Climate Change thread

[trastrick]

6 hours ago, Prettytom said:

You know that those scientists simply need to publish their research and put it up for peer review. Then they will be heard.

 

If their research stands up to scrutiny, then they will become the agenda.

 

That’s how science works. A properly democratic method of probing for the truth.

 

The scientific method has nothing to do with democracy, or 97% "consensus".

 

Science has never been "settled" in spite of all the consensus in history.

 

Today $billions, and thousands of studies, are spent trying to "prove" the catastrophic man made global warming consensus. It never ends.

 

How much does it cost to prove the earth is round?

 

Just a couple of photos of spiral galaxies, and photos from the James Web telescope were enough to bin the "Big Bang" consensus, and humble the scientists into the realization that now they don't even know what 95% of the universe consists of.

 

Popular talking head COSMOS expert, Carl Sagan, died not knowing about 95% of the universe, as did Einstein, bless him.

 

See: The Crisis in Cosmology

 

 

Edited September 1, 2023 by trastrick

[Prettytom]

1 hour ago, trastrick said:

The scientific method has nothing to do with democracy, or 97% "consensus".

 

Science has never been "settled" in spite of all the consensus in history.

 

Today $billions, and thousands of studies, are spent trying to "prove" the catastrophic man made global warming consensus. It never ends.

 

How much does it cost to prove the earth is round?

 

Just a couple of photos of spiral galaxies, and photos from the James Web telescope were enough to bin the "Big Bang" consensus, and humble the scientists into the realization that now they don't even know what 95% of the universe consists of.

 

Popular talking head COSMOS expert, Carl Sagan, died not knowing about 95% of the universe, as did Einstein, bless him.

 

See: The Crisis in Cosmology

 

 

I have a sneaky feeling that you didn’t read my post properly.
 

If you did, then you clearly didn’t understand it properly..

 

Nevertheless,  well done for the bizarre conflation of active areas of scientific research. It takes a special talent to attempt that level of misdirection.

[trastrick]

11 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

I have a sneaky feeling that you didn’t read my post properly.
 

If you did, then you clearly didn’t understand it properly..

 

Nevertheless,  well done for the bizarre conflation of active areas of scientific research. It takes a special talent to attempt that level of misdirection.

And I've got a sneaky feeling that you have a not so special talent for dissembling from the topic at hand, to petty insults! 

 

No matter!

 

 

[Annie Bynnol]

1 hour ago, trastrick said:

The scientific method has nothing to do with democracy, or 97% "consensus".

Science has never been "settled" in spite of all the consensus in history.

Today $billions, and thousands of studies, are spent trying to "prove" the catastrophic man made global warming consensus. It never ends.

How much does it cost to prove the earth is round?

Just a couple of photos of spiral galaxies, and photos from the James Web telescope were enough to bin the "Big Bang" consensus, and humble the scientists into the realization that now they don't even know what 95% of the universe consists of.

Popular talking head COSMOS expert, Carl Sagan, died not knowing about 95% of the universe, as did Einstein, bless him.

See: The Crisis in Cosmology

  Your poor understanding of science is clearly shown by your assumption that any scientist has ever proposed that science is or ever will be "settled". The only people who think that understanding is "settled" are those who hand over their thinking process to one of many religions, conmen, cults etc.

   Einstein, Sagan and hundreds of thousands of others before and after them in thousands of institutions, labs, etc  globally, will continue to attempt to model understanding on the observations(eg JWST) available to them, the cooperation, testing and criticism of others, the planning of further observations, experiments and tests. 

   Secondly you claim that "Just a couple of photos of spiral galaxies, and photos from the James Webb telescope were enough to bin the "Big Bang"". You have fallen for the misquoting of Kirkpatrick by Eric Lerner a Big Bang denier and  promoter of pseudoscientific alternatives for 35 years. He also believes that the universe is static and the domain of a creator.

 

[harvey19]

A scientific theory is only reliable until the next one comes along.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, harvey19 said:

A scientific theory is only reliable until the next one comes along.

In the case of climate change,  the next ones that come along will  prove the point rather than change it.

 

[Annie Bynnol]

1 hour ago, harvey19 said:

A scientific theory is only reliable until the next one comes along.

  Reliability being the key word. The theory of gravity that Newton proposed still works reliable for nearly every Earth scale event dealing with objects. Einstein was able to adapt the theory to take in a far broader view of the Universe that coped with the nature of matter, energy and light. Because Einstein's work adds so much it is itself regarded as a Theory. 

• common sense - a feather and a brick  will hit the ground at different times on the Earth. CORRECT
• common sense - the same feather and  brick will hit the ground at different times on the Moon. INCORRECT
• Newton-the feather and brick will hit the ground at a calculable time and velocity on the Moon. CORRECT
• Newton-the feather and brick will hit the ground at the same time on the Moon. CORRECT
• Newton-the feather and brick  will drop to the ground in a straight line when viewed from the Earth. INCORRECT
• Einstein-the feather and brick  will hit the ground at the same time and follow the same but different paths when observed from the Moon, Earth, Mars, Venus etc. CORRECT
• Einstein-the feather and brick will hit the ground at the same but the time it takes for both will be different from rockets approaching and leaving the Moon. CORRECT
• Einstein-the feather and brick will hitting the ground has not been seen yet by most citizens of the Universe. CORRECT

....and more but I am running out of brain.

 

  So simply, Common Sense is totally unreliable. Newton's Theory is still reliable for limited circumstances. Einstein is the simplest accurate complete reliable Theory we have, there are many add-ons- and there are far more to come. One day a group or individual will do a Newton/Darwin/Einstein and knit a MORE reliable Theory together.  You can see the same development of ideas in Earth geography/geology, Elements, Evolution, Human Biology, Earth in space, Electricity, Energy, Matter etc. We could rely do with a comprehensive reliable model and Theory for the Earth's climate.

 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Annie Bynnol

[Anna B]

1 hour ago, Annie Bynnol said:

  Reliability being the key word. The theory of gravity that Newton proposed still works reliable for nearly every Earth scale event dealing with objects. Einstein was able to adapt the theory to take in a far broader view of the Universe that coped with the nature of matter, energy and light. Because Einstein's work adds so much it is itself regarded as a Theory. 

• common sense - a feather and a brick  will hit the ground at different times on the Earth. CORRECT
• common sense - the same feather and  brick will hit the ground at different times on the Moon. INCORRECT
• Newton-the feather and brick will hit the ground at a calculable time and velocity on the Moon. CORRECT
• Newton-the feather and brick will hit the ground at the same time on the Moon. CORRECT
• Newton-the feather and brick  will drop to the ground in a straight line when viewed from the Earth. INCORRECT
• Einstein-the feather and brick  will hit the ground at the same time and follow the same but different paths when observed from the Moon, Earth, Mars, Venus etc. CORRECT
• Einstein-the feather and brick will hit the ground at the same but the time it takes for both will be different from rockets approaching and leaving the Moon. CORRECT
• Einstein-the feather and brick will hitting the ground has not been seen yet by most citizens of the Universe. CORRECT

....and more but I am running out of brain.

 

  So simply, Common Sense is totally unreliable. Newton's Theory is still reliable for limited circumstances. Einstein is the simplest accurate complete reliable Theory we have, there are many add-ons- and there are far more to come. One day a group or individual will do a Newton/Darwin/Einstein and knit a MORE reliable Theory together.  You can see the same development of ideas in Earth geography/geology, Elements, Evolution, Human Biology, Earth in space, Electricity, Energy, Matter etc. We could rely do with a comprehensive reliable model and Theory for the Earth's climate.

 

But this isn't just about the science, it's also about the narrative and that's largely down to the government / media.

 

'Follow the money.' is a truism which can be applied here.

In other words who benefits from giving a false impression of things being worse than they are? 

 

Well, it's allowed the government to bring in new taxes, albeit stealth taxes, and a worried population is easier to control. They look to the government for solutions, and the more worried they are the more likely they are to be compliant with whatever the authorities throw at them, even if it defies logic. (Tried and tested with the Pandemic, when much didn't make any sense.)

 

Another truism is the mushroom growing theory - 'Feed 'em **** and keep them in the dark...'

Edited September 1, 2023 by Anna B

[RollingJ]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

But this isn't just about the science, it's also about the narrative and that's largely down to the government / media.

 

'Follow the money.' is a truism which can be applied here.

In other words who benefits from giving a false impression of things being worse than they are? 

 

Well, it's allowed the government to bring in new taxes, albeit stealth taxes, and a worried population is easier to control. They look to the government for solutions, and the more worried they are the more likely they are to be compliant with whatever the authorities throw at them, even if it defies logic. (Tried and tested with the Pandemic, when much didn't make any sense.)

 

Another truism is the mushroom growing theory - 'Feed 'em **** and keep them in the dark...'

Applies to both ends - and the middle - of many official/media statements.

[trastrick]

6 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

You have fallen for the misquoting of Kirkpatrick by Eric Lerner a Big Bang denier and  promoter of pseudoscientific alternatives for 35 years. He also believes that the universe is static and the domain of a creator.

Say what?

 

I don't dwell in your netherworld of conspiracy theories, so I've never come across these individuals, or their opinions, in my lifetime interest in science.

 

Pathetic, but failed effort to link me to your enemies list, yet again!

 

Science is an exercise of theory, confirmed by observation, not any particular consensus, at any given time in history.

 

Thanks to technology, we now have more and more observations that confirm or invalidate scientific theory.

 

The problem in science (and life in general for that matter) is when people heavily invested in a theory, for whatever reasons, refuse to let it go.

 

Embarrassment, reputation, funding, ego, peer pressure are all human characteristics.

 

Alan Guth's "Big Bang" theory failed to fully explain actual observations and so it was failing until he came up with "inflation" an assumed period when the universe grew relatively slowly, and then grew very fast indeed (his famous Inflation Theory) then, for no apparent reason, resumed its' former rate of. expansion.

 

This was all before Dark Energy, Dark Matter, became the latest theory, and new observations by  Nobel prizewinner Sail Perlmutter announce his observations and explosive findings on the cosmic expansion rate in the 90s.

 

And before the James Webb telescope found many other inconsistencies with current theories of expansion.

 

So the big bang theory is in the sick bay for now, as it has collected more and more "adjustments" (read kludges) to make it viable.

 

Now the eminent Mr Guth is  has a new theory, "More recently, Guth has expressed his belief that our universe is just one of many universes that came into existence among countless others as part of a multiverse. According to this theory, cosmic inflation never ends, but continues expanding at an exponential rate, with additional universes being created all the time as "bubbles" within the inflation process (in some ways similar to Fred Hoyle’s discredited steady-state theory)