do salt molecules block the water? More likely shift the osmotic gradient?

How about planting a load of samphire

Our bodies are best at responding to pathogens that enter our system normally - over mucus membranes, through skin contact, and via ocassional inadvertent ingestion and inhalation.

Directly injecting pathogens (and a whole host of other known toxins) straight into the bloodstream puts their bioavailability at 100%, instantly. These damaging elements have perfect access to the brain, and all other internal organs, giving the body's almost no chance whatsoever to deal with the invading harmful elements. You can expect to see symptoms manifest in minutes, hours, or days - and this is exactly what you do see in vaccine related injuries.

Aluminum, formaldehyde, cyanide, and other elements we do eat, and are harmless when found embeded in their naturally occurring places. Injecting those refined elements (mixed together with all kinds of other poisons) directly into the bloodstream is no where close to eating un-refind foods that have the same elements bonded to other molecules which render them intert or beneficial.

What is the bioavailability of aluminum found in a banana when eaten?

What is the bioavailability of that same quantity of aluminum when the banana is pulverized and injected into the bloodstream?

What is the bioavailability of that same quantity of aluminum when it's refined, and no part of the banana except the aluminum is injected directly into the bloodstream?

Their description of the actual affect of the aluminum in particular is incomplete. Aluminum is a known neural disruptor. If it reaches the brain directly (remember, bioavailability is at 100%) the aluminum will disrupt neurons. This may result in some cases in a neural disruption. Did you know autism is a known neural disruption?

A computer big enough to accurately calculate the position and properties of every "particle" (and ever decreasing subdivisions of energy and matter) would need to be the size of the universe in the first place. We can't even simulate enough particles in an n-body simulation to match the number of stars in a galaxy, let alone individual molecules, or shall we go further and say atoms, or further and say protons, neutrons and electrons? And that's for ONE galaxy amongst hundreds of billions in the OBSERVABLE universe... using only ONE force - gravity!

The guy has a great point about the Big Bang - a billion billion galaxies worth of matter and energy created in a split second from nothing? Doesn't sound like like the conservation of energy that is so fundamental to physics, right? But that's no reason to throw out hundreds of years of evidence and research which has proven conservation of energy to be true since then. The big bang makes the most sense given what we see today... if you want to propose a better theory, it has to make more sense than the Big Bang theory. Saying that the big bang doesn't make sense is not an appropriate starting point for a new theory, and doesn't lead to "so therefore we're in a simulation."

And it's not good enough to appeal to simplicity like @robdot is doing - basically saying that everything we see could very easily be an illusion for our benefit. That's an argument for God, in my opinion... just like how religious fanatics say "it was God's will for this to happen" we'd instead say "well, that's what the simulation wanted to show us" and call it a day. Furthermore if the manifestations of physical laws out there in the universe are illusions, they are at least consistent illusions that we can calculate and predict. And in that case, what is the difference to our lives whether we call it "reality" or "simulation" or "computer"? It it still what we always knew it was. If something created our universe and allowed it to run like a simulation, it is almost certainly intangible to us and for all intents and purposes meaningless too, because we can't touch, feel, see or understand it on any level.

This is one of the topics i asked of my favourite professor - how can we trust what we see if it could be faked, and what exists beyond our universe? His answer was, if i have to doubt what i see, i might as well not do anything at all, and if you want an answer to the second question talk to a philosopher. This is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one. The scientific method doesn't care what you call the place you live in nor "who" we think "created" it. You can't hope to understand anything if you don't base it on the evidence you have. You certainly can't form a theory on the basis that all evidence is untrustworthy.

More than likely this song has nothing to do with LSD... but something much more profound and short lasting, more true to nature to the lyrics. Adult Swim are no stranger to the idea of the "spirit molecule" - they have a new VR project that basically looks like DMT visuals, in 3D, but one has to consider in real life they are like 4D-10D holograms and DMT is no joke.

My original thought was maybe a frozen methane hydrate, it didn't behave like a pure liquid.

From http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/climate-change-and-methane-hydrates/
-Methane hydrates belong to a group of substances called clathrates – substances in which one molecule type forms a crystal-like cage structure and encloses another type of molecule. If the cage-forming molecule is water, it is called a hydrate. If the molecule trapped in the water cage is a gas, it is a gas hydrate, in this case methane hydrate.
Methane hydrates can only form under very specific physical, chemical and geological conditions. High water pressures and low temperatures provide the best conditions for methane hydrate formation.

Cool indeed.

Not directly related, but reminds me of something cool about vacuum: The air above us , the atmosphere, has weight such that it presses on everything from all directions (even "up") at 14.7 pounds per square inch. The effects of this aren't noticed, for example, when a dry piece of glass is placed on glass table. The air pressing down on the glass is equally counteracted by the air molecules under the glass pressing up. If, however, you wet the glass and press it onto the glass table, the counteracting air pressure from below is removed - the air pressure is now applied only to the top of the glass, so the full 14.7 pounds per square inch presses down and it's difficult to break the bond. Same reason suction cups work.

i am not surprised we pretty much agree.

you should always be careful with any substance and to be informed is the first step.
was i careful at 15 with double barrel purple mescaline?---->nope.i was 15.

but i think the argument is getting caught up in distinctions,which is common.
when i speak of psychedelics,i am talking about:LSD,shrooms,mescaline.
and while exstacy is considered a psychedelic,and it IS a psychedelic (and awesome btw),i also consider that drug to be more a "club" drug,a designer drug,and yes...it can be fatal because often it is NOT mdma/mda you're are taking but a cocktail of bullshit with a few experimental chemistry molecules thrown in...so your cautionary tale is not exactly unfounded..but i have never seen shagen even suggest mdma/mda but almost exclusively:DMT.

now,i am fairly cautious in suggesting DMT to the uninitiated due to the fact of its potency (even in small amounts).there is no small build up with DMT,it goes from first gear to 15th in 2.2 seconds,and for a newcomer that can easily overwhelm and frighten.

for psychedelics to produce a positive and healthy response there first has to be interest in trying psychedelics out.the worst thing you could EVER do is "hey man,i just filled your beer with shroom tea" (you would notice though,that shit tastes like concentrated ass).

the person should also be in the right frame of mind and be in a place and with people they feel comfortable with and trust (very important the first time).knowing the dosage is important but not as important as you would think,as long as you take things slow and with patient care..things will sort out nicely.

as for death and permanent brain damage.i am not familiar with any cases except for the movie they showed us in the 7th grade with helen hunt thinking she could fly,because she took acid.i know psychedelics can affect a personality permanently (usually for the better) but nothing life threatening.i know too high a dosage on a novice mind can cause a "bad" trip and leave an unpleasant memory of the experience.there have been cases of latent mental illnesses manifesting due to the psychedelics,but it didnt CAUSE the mental illness.

from my own personal experience and what i have read,psychedelics are pretty safe.they are not a toy.they are an extremely powerful psychoactive compound that should always be treated with respect and to ignore that can have consequences.

but i dont think death and permanent brain damage are on that list.

unless you decided to do something stupid while tripping,but that is evolution,not psychedelics.

i could always come to california and we could drink shroom kool-aid.hang out on the moutain-side and watch the sunset and by the time we are watching the sunrise we will have become blood brothers and watched the universe expand in glorious birth pangs and then collapse upon itself in its death throes.talked to stars and danced with super novas.find ourselves in a meadow,thinking we walked half the state only to realize we are a 1/4 mile from your back porch.

i promise good times my friend.good times indeed.

While I cannot know what many experience - I have been the sitter for over 40 people. They tell me what they experience, when they come back their eyes say it all. They could never have imagined what had happened to them was possible. None of them had negative experiences. Though, for a strong "teaching" psychedelic like DMT a negative experience is not always "negative" there is a story to it. I should know, I would say that one of my "breakthrough" trips was the most terrifying experience I have ever had hands down. But, I learned from what that experience wanted me to experience and what I was taught has had long-lasting positive components in my life.

I think you are confusing DMT/ayahuasca with other psychedelics, salvia, mushrooms, LSD, MXE... etc etc. Show me ONE story where someone has committed suicide from taking DMT.

While, I would not say I am a drug riddled person, I almost never take them.
I have "experienced" substances out of curiosity. I've taken many different kinds and all of the big psychedelics, LSD, shrooms, mescaline a few times. I learned that the propaganda around these substances has no merit. Obviously, a person needs to take them seriously and with respect so that nothing goes awry. And no, DMT does not compare at all.

But,I am very well versed on the topic (DMT), I researched all of the negative/positive effects for about six years before I actually did it myself. I was very careful, since if you have ever read a decent trip report it sounds absolutely crazy. There is no way anything could take you to places like that, to meet creatures of a bizarre sort, it's just not possible I thought. Well, I found out, it's similiar to decent trip reports X 1,000,000. As Joe Rogan says - it's "mushrooms + aliens x 1,000,000". But, nothing in the human language(s) could ever prepare anyone for it and no one can express even 1% of what it is like.

I think you are over-exaggerating the negative effects while shunning the reality of what this molecule is, it is a mystery that can only be understood after having experienced it firsthand. It only lasts 5-10 minutes (2 million years) what are you waiting for?

The ancestry of living beings isn't just traceable through the fossil record. The study of genetics shows us a huge and utterly overwhelming amount of evidence for the common ancestor idea. Common genes can be traced back to show the lineage of different animals and plants and groups of animals and plants.

Homology is a complex subject..it would take awhile to get into. I found a good link that illustrates the argument against it being a proof that macroevolution occured. If you want to take a look we could discuss further:

http://creation.com/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalism

Ring species show that small changes can indeed lead to separate species. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are evolution in progress. You say that just because small changes can be seen it doesn't follow that big changes can evolve but that's stupid. Big changes are just a series of connected little changes.

I guess it depends on who you ask?

Erwin, D.H. (2000) Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evol. & Devel. 2:78-84.

the independence of macroevolution is affirmed not only by species selection but also by other processes such as effect sorting among species.

Lieberman, B.S. and Vrba, E.S. (2005) Gould on species selection. in MACROEVOLUTION: Diversity, Disparity, Contingency. E.S. Vrba and N. Eldredge eds. supplement to Paleobiology vol. 31(2) The Paleontological Society, Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Micro- and macroevolution are thus different levels of analysis of the same phenomenon: evolution. Macroevolution cannot solely be reduced to microevolution because it encompasses so many other phenomena: adaptive radiation, for example, cannot be reduced only to natural selection, though natural selection helps bring it about.

Scott, E.C. (2004) Evolution vs. creationism: an introduction. (Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press).

Macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution, and we must envision the process governing its course as being analogous to natural selection but operating at a higher level of organization.

Stanley, S. M. (1975) A theory of evolution above the species level. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 72: 646-650.

In conclusion, then, macroevolutionary processes are underlain by microevolutionary phenomena and are compatible with microevolutionary theories, but macroevolutionary studies require the formulation of autonomous hypotheses and models (which must be tested using macroevolutionary evidence). In this (epistemologically) very important sense, macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution: macroevolution is an autonomous field of evolutionary study.

Ayala, F.J. (1983) Beyond Darwinism? The Challenge of Macroevolution to the Synthetic Theory of Evolution. reprinted in PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY, M. Ruse ed. p. 118-133.

When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)

TONS of things cure cancer. All day, every day. Doctors have no clue what cancer is. All they can do is cut, burn, or poison and cross their fingers.

I didn't say Cannabis was THE cure. It is A cure used by thousands with amazing efficacy. Everyone is different.

Here's 60+ studies for your perusal if you insist on the superiority of western scientific research:

"Cannabis, and the cannabinoid compounds found within it, has been shown through a large cannabisplantamount of scientific, peer-reviewed research to be effective at treating a wide variety of cancers, ranging from brain cancer to colon cancer. Below is a list of over 60 studies that demonstrate the vast anti-cancer properties of cannabis.
Studies showing cannabis may combat brain cancer:
Cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits the proliferation and invasion in U87-MG and T98G glioma cells. Study published in the Public Library of Science journal in October 2013.
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) can kill cancer cells by causing them to self-digest. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in September 2013.
CBD is a novel therapeutic target against glioblastoma. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2013.
Local delivery of cannabinoid-filled microparticles inhibits tumor growth in a model of glioblastoma multiforme. Study published in Public Library of Science in January 2013.
Cannabinoid action inhibits the growth of malignant human glioma U87MG cells. Study published in Oncology Reports in July 2012.
Cannabidiol enhances the inhibitory effects of THC on human glioblastoma cell proliferation and survival. Study published in the Molecular Cancer Therapeutics journal in January 2010.
Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death in human glioma cells. Study published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation in May 2009.
Cannabinoids inhibit glioma cell invasion by down-regulating matrix metalloproteinase-2 expression. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2008.
Cannabinoids and gliomas. Study published in Molecular Neurobiology in June 2007.
Cannabinoids inhibit gliomagenesis. Study published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry in March 2007.
A pilot clinical study of THC in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. The results were published in the British Journal of Cancer in June 2006.
Cannabidiol inhibits human glioma cell migration through an independent cannabinoid receptor mechanism. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in April 2005.
Cannabinoids inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway (VEGF) in gliomas. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2004.
Antitumor effects of cannabidiol, a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacology in November 2003.
Inhibition of glioma growth in vivo by selective activation of the CB2 cannabinoid receptor. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2001.
Studies showing cannabis may combat colorectal cancer:
Cannabigerol (CBG) can inhibit colon cancer cells. Study published in the Oxford journal Carcinogenesis in October 2014.
Inhibition of colon carcinogenesis by a standardised Cannabis Sativa extract with high content of CBD. Study published in Phytomedecine in December 2013.
Chemopreventive effect of the non-psychotropic phytocannabinoid CBD on colon cancer. Study published in the Journal of Molecular Medecine in August 2012.
Cannabinoids against intestinal inflammation and cancer. Study published in Pharmacology Research in August 2009.
Action of cannabinoid receptors on colorectal tumor growth. Study published by the Cancer Center of the University of Texas in July 2008.
Studies showing cannabis may combat blood cancer:
The effects of cannabidiol and its synergism with bortezomib in multiple myeloma cell lines. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in December 2013.
Enhancing the activity of CBD and other cannabinoids against leukaemia. Study published in Anticancer Research in October 2013.
Cannabis extract treatment for terminal acute lymphoblastic leukemia of Philadelphia chromosome (Ph1). Study published in Case Reports in Oncology in September 2013.
Expression of type 1 and type 2 cannabinoid receptors in lymphoma. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in June 2008.
Cannabinoid action in mantle cell lymphoma. Study published in Molecular Pharmacology in November 2006.
THC-induced apoptosis in Jurkat leukemia. Study published in Molecular Cancer Research in August 2006.
Targeting CB2 cannabinoid receptors as a novel therapy to treat malignant lymphoblastic disease. Study published in Blood American Society of Hemmatology in July 2002.
Studies showing cannabis can combat lung cancer:
Cannabinoids increase lung cancer cell lysis by lymphokine-activated killer cells via upregulation of Icam-1. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in July 2014.
Cannabinoids inhibit angiogenic capacities of endothelial cells via release of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases-1 from lung cancer cells. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in June 2014.
COX-2 and PPAR-γ confer CBD-induced apoptosis of human lung cancer cells. Study published in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics in January 2013.
CBD inhibits lung cancer cell invasion and metastasis via intercellular adhesion molecule-1. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in April 2012.
Cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, as novel targets for inhibition of non–small cell lung cancer growth and metastasis. Study published in Cancer Prevention Research in January 2011.
THC inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced (EGF) lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivo. Study published in the journal Oncogene in July 2007.
Studies showing cannabis may combat stomach cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor agonist as an alternative drug in 5-Fluorouracil-resistant gastric cancer cells. Study published in Anticancer Research in June 2013.
Antiproliferative mechanism of a cannabinoid agonist by cell cycle arrest in human gastric cancer cells. Study published in the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry in March 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat prostrate cancer:
Cannabinoids can treat prostate cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Non-THC cannabinoids inhibit prostate carcinoma growth in vitro and in vivo: pro-apoptotic effects and underlying mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in December 2012.
The role of cannabinoids in prostate cancer: Basic science perspective and potential clinical applications. Study published in the Indian Journal of Urology in January 2012.
Induction of apoptosis by cannabinoids in prostate and colon cancer cells is phosphatase dependent. Study published in Anticancer Research in November 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat liver cancer:
Involvement of PPARγ in the antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma (CHC). Study published in Cell Death and Disease in May 2013.
Evaluation of anti-invasion effect of cannabinoids on human hepatocarcinoma cells. Study published on the site Informa Healthcare in February 2013.
Antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma. Study published in Cell Death and Differentiation in April 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat pancreatic cancer:
Cannabinoids inhibit energetic metabolism and induce autophagy in pancreatic cancer cells. Study published in Cell Death and Disease in June 2013.
Cannabinoids Induce apoptosis of pancreatic tumor cells. Study published in Cancer Research in July 2006.
Studies showing cannabis may combat skin cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor activiation can combat skin cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Cannabinoids were found to reduce skin cancer by 90% in just 2 weeks. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology in July 2013.
Cannabinoid receptors as novel targets for the treatment of melanoma. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in December 2006.
Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, in January 2003.
Studies showing cannabis may combat other types of cancer:
Bladder: Marijuana reduces the risk of bladder cancer. Study published in the Medscape site in May 2013.
Kaposi sarcoma: Cannabidiol inhibits growth and induces programmed cell death in Kaposi sarcoma–associated herpesvirus-infected endothelium. Study published in the journal Genes & Cancer in July 2012.
Nose, mouth, throat, ear: Cannabinoids like THC inhibit cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells. Study by the Department of Pediatrics at the State University of New York, published in June 2010.
Bile duct: The dual effects of THC on cholangiocarcinoma cells: anti-invasion activity at low concentration and apoptosis induction at high concentration. Study published in Cancer Investigation in May 2010.
Ovaries: Cannabinoid receptors as a target for therapy of ovarian cancer. Study published on the American Association for Cancer Research website in 2006.
Preparation and characterisation of biodegradable microparticles filled with THC and their antitumor efficacy on cancer cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Drug Targeting in September 2013.
CBD Cannabidiol as a potential anticancer drug. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in February 2013.
Cannabinoids as anticancer modulators. Study published in the Progress in Lipid Research journal in January 2013.
CBD inhibits angiogenesis by multiple mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in November 2012.
Towards the use of cannabinoids as antitumour agents. Study published in Nature in June 2012.
Cannabinoid-associated cell death mechanisms in tumor models. Study published in the International Journal of Oncology in May 2012.
Cannabinoids, endocannabinoids and cancer. Study published in Cancer Metastasis Reviews in December 2011.
The endocannabinoid system and cancer: therapeutic implication. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in July 2011.
This list was compiled in part by Alchimiaweb.com.
– TheJointBlog"

Accurate for the most part. Quicksilver gets his powers from being a mutant, and can run at supersonic speeds (although later can go up to mach 10)

The flash gets his powers from.. well, they're still kinda explaining it, one got it from being struck by lightning, then a few after got theirs from the "Speed Force". The key difference is that the flash can run at light levels, and a couple of them are able to actually vibrate themselves so fast that their molecules don't interact with certain things around them, and they can pass through walls.

We need to support those scientists who are trying to create a synthetic dog nose. That way there's no training, there's a device that has a read out of molecules it actually detected (when properly used and maintained).
Dogs want to please the master, and can easily tell the master is pleased when they 'alert', giving total incentive for them to false 'alert' so dad is happy (and dad gets happy and dog gets reward BEFORE the alert is verified, reinforcing the bad 'alerts' along with the good).
Dogs' 'alerts' should NEVER be allowed in court, they're far worse than lie detectors.

The problem with chilling whiskey is that you "close the nose". When you chill it, less molecules are released as part of the aroma. A small drop of water (and I mean literally a few ml), on the other hand will actually "open the nose" or increase the aroma.

Ice in bourbon is fine, but you shouldn't really put ice in a single malt. If you are drinking whiskey in a really hot climate, you could try using whiskey stones.

Ultimately, it's down to personal taste of course, and the joke here wouldn't really work if he hadn't put ice in it.

Damnit, now I want whiskey.

Spinning the iphone - it is possible to do, i've played with that effect with a tv remote as a kid, trying to flip it over once and catch it. That's when i found out about Dzhanibekov effect. I think that basically more mass lies along the plane in which it is spinning, and it either isn't balanced or isn't precisely stable as it's released, and so there is a net centrifugal force acting on the phone in the direction that it begins to rotate (if you don't do it right), gently at first but the further it goes into its spin the more it reinforces itself and it flips. (that's what i remember from childhood, but the wikipedia article itself is accurate so double check) I'd like to investigate this effect in space/vacuums though, it's still interesting.

The water one - this is just one scientific opinion and i imagine many exist, but i can't find any true source on this. My immediate reaction to his explanation about the uniform electric field is to consider the field projected by the cup - prior warning simplifications are rife. Approximate the electric field emitted by the negatively charged cup as being normal to the surface at any point on the surface. You bring that field towards the water, and if there is indeed a more positively charged side, then it would experience a force in an electric field. We can safely believe that the water molecules will fall facing in all directions (fluid dynamics ensuring a nice distribution of particles within the stream allowing us to believe that), and any that are not pointed exactly parallel to the electric field will experience some kind of force. However water can also have a meniscus, which might encourage the water to "stick together" a bit and head towards the negative source, but i'm not sure about that in a flowing/falling context.

The fundamental point here is that an electric field is introduced to the water which responds by moving towards the source of the field. He hasn't shown me anything to doubt the standard explanation, and i don't understand why he thinks that the molecule wouldn't experience a force if it is as described. Without using electric charge to explain it, and i'm quite certain it isn't magnetic (the only other associated phenomenon), he's basically saying it's magic?

@robbersdog49 got the cane and cereal ones, and the teabag one is of course just the fact that the burning teabag heats nearby air, hot air rises which causes cooler air to rush in from the side and below, which causes a bit of an upwards current of flowing air, and when the remnant of the teabag is light enough, it is lifted by that force. As it burns lower, there's less fuel (paper) and it's less hot, so the force drops, so it only happens when it's nearly ash and very light. The last piece almost doesn't make it.

Hi Notarobot, your argument is unfortunately based on a very common misunderstanding of the chemistry of water and salt.

I can assure you that it is an established scientific fact that pure water has the highest heat capacity per unit of its mass compared to any water solutions. The less water there is in a water solution, the less heat capacity that solution has. This is because the temperature of pure water is more proportional to the amount of energy contained within it, which is due to the flexibility of its molecular structure. The more salt you add to water, the less structural flexibility (i.e. purity) there is to distribute and contain energy as the temperature increases. To put it another way, the salt molecules weigh down and restrict the water molecules from moving as freely, which is why salt water has a higher boiling point.

So in fact the more fresh water that is introduced to the oceans, the higher heat capacity and heat conduction there will be.

Furthermore, you grossly oversimplify the problem of climate change by assuming the only change that matters is immediately perceptible to "mammals like us". One of the biggest issues is that even slight variations in temperature can drastically change entire marine ecosystems. If enough ecosystems collapse, it will cause a chain reaction that will be very, very difficult to manage, let alone recover from. Also, even slight variations in salinity can drastically change ocean currents, which in turn affects not just marine ecosystems, but weather patterns throughout the world as well.

I can tell you're an intelligent person, so I hope you'll take me seriously when I say that it's very, very important for all intelligent people to be as diligent as possible when referring to the scientific causes and effects of climate change. Advocate whatever position you'd like as to how we should go about things, but please do your best to validate the information you're using to do so.