Evolution is not a scientific theory

[annielaurie]

You're right Sappho, it's not. Anyway, I think the planet is supposed to be warming, we're in a long and gradual warming trend since the last ice age.

Mankind has contributed polution, but climate changes in cycles over long long periods of time on earth, and there is more to it all than just the manmade problem.

I don't think a carbon tax is going to work. In fact, I don't think anything is going to work at this point, climate change is going to happen, and we are going to have to adapt, that's all.

[IQS.RLOW]

I see freeloader is still avoiding placing all of his cards on the table.

Maybe he only likes playing with a stacked deck?

[Pretentious twat]

I just thought I would introduce some pseudoscience and say carbon isn’t a pollutant.

CO2, CH4 and the rest are pollutants and are being spewed out into the atmosphere with never a thought for the consequences.

Now they have to pay for the privilege, all big polluters do.

In the absence of a world government individual governments will have to introduce such laws as they see fit. This is starting to happen, here, in China, in the US by executive action via the EPA and so on. This is all probably far too late unfortunately—the Arctic ice extent is decreasing markedly so sunlight is hitting dark ocean which absorbs it, warming the Arctic ocean. Methane clathrates under the Arctic ocean are melting, methane is bubbling to the surface, methane, so much worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

In northern America the winters are mild, especially on the west coast and the Pine Bark Beetle therefore overwinters in huge numbers, emerging in spring to kill millions more softwoods and conifers. The ever larger, hotter forest/bushfires then hit and the firies in New Mexico and adjoining states are finding that all the softwood trees killed by the pine bark beetles burns so fiercely that it really hampers their firefighting efforts.

Of course, the trees killed by the pine bark beetles emit methane as they rot instead of capturing CO2 by growing—increasing number of tipping points you see.

This is global warming and it is here and now! It is not due to the sun or planetary orbit perturbations, it is due to increasing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere.

[Someone with commonsense]

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/ ... -the-year/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Read that, that will be us in 6-8 months. You gonna cope?

[Super Nova]

How does any of what you posted re Boyle’s Law contradict what I said? And it did NOT involve temperature, again just like I said.

Well throwing in the mix a scientific principle that they named a "Law" just a title does not make it a current valid theory. Tempurature is important because at extreme tempuratures this "Law" fails. If you want to pick an example next time pick one that still works.

Boyles Law—describes the relationship between the absolute pressure and volume of a gas. You try it out, it works. Doesn’t explain, doesn’t predict based on some theory, just describes what happens.

It describes the relationship - yes - at normal earth like temperatures
If it describes a relationship it must predict on the theory there is this relationship. If you change volume, presure changes so. "It doesn't predict" is just a stupid statement.

A scientific law is just a statement of what happens to A if you do B. It does not explain.

Sure but the exampkle you provide has relationship defined. So it has predictive properties.

A scientific law is a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law.

[Neferti]

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/ ... -the-year/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Read that, that will be us in 6-8 months. You gonna cope?

I never "onclick" to a link that some BS Guest posted. IF you are a genuine person with real ideas, JOIN UP. It is easy and we won't give you as much of a hard time as if you post as "guest". Go on ... join up ... or bugger off and stop being an annoying prick/prickest.

[{Sigh}]

Boyle’s Law is not a theory. It just says “Increase the pressure and decrease the volume and vv.”

I do not have the time or inclination to rectify your education. A bit of Googling will tell you I am right.

[Neferti]

Boyle’s Law is not a theory. It just says “Increase the pressure and decrease the volume and vv.”

I do not have the time or inclination to rectify your education. A bit of Googling will tell you I am right.

That was less than interesting, you absolute fool. You can't even compose a proper sentence without making obvious grammatical errors and spelling mistakes.

Are you drunk AGAIN, Monk?

[Swami D]

Unlike the big bang, which is a completely rational homosexual.

What is your belief Freediver?

You seem to have a lot to say on this issue as well as evolution but I have never seen you reveal your position. Why is that?

As FD has answered neither of these questions, despite numerous requests to do so, we must speculate as to the reasons for his/her reticence.

In my lifetime of studying the writhings of the religious, I have observed that there is, among the (ostensibly) faithful flock, a creature in whose heart lies the terrible knowledge that it has been duped. Conned. This creature has become aware, at some point, that the stories offered it as gospel, regarding the origins of life, were nothing more than lies.

At the moment of this awful awakening, this creature had two options.

The first was to humbly, honestly and openly acknowledge this reality. This option requires courage and integrity and a fearless pursuit of the truth. Respect to all those who have, in this way, risen above their lowly origins.

The second option was to yield to arrogance and conceit and to flatly refuse to accept the self-evident fact that the hapless creature had, for its entire life, been led up the garden path. Such a creature is loathe to clearly explain its beliefs, for to do so involves defending an absurd dogma which it knows in its core is embarrassing, untenable and indefensible.

FD has sadly selected option 2 and this is why he/she dodges the questions above.

[IQS.RLOW]

Now watch freeloader ignore this thread while he crosses his arms and hurumphs to himself that he has explained his point of view and it's everyone else's problem if they are unable to decipher his motive

<fingers in ears>Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala</fingers in ears>