Vegan Bodybuilding & Fitness

Healthy Food Defines You
It is currently Fri Jul 25, 2014 3:50 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:52 pm 
Offline
Elephant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 1810
Location: florida
compassionategirl wrote:
this topic we are discussing about science versus law is interesting to me.


It's interesting to me too. Fall 05 I was taking 5 law classes. Spring 06 I'm taking 6 math/science/engineering classes. It's like night and day. CG I'm glad there are people like you out there who can handle the flood of legal education and then go out and do something constructive in the world with it. Legal education nearly made my brain explode. It made me feel like the synapses up there were turning into mush.

compassionategirl wrote:
But I still dont get that though. For example, with global warming. Is there not a "right" or "wrong", black and white answer to the question of global warming and which gasses cause it? Why is this debatable? How can it be debatable? I dont get it. Wouldnt that be like saying that it is debatable that hydrogen plus oxygen = water? :? :shock:


Some things are well accepted about it. The Earth's average temperature has risen slightly over a half degree Celsius over the past 100 years. Humans have had an impact on this. Some activities that humans do make the Earth warmer, and some activities we do make the Earth cooler. But the Earth also goes through colder and warmer periods on its own, without human intervention. Mainly what people debate is how much of an effect human activity has had on the rise in temperature vs. how much the temperature would be changing on its own regardless of human intervention.

_________________
[url=http://willpeavy.net/:34olz5pn]willpeavy.net[/url:34olz5pn]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:05 pm 
Offline
Stegosaurus

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 3110
willpeavy wrote:

Some things are well accepted about it. The Earth's average temperature has risen slightly over a half degree Celsius over the past 100 years. Humans have had an impact on this. Some activities that humans do make the Earth warmer, and some activities we do make the Earth cooler. But the Earth also goes through colder and warmer periods on its own, without human intervention. Mainly what people debate is how much of an effect human activity has had on the rise in temperature vs. how much the temperature would be changing on its own regardless of human intervention.


AH ha, I see. So there is a correct answer as to whether or not, say, carbon dioxide and methane contribute to global warming - and that anwer is a yes, and there is no other correct answer. But what is debatable is the extent to which human activity has caused global warming.

yes? 8)

as far as the other comment, :lol: , ya I think the same thing about science. I think "thank GOD there are people out there that actually get this stuff and are good at it cuz it aint gonna be me!" :shock:

I felt so dumb in science class! I actually thought I had a learning disability in grades 9 and 10 because I would kick ass in most other subjects except science (and to a lesser extent, geography). :shock: :lol:

So two important things to know about CG:

An unscientific mind and a body that hates back workouts. :wink: 8)

_________________
People reviled today for their activism will be tomorrow's angels, and people respected today for their power will be tomorrow's demons. History will absolve us and condemn them. ~ Paul Watson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:11 pm 
Offline
Gorilla

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 897
Location: West Virginia
Yes, I was being sarcastic. Sorry. I suppose you're right Will. There are plenty of oddballs/aspergers, etc. I shouldn't say you have to be a good public speaker, but it does help. And I'm afraid that sometimes it seems to help a lot.

CG, I think the big thing that is argued is how they are measuring the temperature to determine whether or not global warming is actually occurring. There is an argument for example that urban cities give off extra heat and are affecting the measurements. But I think that one's been discounted. But there's stuff along those lines.

Also 99% of scientists who have the relevant education do believe in global warming. The MSM in it's quest for objectivity gives the two sides equal time plus the government is on the side of no global warming. Recently there was some news about how they were trying to hush up NASA scientists on the issue for example.

_________________
http://thetoofarfuture.blogspot.com/
http://www.soundclick.com/kunderesque


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:18 pm 
Offline
Stegosaurus

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 3110
Jay wrote:
the government is on the side of no global warming. Recently there was some news about how they were trying to hush up NASA scientists on the issue for example.



Why does this NOT surprise me? :roll:

Why is it so difficult for the government to understand that human survival is inextricably linked with planetary health, and we can only abuse the earth for so long before we self-destruct?

Or is it that they all do know this self-evident little detail but they just dont care because they will all be dead in 100 years? But of course they cant say that they dont care so their strategy is instead to deny global warming, or convince/delude themselves that it really isnt happening?

:roll:

_________________
People reviled today for their activism will be tomorrow's angels, and people respected today for their power will be tomorrow's demons. History will absolve us and condemn them. ~ Paul Watson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:44 pm 
Offline
Manatee
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 492
Location: portland
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:52 pm 
Offline
Manatee
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 492
Location: portland
I am going to have to say that I’m confused. Is this happening or not?
http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/media/fishberries.html
….ok, new plan. I’m just going to make my own damn island and grow my own damn fish free food so that I will never have to question what I am eating ever again!

Well, I wish I could anyway.
p.s. read Ishmael!
DO IT!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:11 pm 
Offline
Elephant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 1810
Location: florida
compassionategirl wrote:

AH ha, I see. So there is a correct answer as to whether or not, say, carbon dioxide and methane contribute to global warming - and that anwer is a yes, and there is no other correct answer. But what is debatable is the extent to which human activity has caused global warming.



CO2 and methane do contribute a lot. Scientists debate how much "a lot" is exactly though. When fossil fuels are burned you get carbon dioxide, but you also get a bunch of dirty particles up in the air which block sunlight (aka global dimming) which in turn makes the Earth cooler. This can mask the heat trapping effect of greenhouse gasses, so their exact effect is harder to calculate. Also, when you have a warmer Earth you have more water evaporation, which means more rain, which means faster rock weathering. Faster weathering means carbon gets pressed into the Earth more quickly (and hence isn't in the atmosphere). Many scientists also estimate that somewhere between 1/8 and 1/3 of the fluctuactions in Earth's average surface temperature are due to inconsistencies in solar radiation. All the factors to be considered just go on and on. But if you want the short story: The scientific consensus is that Earth's average surface temperature will probably rise another 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius in the next hundred years, and that most of that rise will be caused by human activity.

_________________
[url=http://willpeavy.net/:34olz5pn]willpeavy.net[/url:34olz5pn]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:43 pm 
Offline
Elephant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 1810
Location: florida
Jay wrote:
I shouldn't say you have to be a good public speaker, but it does help.


I don't doubt that it helps. The guy in charge of the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory when I worked at FSU seemed to have a natural talent for talking to the press. And I imagine that's the reason why he was the "guy in charge" rather than just a "guy working on the project." On the other hand Stephen Hawking may be the most famous living scientist and he is physically incapable of talking.

_________________
[url=http://willpeavy.net/:34olz5pn]willpeavy.net[/url:34olz5pn]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:54 am 
Offline
Elephant

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 5:02 am
Posts: 1193
Science is constantly being updated all the time and sometimes there is no right or wrong answer. Some science is undoubtedly fact, whilst other science is still debatable.

The role of science with regard to the law is interesting. Precisely because there is often no right or wrong scientific answer - i.e that something is open to interpretation - means the prosecution will have a range of scientists/researchers/forensologists who are experts have published on something that will support the prosecution case. The defence will in turn have scientific experts who will will dispute this and argue against.

There was only a case last week here in the UK of a man found not guilty of a murder on a second retrial. He had tiny particles of blood on his clothing - the prosection had scientists which argued that meant he had been the killer, whilst the defence had experts who argued that the particles could of got into the clothing when the victim exhaled air whilst he was tending to her:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sout ... 661302.stm

Prosecution and defence will produce experts who will argue over the validity of DNA evidence:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 524084.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 480358.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 498300.stm

There has been several high profile cases in the UK recently over 'shaken-baby syndrome'. Was the baby attacked or did it die of natural causes? Scientists will present their different viewpoints to a jury and judge. Is the likelihood 73,000,000-1 or 200-1??:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4639967.stm

_________________
Davey's favourite tipple was "Blow My Skull", a cocktail he served in half-pint glasses consisting of rum, brandy, gin, port, Madeira, sherry and claret.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:38 pm 
Offline
Stegosaurus

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 3110
willpeavy wrote:
compassionategirl wrote:

AH ha, I see. So there is a correct answer as to whether or not, say, carbon dioxide and methane contribute to global warming - and that anwer is a yes, and there is no other correct answer. But what is debatable is the extent to which human activity has caused global warming.



CO2 and methane do contribute a lot. Scientists debate how much "a lot" is exactly though. When fossil fuels are burned you get carbon dioxide, but you also get a bunch of dirty particles up in the air which block sunlight (aka global dimming) which in turn makes the Earth cooler. This can mask the heat trapping effect of greenhouse gasses, so their exact effect is harder to calculate. Also, when you have a warmer Earth you have more water evaporation, which means more rain, which means faster rock weathering. Faster weathering means carbon gets pressed into the Earth more quickly (and hence isn't in the atmosphere). Many scientists also estimate that somewhere between 1/8 and 1/3 of the fluctuactions in Earth's average surface temperature are due to inconsistencies in solar radiation. All the factors to be considered just go on and on. But if you want the short story: The scientific consensus is that Earth's average surface temperature will probably rise another 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius in the next hundred years, and that most of that rise will be caused by human activity.


When I read your post, about half way through, my eyes started glazing over and I had very scary flashbacks of my science days in high school where it all sounded like another language and I just didnt get it.

:shock: :cry:

I will recover from this trauma quickly and attempt to reread the science above described. :D In my opinion, all of you who actually have a penchant for this stuff are so smart in my opinion! Respect! :D

_________________
People reviled today for their activism will be tomorrow's angels, and people respected today for their power will be tomorrow's demons. History will absolve us and condemn them. ~ Paul Watson


Last edited by compassionategirl on Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:39 pm 
Offline
Stegosaurus

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 3110
Tarz wrote:
Science is constantly being updated all the time and sometimes there is no right or wrong answer. Some science is undoubtedly fact, whilst other science is still debatable.

The role of science with regard to the law is interesting. Precisely because there is often no right or wrong scientific answer - i.e that something is open to interpretation - means the prosecution will have a range of scientists/researchers/forensologists who are experts have published on something that will support the prosecution case. The defence will in turn have scientific experts who will will dispute this and argue against.

There was only a case last week here in the UK of a man found not guilty of a murder on a second retrial. He had tiny particles of blood on his clothing - the prosection had scientists which argued that meant he had been the killer, whilst the defence had experts who argued that the particles could of got into the clothing when the victim exhaled air whilst he was tending to her:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sout ... 661302.stm

Prosecution and defence will produce experts who will argue over the validity of DNA evidence:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 524084.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 480358.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 498300.stm

There has been several high profile cases in the UK recently over 'shaken-baby syndrome'. Was the baby attacked or did it die of natural causes? Scientists will present their different viewpoints to a jury and judge. Is the likelihood 73,000,000-1 or 200-1??:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4639967.stm


Excellent points Matt.

_________________
People reviled today for their activism will be tomorrow's angels, and people respected today for their power will be tomorrow's demons. History will absolve us and condemn them. ~ Paul Watson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:37 am 
Offline
Stegosaurus

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 3110
madcat wrote:
Image


hey madcat how did ya do that? :D

_________________
People reviled today for their activism will be tomorrow's angels, and people respected today for their power will be tomorrow's demons. History will absolve us and condemn them. ~ Paul Watson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:31 am 
Offline
Manatee
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 492
Location: portland
Well, I took a fish and a strawberry, booked them a hotel room (with a jacuzzi of course), put on some Barry White, bought a bottle of 2004 Ponzi Tavola Pinot Noir (it’s a very good year), and then left to let the magic happen. Because after all, fishberries are what nature intended. :wink:


Ok ok… I stole it from the link above.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:59 am 
Offline
Elephant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 1810
Location: florida
compassionategirl wrote:
When I read your post, about half way through, my eyes started glazing over ... and I just didnt get it.



This part of it is all you really need to know:

"The scientific consensus is that Earth's average surface temperature will probably rise another 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius in the next hundred years, and most of that rise will be caused by human activity."

_________________
[url=http://willpeavy.net/:34olz5pn]willpeavy.net[/url:34olz5pn]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:35 pm 
Offline
Rabbit

Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:16 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Washington state
madcat wrote:
Image


yeah... :!: :?: :!:
messin with nature, what's the real cost?

_________________
"Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong..."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  



{ ASACP_CREDITS }
{ ASACP_CREDITS }
{ ASACP_CREDITS } Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group