The Climate Change AND contentious science thread- vampires and dark matter

[-=SS=-]

I dunno, it seems every other internet hipster sciency afficionado is all about tesla this tesla that, in this demografic he seems very popular. yeah the general public doesn't know about him, but how many really understand the implications of works by the likes of Einstein, Newton, Heisenberg, and so on? I had no clue about all of this until I actively started to learn about it. of course, back when I was completely "scientifically ignorant", I heard about these people, but I had no understanding whatsoever. it's more important imo that people understand science more than to know which scientists are famous for something they did. that's why I think that Carl Sagan's approach to popularize science was fantastic.

Man don't even bring hipsters into this. He is a hero because the public love an underdog. Anyone can resonate with his story, triumph, and defeat at the hands of business interests. Someone with the level of passion, dedication and moral vision than he had is someone you can't not love.

I disagree with the rest of your post though. There's understanding science, and there's understanding science. I understand science, I loved it, did well in it at school, still dig around from time to time. But I don't understand it in terms of being able to do the higher math, it's a whole new language. I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, but you are of a similar position to this? I think most people are. But if you don't understand it completely then really it's more about faith and trust that you know it's true, because you can't prove it yourself at this point. I just happen to not trust the overall thrust of conclusions that modern science entertains.. and that is a perfectly valid position to hold, because no one knows what the score really is.

Newton I can dig since he actually experimented, though when it comes to the nature of colour I prefer Goethes prism experiments than Newtons.. Goethe had the natural science streak in him which I resonate with.

Start at 40:00 for Goethes prism experiment.

 

[Bagseed]

well I'm by no means a mathematical genius, but since I started to study at a university, I have become more comfortable with it. if I get a good explanation of some equations, I often can understand what they really mean. but of course there is a lot of math I have no clue of still.

 

[Xorkoth]

That video was interesting, thanks.

 

[swilow]

It's not dangerous, what the hell are you on about. It's called having my own opinion. Again you have it the wrong way round, you have the biblical thinking and if anything dangerous attitude that nothing can go against the grain of your established religion of choice (21st century scientific/physics paradigm).

What makes you think I have anything invested in this paradigm you describe? I don't. I do know that science has little room for opinion; or should have, at the very least.

There needs to be a balance between scepticism and acceptance IMO.

If I had qualifications and was doing my own thinking and experimenting you and/or experts would still just write me off. Can't win. So again, who has the dangerous thinking? You want evidence and you want it within your paradigm, as opposed to taking the stance of a truly open minded individual and considering all angles and thoughts. I'm following my intuition on this, and perhaps my mind sees something yours doesn't. You're more than welcome to reject that and I understand, but don't write me off as nuts just because my opinion falls outside the realm of "accepted wisdom".

You're putting words in my mouth. I would certainly be more understanding as to why you've reached your views if they came from an informed place. Your opinions, about objective fact, is really the same as my opinion on the weather today.

Why would I want to study it when I can see it is clearly flawed in its foundations? It's not like I can create my own test kit and probe space-time myself for example.. if I go and get "educated" on the subject then I potentially expose myself to being bombarded with mathematics and experts orating until I finally just cave in and say "Yes! I see it now, it all makes sense!". Why would I want to do that? You wouldn't go and subject yourself to any cult or religious group when you can clearly see from the outside it is flawed at its foundations.. if you go in you may just get snowed.

So the reason you didn't study physics is ideological? Are you sure about that?

I know you'll think/say "but this is science!". So what?

I thought and said neither. I'm not trying to defend science, but I am wary of ignorance especially self-chosen. Stop trying to tell me (and others) that I worship science. I just think it is one useful tool for determining facts.

 

[spacejunk]

Scientific inquiry is the best tool for determining facts that we have available to us.
But i suspect SS is furthering his curmudgeonly efforts to be the most outspokenly uninformed crank on bluelight.
I'm not going to downplay this achievement, but there are plenty of people working for Murdoch/Fox/fossil fuel companies that have fed and encouraged your whole spiel.
It is "cool" at the moment to be anti-green.

It is also all the rage down at the most depressing old-man dive bars, betting agencies and other places sad paranoid people tend to congregate. Oh, and places that fraud Lord Monckton shows his face.
The wealthy with vested business interests, the naive, the bitter, the corrupt - these are the science-deniers we see today.
They run corporations, governments, media outlets.
Like other revelations that can bring about great financial upheaval (such as the long-known, long-covered up carcinogenic properties of things such as tobacco and asbestos) - the anti-enviro movement is a well funded hoax played out on the easily led.

I feel almost sorry for you and your kind, SS - but as you actively represent so much of "the problem" i don't see any redeeming qualities in how you have apparently come to the conclusions you have over this.

You've been had, mate.

 

[-=SS=-]

I feel almost sorry for you and your kind, SS - but as you actively represent so much of "the problem" i don't see any redeeming qualities in how you have apparently come to the conclusions you have over this.

Oh, if only "my kind" could be brought round to your way of thinking. Ha. Yeh. Sorry who has the problem here? I'm not satisfied with the conclusions reached by certain authorities and I'm telling others they should question it too. You're coming from a position of telling me I'm thinking wrong and it needs to be corrected.

You've been had, mate.

Whatever you say pal.

 

[spacejunk]

This problem is bigger than politics, bigger than economics - bigger than mankind.

If this is all part of your "dont trust authority" hang-up; i daresay that the authority you are aligning yourself with is more powerful, manipulative and dangerous than...science. Or nation states, for that matter.
Get behind the movement trying to make change possible; or stop wasting valuable energy - and get the hell out of the way.

I cant believe we're even debating this in 2016.
It's just pathetic.

 

[swilow]

SS, I hope you don't feel persecuted or unduly attacked in this topic. I admire that you've maintained your (incorrect :D) opinions despite them being reasonably discredited despite having them broadly opposed.

Oh, if only "my kind" could be brought round to your way of thinking.

The shared views of climate change sceptics and capitalist moguls, does need to be refuted. I don't understand why you would support huge corporations who don't give a fuck about little ole you.

If only- well, yeah. The alternative, according to science as well as those without economic bias, is fucking dire.

 

[-=SS=-]

The shared views of climate change sceptics and capitalist moguls, does need to be refuted. I don't understand why you would support huge corporations who don't give a fuck about little ole you.

Who said I support the huge corporations? I certainly didn't, and I don't. That has nothing to do with my motivations on the topic, but you're welcome for assuming that. I don't believe in man-made climate change because I don't see justified evidence to support the claim.

 

[swilow]

^You may not be doing it intentionally, but you are doing it. You are espousing the exact same views as these profit making corporations.

I mean, you've mentioned earlier that, in regards to quantum mechanics, that even if you did understand it, you would think its bullshit. There is evidence for climate change, really simple evidence. I'll try you out on a bit of it; they are not definitive but, as a user of intuition, they should resonate with you. I suspect you will either not respond or choose to respond to a minority of what I have to say.

It is evident and undeniable that the level's of carbon in the atmosphere have increased over the last 100 years, increased dramatically.

This graph demonstrates that carbon has risen, but it doesn't causally link it to humans.

Let's look at the most basic thing; how we power our car's. Petrol contains something like 87% carbon, by weight. This is sensible given that fossil fuels are made from decomposed carbon-based lifeforms. This carbon does not disappear when the fuel combusts. In fact, it frees the carbon and releases it into the environment. In the form that it is released in, aeroslised/vapourised, it can be extrapolated that much of it enters the atmosphere. Our atmosphere is as useful as it is because it prevents by-products of terrestrial life from completely escaping into space, by which I speak of water vapour, oxygen, ozone etc. Given the fact petrol is composed largely of carbon, and huge amounts of petrol are being burned by vehicles and the fact that atmospheric levels of carbon have increased is highly suggestive of the fact that it some human activity causing this. There is no known mechanism to prevent this build up of carbon.

Carbon is a known greenhouse gas. It has the property of being opaque to infrared radiation (better known as heat). It allows light to enter our atmosphere but prevents heat from escaping. Denying that carbon does this is pointless; this is a fundamental aspect of chemistry and thermodynamics. The reason we do not have an average temprature of around -18 is due to the presence of gases like carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is VITAL to life on earth. There is no mechanism to retain heat besides through the use of atmospheric gases. There is no way that you can increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and not increase net temperatures on earth. It is a physical impossibility.

The result of this increase in heat is increasing global average temperature, rising sea levels due to melting ice, increased releases of methane from thawing and decomposing peat and increased severity of storms which feed on heat energy. All of these things have ocurred on earth throughout its history, but never this fast. That is the problem.

Can you deny that these things are happening? By what other means would earth be warming so rapidly? Sure, it may be some anomaly of the sun, but that still doesn't explain where the excess heat, which must accompany an increase in atmpospheric CO2, is going. It can only be getting trapped in our atmosphere. Claiming that recent ocurrences are related to some unknown causal agent is sticking one's head in the sand; the causal agent is evident from every measurement taken. The unknown agent is just unknown.

You've been had.

 

[Kittycat5]

No, no, no willow11. Can you not see the fallacy in your graph? Who measured the CO2 400,000 years ago. This is nothing but theory, we need an experimentalist to go back in time and make these readings. Fuck, did Einstein come up with this nonsense?

(I am joking SS)

 

[swilow]

Fuck, did Einstein come up with this nonsense?

That nobody couldn't have come up with the concept of fucking potato chips.

 

[Foreigner]

The main problem in this thread is that people can't seem to avoid making personal attacks. Attack ideas, but why each other?

Now that the Russian permafrost is melting, whether or not humans caused this is a moot point. The world is about to get way hotter than a couple of degrees. We were warned about these methane releases a long time ago and now the sink holes prove that the methane is coming out. We have to adapt. Fossil fuels have gotta go because whether or not they're the main cause, they're certainly a contribution.

And anyway... we can't just keep excavating every remote corner of the world looking for more of this diminishing resource, destroying irreplaceable environments in the process. It's just not realistic. The Paris climate talks were an economic endorsement of further R&D and investment in alternative energy. We're not going to stop global warming, but we can at least change our ways.

Yes it's true, the governments are using this as a power grab too. Turning every tragedy into an opportunity, as they always do. It doesn't negate that we're in a major extinction event right now.

 

[drug_mentor]

To play Devil's advocate for a moment here, how do proponents of unfalsifiable theories in physics and cosmology justify defining these theories as scientific?

I am very far from an expert on science, but I have studied a little bit of science at University level. One thing that is constantly drummed into you in the classes I have taken is that for a theory to be scientific it must be falsifiable, this is a fundamental part of the scientific method. I am not suggesting unfalsifiable theories which have evidence to support them are not worth paying attention to, but when you start speculating about unfalsifiable theories does this stop being science and become philosophy, or perhaps some other field of enquiry? If not, why not? Why should proponents of string-theory (for example) get a pass on calling their unfalsifiable theory scientific?

Again, I am not trying to downplay the importance of these theories. The question I am raising is about the appropriate definition for them.

Also, I am not suggesting unfalsifiable theories are limited to physics and cosmology, it just so happens the ones I can think of off the top of my head are from these fields.

 

[-=SS=-]

^You may not be doing it intentionally, but you are doing it. You are espousing the exact same views as these profit making corporations.

Jesus willow.. just because my position that humans are not causing climate change is the same as those of corporations does not mean I side with those corporations or in any way have anything to do with them. This is the immigration debate all over again. You can hold a position on a topic and not be automatically in league with others who share the same position on that topic. Do you really not understand that point? Do I need to explain it again for you? I'm getting really tired of people on this board and their automatic judgement of my character, it's pathetic.

Can you deny that these things are happening? By what other means would earth be warming so rapidly? Sure, it may be some anomaly of the sun..

The Sun and/or stellar environment. Exactly. I've made the point before, until we actually understand our Sun and cosmic environment, which we clearly do not despite what you think, then we are in no position to be dictating how something as delicate and complex as our global climate system works. The Sun and stellar environment are both vast and immensely powerful, capable of perturbing our climatic system with ease.

 

[Bagseed]

I guess if there was a significant surplus of radiation coming from the Sun which could explain climate change, we would have detected it. I haven't heard about such a thing, have you? astronomers are very capable of detecting incoming radiation, and how on earth could this be overlooked? and I can see no other (known) mechanism for how the sun should do this except for sending more radiation towards us, and all the other stars asre so far away to become an insignificant factor. if the radius of earth's orbit got smaller all of a sudden, we would have also found out. but that more CO2 in the atmosphere means that more IR radiation is reflected back to earth, is pretty clear.

and the correlation between higher temperatures and CO2 levels in the atmosphere is pretty obvious.

 

[-=SS=-]

I guess if there was a significant surplus of radiation coming from the Sun which could explain climate change, we would have detected it. I haven't heard about such a thing, have you?

Back in 2007 they discovered "magnetic ropes" connecting the Earths upper atmosphere directly to the Sun. A scientist called Kristian Birkeland hypothesized their existence about 100 years ago, and with his terrella experiments recreated many phenomena we see involving Earth and Sun. Right there we have a direct pipeline to the Sun.. something which has only recently been observed/Birkeland finally being vindicated on his hypothesis about auroral activity. "Magnetic ropes" is a misleading statement and conceptually dishonest.. they are indications of current flow.. the proper scientific term is in fact Birkeland Currents. The fact NASA chose to not use the correct phrasing shows their bias towards this model that believes there are no electrical circuits in space.. that everything is a disconnected island operating according to gravitational physics only.

If you believe that the Earth and Sun, and indeed all stellar bodies, are not electrically influencing each other then you are potentially ignoring an entire realm of applicable physics. The standard cosmology model asserts that interstellar space is an electrically neutral environment and that gravity is what really drives occurrences. I do not believe that is the case.

The Electric Sun/Earth Connection Confirmed
https://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/121707electricsun.htm

It should also be noted that Birkeland had a radically different hypothesis on comets due to his experiments. In a gravity only paradigm comets are chunks of ice and/or rocky material that when exposed to solar influence causes sublimation, producing the displays that we see. Birkeland treated them as bodies which could be affected electrically, giving rise to the phenomena we see.

 

[Bagseed]

^ I just read up on that and looked for more sources, and this is apparantly acknowledged (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/30oct_ftes/). Interesting for sure, but I don't see an immediate connection to climate here in earth. the question is, if these charged particles travelling along this merging magentic field make a significant difference besides all the photons which are hitting the earth all the time anyway. neither your link nor the NASA article claim such a thing, and, in my opinion, if it was significant compared to light, we would know.

In my opinion, your logic is completely flawed here. the greenhouse effect is a real, established thing, and it is known that higher CO2 content will reflect more IR radiation back to earth. climate change correlates historically to the industrial age on earth. but you basically just say "the sun is important" and then go on to say that because the sun is so big and so little is known about the universe (which is not exactly true), they must be the cause of climate change. can you please explain this logic to me?

 

[swilow]

Jesus willow.. just because my position that humans are not causing climate change is the same as those of corporations does not mean I side with those corporations or in any way have anything to do with them. This is the immigration debate all over again. You can hold a position on a topic and not be automatically in league with others who share the same position on that topic. Do you really not understand that point? Do I need to explain it again for you?

I'm trying to demonstrate that the main thrust of anti-AGW has been created by large corporations who have heaps invested in fossil fuel use. Given the murky opacity of their motivations and agenda, I personally would be very wary of (inadvertenly) furthering their ideology. They are not motivated by truth, like you, but by money. They have a billions upon billions of reasons to deny climate change. This instantly gives them a huge conflict of interest and should partially nullify their claims. Furtherto that, I get the impression that you are anti-establishment, sosharing views with the establishment must be grating for you.

Brief article.

I'm getting really tired of people on this board and their automatic judgement of my character, it's pathetic.

Yeah, well I wasn't judging your character but the content and context of your opinions. That's fair game IMO. But sorry if this has upset you. This is nothing personal. I enjoy what you write, despite agreeing with less then 10% of it :D I will really make an effor not to judge you.

The Sun and/or stellar environment. Exactly. I've made the point before, until we actually understand our Sun and cosmic environment, which we clearly do not despite what you think, then we are in no position to be dictating how something as delicate and complex as our global climate system works. The Sun and stellar environment are both vast and immensely powerful, capable of perturbing our climatic system with ease.

Again, you won't even discuss the evidence that I've put forward and just brush over it. I wish you would discuss it. I suspect you (and exxon )have little rebuttal for it.

Two points:

until we actually understand our Sun and cosmic environment, which we clearly do not despite what you think,

Where did I say that we understand the sun? I believe we have a good idea of how it works, yes, but no-one would claim that we understand it completely. We probably understand it only enough to make very broad generalisations about it. I am aware that in recent years there has been some sort of odd fluctuation in terms of solar energy output but I am not sue what the repercussions of that are.

The Sun and stellar environment are both vast and immensely powerful, capable of perturbing our climatic system with ease

True. Climate change might be related to the sun and local system or the spaghetti monster. It could be. However, we have a known mechanism by which temperatures on our planet can rise. That is, the combusting of hydrocarbons, subsequent release and capture of CO2 in the atmosphere which, in turn, prevents infrared heat energy from escaping into space. You are expecting me to believe that this known mechanism is not repsonsible for warming and that an unknown mechanism is responsible. That literally makes no sense whatsoever. If this is the sun, it must be a minor ocurrence because all the heating and downstream effects we are seeing so far can be statistically linked to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. I don't think we need to be concerned about the sun at this stage.

Personally, I don't think we should wait and see. I think that, if your point of view is wrong, we are in for some real trouble.

 

[spacejunk]

The main problem in this thread is that people can't seem to avoid making personal attacks. Attack ideas, but why each other?

While i think it is fair to criticise the personal nature of some of the posts here - such as mine, and i apologise for "playing the man", so to speak - I don't personally see the sincerity in the ideas being presented.

The critiques SS is offering on science (and notable scientists) are either incredibly nihilistic and solipsistic - or an exercise in button pushing.

Admitting to have not studied something - yet proclaiming that even if he had, he would dismiss it - is an 'argument' so farcical that cannot be reasoned with, or against.

And as this is P&S - not S&T - i do stand by my social critique that these attitudes are corrosive and problematic, however crudely i may have phrased this.
This not simply because they are based on what i consider emotional suspicion and ideological backlash to prevailing intellectual orthodoxies - but because climate change is such a monumental threat to humanity - and rather than talk about how we can best manage and cope with the myriad of challenges it presents - we are still getting pulled into debates about whether or not it is happening.
It is a waste of time to debate science with those who choose to downplay the validity of science itself.

In this sense, we - as a community - are something of a microcosm of the wider, global debate, which is being stifled by members of the scientific community continually having to defend themselves against political attacks by "sceptics"
That is to say, rather than being able to collaboratively work towards sustainable, pragmatic solutions to this problem, we are pandering to the voices of denial and distraction.

It is no wonder humanity has backpedalled so much in the last 20 years on this issue, as the debate has been hijacked in the manner SS demonstrates.
Human civilisation is far enough away from ever being ecologically sustainable, without having to endlessly debate whether the concept of sustainability is even a legitimate target to aim for.

If i was unnecessarily personal in my comments, i apologise.

But i do not see this thread as a serious discussion, because so few of the points being raised in opposition to the notion of "scientific consensus" (if that is what is even being discussed here?) seem sincere or intellectually honest.

"Climate change denial" (or whatever the currently accepted term for this line of argument is) seems to be the biggest scam/hoax/conspiracy/propaganda coup of the modern age.
Brought to you by the same folks who brought us such hits as "Weapons of Mass Destruction" etc etc.
It saddens me to see people actively working and speaking against their own interests - but there is nothing new about that, it is an unfortunate element of the human condition.

Fascinating as it is, i don't think humans have time to keep getting dragged down by nonsensical claims against that which is staggeringly obvious - to both those academically qualified to assess climate change through analysis of data - and many of us who aren't.

Ironically enough, many of the same corporate interests that profited off Tesla's brilliance and left him a pauper, are those that fund "climate sceptic" think-tanks and lobby groups that work to undermine public trust in the scientific community.

I can't debate the hard science elements of this discussion, because that is not my academic background.
However, the socio-political aspect is something that cannot easily be ignored - that the counter-argument to that of ecological conservation in regards to climate change is glaringly obvious pseudo-science, masquerading as critical thinking.

Critical thinking means a lot more than aligning yourself against prevailing, scientifically sound, orthodoxies.

To put it another way; it is difficult to engage in a discussion about ideas when the entire basis for the ideas is being rejected out-of-hand.