|
Post by icefisher on May 9, 2009 19:43:55 GMT
The corals can survive with reduced, or without being able to, build reefs. Try rewording that using the rules of grammar so I can figure out what you said.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 9, 2009 20:26:49 GMT
Yea I thought that was wrong when I typed it.
I mean corals can survive but coral reefs might not.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 9, 2009 21:40:38 GMT
Yea I thought that was wrong when I typed it. I mean corals can survive but coral reefs might not. Even if reefs dissolve quicker it may very well be offset by corals growing faster. As far as I am concerned anything is possible so why worry about stuff you are completely clueless about?
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 9, 2009 21:51:18 GMT
You could also ask, why dismiss stuff we are completely clueless about? Especially when experts in the field are taking it seriously. That's the big clue it aint so easy to just brush it all aside.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on May 9, 2009 22:31:59 GMT
socold 40 to 50 billion $ in research money buys a lot of concern for AGW but it does not make it so. If the coral developed in a CO2 richer time frame the coral is now starved for CO2 and you want to deny the coral their natural environment. I understand it is your beliefs that are at stake, but think of the poor coral.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 9, 2009 23:49:01 GMT
Experts are saying it is possible, so you deny it because science is funded.
So precisely what would have to happen to make you not dismiss it out of hand?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 10, 2009 2:14:12 GMT
Experts are saying it is possible, so you deny it because science is funded. So precisely what would have to happen to make you not dismiss it out of hand? Dismiss what Socold? If they provide the proof people will believe them. At the moment what is being provided is the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 10, 2009 7:06:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 10, 2009 13:12:42 GMT
Experts are saying it is possible, so you deny it because science is funded. So precisely what would have to happen to make you not dismiss it out of hand? Dismiss what Socold? If they provide the proof people will believe them. At the moment what is being provided is the opposite. You haven't looked for any proof or evidence. You are assuming it's all false using the excuse that 'science is funded'. Therefore I am correct - you dismiss it out of hand. You somehow "know" it's false because you assume anything related to AGW is false. It's similar to how creationists know that certain fossils are false (if they support evolution) and others are not (if they can use them in an argument against evolution).
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 10, 2009 13:14:13 GMT
Again another ideological assumption. In this case your ideology of "it must be false if it is somehow related to AGW" causes you to believe the qualification must be false. What if it is true that the circumstances were lucky? You just assume they were not. And note again that this doesn't have anything to do with ocean acidification.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 10, 2009 16:39:25 GMT
Dismiss what Socold? If they provide the proof people will believe them. At the moment what is being provided is the opposite. You haven't looked for any proof or evidence. You are assuming it's all false using the excuse that 'science is funded'. Therefore I am correct - you dismiss it out of hand. You somehow "know" it's false because you assume anything related to AGW is false. It's similar to how creationists know that certain fossils are false (if they support evolution) and others are not (if they can use them in an argument against evolution). Don't parade out the BS Socold! Science is empirical. Hypothesis are made and until it is born out by observations it isn't science it is "scientists at work". Like building the Golden Gate bridge. Some said it could not be done but engineers went to work on it and got it done. But until the day it opened up for traffic it wasn't a bridge, it had not been done, and some people held on to their doubts. All that is very appropriate and very healthy.I did not say one word about funding in this thread so I did not dismiss it on that basis. If you want my take on that. . . .funding of science is a huge problem only in that there is no accountability. It is a difficult topic to delve into for several reasons, but my favorite analogy is the "witch doctor". Witch doctors were obviously very learned and wise men within their societies. They had all sorts of tricks up their sleeves. I think these witch doctors covered the whole spectra from folks who actually believed wholeheartedly in their stuff even if it was all quackery to those who very clearly saw the self enrichment aspect of it and some of those also knew it was bogus. Out of that caldron arises a few nuggets of gold. Only after it has been taken to the assay office does the public know for sure it isn't fool's gold. Lets face it Socold you went into the caldron and are picking out favorites. Your favorite argument is experts are serious about it. Well the truth is most of these enterprises are not for profit thus there is no ultimate accountability for intent. Going in and picking winners is premature except to the extent you want to see a winner for your own benefit. Many folks don't like private enterprise but you have to understand that such concepts like most concepts are double edged swords that cut both ways. I see private enterprise as the primary manifestation of freedom. People need to be constrained from doing stuff harmful to others but when you do that it should not be from within that caldron of unprovens no matter how emminent the proponents are. Lets face it Socold when the primary crux of your argument is about risk of some kind of doomsday, built on shaky unprovens. . . .the historical definition of that is. . . .religion.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 10, 2009 17:03:05 GMT
When experts are saying that the rate of pH decline will have significant effects on marine life, and the consequences are uncertain, yet potentially severe, there is no justification to dismiss ocean acidification out of hand.
It's as simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 10, 2009 19:27:57 GMT
When experts are saying that the rate of pH decline will have significant effects on marine life, and the consequences are uncertain, yet potentially severe, there is no justification to dismiss ocean acidification out of hand. It's as simple as that. There are experts who say your sources are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 10, 2009 21:31:53 GMT
When experts are saying that the rate of pH decline will have significant effects on marine life, and the consequences are uncertain, yet potentially severe, there is no justification to dismiss ocean acidification out of hand. It's as simple as that. There are experts who say your sources are wrong. Who?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 11, 2009 1:30:42 GMT
When experts are saying that the rate of pH decline will have significant effects on marine life, and the consequences are uncertain, yet potentially severe, there is no justification to dismiss ocean acidification out of hand. It's as simple as that. For those living in a sheltered society separated from the realities of life in the wild, potential severe outcomes for large numbers of critters in the wild is an every day possibility and always has been. The key term in your statement was "uncertain". Fact is it is uncertain that without change severe consequences will result. A great example of that is excess fire protection in forests. Having such a calamity is what renews the forest, without it you open a pandora's box of new risks. Finally I don't think anybody has rejected the possibility of negative outcomes out of hand. The wisest approach is wait to see some verifiable evidence that harm is going to occur before limiting people's freedom. You worriers are like a bunch of frittering old ladies with nothing better to do than gossip about the lastest episode of a soap opera. That is fine but I draw the line at when you start donning the garb of despot.
|
|