Pretty much lets the truthers out right there. Every time you turn around they have been caught manipulating data to "prove" their dogma. Always reminds me of the tree huggers in the 80's and 90's.
Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Pretty much lets the truthers out right there. Every time you turn around they have been caught manipulating data to "prove" their dogma. Always reminds me of the tree huggers in the 80's and 90's.
How much of the loot the loggers got went back into the land. Clear cur areas are hand planted by kid doing community service around here (encouraged to take jobs like that rather than it being a hard demand)
My science says the ocean basins that exist today put more heat into the earth's water over the last 200M years than the sun ever did in that same time. Even with the subduction theory not being challenged at the moment I'm sure nobody is going to say that is a cooling effect.
One theory I posted today could shoot me down for good as I claim ice turned to water in the surface of a glacier in Greenland cannot travel through ice to the base of the glacier and remain water before the ice cools it enough that it turns to ice again. (rather than the base rock being heated from below as being that cause of the water being found there. Pour some water onto some snow covered hill, does it make it all the way to the bottom of the hill as water? No.
One theory I posted today could shoot me down for good as I claim ice turned to water in the surface of a glacier in Greenland cannot travel through ice to the base of the glacier and remain water before the ice cools it enough that it turns to ice again. (rather than the base rock being heated from below as being that cause of the water being found there. Pour some water onto some snow covered hill, does it make it all the way to the bottom of the hill as water? No.
Considering the Glacial Parkway is an hour away I can say factually that I have, and up close to where they begin. That has water flowing like it should in the summer and the ice does melt on top and flows down through the cracks. Miles back it is gravity and weight that is the factor that is moving the ice, not a few gallons of melt water. To stay as water at the base the temp would have to be above 0C and you won't find that to be a fact when you have 1,000 ft of solid ice above you. That would hold true for Alberta, Greenland and the South Pole.
Have you heard some of the theories of those 'strange sounds'. The funnies ones I heard is the 'frost quakes' as water father down that the 'frost line' will never freeze as the rocks get warmer the deeper you go. The gold mines in South Africa have a rate that is probably good for the whole planet as far as setting the 'norm.
First, check definitions. Technically reporting an average with standard deviations is data manipulation. The ability to manipulate data is critical in data analysis. Some manipulation is good. Some is bad.
Hell they publish papers giving everyone the methods on how they manipulated it. Caught? :lol:
:mrgreen:... yes, of course; however, I was keying off the "caught" and the purposeful implied negative connotation to "manipulated"
Didn't you indicate the cracks go to the surface? That puts the pressure at 1 atmosphere max.
This is not unlike some of the sinkhole theories where a mysterious underground river has eroded a lot of limestone. Wher did the river go as water only flows downhill.
How about this theory. from when the crust is 'rock' some 100km down (a different number can be used if you object to that one) is a solid, if some magma travels afroos the bottom of that and it is 'immovable' then it could cause a deflection in the 'rock' to the extent that at the 80 km level the rock splits as it is having yo adjust to being at a 'larger diameter' and a 'void' is created and that creation has the vibrations travel through the remaining crust and it comes out as a sound due to the same action that caused a tuning fork to emit a sound.
That pretty basic explanation but I hope it is enough to start a pros and cons as it is brand new and there are no papers or links that support or condemn it at this point.
For the supercooled water that works for boiling and aid bubbles at depth. Under your theory water should freeze at less that 0C id atmospheric pressure is reduced. Does water freeze in a vacuum at +1 or +2 C, I have no idea but my gut says no and that would require an experiment of sorts, one at 0 pressure and another in a container at 150PSI and the lower the temp until both are ice. Do you see any flaws in the (proposed) experiment?
http://www.engineersedge.com/h2o_boil_pressure.htm
http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1462
This is not unlike some of the sinkhole theories where a mysterious underground river has eroded a lot of limestone. Wher did the river go as water only flows downhill.
How about this theory. from when the crust is 'rock' some 100km down (a different number can be used if you object to that one) is a solid, if some magma travels afroos the bottom of that and it is 'immovable' then it could cause a deflection in the 'rock' to the extent that at the 80 km level the rock splits as it is having yo adjust to being at a 'larger diameter' and a 'void' is created and that creation has the vibrations travel through the remaining crust and it comes out as a sound due to the same action that caused a tuning fork to emit a sound.
That pretty basic explanation but I hope it is enough to start a pros and cons as it is brand new and there are no papers or links that support or condemn it at this point.
For the supercooled water that works for boiling and aid bubbles at depth. Under your theory water should freeze at less that 0C id atmospheric pressure is reduced. Does water freeze in a vacuum at +1 or +2 C, I have no idea but my gut says no and that would require an experiment of sorts, one at 0 pressure and another in a container at 150PSI and the lower the temp until both are ice. Do you see any flaws in the (proposed) experiment?
http://www.engineersedge.com/h2o_boil_pressure.htm
http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1462
Last edited:
that's not what you were asked Walter! Of course, that listing is a grouping of scientists with degrees of denial... of course they exist. I sincerely doubt you know more than a handful of those names. Many of those names are of persons most obscure; beyond that more than a dozen are emeritus; beyond that based on the supplied descriptions its questionable what relative working understanding some have of the related science. And then, the rest are a wide swath of persons with attachments to a myriad of diverse fields of understanding/knowledge... so diverse to simply reinforce you haven't a clue as to what relevance their described field might have in terms of, supposedly, "shaping your understanding, your position". There's also a large segment of those names (as grouped) that your overt denial does not allow you to attach your denial position/self to... they don't deny it's warming and that the principal causal tie to warming is anthropogenic sourced fossil-fuels... no, they simply have qualified distinction over, for example, the projected severity of impact related to AGW.
you were specifically asked for examples of scientists who you accept findings/evidence from... for the names of scientific organizations that you accept findings/evidence from... you didn't name any scientific organizations... what happened there, hey? Now, I see a few names of some of your past go-to denier guys that you've provided referenced links to... like Spencer, like Ball, like Singer (and 2 of those 3 are emeritus... and one of those 2 is a freaking Sky Dragon wingnut). Is this you stepping up, Walter? I mean, c'mon... you've still got all those denier "blog scientists" at your ready-reach... and you haven't named a one of them yet! :mrgreen:
since it's your premise, wouldn't that onus be on you?
I think some aspects of science have come into doubt lately. Or maybe up until now there hasn't been a fine line established between what is science and what isn't. For forty years or more we've been told by all the doctors that Cholesterol is a direct cause of heart attacks and strokes and there was a strict list of foods that were to be avoided or at least eaten in moderation. I would have guessed that anything that falls under the jurisdiction of the medical profession would be included in science. Now apparently the cholesterol doesn't play the role thought for many years, but rather it's just the trans fats that are dangerous. Eggs and butter are now good to eat in quantity whereas for years we were supposed to avoid them. Very little of this sh*t made much sense to me because it didn't explain why on the whole Eskimos lived healthy lives and seldom suffered heart attacks and strokes. So I guess it's back to the drawing board and the line between science and something else should be adjusted.
Not really.
The Black Hole of Global Warming Spending | FrontPage Magazine
In 2011, your federal government will spend $10.6 million a day on climate change. Annual expenditures will be about $4 billion on global warming research—now called climate change–despite the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, says the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a British educational think tank.
How much of your money has been spent on Global Non-Warming? | EPA Abuse
The U.S. government has spent over $72 billion to combat climate change since 2008.
Government to Spend Twice as Much on Global Warming Than Border Security
Estimates reveal that the federal government will spend more money on fighting global warming than it will on tightening border security. Global-warming spending is estimated to cost approximately $22.2 billion this year, twice as much as the $12 billion estimated for customs and border enforcement.
According to the White House, there are currently 18 federal agencies engaged in activities related to global warming. Those agencies fund programs that include scientific research, international climate assistance, renewable energy technology, and subsidies for renewable energy producers.
Republicans have criticized the administration for its global-warming efforts and have demanded more transparency. The online Daily Caller reported, “Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee have been calling on the heads of major federal agencies to testify on global warming activities.”
The efforts to acquire testimony have been mostly unsuccessful, however, with just the heads of the Energy Department and Environmental Protection Agency agreeing to testify in front of the House of Representatives.
“With billions of dollars currently being spent annually on climate change activities, Congress and the public should understand the scope of what the federal government is doing, how the billions of dollars are being spent, and what it will accomplish,” said Kentucky Republican Rep. Ed Whitfield. “Anyone who believes the committee ought to be focusing its attention on climate change related issues should be standing with us to get these answers.”
It's called speaking with a forked tongue. (and job creation)