Talk:Gaia hypothesis/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 25 August 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

"(note: this article is still under development. The Goonie 1 20:35, 22 January 2008 (EST))"

Well - by definition all wiki articles are still under development. And please sign only on talk pages, not in articles. And Goonie - lay off the Jolt, man...peed skills, pills keed speed kills. PFoster 20:40, 22 January 2008 (EST)

But Jolt is my life blood! The Goonie 1 20:42, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Whitewashing

S'up, Gooniepunk? ħuman 00:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yo Human!!!!The Goonie 1 04:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried to keep everything you added, while keeping this an RW-style article. I hope this makes it better? ħuman 04:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

PS, thanks for fixing my "by by"! ħuman 04:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, good job on cleaning it up a bit. I'm trying to re-vamp it and make the article a bit better than it was when I initially made it way back when.The Goonie 1 21:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind it's not really "science". It's not as dumb as YEC, but it's still pretty much woo in search of some scientific-sounding words to make it sound reasonable. ħuman 05:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It's a hypothesis proposed to explain, for example, climate change over the millenia. For example, it proposes that the biological makeup of Earth's population has changed relative to the brightness and heat of the Sun (when Earth was younger, the Sun was dimmer, so more lifeforms were cold-blooded since the Earth was cooler) and that the young Earth (not to be confused with YEC) needed a more CO2 based atmosphere to produce a greenhouse effect that helped warm the Earth. As the Sun grew brighter, the excess carbon was broken down and pushed underground (via mass extinctions such as the dinosuars) through climate changes (desserts and tundras). When people exhumed the carbon and released it back into the atmosphere, they created, essentially, a fever that will change the climate back to more polarized climate conditions (desserts and tundras) to push the carbon back underground.The Goonie 1 05:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see any proposed mechanisms other than general long-term thermal equilibria - if that, even. Also, "As the Sun grew brighter, the excess carbon was broken down and pushed underground (via mass extinctions such as what happened to the dinosaurs)" is just weird. The dinosaurs becoming extinct (probably due to a meteorite strike) pushed "excess" carbon underground? Also, what does global temperature have to do with being cold-blooded? Warm-bloodedness could be arguably a response to cooler temperatures, which aren't very good for the cold-blooded. More solar energy makes cold-bloodedness efficient, not vice versa. ħuman 19:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the earth and its ecosystems seek a natural stasis was popular 30-50 years ago but this idea doesn't hold a lot of scientific merit, and has fallen out of favor. It is still a popular idea among much of the public because of several books in the 1960s-70s, but the understanding today is the earth is always evolving and ecosystems always changing, often through catastrophic means. An ecosystem in "stasis" is actually an ecosystem in decay. While the earth-seeking-a-stasis belief is disputed and out of favor among scientists today, Gaian hypothesis as I understand it goes even further and claims the earth itself is a conscious living organism, putting it in the category of rank woo. Secret Squirrel 01:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Going Jello Biafra

As it appears someone would rather spend their time dismissing a scientifically sound hypothesis that just happens to be related to Neopaganism as junk science rather than spend the same amount of energy researching it, as I have, I have decided to go Biafra on this, and let people know that censorship is occurring just because someone's opinion of science is getting in the way of evidence that actually proves a valid theory. I accept the consequences of my actions accordingly, and do not care if retribution is sought against me.The Goonie 1 04:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any science in this article yet, just the woo-y idea that the planet as a whole is a living organism. I also see lots of unanswered questions about complete hooey, like the "cold blooded" thing. Add citations to valid explorations of this idea (like, you know, sciency stuff) and maybe you can hold it up? As it is, what was the censorship? Deletion of a link to WP (write an article on him here?) and a category - or four, now, I guess. ħuman 04:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Never Breathe what you can't see." - Jello Biafra. I don't know, but I'm guessing that fits here somehow.The Goonie 1 04:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Jello is cool and all, but I have no idea what you are talking about. ħuman 05:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Gotta love Jello, saw him in New Zealand doing a spoken word tour. Was fantastic. Pink Floyd Experience next week. Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 05:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does this article...

...take a completely uncritical view of this nonsense? Amin7b5 15:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Mostly because I was waiting for goonie to add the science he promised. Right now it's a mishmash of woo and some really poorly-thought out ideas. ħuman 00:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted due to author request?

Dude, I worked on this article a tiny bit as did others--it doesn't "belong" to any author, and there are, I believe, procedures to follow re: deletion. I'm sorry you don't like what is being said re: this cute little belief, but that's no reason to take your ball and go home. Amin7b5 22:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision Level C In Progress

I am in the process of scraping this article and replacing it with a new and improved article that will make this article work and flow much better. But what I need is feedback. Positive or negative, I need constructive feedback about this article so that I know what to improve. Let me know. Thanks.The Goonie 1 16:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it in a sandbox or something where we can see it and comment on it? ħuman 20:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't started any revising yet (as I am working on sources and research), but you can find it at User:Gooniepunk2005/sandbox. Again, I haven't done anything to it yet. Give it a couple days.The Goonie 1 01:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I added it to my watchlist so I'll see what you do. ħuman 01:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience tag

We should actually add some rebuking, or remove the tag. Stupid time Phantom! 17:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. However, the current revision I am working on actually DOES have some scientific criticisim of the Theory, but my lazy ass just hasn't had the motivation to finish it yet.The Goonie 1 18:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you have a look at how we define Pseudoscience and see it fits. Remember that while if something is Pseudoscience it is (almost certainly) wrong - that fact that something is "wrong" does not make it Pseudoscience. Many theories have been discarded in the past and are now known to be wrong. But that does not make them retrospectively Pseudoscience.

I'm not saying that this is the case with Gaian Theory, only that we need to be careful.--Bob^{bing up} 18:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason there isn't much debunking yet is that Goonie keeps promising to add some sciencey claims about the topic, and I was waiting for them to appear. So the article's been in a weird holding pattern, where all it does (as I recall) is present a poor case for the "theory". ħuman 21:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I am in the process of re-creating this article. I know, Human, that I've been slacking off on this (as I am good at procrastinating), but since the issue is being raised again, I think that I will complete the next full revision in the coming couple of days or so.The Goonie 1 00:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, we're gonna just go ahead and ream it a new excretory orifice, methinks. ħuman 01:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that anyone ever pays attention to me, but I don't reckon it is pseudoscience as we normally define it. It's not proposing anything magical or beyond "real" science, it's just stating that the Earth, when everything combines, has created a feedback mechanism to keep it's environment homeostatic. It might certainly not be right, but it's not pseudoscience and labeling it as such gives real pseudoscience far too much credibility. ^bomination 14:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I pay attention to you. My take; it makes scientific claims without using scientific method. Pseudoscience. RaoulDuke 15:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

While it is reported that James Lovelock has refused to cast the Gaia hypothesis in a way that could be refuted, it seems to me that the hypothesis - at least in some of its forms - could be refuted by one means or another; furthermore I have the impression that the idea is being developed and is not a static statement of belief. What we need to do is go to our article pseudoscience and see how many boxes it ticks. As Armondikov says, "wrong" is not the same as "pseudoscience"--Bob^{Not Jim} 19:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, while the hypothesis itself is not a pseudoscience, it is the fact that people who support the hypothesis push it as fact that makes it pseudoscience, because it is clearly not proven (thus, it's not a theory).Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 21:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

For me the key sticking point is HYPOTHESIS. If it is in fact the case that it's not the people who came up with/originated this called it a hypothesis, I'd be more inclined to back down. but if you make it up, call it a "hypothesis" and then try to weasel out of playing by the rules of science, you're dealing in pseudo-scientific language. RaoulDuke 23:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the sticking point is possibly that it's called Gaia Hypothesis, if it kept it's less poetic name of "Feedback theory" or whatever then people would be less likely to jump on it. Goonie, however, makes a good point although I disagree; people will push their favoured theory as "true" all the time. If people didn't passionately put forward the case for their idea then we'd get nowhere, there'd be no incentive or motivation for people to research an idea further. Most of real science is a lot of disagreeing, arguing, shouting and then consensus. And while you're at the arguing stage, everyone is going to think that their idea is best; this is just human nature. Now, if Gaia Theory was adapted by woo-meisters (and it may well do as it has all the right bits for it) to push odd political or social agendas, then this application of it would be either woo or pseudoscience. But as it is, it's just a hypothesis/theory regarding natural processes acting as a feedback mechanism to generate environmental homeostasis. Certainly, most atmospheric chemists will agree that feedback - both positive (for instance, warmer oceans can't dissolve as much CO2, therefore more CO2 goes into the atmosphere and the planet heats up further which leads to... etc.) and negative (Warmer oceans lead to increased abundance of life in the ocean surface which release more sulphates, which causes negative climate forcing) - does occur and is responsible for some of the more accelerated periods of climate change. So I maintain that it's a contested subject, but it's certainly not pseudoscience. ^bomination 08:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the pseudoscience label comes from the idea that the evolution of life was somehow "directed" to achieve a certain balance. Obviously, equilibrium of some sort would be created no matter which path evolution took; Gaians seem to say that there's something unique or deliberate about what is, in reality, a matter of chance. JS Leitch 14:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it rather depends on the flavour of Gaia that you're looking at. At one level there is obviously an interaction between the planet and the organisms that live on it. The controversy is over whether life somehow manipulates the environment for its benefit. Even if there is controversy though that, of itself, doesn't make it pseudoscience. Do people investigate it and theorise about it? Yes. Is it a set of dogma or is it subject to research and development? Yes. But, unfortunately: Do some people give it mystical or magical properties? Yes. But the fact that some people use it badly doesn't necessarily make is pseudoscience any more than quantum woo makes quantum theory pseudoscience.--Bob^{Not Jim} 15:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'm not doubting the interconnectedness of the biosphere, and obviously, we humans are pretty dependent on the current equilibrium (it being the environment in which we evolved). Gaian thought is definitely an appropriate metaphor for our dependence on the environment. It's too broad, however, to really be science - individual processes (such as climate change, volcanism, evolution) can be investigated in detail, and we can learn how they're related, but Gaianism tries to circumvent investigation in favor of a "goddidit" style argument. JS Leitch 15:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think, however, that the inherent problem with calling this "Gaia anything" is that people mistake the science behind it with religious mumbo-jumbo, and that goes both with "Gaianists" and skeptics. If you look at Lovelock's actual hypothesis, it states that the systems of the Earth will adjust themselves to maintain an ideal homeostasis of the biosphere; but the controversy within scientific circles is whether or not the end result is an ideal homeostasis, as the hypothesis predicts, and whether or not those processes are already explained by evolutionary processes. "Gaianists" take this process and inject it with "See? The Earth is our Mother Earth!" Skeptics then take this and say "See? Goddidit!"Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 21:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Right. The best way to discuss the underlying science is to be specific. It's better to discuss known relationships (like atmospheric carbon content causing a greenhouse effect) than to try to sway people with sweeping theories which claim more than they can actually predict. JS Leitch 21:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And, again, the major issue with this hypothesis, from a scientific standpoint, is not that it claims more than it predicts but that it, rather, seems to re-state the processes already set in motion by evolutionary processes and then claims that these processes will ultimately lead to an ecological balance that is "ideal for the Earth," when what is ideal is, obviously, a subjective statement.Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 21:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not entirely subjective: there may not be an "ideal for the Earth", but there's certainly an ideal balance for human life. Gaia hypothesis has a lot of emotional support for this reason; from the outside, however, it just looks like a hippy-dippy religion, which just gives ammunition to anti-environmentalists. JS Leitch 22:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, eventually, of course, "she" will get rid of the human race, since we muck things up for "most" life on the planet far more than we are "worth". One thing I always return to on this Gaia nonsense is oxygen. The original "homoestasis" had an oxygen-free atmosphere, and the release of free oxygen by early photosynthesizers almost wiped out life on the planet. ħuman 23:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, it's a hypothesis, not a fact. I have no problem with the psuedoscience tag, though, becasue I admit that so-called "Gaianists" promote this hypothesis as if it were fact. According to the scientific method, a hypothesis is an educated guess based on observations. This hypothesis may not be correct, but that doesn't automatically make it a pseudoscience, just a failed hypothesis. But the fact that people who believe it promote it as a fact that fits their, more or less, goddidit scenario does, in my opinion, qualify it for the pseudoscience category.The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 23:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the people. Some people do talk about Gia theory like that. But as I said above, the fact that some people promote quantum woo doesn't mean that quantum physics is pseudoscience.--Bob^{Not Jim} 16:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, that what we need to do is separate the woo article from the hypothesis article, much like we did with quantum theory and quantum woo?The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 03:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a great discussion. It seems to me that there are two ways that an idea falls into the shadowy realm of pseudoscience- if is does not initially meet the definition of a scientific hypothesis, e.g. is is not falsifiable, or if its proponents distort it to where it no longer has any scientific integrity. I'm not particularly well versed in the Gaia hypothesis, but it seems that a rather large variable in the calculus of these feedback mechanisms would be the existence or non-existence of humans, given our talent for destruction. Seeing as how we cannot observe this system without being present, I would on the outset think that this hypothesis is not falsifiable. Feel free to tell me how wrongheaded I am, though. I've had a cocktail or two. Corry 04:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it may have "started" as an attempt at science, but what we now observe is pure hippy-woo pseudoscience. ħuman 04:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Title

One: it ain't a "theory"

Two: It's not the "Gaian whatever", it's the "Gaia whatever"

So don't be surprised if I move it. ħuman 01:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I was actually thinking of relocating it the next time I got on here (which is today) since it is not technically a theory yet, even though people refer to it as such. Also, Gaian vs. Gaia, whatever. I've heard it referred to as both.The Goonie 1 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's pseudoscience then it should never, at lest in scientific terms, be called a theory. But I'm not sure if you're trying to refute what Lovelock claims for the hypothesis and what others have done with it and I think that should be clearer. Because at a certain level it is "right". The earth does react to what happens to it, life does react to those changes and the earth in turn reacts to what life does. Whether the whole system has some driving "stabilising force" or whatever is another question, and the new-age stuff is yet another issue. New Scientist - hardly known for the promulgation of pseudoscience had this to say a couple of years back. So the assumption of things affecting other things not total rubbish, and I think it should be made clear.--Bob^{bing up} 09:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bob, check out the newer revision of the article I am working on at USer:Gooniepunk2005/sandbox. That article is where all the bickering stops, and all the clarity starts for this article. I need feedback there, as I am planning to replace this article with that onw within the next few days after I get more feedback.The Goonie 1 11:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Been there now. It's a lot better.--Bob^{bing up} 17:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't "replace" the article wholesale - use sections from your sandbox to improve/add to it if you can. Actually, I'd suggest bringing the "criticisms" section over and inserting it now, even though it's a bit weaselly in the way it makes it look like they were all refuted. ħuman 19:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision Level C Posted

I was hoping we'd have (or, maybe, we should create) a category for scientific hypotheses, but er apparently do not. Oh, well. I guess I'll just have to create it.The Goonie 1 21:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

With rules carefully tailored to allow inclusion of this topic? Which still looks like blatant pseudoscience to me, by the way. ħuman 23:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really. I have though for a while about adding a category scientific hypotheses. I think it is appropriate that we start to recognize that, just because it is hypothesis, it isn't total bull. It doesn't mean it's true, but it means it does have some meat behind it. Just like a S.W.A.G theory. I think I will probably edit the critera to include disproven hypotheses, as well.The Goonie 1 00:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything (yet?) in this hypothesis yet that isn't total bull, really. Now, I can accept that the hypothesis is interesting, but to even be a hypothesis, it would have to be explaining an observation in some way, which it doesn't, at least not usefully. ħuman 00:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My US$0.02

I must say having read this only casually I get the feeling that this whole hypothesis is strong anthropic when, as always, weak anthropic will do. I tend to look at things like a mathematician, but what it seems to me is that basically we have some equilibrium point which life as it currently survives in and with any perturbation of the system and it will restore to this equilibrium point. This, whilst not impossible, is surprising in most dynamical systems. The obvious comparison is Le Places's results that if you moved all the plants a few million kilometers out of orbit, they would naturally move back to there current orbits after oscillating a bit. The question remains is how large can this perturbation be that it would cause the earth to not go back to where it is? There maybe another equilibrium point near by that the system will shift to that can support only cockroaches. Life on earth tends to adapt to the environment not the other way around. It will effect the environment in doing so, but the idea that it will always effect it in such away to restore ideal equilibrium does smack of wishful thinking. - π 01:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Life on earth tends to adapt to the environment not the other way around." Yes. "the idea that it will always effect it in such away to restore ideal equilibrium does smack of wishful thinking" = woo. The idea may be "interesting" but it is also hugely flawed in its examples. Sorry we pissed you off, Goonie, but this Gaia thing is woo at best, and pseudoscience at worst. ħuman 03:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, in all honesty, I would really just rather forget this article altogether. It isn't my "pet project." Really, it's become more of a nightmare because all the original research invovling this article is 40+ years old, and out of print or hard to come by. Most of this article is based on my own research and conclusions (which, I admit, are pretty poorly written since I have no idea what the original proponents were thinking of as evidence). Most of what one finds about it on the internet is opinion about the hypothesis, and none of it contains any evidence in favor of or to the contrary. SO as you can see, I on;y get defensive because this article has become such a waste of my time that I get pissed when people want more research. Fuck, even the links from the wikipedia article are nothing more than opinions without factsThe Goonie 1 06:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, in the situation of a dearth of readily available sources. You tried. But remember that here we debunk after explaining? I think you did our best to explain the Gh, but was it your job to present its best front? Or is it, in the end, a "dead science"? ħuman 06:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

While you two were jawing, I cleaned it up a little and offered Lovelock's most famous argument, as well as pointing out its most obvious flaw. Does that help organise the discussion? Wazza^{Hello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me...} 06:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, it does help. And now I can sleep a little better. (Or not. I am sooooo fucking excited for Friday)!The Goonie 1 06:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the latest edit, but, Goonie, rock the house, really, that is all that matters now. Kick some ass and take some names (sell some CDs?) And have fun! ħuman 07:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanx, again, human. See ya Saturday.The Goonie 1 07:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Amusing

Doesn't quite support the hypothesis, but this wigo world link is a fun read with this concept in mind. ħuman 22:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm No Longer Watching This Article

I get too riled up about an article I created when (on this site) I was young, even though it's a topic I find interesting in that I can go either way. As a result, I am finished editing this article because it was a pain in the ass to create, a pain in the ass to research, and an overall pain in the ass to get anything of value on.The Goonie 1 04:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You tried your best to bring the gaia arguments here. Trouble is, they aren't very convincing. Let it go - at least the arguments "for" it are before the "refutations" (for now). ħuman 04:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That and, like I said before, you can't find anything out there but opinions, not actual research on the topic. Nada! None! Not even research against it! Goddamn, trust me, nobody should ever get in over their heads like I did when I started this article. Now back to my Tim Pawlenty article.The Goonie 1 04:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You did a great job in pulling together the description. Some of these things can be frustrating. Personally, I check my less rational thoughts/beliefs at the door when I enter this club. I suspect many others do, too. Now, on to that Pawlenty freak... ħuman 04:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is entirely true as a philosophical concept, or even as a religious idea (Jörð, for example), but it is not science. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I think, if you look back at the fossil record, that's how it started off, but then, due to bickering between Human and myself, it completely changed altogether. Like I said, this was one of the very first articles I ever tried writing here, before I realized just how much time I'd have to waste on something like this. But, like I said, I'm done. I'll visit this talkpage now and then, but I'm done with this article.The Goonie 1 04:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"entirely true as a philosophical concept" doesn't exactly "mean" anything. Anyway, Mr. Twin Cities Punkster, is there an old diff you think was better? ħuman 05:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, as a philosophical concept, there is the "Gaian Philosophy", which is often what people accuse and/or confuse the Gaia hypothesis with. Gaian Philosophy is the belief that the Earth is a living organism itself because (like most living organisms) of the idea that "if you take apart the Earth, it cannot be put back together." This is in contrast from what Gaianists see as the common view of the Earth, that the Earth is a machine to be used/abused by people "who think that if they take it apart (for example, if you pollute the shit out of the planet), you can somehow make it work again afterwards." Basically, Gaian Philosophy is similar to the classical belief in a "Mother Earth" which nurtures and cares for us, but which we must nuture and care for, a belief commonly attributed to certain Native American sects.The Goonie 1 (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I Know I Said I Was Done, But...

I figured I'd spice up the criticisms sections bit. What's most curious about what was called the "Rationalwiki Criticisms" before is that those criticisms are exactly the same ones that endure from the scientific community, on top of the criticism that, for the hypothesis to be true, it requires foresight. Anyway, I have been meaning to redo that section for a while, but I've been busy making fun of Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin.The Goonie 1 (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of the reason for that section title was that until it was added, the article was very "gentle" on the Gh, presenting some of the more inane arguments for it, or examples of it in action, without immediately slashing them to shreds (which most RW articles do, by the way). So I added a separate critique below the rest of the material since we were kind of edit-warring over the rest of the stuff. ħuman 23:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I remember. And forget the edit warring of the past over this article. I hope these new edits I am doing make this article a little easier for you folks to digest, as I have actually, finally, been able to sort out the opinions from the facts with regard to the hypothesis (many, many months later and after actually spending money on my research in order to significantly improve and polish this article).The Goonie 1 (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, I think that my recent revisions here have done enough to satisfy those who (wrongly) thought that I actually adhered to this hypothesis (I have an undecided opinion on said topic, really), so the time has come for me to (finally and hopefully for good) quit stalking this article and retire from regularly editing it. Though, if anyone wants to take it up and needs resources, hit me up on my own talkpage.The Goonie 1 (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It's gotten pretty good, and thanks for the offer of gold and oil and stuff! ħuman 03:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

HAHAHA!!! And, as always, a good joke is worth my laughter.The Goonie 1 (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I see no need to archive this talk page, it's not getting too long. We usually leave talk pages up intact unless they finally get unwieldy. ħuman 23:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

New Scientist

New Scientist had an article on the Gaia hypothesis this week, interestingly they went the negative saying life would wipe itself out. - π 07:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice link, but crap like this: "The key driver of this flux is life: photosynthesis exchanges CO2 for oxygen, and aerobic metabolism does the opposite. Without life, our atmosphere would radically change from the oxygen-rich and life-sustaining gaseous mix we breathe to one in chemical equilibrium - one that, like the Martian atmosphere, would be inimical to life." just pisses me off. I really get sick of the whole "life depends on oxygen" crap. Especially considering that here on Earth it evolved and developed for 100s of millions of years without free oxygen, which is pretty much a poison that life barely succeeded in adapting to. ħuman 07:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

At least by page two they had that covered. Again, nice article, thanks. ħuman 07:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Human, the sentences you quote say that the fact that the gases in the atmosphere are not in equilibrium state proves the presence of life.

Where is the "life depends on oxygen crap"? We depend on oxygen but it is a poison to the bacteria in our gut or the life that once flourished on earth. I learned that from Lovelock's books. It is the flux, not any particular gas, which is the mark of a planet with surface life.

There is an innacuracy in the sentence quoted though: (according to Lovelock's thoeries) an atmosphere in chemical equilibrium is not by definition ininmical to the emergence of life, it just shows no traces of there being life ie. proves that there is no surface life. Look mum I'm published on the internet (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Earth vs earth

When should which be used? - π 05:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Proper noun, so it should be Earth. If you are referring to the material, then earth. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what I learned while editing here, yes. The names of the planets (etc.) are proper nouns. The uncapped "earth" is the stuff worms live in. ħuman 05:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A bit more viable for criticism

I changed the criticisms section from back when this article was based on edit warring between Human and myself to something a little more viable. Let me know what you think of this whitewashing.The Goonie 1 (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you kept some of my "and"s, "the"s and "that"s ;) but I am disappointed that my paragraphy thing is sorta gone. ħuman 00:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

We'll keep your stuff, then. No big deal.The Goonie 1 (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Aw, thanks. I was too worn out to save my deleted crap... thanks for taking the trouble. You are such a Goonie, Punk. 2005. ħuman 07:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Relationship to historical climate change

What if it goes like this:

The most-used example of the hypothesis is as an explanation of the historical climate changes and shifts of the Earth. It proposes that the biological makeup of Earth's population has changed relative to the brightness and heat of the Sun - the younger Earth needed a more carbon dioxide based atmosphere to produce a greenhouse effect, which helped warm the Earth. As the Sun grew brighter, the excess carbon was converted to massive amounts of vegetation globally (what is known as the Carboniferous epoch) which then were buried through geological processes, creating the quantities of oil and coal found underground. In the modern era, these stockpiles of carbon have been released by human actions, reigniting the greenhouse effect. It is hypothesised that the next reaction of the Gaiasphere will be for the Gulf Stream to stop working, ushering in an ice age which will increase Earth's albedo, reflecting much of the Sun's energy back into space as visible light.

I like that version better than mine. I struggled to come up with proper wording for that part (mostly because I knew what I was talking about, but not how to word it). But, your version is better, so go ahead and use it if you'd like.The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 06:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Silver?

Anyone against bringing this up to silver? - David Gerard (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering how much time I spent with Goonie working on it, no, not me. It's got a lot of words, that's the criterion, right? ħuman 01:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the countless hours Human and I argued and fought and fixed and worked and fixed and worked on this article, I'd certainly say it deserves silver. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 05:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)