5 ms·

So what? That's not science, that's religion. That is 'god of the gaps' stuff. I suppose we can add it to the list (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

by gd1 12y ago

So what? That's not science, that's religion. That is 'god of the gaps' stuff. I suppose we can add it to the list (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm). Maybe the story was interesting, maybe it was important, whatever. I'm not reading it on principle if they're going to cross themselves and pray to their green god mid way through. There are a number of people like myself who would actually care about ecology/environmental issues if they weren't crowded out by absolute wank like that.

terhechte 12y ago
How is it Religion to have a theory that you're trying to prove? You seem to lack a basic understanding of the scientific method. Her theory is: "climate change is involved". And she is searching for evidence, that is, she is trying to prove it. She doesn't even claim that climate change is involved, it is clearly marked as her opinion. Just like Einstein had the theory that time had to be relative, and then set out to proof it. Your reaction seems to be anger-fueled climate change hate that stops you from thinking in a rational, open minded way. Edit: Gender Error
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  Dr. Lesanna Lahner appears to be a "she". :-) (corrected typo)
  - icebraining 12y ago
    *Lesanna
- gd1 12y ago
  She doesn't posit a plausible mechanism for her theory, does she? It's just the fallback position, "it must be climate change", just a small upgrade from "it must be god". Click on that list I linked above (and they stopped adding to that years ago!).
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    The science of evolution didn't discover a plausible mechanism until the discovery of DNA. Besides, the sea is getting measurably hotter and more acidic and from the article, which you say you did not read, some of the starfish recovered when put in cooler water: The virus probably isn’t the whole story, both Lahner and Raimondi say. Lahner took sea stars that were disintegrating at 54 degrees Fahrenheit and cooled their water to 50 degrees. "They all went from falling apart, having their viscera hanging out, to pretty healthy in a day," she says. "I came back, and they were like, ready for the cover of Vogue. They were perfect." So temperature may play a role in the animals’ ability to recover as well. The north Pacific basin, on average, has warmed by about half a degree centigrade from 1955 to 2013, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "That’s kind of a scary number," says Andy Allegra, a NOAA data specialist. "It’s very large."
    - gd1 12y ago
      I'm sorry, I can't really continue discussion with you since I've already spent 3 months worth of karma on this thread. My apologies.
- bjz_ 12y ago
  > How is it Religion to have a theory that you're trying to prove? [..] Einstein had the theory that time had to be relative, and then set out to proof it. Science is all about coming up with a range of different models that attempt to explain the universe, and then tying our damnedest to disprove as many of them as we can. That way we can be left with the best possible explanations for the phenomena that we observe based on our current level of understanding. We have tried our hardest to bring down the theory of anthropogenic climate change, probably so more than any other theory in the history of science. But every time we try we have failed[0]. We cannot be certain about anything, but if we keep pushing beyond reasonable doubt then we go beyond skepticism and into denial. [0]: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
fit2rule 12y ago
We didn't know how to get to the moon, but we knew we could get there if we tried. That's religion. We got to the moon, by doing the things we needed to do to get to the moon: thats Science. You can't have one without the other.

by gd1 12y ago

terhechte 12y ago

How is it Religion to have a theory that you're trying to prove? You seem to lack a basic understanding of the scientific method. Her theory is: "climate change is involved". And she is searching for evidence, that is, she is trying to prove it. She doesn't even claim that climate change is involved, it is clearly marked as her opinion. Just like Einstein had the theory that time had to be relative, and then set out to proof it. Your reaction seems to be anger-fueled climate change hate that stops you from thinking in a rational, open minded way. Edit: Gender Error

waterlesscloud 12y ago
Dr. Lesanna Lahner appears to be a "she". :-) (corrected typo)
- icebraining 12y ago
  *Lesanna
gd1 12y ago
She doesn't posit a plausible mechanism for her theory, does she? It's just the fallback position, "it must be climate change", just a small upgrade from "it must be god". Click on that list I linked above (and they stopped adding to that years ago!).
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  The science of evolution didn't discover a plausible mechanism until the discovery of DNA. Besides, the sea is getting measurably hotter and more acidic and from the article, which you say you did not read, some of the starfish recovered when put in cooler water: The virus probably isn’t the whole story, both Lahner and Raimondi say. Lahner took sea stars that were disintegrating at 54 degrees Fahrenheit and cooled their water to 50 degrees. "They all went from falling apart, having their viscera hanging out, to pretty healthy in a day," she says. "I came back, and they were like, ready for the cover of Vogue. They were perfect." So temperature may play a role in the animals’ ability to recover as well. The north Pacific basin, on average, has warmed by about half a degree centigrade from 1955 to 2013, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "That’s kind of a scary number," says Andy Allegra, a NOAA data specialist. "It’s very large."
  - gd1 12y ago
    I'm sorry, I can't really continue discussion with you since I've already spent 3 months worth of karma on this thread. My apologies.
bjz_ 12y ago
> How is it Religion to have a theory that you're trying to prove? [..] Einstein had the theory that time had to be relative, and then set out to proof it. Science is all about coming up with a range of different models that attempt to explain the universe, and then tying our damnedest to disprove as many of them as we can. That way we can be left with the best possible explanations for the phenomena that we observe based on our current level of understanding. We have tried our hardest to bring down the theory of anthropogenic climate change, probably so more than any other theory in the history of science. But every time we try we have failed[0]. We cannot be certain about anything, but if we keep pushing beyond reasonable doubt then we go beyond skepticism and into denial. [0]: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

fit2rule 12y ago

We didn't know how to get to the moon, but we knew we could get there if we tried. That's religion. We got to the moon, by doing the things we needed to do to get to the moon: thats Science. You can't have one without the other.