|
Environmental Science
Link |
by jimbob123432
on 2008-03-24 13:07:05 (edited 2008-03-24 13:07:16)
|
|
First off, I realize that this is not a physics-related topic, but I humbly beg the great Gendou in the sky to allow me this simple allowance. I was discussing the environment with some of my friends when my physics teacher came up and said that environmental science is not a real science. He says that it deals more with beliefs and faulty logic than science. I, after investigation, am inclined to believe him. What do you think? |
|
Re: Environmental Science
Link |
by
on 2008-03-24 13:11:19 |
|
environmental science should be mostly about environment eh? its kinda similar to living environment I supposed. |
|
Re: Environmental Science
Link |
by
on 2008-03-25 07:34:48 |
Environmental sciences are based around the interactions of elements in an environment aren't they? Surely you can break it all down to base physics? I dunno it's not a subject I've looked at.  |
|
Re: Environmental Science
Link |
by jimbob123432
on 2008-03-25 12:29:38
|
|
I have asked him about the base physics of it, but he explained that he meant that Al Gore-esque science is fake. (He denies global warming). He says that the science of the environment is real, but environmental science is not real. |
|
Re: Environmental Science
Link |
by
on 2008-03-26 04:23:20 |
|
I've never believed much in global warming in any case. It seems to be a politicians tool to me. But we as a species have a huge impact on the environment. I mean just look at how much of the planet we've covered in concrete or turned into radioactive no go areas. You can't deny that. |
|
Re: Environmental Science
Link |
by jimbob123432
on 2008-03-26 06:42:31
|
|
I agree that we have too much of an impact on the earth also, but when it comes to global warming, we have to look at the facts. 1) The earth has always been in a cycle of heating and cooling (see: Ice Ages) 2) Animals have been going extinct for while, basically since the Europeans showed up. People are crying over the polar bears, but who cried over the dodo? 3) Ice displaces the same amount of fluid as it does in liquid form. 4) The cities that have been experiencing "global warming-related" disasters (mainly New Orleans) were a bad idea in the first place. You don't build cities below sea-level! Bad things are bound to happen! Also, with regards to hurricane-affected areas, we should have listened to the natives. If they didn't live in an area, neither should we. They were living there long before the whites came over, so they know what the weather is like! |
|
Re: Environmental Science
|
|
Environmental Science is somewhat similar to Natural Science. Environmental Science's main branches are Astronomy, Geology and Meteorology. What's not so "Science" about that, huh? Tell your teacher that he/she's wrong. Like... doh. xP I hated my Earth and Envi Sci Teacher so much when I was in first year. x_x ~Tsujai |
|
Re: Environmental Science
|
| I'm majoring in Environmental Engineering and regardless of whether it's a "science" or not, within the next few decades, it will become the most important "science" we have studied. We're slowly destroying our planet, and there is no other "Earth". |
|
Re: Environmental Science
Link |
by
on 2008-05-31 01:42:55 |
|
I'm taking APES (AP Environmental Science XD) right now and if my teacher heard your teacher say that, he'd probably go kick his or her a**. ^o^' He's very extreme about Environmental Science. Though I hate APES class b/c it's very boring and people in my class are stupid, (one girl called an ostrich an emu and a jack rabbit a jackal -.-) I think it's still a science b/c there are some cases where you have to calculate and take measurements to come to a conclusive result of an experiment...though I'm too tired at the moment to think of one. There definitely was a lot of calculating on the AP test... >o< 
|
|
Re: Environmental Science
Link |
by SuicidopoliS
on 2008-05-31 14:59:03
|
|
jimbob123432 wrote 3 posts up: 2) Animals have been going extinct for while, basically since the Europeans showed up. People are crying over the polar bears, but who cried over the dodo? Care to elaborate on that...? .oO° Life's THE CURE, the rest are details! °Oo. |
|
Re: Environmental Science
|
|
i think i know what JIMBOB is saying... that the native americans only took what they NEEDED and europeans killed unnecessarily, and didnt always eat the animals... but it's not entirely correct, because other cultures kill unnecessarily... the japanese and the dolphin massacres, c'mon!!! **edit: sorry, JIMBOB, i changed it from jombob. my apologies for the harmless typo................................................................. |
|
Re: Environmental Science
Link |
by jimbob123432
on 2008-06-01 12:43:09 (edited 2008-06-01 12:43:20)
|
|
To suicidopolis: Yes, I will gladly elaborate on my Europeans comment, just for you! If one looks at history, one will see that few species went extinct while they were being hunted by the natives of the area. Enter the Europeans (for clarification, I mean the explorers and the people who followed them). Unlike the natives, it seems these white (and sometimes tan) people did not just hunt simply for sustenance (see: the dodo, the British wolf, and the bison (although it never did become extinct, it came pretty damn close to it!)). They hunted because some rich guy in their home country paid them to bring back the head, horns, fur, or other appendage of an animal. The rest was rarely used (see: Ivory hunting). To flurgadher81: First of all, my name is jimbob, not jombob. Second, the Japanese and other Asian civilizations have always hunted respectfully when it comes to marine life. It was only in recent years that this has changed. Beforehand, it took a while to find one dolphin/whale, spear it, haul it on board, and take it back to port. Nowadays, electronics find the dolphins/whales quickly, harpoon guns shoot them rapidly, cranes bring them up easily, bigger boats means a bigger haul, and diesel engines mean that they can hunt much quicker. All of these "improvements" I also blame on the Western world, because it was they who introduced most of these things (except the electronics, although they were taught to the Japanese by the West during the Korean War). |
|
Re: Environmental Science
|
|
okay, then blame the africans for everything, because they are who we all came from, evolved from, migrated from, right? is that the correct thinking? if someone gets a power and abuses it, do not blame he who bestowed the power. the same mentality as "guns dont kill people, stupid people with guns kill people"! wasnt gunpowder invented in asia? yes, i believe it was CHINA. let's blame the chinese for every killing by gun. |
|
Re: Environmental Science
Link |
by jimbob123432
on 2008-06-02 10:38:21
|
|
First off, if I was to follow your logic flurgadher81, every single problem today would not be the Africans's fault, it would be the single celled organisms from which we evolved. DAMN YOU AMOEBA! And I am not blaming "he who bestowed the power" per se, I am just stating that the West should not be complaining about a problem that they helped create. |
|
Re: Environmental Science
Link |
by
on 2008-06-02 11:25:44 |
Moved to Philosophy topic. 
|
|
Re: Environmental Science
|
|
youre absolutely right about the amoeba comment, jimbob. the problem is, we should ALL be complaining about the problems with the environment, even if we DID help to create them. in most places, it is not one of the most important thing on the government's mind. we NEED people to complain that species are disappearing, that the hurricanes and other natural disasters are WAY more frequent recently, that we're going to run out of oil. the US and some other governments seem to be ignoring these problems, regardless of WHO caused them all. this world is on fire, heading for Hell, and we dont have another "earth" to retreat to. earthquakes causing tidal waves, hurricanes causing floods, all of these tragedies killing hundreds of thousands of people recently... *moment of silence for all the people in the far east who have died in the recent natural catastrophies. |
|
Re: Environmental Science
Link |
by jimbob123432
on 2008-06-03 10:14:51 (edited 2008-06-03 10:15:40)
|
|
Two of the things you just mentioned ARE on the governments's mind: oil and a 2nd planet. NASA is currently on Mars, seeing if it can support life, namely the rich people who can afford to fly there when Earth goes to Hell! Also, the US and Co. is currently in the Middle East, securing freedom for the oil that is trapped under the freedom-hating soil! What most seem to forget is that we are are not ruled by a naturalist or environmentalist government, we have a capitalist government. And until polar bears and poor south-east asians start making lots of money, no one will care about them, no matter how hard one protests! |
|
Re: Environmental Science
|
|
I'm sorry, I refuse to continue this conversation. "Jim-Bob" your name suits you perfectly; your words are the same as those from some random, arrogant, Bush-voting, Arab-hating middle-American. ***I'm honestly disappointed, because you seemed to be so knowledgeable in your previous posts, but this last post made you seem otherwise. "trapped under the freedom-hating soil"?? The US is in the M.E.-- killing thousands of people and sacrificing thousands of our own, mind you-- because we don't want China and Japan to get the oil there, so they can't ever surpass us in the future. Please talk to anyone daring enough in the UN or any honest political analyst in order to have me proven correct. "until polar bears and poor south-east asians start making lots of money, no one will care about them"?? You have to be kidding. Thanks to ignorant people like you and other Americans and their Hummers, we're all going to drown, literally (thanks to those melting ice-caps "no one cares about"). Again, please refer to the triple asterisked line above***. Thank you. |
|
Re: Environmental Science
Link |
by jimbob123432
on 2008-06-06 16:42:51
|
|
Sorry to disappoint you flurgadher81, but I am a Canadian. Also, I vote Communist. I was just stating the facts of the situation to you since you are either ignoring them or don't know them. And here they are once again: 1) "Honest political analysts" do not exist. Everyone is swayed one way or another on every issue, even if it does not affect them. 2) Capitalists are only concerned about things that can make money, that is why they are capitalists. 3) We will not drown, as a simple system of man-made relief lakes and rivers would solve the problem. Also water displaces the same amount of fluid, whether it is solid or liquid . Finally, I wouldn't be calling someone else's intelligence into question when you seem to be obsessed with the word "poop". |
|
Re: Environmental Science
Link |
by
on 2008-06-06 20:32:38 (edited 2008-06-06 20:40:38)
|
|
OK, as much of a waste of time this ''Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is the effort to understand, or to understand better, how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. It is done through observation of phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate phenomena under controlled conditions.'' Now, lets start with this Communism has nothing to do nor affect how you see the environment, If you believe in communism that means you follow only /one/ person in charge. It is way better than many systems . And its a good way to run things, is that many people get carried away. Now, ''Honest political analysts'' How will you define it to be ''Honest'' Only the target can define it to be honest, you can't define it for others. ''Capitalists are only concerned about things that can make money, that is why they are capitalists.'' You should read ''The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection'' By Charles darwin. But let me make t simpler: Natural Selection -- its power compared with man's selection -- its poweron characters of trifling importance -- its power at all ages and on bothsexes -- Sexual Selection -- On the generality of intercrosses betweenindividuals of the same species -- Circumstances favourable andunfavourable to Natural Selection, namely, intercrossing, isolation, numberof individuals -- Slow action -- Extinction caused by Natural Selection --Divergence of Character, related to the diversity of inhabitants of anysmall area, and to naturalisation -- Action of Natural Selection, throughDivergence of Character and Extinction, on the descendants from a commonparent -- Explains the Grouping of all organic beings.'' In other words, We tend to do what gives us the best result, beeing money/food/card anything. If theres no water will you just sit there? or move towards the ocean? Theres no such thing as a superior system of power. because they all start and end the same, some faster than others but in the end they all end the same (wanting more). Instead of blamming groups/company's/leaders and other easy targets Why not learn and live by giving example? You say how bad this and that is, but in the end your just arguing over it (reason why posting here is a waste of time for me) Why not do something about it with the resources you have? This argument/topic is just pure redundancy and closed minded racism, if ya want to learn be open minded to opinion. And learn to argue as mature people that you all are. And with that. this thread is now locked |