Russell Brand.

AGD said:
Actually no. All the evidence so far suggests that it is true. You might want to check your sources.
Click to expand...

Thank you for quoting part of what I said. Well done. Yes the earth is heating up. Yes the Arctic is melting and getting smaller. Antarctica is growing and getting bigger. Suggesting not all of the planet is infact heating up. Hence 'global warming' swiftly changed to 'climate change'.

It would have happened without our contribution. If you actually look into the trend over millions of years (not the last decade like someone suggested) we are still coming out of an ice age...

But yes, let people tell you 'HERP DERP HUMANZ ARE KILLINGZ ZE PLANET'
 
Last edited:
balky12 said:
Thank you for quoting part of what I said. Well done. Yes the earth is heating up. Yes the Arctic is melting and getting smaller. Antarctica is growing and getting bigger. Suggesting not all of the planet is infact heating up. Hence 'global warming' swiftly changed to 'climate change'.

It would have happened without our contribution. If you actually look into the trend over millions of years (not the last decade like someone suggested) we are still coming out of an ice age...

But yes, let people tell you 'HERP DERP HUMANZ ARE KILLINGZ ZE PLANET'
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Antarctic is warming up, which is why some parts of it have shown larger gains in winter ice. Importantly, total ice volume is decreasing rapidly - so much so that the loss in mass is changing the gravitational flux in the Antarctic!


No scientist has ever said all of the planet will warm uniformly, you are utterly mistaken. Global warming is characterized by regional changes in average temperatures over multi-decadal timescales. The actual theory has far less to do with surface temperatures but net energy changes, land surface temperature changes are only a very small part of the picture. 90% of global warming occurs in the oceans due the the specific heat capacity of water and the fact that 70% of the planet is covered by oceans.

Global warming is a perfectly valid description. Climate change hasn't superseded the term global waring, climate change was used by the scientific community since climate has been studied by man kind. Global warming was used predominantly by the media because it is a simpler and clear description of what i currently happening to the planet and will happen for the next hundreds of years (even if we stop adding CO2 today).

"It would have happened without our contribution"
No it wouldn't.

"If you actually look into the trend over millions of years"

proves you have absolutely zero understanding of climate and everything you say can be completely ignored as utter mindless trash:rolleyes:
 
TheBDog said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge


Even if facts exist, they can be superseded/ proved wrong.

Presumably scientists debate and disagree about facts on this basis alone.
Not to mention constant debate on validity of studies of course.
Click to expand...

Scientific facts cannot be proved wrong - that is what makes them a fact.

It is a fact that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is PI. That is a scientific fact, no amount of future research will disprove that.
 
balky12 said:
Depends where the funding comes from as to what results you get. Great example of that is Global warming. 'OH NOS THE EARTH IS HEATING UP!!!'

That was proved nonsense.
Click to expand...

The only thing that is nonsense is your warped and delirious understanding.
 
D.P. said:
:rolleyes:

"It would have happened without our contribution"
No it wouldn't.

"If you actually look into the trend over millions of years"

proves you have absolutely zero understanding of climate and everything you say can be completely ignored as utter mindless trash:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So the planet was incapable of warming up by itself? So if we never existed we would still be an ice cube since the last ice age?

The Earths temperature has fluctuated massively long before our arrival. It's a natural cycle.

'Planes, cars, and industrialisation are soley to blame for the change in climate'. ok.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
Scientific facts cannot be proved wrong - that is what makes them a fact.

It is a fact that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is PI. That is a scientific fact, no amount of future research will disprove that.
Click to expand...
SOME scientific facts cannot be proven wrong. Others can come under debate. That's how it works.

When writing a scientific paper you even have to address the validity of your own work as this can come into question due to sample size/ probable error rate etc.

As mentioned, "facts" can also be superseded by future research/ studies.

Also, there are areas of science with competing theories that exist that cannot coexist. For example, quantum physics.
 
balky12 said:
It would have happened without our contribution.
Click to expand...

D.P. said:
:rolleyes:

"It would have happened without our contribution"
No it wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Would Have!... Have people!... Have!:mad:

edit: or if you are going for the short form "would've" I shall not take anymore of this "would have" nonsense lying down! I'll write to my MP God Damn It!
 
Last edited:
Climate change is only an issue for Humans and only those humans who are alive now, not the dead ones. Animals or insects don’t give a damn either .. because they cant.

what’s the big deal ? the planet can form and re-form as it wishes.
 
Threepwood said:
Are you getting scientific 'fact' and 'theory' mixed up?


Does gravity exist?

Yes - Fact.



Why is there gravity?

We don't know but we have some theories - lets try and disprove them!
Click to expand...
Not at all. My post may not have been clear.

Pt 1: Addressing known "facts" and their half-life and that they can be superseded

Pt 2: Addressing the original point, that scientists would run the country better by implying that in the area of scientific theory (not fact) there is still plenty that comes under debate.
 
Can't stand Russell Brand.

People who defend his hypocritical housing arrangements saying "He's renting from an estate agent, he doesn't know the landlord" - well now he does he'll surely be moving? No? No, I expect not.
 
phill1978 said:
right, i did think you were going to actually read posts. never mind.

your throwing out claims and not backing them up or answering questions, just mud slinging.
Click to expand...

just like Brand then, he slings out claims with zero empirical evidence yet you sheeple lap up his milk and then come here and accuse everyone else of what your so called messiah of the new world is doing already, yet somehow his **** doesn't stink ??? Jesus talk about kettle calling the pot black.........................
 
wildman said:
just like Brand then, he slings out claims with zero empirical evidence yet you sheeple lap up his milk and then come here and accuse everyone else of what your so called messiah of the new world is doing already, yet somehow his **** doesn't stink ??? Jesus talk about kettle calling the pot black.........................
Click to expand...

are you insane?

seriously. read the thread. You have assumed that quote to mean im sticking up for the guy when I clearly stated he is an arse many times, why even isolate that one comment out of 10 pages ?? even the guy I posted that too who also didn’t read 3 times said "ohh fair enough"

I hate thread hoppers like you who come out with generic insults and swearing without even READING.

Lay off the pipe
 
Last edited:
TheBDog said:
SOME scientific facts cannot be proven wrong. Others can come under debate.
Click to expand...

Can you give an example of something that is both a 'scientific fact' and open to debate? In particular what makes it a 'fact' while also leaving the possibility of debate open?

Are you sure you're not referring to theories?
 
dowie said:
Can you give an example of something that is both a 'scientific fact' and open to debate? In particular what makes it a 'fact' while also leaving the possibility of debate open?

Are you sure you're not referring to theories?
Click to expand...
I'll admit that was a bad sentence (that doesn't really gel with the rest of what I was saying). Change "Others can come under debate." to "Others can be superseded" or just ignore it and see the rest of the post / summary. :) Up to you really.

I wasn't after winning "Most compelling argument of the Year" just putting my point across.
 
dowie said:
In particular what makes it a 'fact' while also leaving the possibility of debate open?

Are you sure you're not referring to theories?
Click to expand...

Well strictly speaking they are all open to debate considering we accept them because of an a priori assumption that reality is a fact and that our sensory input is reliable and consistent enough to perceive said reality.

I know science work for me for explanations about the world and it provides the best answers to the observations I make but I think do people who work professionally in science cling less to scientific facts than scientific lay people do. I don't really have any "faith" in the strength of our knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, etc but I do have a belief in the scientific method and our willingness to use it to attempt to undermine what we believe to be a good explanation in our quest to find a better one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom