Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The right has been saying this forever now, but gets mocked. We're told that 97% of all scientists around the world believe man-made global warming. But there's records in the ice and otherwise that tell us there were times when the carbon levels where much higher than they are today, and the earth was much warmer than it is today. The sun and the earth have cycles.
Of course we're warming. We're coming out of an ice age. According to scientists, it was just 10,000 years ago that where I'm sitting in Michigan right now, there was a glacier two miles high.
A lot of us has known for awhile now that they've been manipulating data to support their cause.
I am not a climatologist, or atmospheric chemist.
My expertise is mathematics - mathematical physics, numerical methods, dynamical systems, and topological field theory.
But, as a mathematician that does stochastic modeing, I can see the mistakes in the fundamentals, and presentation of research because of my experience in academia, and because of my math background.
I know what it takes to provide precise AND accurate results on a 4,500,000,000 year old DYNAMICAL system. You need an entire city block of current-generation quantum computing processors to get within 1/1000 of the accurate data needed to produce such confident statements in AGW.
Oh, ok.
Also, Svante Arrhenius made the first calculations for the increase in temperature due to increased CO2 clear back in 1898 without the help of any computers. His calculations are still considered to be largely correct.
Svante Arrhenius : Feature Articles
We have known for over 100 years that burning fossil fuels will increase temps.
1) Hypothesis NOT theory (though I'm sure you know that 2) Upon further testing, did this theory stand up to rigorous challenge? No it did not. You are comparing very different situations.You don't remember On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life by Charles Darwin?
"Since the dawn of history the Negro has owned the continent of Africa – rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet and yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light.
His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled.
A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour.
In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud.
With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail.”The Church, and Academia adopted his theory on the "races" for a very long time, and depending on where you are it is still the case. The Church was especially staunch on Darwinism and races to justify their imperialism, or "spreading the truth." Academia prefers more subtle conflagration - buried in biology, for example.
Those example I gave weren't weird; they were examples of the hauteur and myopia of academics.
I had read he drank it because he was having trouble getting the h.pylori to attach inside his primate test subjects. Obviously, he is not going to be able to get an ethics committe to allow him to infect other humans. So PLEASE let's not blame "academia" for being "skeptical" of his claims; they had EVERY reason to be skeptical. HOWEVER, when he could produce TEST results, the scientific community was more easily swayed.Barry Marshall had to drink an entire petri dish of H. Pylori because academia refused to believe ulcers were caused by bacterial infection. The concensus was that ulcers were caused by spices, and stress.
It sounds, in harkening to this example, that you are suggesting that there should be no skepticism for any idea the scientific community ever puts out (and yet, strangely, you have a problem with AGW?)
To this point, since you invoke the story, I would highly recommend you read this very interesting story behind it all:
Delayed Gratification: Why it Took Everybody So Long to Acknowledge that Bacteria Cause Ulcers | JYI – The Undergraduate Research Journal
Consensus based on strong science is absolutely the RIGHT parameter. There has been a lot of STRONG science. As much as you dislike the models, they are but one portion of the AGW supporting climate science.We have not come very far, and this is why I said concensus is the absolutely wrong parameter to judge academic paradigms. Too much progress has been ignored because of the consensual immobility of minds.
1) Hypothesis NOT theory (though I'm sure you know that 2) Upon further testing, did this theory stand up to rigorous challenge? No it did not. You are comparing very different situations.
For several centuries the THEORY was practised in science and accepted.
Let me repeat what was definitely said in the book:
"Since the dawn of history the Negro has owned the continent of Africa – rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet and yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light.
His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled.
A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour.
In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud.
With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail.”
These weren't conditional statements, and this line of (scientific AND religious) thinking has only recently slowed down in public.
If it was socially and "ethically" acceptable, the above quoted, and other similar Darwinian sentiments, would be publically accepted science.
What makes it, now, a theory? Cause it's pretty much pseudoscience nowadays.For several centuries the THEORY was practised in science and accepted
That's not "scientific" thinking at all. It is sociological, paelological; and some of it is just plain wrong.These weren't conditional statements and this line of (scientific AND religious) thinking has only recently slowed down in public.
I would prefer discussing the topic of this thread.In the meantime, how about we talk about how consensus is also ruining the theory of gravity, cell theory, Big Bang theory and so many other scientific theories where consensus is considered nondebatable?
Fair enough. Me too. Sadly, the back patting self congratulators from earlier on the thread will not return and they have no real argument to make anywaysI would prefer discussing the topic of this thread.
Fair enough. Me too. Sadly, the back patting self congratulators from earlier on the thread will not return and they have no real argument to make anyways
Also, Svante Arrhenius made the first calculations for the increase in temperature due to increased CO2 clear back in 1898 without the help of any computers. His calculations are still considered to be largely correct.
Svante Arrhenius : Feature Articles
We have known for over 100 years that burning fossil fuels will increase temps.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?