If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News.com.au)   Forget global warming, swine flu and war: the world's oceans are TURNING INTO ACID   (news.com.au) divider line 677
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

18968 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jun 2009 at 7:40 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



677 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-06-01 02:18:32 PM
sacrileg 2009-06-01 02:12:52 PM
baby_hewey
:

i am amused.


Good, I am always happy to put a smile on someones face like the drunk blond put on mine Friday night. We discussed AGW then too. At times her arguments were as good as some of Zafler's.
 
2009-06-01 02:19:29 PM
also, acording to newton's "laws", the speed of light should be easy to reach and pass. you just have to accelerate for long enough.
 
2009-06-01 02:21:24 PM
rather, apply a nonzero force for long enough.
 
2009-06-01 02:22:34 PM
mgshamster 2009-06-01 02:14:59 PM
baby_hewey: mgshamster 2009-06-01 01:55:33 PM

AGW cannot be proven. There can only be evidence for it. Same with gravity. Gravity cannot be proven, there is only supporting evidence for it (of which we have an abundance).

Uh, really? Gee and here I thought Gravity was covered under Newton's Laws. You are right though Gravity is an arbitrary concept like cold or dark. Does anyone need schooling as to what I am talking about?

You seem to be confusing Law and Theory (as well as fact, it seems). Two separate entities. :)


Nope, it is you who seem to confuse perception with forces. Gravity is the term we use to discuss magnetic attraction, cold is the term we use to relate a lack of heat, which is a physical representation of energy. It is you who seen to not know what we are talking about.
 
2009-06-01 02:25:05 PM
sacrileg 2009-06-01 02:19:29 PM
also, acording to newton's "laws", the speed of light should be easy to reach and pass. you just have to accelerate for long enough.

And the limiting factor is fuel. The more you carry the more you need. It has not been disproven, just theorized away in a puff of logic. If you look at that most
 
2009-06-01 02:25:55 PM
UnspokenVoice: I thought you all believed that evolution was law?

In other words, don't worry - they'll either adapt or go extinct. We'll do the same.


I'm just going to try gamma radiation....
 
2009-06-01 02:26:05 PM
Your face is melting and I've become the physical manifestation of FARK so I'm really getting kicked by these replies.
 
2009-06-01 02:26:16 PM
baby_hewey:

electromagnetic forces are what we use to describe magnetic and electro-static attraction.
gravity is a force all on its own, and its the force we can't fit into the standard model. ie. its the force we understand the least.
 
2009-06-01 02:26:55 PM
baby_hewey: adamgreeney 2009-06-01 01:10:14 PM
baby_hewey: adamgreeney 2009-06-01 01:00:00 PM
The way you keep defining experiment shows that you don't understand how broad a term experiment is.

Try again, I don't think you've repeted it enough for anyone to belive you yet.

You are arguing against the dictionary definition of a word. Sorry, you can't win that one.

Now, I'm not going to try and argue the validity of each and every study we pull offline. I'm also not going to claim that every "experiment" that is done to "prove" global warming is factual or should be treated as such. However, experiments come in a great many shapes and sizes, and trying to claim otherwise is disingenuous.

Now, now, I was only pointing out that you were repeting yourself with out challenging his definition of an experiment. Now, I try to keep most of my time and effort directed at chimpy and to be honest you are not worth my time as you don't bring much to the table in the form of discussion, but if you want I will start in on you and give chimp_ninja the afternoon off.


Go ahead and address what i said (i'll give you a hint, i agree with you) and then we can see where things go from there.
 
2009-06-01 02:27:11 PM
baby_hewey: Gravity is the term we use to discuss magnetic attraction... It is you who seen to not know what we are talking about.

baby_hewey: And the limiting factor is fuel. The more you carry the more you need. It has not been disproven, just theorized away in a puff of logic.

You can't make this stuff up.
 
2009-06-01 02:29:28 PM
theorellior: baby_hewey: Gravity is the term we use to discuss magnetic attraction... It is you who seen to not know what we are talking about.

baby_hewey: And the limiting factor is fuel. The more you carry the more you need. It has not been disproven, just theorized away in a puff of logic.

You can't make this stuff up.


And he still doesn't seem to understand why he is rapidly becoming as much a laughing stock here as over on the politics page.
 
2009-06-01 02:30:57 PM
I actually thought that baby_hewey was logical and had some good points that I should study up on. Then he goes and tries to claim that the theory of gravity is a law. Stellar.
 
2009-06-01 02:31:51 PM
jgbrowning: theorellior: Dashman: In the 80s I was in grade school. I'm 35 now. Back then we talked a lot about the ozone layer and how we'd all be cooked to death in two years. You see, they were spamming us with information every day about how the ozone layer was depleting and it would be gone soon. First the earth would flood and then we would all cook to death in extreme temperatures.

Just in case someone else hasn't covered this, you've already established you're a dumbass in the very first paragraph. Protip: google "ozone depletion", "chlorofluorocarbons" and "Montreal Protocol" to figure out exactly what the ozone hole was and why it was a problem, how we developed a solution, and why it is slowly fixing itself.

Worth quoting.


If I were Dashman, and I read this thread, I'd probably stop visiting fark.
 
2009-06-01 02:33:09 PM
Zafler: theorellior: baby_hewey: Gravity is the term we use to discuss magnetic attraction... It is you who seen to not know what we are talking about.

baby_hewey: And the limiting factor is fuel. The more you carry the more you need. It has not been disproven, just theorized away in a puff of logic.

You can't make this stuff up.

And he still doesn't seem to understand why he is rapidly becoming as much a laughing stock here as over on the politics page.


If anybody is an expert on laughing stocks, you would be the one.
 
2009-06-01 02:34:34 PM
baby_hewey: sacrileg 2009-06-01 02:19:29 PM
also, acording to newton's "laws", the speed of light should be easy to reach and pass. you just have to accelerate for long enough.

And the limiting factor is fuel. The more you carry the more you need. It has not been disproven, just theorized away in a puff of logic. If you look at that most


no. no. no.

what do you think the hadron collider is about? they supply a nonzero force on a charged particle with magnetic fields in a circle. little tiny electrons, with next to no mass, will never reach the speed of light.

its not about fuel, its about the theory of relativity.
this isn't the proper way to explain, but its mostly correct and easy to understand:
the faster you go, the more energy you have. matter and energy are the same thing, just in different forms. therefore, the faster you go, the more you weigh. as you approach the speed of light, it starts to take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate.

think of pushing a baby carriage vs. a dump truck. this is why we think we can't reach the speed of light.

again, if we didn't take into account the theory of relativity, gps would not work.
 
2009-06-01 02:37:24 PM
sacrileg: its not about fuel, its about the theory of relativity.

Um, it's only a theory, since when did you go the speed of light to run your experiments, Mr. Smartypants? Nobody has. Duh!
 
2009-06-01 02:37:41 PM
nicksteel: If anybody is an expert on laughing stocks, you would be the one.

Yes, you have given me much practice in laughing at the deliberately obtuse and ignorant. Lets see, where should we start? Your lack of knowledge of isotopic analysis? Confusing HADCRUT sensor numbers for temperature anomalies? The significance of a temperature shift of approx 1 deg. celsius on a timescale unseen in the geologic record going back 800k years? Your out-of-context quote mining, frequently when the subject of the quote is not even climate?

There are more, but these are the most amusing ones.
 
2009-06-01 02:38:41 PM
Zafler: nicksteel: If anybody is an expert on laughing stocks, you would be the one.

Yes, you have given me much practice in laughing at the deliberately obtuse and ignorant. Lets see, where should we start? Your lack of knowledge of isotopic analysis? Confusing HADCRUT sensor numbers for temperature anomalies? The significance of a temperature shift of approx 1 deg. celsius on a timescale unseen in the geologic record going back 800k years? Your out-of-context quote mining, frequently when the subject of the quote is not even climate?

There are more, but these are the most amusing ones.


you got me laughing again, make up some more lies.
 
2009-06-01 02:39:04 PM
Ringtailed79: If I were Dashman, and I read this thread, I'd probably stop visiting fark.

I've got even money that says Dashman will jump in to the next GW thread to laugh again at how stupid the ozone scare was.
 
2009-06-01 02:40:03 PM
Zafler: nicksteel: If anybody is an expert on laughing stocks, you would be the one.

Yes, you have given me much practice in laughing at the deliberately obtuse and ignorant. Lets see, where should we start? Your lack of knowledge of isotopic analysis? Confusing HADCRUT sensor numbers for temperature anomalies? The significance of a temperature shift of approx 1 deg. celsius on a timescale unseen in the geologic record going back 800k years? Your out-of-context quote mining, frequently when the subject of the quote is not even climate?

There are more, but these are the most amusing ones.


He's like the petulant child you catch breaking a vase. He will try any excuse to shift blame, and then call you a liar for catching him.
 
2009-06-01 02:42:12 PM
baby_hewey: mgshamster 2009-06-01 02:14:59 PM
baby_hewey: mgshamster 2009-06-01 01:55:33 PM
AGW cannot be proven. There can only be evidence for it. Same with gravity. Gravity cannot be proven, there is only supporting evidence for it (of which we have an abundance).

Uh, really? Gee and here I thought Gravity was covered under Newton's Laws. You are right though Gravity is an arbitrary concept like cold or dark. Does anyone need schooling as to what I am talking about?

You seem to be confusing Law and Theory (as well as fact, it seems). Two separate entities. :)

Nope, it is you who seem to confuse perception with forces. Gravity is the term we use to discuss magnetic attraction, cold is the term we use to relate a lack of heat, which is a physical representation of energy. It is you who seen to not know what we are talking about.


*Sigh* The Law of Gravity is a mathematical statement. All Laws are are either mathematical or worded descriptions. The Theory is the explanation of gravity.

Also, "cold" is not what we use to describe a "lack of heat." Cold is a relative term to heat. This is colder than that. There is still heat present, just fewer joules worth.
 
2009-06-01 02:43:36 PM
adamgreeney 2009-06-01 02:30:57 PM
I actually thought that baby_hewey was logical and had some good points that I should study up on. Then he goes and tries to claim that the theory of gravity is a law. Stellar.

No I didn't! I compaired gravity to the concept of cold or dark. The only Laws I have even mentioned was Newton's. And last time I checked Gravity was not one of them.

Now everyone can see just how far off you guys will try and twist something to try and discredit someone who disagrees with you.
 
2009-06-01 02:43:41 PM
Is there anyway to send chimp_ninja a cookie over the internet? He deserves one.
 
2009-06-01 02:46:29 PM
mgshamster 2009-06-01 02:42:12 PM

Also, "cold" is not what we use to describe a "lack of heat." Cold is a relative term to heat. This is colder than that. There is still heat present, just fewer joules worth.

And this here is the point I was trying to make, although not as articulat as I would like. The problem we see is that relative terms are getting used with out proper referance to the actual force. Cold as compaired to joules is the perfect example.
 
2009-06-01 02:46:53 PM
DeathByUngaBunga: Is there anyway to send chimp_ninja a cookie over the internet? He deserves one.

Any way. Two words, moran.
 
2009-06-01 02:46:59 PM
baby_hewey:

respond to me please. newtons laws are false. they just work most of the time.
 
2009-06-01 02:48:06 PM
adamgreeney: Zafler: nicksteel: If anybody is an expert on laughing stocks, you would be the one.

Yes, you have given me much practice in laughing at the deliberately obtuse and ignorant. Lets see, where should we start? Your lack of knowledge of isotopic analysis? Confusing HADCRUT sensor numbers for temperature anomalies? The significance of a temperature shift of approx 1 deg. celsius on a timescale unseen in the geologic record going back 800k years? Your out-of-context quote mining, frequently when the subject of the quote is not even climate?

There are more, but these are the most amusing ones.

He's like the petulant child you catch breaking a vase. He will try any excuse to shift blame, and then call you a liar for catching him.


are you still here?? The little boy who accuses people of things they never said and for not answering questions never asked of them? That certainly puts you in the liar category. Or do you prefer to be an idiot??
 
2009-06-01 02:49:38 PM
sacrileg 2009-06-01 02:34:34 PM
baby_hewey: sacrileg 2009-06-01 02:19:29 PM

also, acording to newton's "laws", the speed of light should be easy to reach and pass. you just have to accelerate for long enough.

And the limiting factor is fuel. The more you carry the more you need. It has not been disproven, just theorized away in a puff of logic. If you look at that most

no. no. no.

what do you think the hadron collider is about? they supply a nonzero force on a charged particle with magnetic fields in a circle. little tiny electrons, with next to no mass, will never reach the speed of light.

its not about fuel, its about the theory of relativity.
this isn't the proper way to explain, but its mostly correct and easy to understand:
the faster you go, the more energy you have. matter and energy are the same thing, just in different forms. therefore, the faster you go, the more you weigh. as you approach the speed of light, it starts to take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate.

think of pushing a baby carriage vs. a dump truck. this is why we think we can't reach the speed of light.

again, if we didn't take into account the theory of relativity, gps would not work.


Don't get caught up on the little things and varry off in a new direction. I do understand the majority of the concepts, but only at a 10,000 foot level when it comes to partical physics. I was trying to keep the discussion at a popular science level for those that need remedial reading courses. Let's get back on track before the mods jump in.
 
2009-06-01 02:50:39 PM
well...
1. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
not falsified.

2. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.
false.

3. III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
not falsified.
 
2009-06-01 02:54:30 PM
baby_hewey:

i'm trying to explain that the "law" is false. i'm trying to explain science. i'm trying to make you smarter.

i should probably just go to bed
 
2009-06-01 02:54:48 PM
sacrileg:
3. III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.


And thus is the reason no one ever wants me to eat Mexican food.. go figure
 
2009-06-01 02:57:48 PM
 
2009-06-01 03:01:19 PM
Sorry, my bad. I'll quit peeing in the ocean.

Nah, it's more fun playing one of the 4 horsemen
 
2009-06-01 03:11:12 PM
Andric: GeneralJ

Andric: GeneralJim:

Uh, wow. So many to choose from... I'll pick....

A couple million years ago, there was an ice age, and CO2 levels were ten TIMES what they are now. Didn't warm THAT up much, did it?

Source?


"Climate Change, a Multi-disciplinary Approach" by William James Burroughs, Published by Cambridge University Press, 2001
ISBN 0521567718, 9780521567718, page 85, last paragraph.

Gen. Jim

/ CTFY (Cited that for you...)
 
2009-06-01 03:18:18 PM
Welcome to Fark, where everyone knows more than the people researching their claims.
You are always wrong.
 
2009-06-01 03:20:37 PM
baby_hewey ftw!
 
2009-06-01 03:32:15 PM
My, the trolls sure are getting fat and round in here...
 
2009-06-01 03:32:22 PM
Clearly, the only answer is the complete extinction of the entire human race. We screw up everything we touch, so the only responsible thing for us to do would be to completely wipe ourselves off the planet. She will be better off without us.

I'll go first. (ovbiously I won't be able to respond to any of your comments)

Who else would be willing to do their part to save the planet?
 
2009-06-01 03:36:56 PM
baby_hewey: Gravity is the term we use to discuss magnetic attraction...

You guys thought reading 900 papers in 11 minutes was impressive? baby_hewey's just found a theory that unifies gravity with the electromagnetic force.

Suck it, Hawking!
 
2009-06-01 03:38:29 PM
baby_hewey: Gravity is the term we use to discuss magnetic attraction.

In a thread rapidly becoming personified by failure, that comment is head and shoulders above the rest.
 
2009-06-01 03:47:01 PM
adamgreeney: The Envoy: adamgreeney: nicksteel:

Wait. After reading through that horrible copy/pasta I can't tell who said what.

It was farkingatwork who said that there are more trees and plant life now that will handle the absorption of the CO2.

Christ, I felt like an idiot just repeating it.

Shhh! It's fun to watch nicksteel froth at the mouth! Don't ruin it!


Sorry, I had work to do. Now I'm taking a break, thus the username.

I never said that having more plants will automagically fix any perceived or real problem of CO2. I'm just saying that we do plant a lot of shiat, and we plant more and more each year. Way to go all eco-douchebag on me.
 
2009-06-01 03:50:09 PM
Smeggy Smurf: Sorry, my bad. I'll quit peeing in the ocean.

Nah, it's more fun playing one of the 4 horsemen


pee turns into ammonia. ammonia is a base. you are helping to save the planet and i thank you for it.
 
2009-06-01 03:53:22 PM
Stays Crunchy in Milk: This is exactly what I study for work.
A little extra CO2 makes things things go bad very quickly.


I can tell you've never grown weed!
 
2009-06-01 03:53:29 PM
Smeggy Smurf: Sorry, my bad. I'll quit peeing in the ocean.

Nah, it's more fun playing one of the 4 horsemen


Hyperventilate a bit first. Then you'll be helping the oceans!
 
2009-06-01 03:54:36 PM
I go back and forth between thinking these debates are hilarious or depressing. They're definitely more fun when Jon Snow is here pimpslapping people with facts.

In the movies, science is the answer. The scientists are the ones that are going to save the day by inventing the new technology or curing the disease or blowing up the asteroid or whatever.

In real life, people rely on science for all issues of convenience (medicine? food? power? electronics?), but as soon as science warns us of evidence of a coming catastrophe, then OMG IT'S A LIBERAL AL GORE CONSPIRACY!!!!!

I desperately hope that the science is wrong and that there isn't a problem. Because if there is a serious crisis at hand (at least one that doesn't involve muslims), you retards are going to keep us from addressing it until it's snowballed into something far worse. There's a long list of reasons why that ounce of prevention could do a lot of good right now, but you dumbasses are hellbent on waiting until we need a pound of cure.

Good job, retards.
 
2009-06-01 03:56:40 PM
sacrileg: pee turns into ammonia. ammonia is a base. you are helping to save the planet and i thank you for it.

Urine is usually slightly acidic.
 
2009-06-01 04:00:59 PM
baby_hewey: cold is the term we use to relate a lack of heat, which is a physical representation of energy

lol
 
2009-06-01 04:03:02 PM
chimp_ninja: GeneralJim: Remember in 1974 when Time (or was it Newsweek?) told us how our evil polluting ways would bring on an ice age?
...
For proof, check out the Penn and Teller Bullshiat show on the subject... They nail it.
...
Check it out: http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

I think the problem is that you get your scientific information from newsmagazines and magicians. Might want to make a trip to the library someday, chief.


Har, har. I get my information from quite a few sources. Generally, I use MSM to suggest areas of study. I am quoting "newsmagazines and magicians" because lazy people will be MUCH better able to check (and/or download) such sources. I loves my library!

But, at the meta-level, the irony of your statement is that the view of the average "murikan" (that the world is ending due to CO2) -- comes almost ENTIRELY from MSM, including that dumb-ass plagiarized PowerPoint book report by the fat, energy-sucking ex-senator. Who asked HIM to cite his sources, or why he ignored all the data which do not support his conclusions -- or, perhaps I should say, all the data which disprove his conclusions?


As for your solar claims, see the Lockwood/Frohlich link from Proceedings of the Royal Society A cited above-- solar output (irradiance changes, cosmic ray flux, sunspot trends, etc.) have all been measured to be in decline for decades, and yet the temperatures rose during that trend.

That study describes how an attenuated Van Allen belt appears to be letting more irradiation reach the surface of the earth. This is a subject worthy of study, but not really germane when discussing the relative contributions of greenhouse gasses and solar radiation (which HITS the planet) to surface temperature. Additionally, I've never seen even the weirdest of the anti-humanists claim that SUVs were destroying the Van Allen belt -- although, with Richard Jeni dead, a new source of amusement would be greatly appreciated.

Nice try, though, I must admit. I actually had to go read it. The questions are: Why is real science being ignored? ... and ... why isn't horrifically bad science (junk science) getting called out? I mean, people were up in arms that GWB quit funding embryonic stem cell research; "government should stay out of science" was the cry. But, when any scientist resists political pressure to falsify their conclusions to indicate that horrible, horrible humans are destroying the planet, their funding is cut off, and there is not a stir from the press. WTF?

A case can be made that some research should not be done, even if it is useful information being gathered -- oh, the NAZI scientists collecting data on how long it took people do die after various injections comes easily to mind. Those who see abortion as ending a human life can certainly claim that we shouldn't be killing others to do research. 'Course, since it's people, not animals, there won't be any naked PETA protesters, dammit. But when did demanding the "politically correct" RESULTS from research become acceptable? 1984? So we now have the oddity of studies whose data show there is no change that does not match many previous climate cycles, but whose conclusion paragraphs state something different, to ensure continued funding. How Politburo can one get?

Face it -- belief in the destruction of the world by humans, and especially by capitalism, is the fervently held cult religion of the hard left. Those who disagree are heretics, and will be punished. And this will not be based on scientific criteria, but political. This hard-left administration will probably be making attempts soon to have dissent from the state religion be criminal, or at least proof of insanity. Nothing like locking up any opposition. It's ironic that those who were all fired up because GWB COULD HAVE used the Patriot Act to restrict freedom of speech, but didn't, don't seem to mind if the first non-citizen President actually DOES it. Weird.


Gen. Jim
 
2009-06-01 04:05:42 PM
baby_hewey: No I didn't! I compaired gravity to the concept of cold or dark. The only Laws I have even mentioned was Newton's. And last time I checked Gravity was not one of them.

You mean like Newton's law of universal gravitation?
 
2009-06-01 04:06:32 PM
shreezbot: Clearly, the only answer is the complete extinction of the entire human race. We screw up everything we touch, so the only responsible thing for us to do would be to completely wipe ourselves off the planet. She will be better off without us.

I'll go first. (ovbiously I won't be able to respond to any of your comments)

Who else would be willing to do their part to save the planet?


FULL of win!

Carry on...
 
Displayed 50 of 677 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report