Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming

Dave wrote:
We all have a right to question the truth of global warming and
climate change,

You have the right to question the law of gravity as well. However, there
are more useful things to do with your time than complaining about facts.

as we should question everything which is pushed at
us as these are.

You have problems with reality, do you? Reality pushes at you only because
you reject it. Relax and enjoy.

It's a perfectly good theory, but not really proven.

Ignorance of the term 'theory' shows that you do not have a background to
critise science. Theory is factual ( proven ). Hypothesis is speculative.

Widespread acceptance is not proof.

When the widespread acceptance includes the professional scientists who are
directly studying the problem, yes it does. No other criteria for proof
other than widespread acceptance by those with the background and education
to understand the data has ever been proposed as 'proof' in science.

Furthermore there are other more
likely causes for damage or change in the environment, such as
contamination of the air and water.

Irrelevant to the issue. One truth does not drive out another. Please get a
clue. The fact that you are trying 'diversion' speaks to your lack of facts
or serious logic.

From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition.
Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying
principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to
some degree.
OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the
right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't
doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but
that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that
professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as
vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended.
While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more
relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual
(empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong
tree. Best Wishes............Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...
From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition.
Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying
principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to
some degree.
OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the
right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't
doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but
that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that
professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as
vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended.
While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more
relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual
(empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong
tree. Best Wishes............Dave

Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence?

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

Coby Beck wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...
From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition.
Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying
principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to
some degree.
OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the
right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't
doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but
that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that
professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as
vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was
intended. While one truth does not drive out another, one may
certainly have more relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I
see more factual (empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to
bark up the wrong tree. Best Wishes............Dave

Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence?

Obviously nothing, since no 'fact' is ever supported by anything more than
collective opinion. The 'fact' of gravity is just a concession to empirical
observation and common opinion. Nobody really knows what it is or what
causes it ( see recent quantum theory speculations ). However, we call
gravity a 'fact' even though we cannot directly observe that it is constant
or universal.

The same problem(s) comes up when you claim the 'fact' that that house is
blue. The reality is that you just saw one side of the house and *inferred*
that the other sides were also blue based on the assumption that houses are
all one color. You cannot even be sure that what YOU see as 'blue' is the
same color as what everyone else sees as 'blue'. Nor do you even specify the
color precisely. What blue do you mean? Sky blue? Light blue? Kinda a
purplish blue?

To really specify the color you need to measure the wavelength of the light
reflected from the paint and that is science. The whole theory of color and
color perception is just a 'theory' so can you really call the house blue?
If you consider collective agreement by the facts and perceptions to be what
establishes 'facts' then scientific theories are 'facts'.

You can be wrong! You may have seen the house under sodium street lighting
and it is really not blue. But the standard of 'proof' for ordinary facts
are even lower than that for scientific facts. Ergo, A 'theory' is science
is a 'fact' as we understand reality. Those people who say otherwise ( like
Dave ) just show that they do not understand or respect scientific inquiry.
I suspect that it has something to do with jealousy of those who see clearer
and farther than they do.

"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:RG8jf.134470$S4.127402@edtnps84...
"Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...
From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition.
Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying
principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to
some degree.
OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the
right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't
doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but
that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that
professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as
vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended.
While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more
relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual
(empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong
tree. Best Wishes............Dave

Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence?

So what do people think? Is it time for me to give up waiting for an answer
to this question...again?

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:v1lkf.232653$ir4.101812@edtnps90...
"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:RG8jf.134470$S4.127402@edtnps84...
"Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...
From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition.
Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying
principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to
some degree.
OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the
right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't
doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but
that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that
professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as
vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended.
While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more
relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual
(empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong
tree. Best Wishes............Dave

Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence?

So what do people think? Is it time for me to give up waiting for an
answer to this question...again?

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")



You seem to think any pseudo science pronouncement is proof. So what do you
require for real proof?

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:v1lkf.232653$ir4.101812@edtnps90...
"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:RG8jf.134470$S4.127402@edtnps84...
"Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...
From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition.
Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying
principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to
some degree.
OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the
right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't
doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but
that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that
professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as
vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended.
While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more
relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual
(empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong
tree. Best Wishes............Dave

Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence?

So what do people think? Is it time for me to give up waiting for an
answer to this question...again?


You seem to think any pseudo science pronouncement is proof. So what do
you require for real proof?

Proof is a mathmatical concept and is not relevant to climate science. What
is important is data and a coherent theory that is consistent with this
data. The reason I am very confident that AGW is real and a pressing
concern follows.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png
http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html
http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-18375.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142


--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:kD2lf.136704$y_1.114672@edtnps89...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:v1lkf.232653$ir4.101812@edtnps90...
"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:RG8jf.134470$S4.127402@edtnps84...
"Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...
From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition.
Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying
principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to
some degree.
OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the
right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't
doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but
that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that
professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as
vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was
intended.
While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have
more
relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual
(empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong
tree. Best Wishes............Dave

Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence?

So what do people think? Is it time for me to give up waiting for an
answer to this question...again?


You seem to think any pseudo science pronouncement is proof. So what do
you require for real proof?

Proof is a mathmatical concept and is not relevant to climate science.
What is important is data and a coherent theory that is consistent with
this data. The reason I am very confident that AGW is real and a pressing
concern follows.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png
http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html
http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-18375.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142


--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")



Proof is also used outside of mathmatics. Been to court for a traffic
ticket? And you use things like Wikipedia. They are in the news for the
fact that the facts may not be true. And the question regards Global
Warming is what is the cause? You need more proof than what you post as to
say it is mankinds actions that are causing the warming. We have had
warming and cooling for eons. Even when Mankind was not around.

In article .com,
"Dave" wrote:
From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition.
Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying
principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to
some degree.
OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the
right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't
doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but
that doesn't rise to the level of fact.

An explanation can never be a fact -- by definition, an explanation in science
is a theory (when accepted).

Gravity is a fact. The explanation for it is a theory.
Evolution is a fact. The explanation for it is a theory.

Let's remember that
professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as
vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended.
While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more
relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual
(empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong
tree. Best Wishes............Dave

"NobodyYouKnow" wrote in message
.. .
Dave wrote:
We all have a right to question the truth of global warming and
climate change,

You have the right to question the law of gravity as well. However, there
are more useful things to do with your time than complaining about facts.

as we should question everything which is pushed at
us as these are.

You have problems with reality, do you? Reality pushes at you only because
you reject it. Relax and enjoy.

It's a perfectly good theory, but not really proven.

Ignorance of the term 'theory' shows that you do not have a background to
critise science. Theory is factual ( proven ). Hypothesis is speculative.

Widespread acceptance is not proof.

When the widespread acceptance includes the professional scientists who
are
directly studying the problem, yes it does. No other criteria for proof
other than widespread acceptance by those with the background and
education
to understand the data has ever been proposed as 'proof' in science.

Furthermore there are other more
likely causes for damage or change in the environment, such as
contamination of the air and water.

Irrelevant to the issue. One truth does not drive out another. Please get
a
clue. The fact that you are trying 'diversion' speaks to your lack of
facts
or serious logic.



And why was the Kyoto pact developed by non-hard science people. PhD's in
sociology and other non-hard science's do not speak for a studied solution.
Man may be aiding the "Global Warming" but the big fusion engine in the sky
is a bigger contributor. Mar's has also gone in to a warming trend, it's
ice caps are melting quicker and sooner. And if you think we should believe
you because you throw in a few big words, it would help if you spelled them
correctly. In the late 1800's 20 miles of Glacier Bay, AK melted, and has
not refrozen. What did man do to cause this little warming trend? Not many
cars running around then. You have a theory and are trying to make your
prejudices fit the model. Bad science. I criticize your conclusion and
most likely your background. Do you have a degree in the physical sciences?