Global Warming, CO2, and Coral

[Vene]

I'd dearly love to be proven disastrously wrong (how many times have I said that on this board, and to you?--quite a few). I'd love to see you come on here with a ton of your own thoughts fleshed out with gory *detail* and in a blazing streak across this board.

I would love it if anybody could prove you wrong. If I thought I could, I would correct your points. If juv was to disprove you at anything, I would instantly have a huge amount of respect for him.

So, juv, you want to take up the challenge?

 

[thaumaturgy]

I would love it if anybody could prove you wrong. If I thought I could, I would correct your points. If juv was to disprove you at anything, I would instantly have a huge amount of respect for him.

So, juv, you want to take up the challenge?

Frankly since Juvenissun has "de-coupled" this debate from the original OP, I'm kind of unsure what he wants to understand or discuss. So far, when he's brought up a point: be it the origin of carbonate or the impact of atmospheric CO2 on carbonate, I think we have all addressed his "questions".

I am just hoping that Juvenissun starts talking like a real scientist instead of all this bluster and bluff about what he can or will do at some unstated time in the future.

Again, I'm not holding my breath, but it's a hope that does spring eternal, made all the more poignant by Juvenissun's various name-calling and decreeing me "not a scientist" because I deal in details. I wouldn't mind his name calling, I do it myself, but he's got to come to the table with something more than veiled indications of what he's capable of. He has to ultimately bring up some real science in detail so we will know he isn't all trash-talk and no substance, right?

This is kind of like a street basketball game. Juvenissun has proven himself more than capable of trash-talk and boast, and you and I and Chordates keep giving him the ball, but he'd rather hold onto it and tell us how great he's going to be when he does shoot.

C'mon, Juvie, shoot the ball.

 

[Vene]

Frankly since Juvenissun has "de-coupled" this debate from the original OP, I'm kind of unsure what he wants to understand or discuss. So far, when he's brought up a point: be it the origin of carbonate or the impact of atmospheric CO2 on carbonate, I think we have all addressed his "questions".

Beats me what he wants to talk about. I didn't think that the original topic was that technical in the first place.

Again, I'm not holding my breath, but it's a hope that does spring eternal, made all the more poignant by Juvenissun's various name-calling and decreeing me "not a scientist" because I deal in details. I wouldn't mind his name calling, I do it myself, but he's got to come to the table with something more than veiled indications of what he's capable of. He has to ultimately bring up some real science in detail so we will know he isn't all trash-talk and no substance, right?

I find it more amusing that he thinks calling you an engineer is an insult.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I find it more amusing that he thinks calling you an engineer is an insult.

In my years I've changed my attitude toward engineers. I used to put my nose up in the air and assume engineers were simply focused on applications. Part of that attitude came from teaching them in grad school when I was a TA and engineering undergrads would be in the Geo 1 classes. They seemed to be quite sure of themselves and kind of obnoxious. But after I worked with a bunch of engineers over the years, I've realized these men and women are some of the sharpest, most applicable people I've met.

A couple years back I was put in charge of a brand new engineer from Georgia Tech. We were using him as a lab technician, but this guy was wicked smart! He was amazingly capable in just about anything thrown at him.

But I am guessing that Juvenissun has no real understanding of how engineers work any more than he has about how scientists work. He's too busy trolling and trash-talking.

 

[juvenissun]

That's the stuff! Now talk science. DOn't just ask your unending stream of questions.

I am looking forward to your erudition.

Could a talk without number and equation be a talk of science?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Could a talk without number and equation be a talk of science?

science is about quality evidence, numbers usually are a part of that. but evidence is all we ask for in science. any scientist should know that. The amazing thing about science is you could propose a theory based on a crazy trippy dream where you were traveling in a beam of light, and if you have the evidence, we all must accept it. extra credit for knowing the example i gave.

 

[Vene]

science is about quality evidence, numbers usually are a part of that. but evidence is all we ask for in science. any scientist should know that. The amazing thing about science is you could propose a theory based on a crazy trippy dream where you were traveling in a beam of light, and if you have the evidence, we all must accept it. extra credit for knowing the example i gave.

I'm going to guess it had something to do with quantum physics.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I'm going to guess it had something to do with quantum physics.

Its the possibly apocryphal story of the dream that led einstein towards relativity.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Could a talk without number and equation be a talk of science?

Well, math is the language of science, and chemical reactions are the language of chemistry, so if you are incapable of dealing with those aspects of science, then use that as your "out".

If you can't discuss science using its fundamental language, then what kind of scientist are you?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Its the possibly apocryphal story of the dream that led einstein towards relativity.

Inspirational ideas are one thing, just as Kekule's dream of the snake eating it's tail led him to propose the structure of benzene, but I think Juvenissun would stick with the dream and not bother to do the rest of the science necessary to prove the reality of that dream and its applicability to the science.

This is part of the Creationist Credo: Thou Shalt Have No Discipline. For most creationists it appears to be sufficient to ask questions all the time. Answers are not even marginally of importance. Juvenissun has cornered the market on asking questions using a mish-mash of technical terms, but seldom goes into details on them. Juvenissun has expressed his reticence to talk science like a disciplined scientist, so I think I see where this is all going to go:

• vaguaries
• thinly described processes that could mean anything
• philosophical digressions unrelated to facts on the ground
• logic fallacies aplenty

It's pretty much par for the course. And it shows exactly what Juvenissun is and what he isn't.

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by juvenissun

Could a talk without number and equation be a talk of science?

Well, math is the language of science, and chemical reactions are the language of chemistry, so if you are incapable of dealing with those aspects of science, then use that as your "out".

If you can't discuss science using its fundamental language, then what kind of scientist are you?

You did not answer my question.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Inspirational ideas are one thing, just as Kekule's dream of the snake eating it's tail led him to propose the structure of benzene, but I think Juvenissun would stick with the dream and not bother to do the rest of the science necessary to prove the reality of that dream and its applicability to the science.

Of course and thats the key to the example. the dreams can only be given credibility once the evidence is in. The dream alone is meaningless. The point is though that the beauty of science is that it is open to any idea, no matter how crazy, as long as the evidence is there. if scientists could freely choose what they accept then quantum physics and relativity would have been gone a long time ago, they cause too much brain hurt. But the evidence is clear and overwhelming so we MUST accept them.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You did not answer my question.

Actually I did, but as usual, you couldn't understand it:

1. You can talk a little about science without using math and chemical reactions.

2. You can't talk much about chemistry without chemical reactions.

3. This is presumably a "scientific" discussion between "scientists" about a chemical process.

ERGO:

A. You have already shown you can talk vague generalities

B. It is likely you cannot talk about math or chemical reactions in a scientific discussion around chemistry and math

ERGO

C. You are posing as a scientist and really aren't up to the scientific challenge.

If you are a charlatan, please stop wasting my time with your ignorance. If you are a scientist, then start talking science.

If you want an "out" on this, by all means, just keep talking vague generalities without detail we will know YOU aren't a scientist. You are a vague generalist without one iota of scientific discpline.

Anyone can talk vague generalities using a mish-mash of technical terms. It takes a scientist to talk using the common language of science (math) and chemistry (chemical reactions).

Otherwise you are just a "parrot".

(And I already know what kind of poseur you are. I now do not believe you are a scientist. I think you are being dishonest. You try to find your "outs" all over the place. Now you want to talk science without using the common languages of the appropriate sciences.)

STOP WASTING MY TIME. I am pretty sure I know what you actually are.

If you want to talk science, start talking science, charlatan. If not, then keep up with your usual type of post.

NOTA BENE: I do not call someone a "liar" lightly. I am very upset that I have come to this point. I do not wish to ever decree someone to be acting dishonestly and it pains me. I know I could be wrong, but Juvenissun has left me little choice but to assume I am more likely correct. I hope Juvenissun will understand how strongly I feel about this point. I do not call people liars without a great deal of trepidation.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Could a talk without number and equation be a talk of science?

Well, math is the language of science, and chemical reactions are the language of chemistry, so if you are incapable of dealing with those aspects of science, then use that as your "out".

If you can't discuss science using its fundamental language, then what kind of scientist are you?

You did not answer my question.

Honestly, give us your educational history or stop claiming that you're a scientist. the ignorance of your responses gives us no choice but to doubt you. We are not treating you unfairly, we are treating you like a peer. If you do have degrees in science and you are ignorant of the process, we have every right to ruthlessly criticize you. That is also part of science.


PS i suspect that you could be a troll. That has yet to be a formal charge.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Honestly, give us your educational history or stop claiming that you're a scientist. the ignorance of your responses gives us no choice but to doubt you. We are not treating you unfairly, we are treating you like a peer. If you do have degrees in science and you are ignorant of the process, we have every right to ruthlessly criticize you. That is also part of science.


PS i suspect that you could be a troll. That has yet to be a formal charge.

Cactus, I fear he is a Troll. Either way, a troll or a poseur hoping to clothe himself in the mantle of science to get people to accept his claims without proof or detail, it isn't a good choice.

Like I said earlier, it litearlly pains me to make these types of accusations.

As you point out we started out with the assumption of treating Juvenissun as a peer. If that sounds strange to Juvenissun to think that holding another's feet to the fire is "peer treatment", well then Juvie has to learn this is yet another aspect of science his "parrot game" failed to pick up on.

Scientists work well because we always pressure each other to defend their stances until we wind up with the most robust and supported points. If someone doesn't realize this is fundamental to science he or she has never spent any time in a graduate program or around a group of scientists.

Juvenissun started out from all of us with a great deal of forebearance.

Even now I find he is backing me into a corner in which I become more extreme in my stands. I'll readily agree that the math and chemistry can be hard to work with. My life has been one of chasing the discipline that is required to be a real scientist. I'm not half the scientist that many of you other scientists are, but I am working hard and overtime to get better at the hard stuff.

The joke in geology circles is that many of us went into geology to avoid the harder chemistry and math-based physics, but as anyone whose gone beyond the first couple of years in geology realizes, math and chemistry and physics become fundamental and it becomes necessary to learn the stuff in detail.

I'm fortunate in that my work allows me to explore many topics. To that end I've, in the past several years devoted many hours of my own time and lots of my own money to learn the stuff I didn't take the discipline to learn when I was in school. Statistics, rheology, surface science, etc.

That is what angers me more than anything when meeting folks like Juvenissun: their lack of discipline, but more so their failure to care that they don't have the discipline.

The discipline is the only game that matters in science. It isn't just being free to ask the questions, its the hard mind-numbing work of grinding through the equations and numbers.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

The joke in geology circles is that many of us went into geology to avoid the harder chemistry and math-based physics, but as anyone whose gone beyond the first couple of years in geology realizes, math and chemistry and physics become fundamental and it becomes necessary to learn the stuff in detail.

the old stamp collecting joke, it wasnt true then and it's even less true now.

I'm fortunate in that my work allows me to explore many topics. To that end I've, in the past several years devoted many hours of my own time and lots of my own money to learn the stuff I didn't take the discipline to learn when I was in school. Statistics, rheology, surface science, etc.

That is what angers me more than anything when meeting folks like Juvenissun: their lack of discipline, but more so their failure to care that they don't have the discipline.

The discipline is the only game that matters in science. It isn't just being free to ask the questions, its the hard mind-numbing work of grinding through the equations and numbers.

My ambitions include degrees in zoology, I get this same feeling whenever i see cryptozoologists. It's a pretty good analogy to this situation. they pretend to be scientists, they may even think they're scientists, but their rhetoric and methodology show them to be wholly ignorant of the discipline. And on top of all of it, they think they are making gains.

 

[juvenissun]

Actually I did, but as usual, you couldn't understand it:

1. You can talk a little about science without using math and chemical reactions.

2. You can't talk much about chemistry without chemical reactions.

3. This is presumably a "scientific" discussion between "scientists" about a chemical process.

ERGO:

A. You have already shown you can talk vague generalities

B. It is likely you cannot talk about math or chemical reactions in a scientific discussion around chemistry and math

ERGO

C. You are posing as a scientist and really aren't up to the scientific challenge.

If you are a charlatan, please stop wasting my time with your ignorance. If you are a scientist, then start talking science.

If you want an "out" on this, by all means, just keep talking vague generalities without detail we will know YOU aren't a scientist. You are a vague generalist without one iota of scientific discpline.

Anyone can talk vague generalities using a mish-mash of technical terms. It takes a scientist to talk using the common language of science (math) and chemistry (chemical reactions).

Otherwise you are just a "parrot".

(And I already know what kind of poseur you are. I now do not believe you are a scientist. I think you are being dishonest. You try to find your "outs" all over the place. Now you want to talk science without using the common languages of the appropriate sciences.)

STOP WASTING MY TIME. I am pretty sure I know what you actually are.

If you want to talk science, start talking science, charlatan. If not, then keep up with your usual type of post.

NOTA BENE: I do not call someone a "liar" lightly. I am very upset that I have come to this point. I do not wish to ever decree someone to be acting dishonestly and it pains me. I know I could be wrong, but Juvenissun has left me little choice but to assume I am more likely correct. I hope Juvenissun will understand how strongly I feel about this point. I do not call people liars without a great deal of trepidation.

If so, why do you use 500 emotional words to reply my 5 words? I did not call you lier.

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by juvenissun

Could a talk without number and equation be a talk of science?

Actually I did, but as usual, you couldn't understand it:

1. You can talk a little about science without using math and chemical reactions.

So, have I talked "a little" about science?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

So, have I talked "a little" about science?

how about you start talking competently at all about science.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

If so, why do you use 500 emotional words to reply my 5 words? I did not call you lier.

and you gloss over all 500 and respond to none of it.