agree that science requires observation.
Now here you’re debating that even though Einstein had a richer environment for observation that Newton can’t be improved on. May as well say that heavier than air machines cannot fly.
You must never imagine that the body of historical knowledge is static.


it may not make things easy, but as of yet nobody has come up with a sound argument showing that the future will always resemble the past.

Counterarguement: Prove to me that there is a future. There is only the now and the past. I don’t need to prove something is true in “the future”, as it is asking for a proof of something that doesn’t exist. Ergo, you need to prove that the future exists first, and then that there is some example that the constant fails. Good luck.


no you didn't. "the law of gravity has been prove true" is in no way the same as "x=x"

I'm impressed. What I said went completely by you:
What I said was "And, to be precise, I'm not making that claim. I'm claiming that I've proven X=X in all cases for all of time until it is proved to have changed."

So: The Law of Gravity is true in all cases for all of time until it is proved to have changed.
(and, as posted elsewhere in the thread, that it won’t without outside influence)
NOT, as you said I said, that I was claiming it was good for “the future”. I’m claiming that it is good in the now, and now… and now… and now… and was true in the past. And now. And now. And the now just after the now it will hold, as that now is now.


relativity actually disagrees with one of your steps - time is just another dimension and it is quite possible to move through it at different rates.

[QUOTE=Free Soviets]
but anyway, pretend that someone claimed the following:
in the past, pure water has frozen at 0 centigrade. however, starting next week, pure water will freeze at 20 centigrade.

Excellent! I can throw this out as a possibility:
If you look back in post #127, you’ve complete departed from the point, which is debating that things don’t change drastically in science. Instead of a proof, you go play make believe. Had you come up with a past or present example, fine. What I don’t get about you: you’re much more interested in debating the examples, and not the actual points.


in order to argue against this you need to prove that this is wrong. the argument you probably would want to make looks like this:

1. in all past observations, pure water has frozen at 0 centigrade
2. the future will resmble the past.
3. since it has always been true in the past that pure water has frozen at 0 centigrade, it will remain true next week (and any time after that)

2. a) The future does not exist. As the now proceeds, constants remain.


unfortunately, this argument begs the question. the point in contention is the claim that things next week will be just like they have been in the past. so you would have to seperately argue for the conclusion that in general the future will resemble the past. unfortunately, the only means you have to do this would be through an inductive argument. which makes the whole thing viciously circular.

You lose it at “unfortunately”. One does NOT need an inductive argument: one is arguing from the NOW. It is not circular. You don’t have to keep proving for every instant in “the future” from every instant in the past. It is only an inductive argument if you decide you need to prove the future to be true. As there is no future, it does not matter.



look up the problem of induction. its a well known issue, and is the reason scientists don't claim to deal in proof.

Cute!! Except I never said that they did. As I keep saying: LAWS ARE TRUE until such time as they can be proved false. Why do you keep debating your own points and not mine?


perhaps you should look up terms you don't understand. like, apparently, 'necessary' and 'contingent'.

And perhaps you should have realized by now that being snarky doesn’t help your case. I do like how you either just snip out or flatly ignore in my replies what you can’t answer, as opposed for debating point by point. That, or just go for an insult.

I’m done debating with you. You’re taking this far too personally, and seem more interested in debating what you think I’m saying, not what I actually say. Just as you were last time we had a similar debate several months ago. I hold you no malice, but I’m tired of wasting my breath.

Peace,
Markreich

Cute!! Except I never said that they did. As I keep saying: LAWS ARE TRUE until such time as they can be proved false. Why do you keep debating your own points and not mine?

well, it would be much easier to debate your points if you had one and it was meaningful. but throughout this whole thing you have misread, misapplied, and generally abused definitions. and then based on your shifting and flat out wrong definitions, you change the subject.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8031625&postcount=56
"Remember, this is still a theory, not a law."

then you cited this website (which makes my point for me) - http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/Biol%203380/3380theory.html
"Furthermore, both scientific laws and scientific theories could be shown to be wrong at some time if there are data to suggest so."

"Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics -- Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical."

and yet immediately after, you contradict all of this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8032846&postcount=102
"The fact that it IS testable and not proven is why it is a theory and not a law. Therefore, since it is not a law, it is debatable."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8038583&postcount=116
"you CAN prove laws true in all instances, but not theories."

and when shown cases of laws not accurately modelling reality and entirely new theories having to be written (and in the case of einstien v. newton, they are talking about drastically different universes...) and entirely new mathematical relations proposed, you write this off as if it wasn't important.

which means we can add the word 'proven' to the list of terms you fundamentally do not understand. along with 'law', 'theory', 'necessary', 'contingent', and 'all instances'.

or would you still like to claim that saying someting is not a logical necessity is in contradiction with it being contingent? or that things can be proven true in all instances, but also not work in some instances? or be proven true in all instances and still possibly come up false later? or that theories are debatable because they aren't laws, while at the same time theories don't grow up to be laws and are just different sorts of things?

it is true, however, that you have been wasting your breath. just not because you had a killer argument that was falling on deaf ears.

Well, since I happen to know the people who found the ozone hole in the Antarctic all those years ago, I'm not worried at all. The latest theory is that isn't in fact enough fossil fuels left in the world to cause that 'dreaded 2 degree rise'.

That theory's already out the window. With the viscious oils of Canada and Venezuela, we've got more than enough potential fossil fuels to push us way over the brink.

Also, there's the issue of small carbon increases causing further natural carbon release. There are enormous quantities of carbon stored not just in the polar ice, but in permafrost. You don't have to start melting the ice caps before you start down the slippery slope.