Heretics of Science.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
But I don't don't bong. For me, the starting point of science is wrong and too limited in scope to be of much use to me. I find engineering more useful to physical reality but I also find physical realty too confining.
I agree with the Beav in that the scientific community is stagnant at the upper echelons. True scientific inquiry is stifled by academics protecting their Nobel peace prizes.
Chapter 1 - Cell Motility and Scientific CheatingA Habit of Lies: How Scientists Cheat - Chapter 1, Introduction
The Quality of Lies
Propaganda and Prejudice in the Public Representation of SciencThe Quality of Lies: Propaganda and Prejudice in the Public Representation of Sciencee
A report presented to the Royal Society Committee investigating "Best practice in communicating the results of new scientific research to the public."
September 2003
by
John A. Hewitt MA PhD
This report contains seven sections:-
The Quality of Lies: Propaganda and Prejudice in the Public Representation of Science
The Quality of Lies
Propaganda and Prejudice in the Public Representation of SciencThe Quality of Lies: Propaganda and Prejudice in the Public Representation of Sciencee
A report presented to the Royal Society Committee investigating "Best practice in communicating the results of new scientific research to the public."
September 2003
by
John A. Hewitt MA PhD
This report contains seven sections:-
The Quality of Lies: Propaganda and Prejudice in the Public Representation of Science
The starting point of science is a question, and questions aren't wrong when your goal is to find out something new about the universe.
I think you mean Nobel Prizes in Chemistry, Medicine/Physiology, and Physics. Anyways, that's just not how it works. Beaver can say all of those things, but they don't have any semblance with reality. Nobel Prizes aren't given out when a new result is found. If you actually read the accompanying text with the prizes, you'll see that the prizes are awarded for things that are very mainstream today. It's not until lots of research comes in confirming results that they get the recognition for their discovery. A new result could be wrong.
Climate change does exist, in my view but unlike many others I believe climate change has
always been with us. It is also an evolving and direction changing entity. For example we
have have had colder and warmer trends since the planet was formed and it will go on with
or without us as long as earth is here.
yes we have serious problems, but saying we are going to have a major impact is like saying
we are going to stop the sun from rising. We are living on a living breathing entity as it were
and we are subject to the forces of nature like it or not. We are not going to change the
temperature of the ocean or modify the temperatures that hold or lose snow pack in the higher
mountains. These things happen and change according to the dictates of nature and circumstance.
All the fundraising on earth to sound the alarm will not change a thing. We might feel better but
at the end of the day we will still have to deal with the cards that mother nature dealt us.
always been with us. It is also an evolving and direction changing entity. For example we
have have had colder and warmer trends since the planet was formed and it will go on with
or without us as long as earth is here.
yes we have serious problems, but saying we are going to have a major impact is like saying
we are going to stop the sun from rising. We are living on a living breathing entity as it were
and we are subject to the forces of nature like it or not. We are not going to change the
temperature of the ocean or modify the temperatures that hold or lose snow pack in the higher
mountains. These things happen and change according to the dictates of nature and circumstance.
All the fundraising on earth to sound the alarm will not change a thing. We might feel better but
at the end of the day we will still have to deal with the cards that mother nature dealt us.
Umm, so if we build a dam, and break it, will it not cause a flood? Nature of course dictates what happens...to remove human actions from the same model of cause and effect is a fallacy. We very much can change the course of things.
No.. i demonize the application of psuedo science, one based on speculation and occultism, to promote a political agenda.. one that is viciously anti human, Malthusian, in fact, in its values. There is nothing vaguely resembling real science in the AGW construct. It rejects anything empirical that does not support it hypothesis, and therefor the scientific method. It has consistently used intimidation to enforce an orthodoxy on the educational establishment, and has bamboozled the press with sentimentality and hysteria to support a completely contrived threat.
No...this is actually what you are doing.
The evidence for anthropogenic influence is overwhelming. Dig into these links :
Scientists know what the fingerprints are associated with various forcings on the climate. They have found the fingerprint of an apparent enhanced greenhouse warming in our climate system. They know how much of our emissions are being absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial biosphere. They know what the top of the atmosphere energy imbalance is. They know which spectral bands the outgoing radiation is being trapped at, and they have confirmed satellite observations with ground observations. They can reproduce the current warming with general circulation models (Fig. 9.5a).
It's robust, but yet you will reject this because it causes an internal inconsistency with your view of our economic system and narrow view of what well-being actually means.
In fact these MODELS, which btw are not science, not in the sense of the scientific method hypothesis, experiment and empirical validation... have NEVER been able to predict everything. The proponents need continually to adjust them to reflect at best a static condition of climate, and increasingly evident, a spike to lower temperatures, confirmed by growing ice sheets and cooler summers and cold winters in the Northern Hemisphere.
Their doomsday scenarios have be come ever more remote, their shreaks of disaster ever more shrill. All they know for sure in the anthropogenic influence of carbon in the atmosphere is miniscule, in fact carbon itself is a fractional element in the atmosphere, with huge natural variations that engulf those of human origin. They have never been able to link in the climate epochs of the past, or the cyclical ups and downs that occur regularly over a century.
What we have now, and what you support, is a campaign of obfuscation, of selective 'facts', of fear mongering.. now in support of a huge potential carbon credit trading fiasco, that will further destabilize the world economic crisis.. and gift control of the world's productive economy to the greed driven oligarchs who are destroying it.
I find it funny that both sides of this debate accuse the other side of using pseudo-science. I also think the use of Carbon dioxide as the cause is wrong. We cannot dump hundreds of tons of toxic waste into our atmosphere and oceans and expect that there will be no consequences. Yes there are natural cycles of climatic change but you also have to factor in the human element. This is not an either/or, chicken and egg scenario. It is a combo and this argument is ridiculous, as we are facing dire consequences from our interference, both to the environment and to actually mitigating our part in the outcome. We do need to take some action, but carbon trading and other stupid solutions being put forward are designed to make the unscrupulous rich and serves no other purpose.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Surprise surprise.
Models are used in science all the time. No models are right, some are useful. I use disease models at work, and we can produce efficacious vaccines using these disease models.
See, I told you that you would reject it. The models aren't the evidence, the models are confirmation of the observed results. The energy imbalance, the spectral bands where absorbance is greatest, the isotopic analysis of those trace gases, satellite and ground observations, those aren't models.
You can't accept hard truths because then your model of the world doesn't work. Irony.
That's not correct. Four of the five major mass extinction events we know of from the geological record are associated with sharp increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (not carbon, as you keep saying), which appear to be due to the appearance of huge flood basalts, which geologists for some inexplicable reason call traps. Lesser extinction events (we know of at least nine), are similarly associated with higher levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, though not as high as for the major ones. Today's conditions are somewhat unusual, carbon dioxide levels have been relatively low, and in fact still are compared to much of the deep past, for all of human history, but they are rising relatively quickly in geological terms and the consequences can be devastating.
Here's what happens, somewhat oversimplified: The planet warms over a relatively short period of time due to sudden increases in carbon dioxide and methane, usually caused by flood basalts. This disrupts ocean circulation, and in particular what are called the conveyor systems, like the Gulf Stream, which transport warm surface water to arctic latitudes and generate deeper returning cold currents. The bottom waters begin to have warm, low-oxygen water dumped into them. As warming continues, the temperature differential between high and low latitudes shrinks, and ocean currents and winds pretty much cease. The ocean becomes increasingly less well mixed, anoxic conditions rise to ever shallower depths, and when it gets to where light can penetrate we get a bloom of sulfur bacteria and a strong flux of hydrogen sulfide gas into the air. That breaks down the ozone layer, higher UV radiation kills off the oxygen-producing phytoplankton, and the overall combination of anoxic oceans, radiation, high heat, and hydrogen sulfide creates a massive die off in the seas and on land. That's a greenhouse extinction. The biggest one ever was at the end of the Permian 250 million years ago, associated with the Siberian Traps, in which something like 90% of species snuffed it. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at the time were about 3000 parts per million, over ten times today's level. The most recent one was the Paleocene thermal extinction about 50 million years ago, when levels were near 1000 parts per million. Every mass extinction known except the one that ended the Cretaceous 65 million years ago (that one was an asteroid strike) is associated with spikes in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere.
We're creating another one. The science is sound, and incontrovertible now. I suggest you dip into a couple of useful little books on the subject for the long term perspective: Under a Green Sky by Peter D. Ward, and Frozen Earth, by Doug McDougall.
You certainly cannot. The combined efficacy of any vaccine hovers around 1 per cent. Vaccination against disease has never been demonstrated to be of any medical value whatever.
Absolute drivel right from the first to last sentence. The student would do well to avoid this kind of bombastic rubbish wherever he/she encounters it. CO2 spikes follow the temperature rise they do not lead. It is certainly true that no one knows the chronology or the frequency or the scope of extinction events, and we certainly do not know that any asteroid caused any extinction event.
That doesn't make sense...the combined efficacy of one vaccine? We measure vaccine efficacy by relative per cent survival. Inject equal groups of fish from the same population, one with a vaccine, the other with physiologically buffered saline. Put them through the disease model. Measure survival in the vaccine group relative to the control group. The disease model considers the vector for spreading the pathogen, the concentration of the pathogen shedding, the titre (the minimum infective concentration), the turnover rate in the tank, the temperature, the stocking density, even the size of fish. The only variable that changes between the groups is the immunization. So when 90% of the controls die, and 15% of the vaccinates die, then the relative per cent survival is:
RPS= (90-15)/90= 83.3%
:roll:
What, the catastrophist is denying the legitimate scientific evidence of a catastrophe? Generally I just ignore the stupid things you post, but there might be some help available for you. Richard Dawkins has a new science book out for children called The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True. Buy it, read it, and if you can understand it (which I frankly don't have high hopes for), you might eventually come to understand enough to be worth taking seriously. Right now, you don't.
I don't know off the top of my head, but I'm sure you can find that datum as readily as I can.
This is a profile of CO2 in the atmosphere, with lots links for the terms
Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a naturally occurring chemical compound composed of two oxygenatomscovalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state, as a trace gas at a concentration of 0.039% by volume.
As part of the carbon cycle known as photosynthesis, plants, algae, and cyanobacteria absorb carbon dioxide, light, and water to produce carbohydrateenergy for themselves and oxygen as a waste product.[1] But in darkness photosynthesis cannot occur, and during the resultant respiration small amounts of carbon dioxide are produced.[2] Carbon dioxide also is a by-product of combustion; is emitted from volcanoes, hot springs, and geysers; and is freed from carbonate rocks by dissolution.
You should be able to garner from this that it is a trace element in the atmosphere.. .039% and of that less than 1%.. or .00035% is of human origin. You should also be able to see that natural and biological activities absorb and emit CO2.
No 'extinction event' has ever been associated with CO2. All the climate epochs in the geological history of the earth are a result of ONE and only one cause.. and that is variation in the solar radiation of our sun.
Any intelligent and circumspect look at the data of AGW, will show you it is a gigantic FRAUD. What is scary is so many people are falling for it, and for its underlying political agenda.. as viciously anti-scientific, anti-industrial and anti-human as it is.
Last edited: