or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Science is Real.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Science is Real. - Page 3

post #81 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

And the only way the Repubs are keeping many positions in the House is through desperate redistricting.  They even floated the idea for the POTUS election...

 

- - - - - -

 

It is amazing how much science people use every day to claim that science isn't real.  Typing on a computer is using science.  Most of the food we eat was scientifically modified or protected (sprays); it came to the supermarket with science.  The houses we live in are based on science.

 

Fox News uses science to force its static upon the otherwise peaceful airwaves.

Our military is based on science.  Ballistic missiles and aircraft carriers don't grow in any field I've ever seen.  Bows and arrows, even just a sharpened blade, that's science.  As is any tool.

The grand churches (and many more demure) built across the country, big and small, with their lighting, colored windows, air-conditioning.  That is science.

The gasoline that powers our cars is science.

Solar power is science.

Water shooting out of a pipe to spray your lawn is science.

Beer is science.

 

In short: no science, no modern American way of life.  (and I don't mean JUST the last one on this list...)

 

And yet science is wrong.

 

And science can be simply ignored or even turned upon its head, for example at the hands of snake-oil merchants and scammers, or by vested interests whose financial wellbeing may be threatened by new discovery, or worse - as we have witnessed in recent years - when its politically expedient, or if the public comfort zone is threatened, or if the perceived integrity of respected institutions or offices comes under unwelcome scrutiny, or linked to criminal activity.

 

Our grasp and awareness of reality is a frail one indeed, and is often determined by not science itself, but subjective factors, the arbitrary opinions of authority and the machinations of the mass media.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #82 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well trumpy he is right and anyone who even remotely tries to imply that they might have a better answer for the age of the universe is just talking out of their ass.

 

Considering your views on GW and other things.....well talk about a leap from reality.1rolleyes.gif

 

Are you just trolling at this point or just that desperate to support hate speech that you run around setting up strawmen to knock down?

 

No one here has said anything about creationism or religion. There is not one person I'm aware of on these forums arguing the age of the earth or that global warming might not exist due to "God says so."

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #83 of 249
TBQH, if not for "God says so", or "it may be true but its bad for the economy, so let's fight it", they would not be denying so much overwhelming evidence.
post #84 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

TBQH, if not for "God says so", or "it may be true but its bad for the economy, so let's fight it", they would not be denying so much overwhelming evidence.

 

It isn't evidence. They are reconstructing the past using proxies and predicting the future using models.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #85 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It isn't evidence. They are reconstructing the past using proxies and predicting the future using models.

 

You nailed it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #86 of 249
Thread Starter 

vzrzSBP.jpg

 

Yeah, better just oversimplify and lie about what science is and instead listen to ravings of ancient desert dwellers in a moldy tome.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #87 of 249

Models 1

 

We took the models and applied them to past reality rather than the future and they failed miserably.

 

Models 2

 

The models predicted the opposite of reality and so we must examine what we know about reality since our models really suck.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #88 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

vzrzSBP.jpg

 

Yeah, better just oversimplify and lie about what science is and instead listen to ravings of ancient desert dwellers in a moldy tome.  

 

 

Happy Easter BR. Those who self-appoint themselves as our leaders have been using fear of the weather and climate and their claims to understand, control and influence it for much longer than anyone has been listening to some ancient desert dwellers. No surprise, they are still asking for us to sacrifice our children and their future as well.

 

Don't worry BR. The children we sacrifice will have had their HPV shots, won't have been allowed more than a 16 ounce soda and will of course be wearing a safety helmet while holding their breath as they are murdered to appease the climate gods.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #89 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well trumpy he is right and anyone who even remotely tries to imply that they might have a better answer for the age of the universe is just talking out of their ass.

 

Considering your views on GW and other things.....well talk about a leap from reality.1rolleyes.gif

 

Are you just trolling at this point or just that desperate to support hate speech that you run around setting up strawmen to knock down?

 

No one here has said anything about creationism or religion. There is not one person I'm aware of on these forums arguing the age of the earth or that global warming might not exist due to "God says so."

It's really easy for you to just pull the " Trolling " tactic out of your hip pocket isn't it? You are arguing against the experts conclusions about age of the universe now which by the way do you have a better way to ascertain that? If not why are you still talking about it?1wink.gif


Edited by jimmac - 4/1/13 at 5:13pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #90 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

vzrzSBP.jpg

 

Yeah, better just oversimplify and lie about what science is and instead listen to ravings of ancient desert dwellers in a moldy tome.  

 

 

Happy Easter BR. Those who self-appoint themselves as our leaders have been using fear of the weather and climate and their claims to understand, control and influence it for much longer than anyone has been listening to some ancient desert dwellers. No surprise, they are still asking for us to sacrifice our children and their future as well.

 

Don't worry BR. The children we sacrifice will have had their HPV shots, won't have been allowed more than a 16 ounce soda and will of course be wearing a safety helmet while holding their breath as they are murdered to appease the climate gods.

 

Quote:

The children we sacrifice will have had their HPV shots, won't have been allowed more than a 16 ounce soda and will of course be wearing a safety helmet while holding their breath as they are murdered to appease the climate gods.

I notice people who really don't have a good argument against the idea of GW and that we have a big part to play in it always fall back on their tiny talking points as if the emotional garbage there ( " The children etc. "  ) will almost sound logical and will sway anyone who's just halfway listening. It's called obfuscation.1wink.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #91 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well trumpy he is right and anyone who even remotely tries to imply that they might have a better answer for the age of the universe is just talking out of their ass.

 

Considering your views on GW and other things.....well talk about a leap from reality.1rolleyes.gif

 

Are you just trolling at this point or just that desperate to support hate speech that you run around setting up strawmen to knock down?

 

No one here has said anything about creationism or religion. There is not one person I'm aware of on these forums arguing the age of the earth or that global warming might not exist due to "God says so."

It's really easy for you to just pull the " Trolling " tactic out of your hip pocket isn't it? You are arguing against the experts conclusions about age of the universe now which by the way do you have a better way to ascertain that? If not why are you still talking about it?1wink.gif

 

I'm not arguing against them. I'm simply noting that per BR reasoning, anyone who comes to a different conclusion or who analyzes the data and has a different answer is hateful, murderous and wants people harmed. He compared people who disagree with him to those trapping people in a burning movie theater.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


I notice people who really don't have a good argument against the idea of GW and that we have a big part to play in it always fall back on their tiny talking points as if the emotional garbage there ( " The children etc. "  ) will almost sound logical and will sway anyone who's just halfway listening. It's called obfuscation.1wink.gif

 

I notice that you don't confront hate speech and prefer to rationalize it.

 

Looks like the latest articles investigating the conclusions of the IPCC reports aren't promising.

 

 

Quote:

New Model Army

 

Other recent studies, though, paint a different picture. An unpublished report by the Research Council of Norway, a government-funded body, which was compiled by a team led by Terje Berntsen of the University of Oslo, uses a different method from the IPCC’s. It concludes there is a 90% probability that doubling CO₂ emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2-2.9°C, with the most likely figure being 1.9°C. The top of the study’s range is well below the IPCC’s upper estimates of likely sensitivity.

 

This study has not been peer-reviewed; it may be unreliable. But its projections are not unique. Work by Julia Hargreaves of the Research Institute for Global Change in Yokohama, which was published in 2012, suggests a 90% chance of the actual change being in the range of 0.5-4.0°C, with a mean of 2.3°C. This is based on the way the climate behaved about 20,000 years ago, at the peak of the last ice age, a period when carbon-dioxide concentrations leapt. Nic Lewis, an independent climate scientist, got an even lower range in a study accepted for publication: 1.0-3.0°C, with a mean of 1.6°C. His calculations reanalysed work cited by the IPCC and took account of more recent temperature data. In all these calculations, the chances of climate sensitivity above 4.5°C become vanishingly small.

 

If such estimates were right, they would require revisions to the science of climate change and, possibly, to public policies. If, as conventional wisdom has it, global temperatures could rise by 3°C or more in response to a doubling of emissions, then the correct response would be the one to which most of the world pays lip service: rein in the warming and the greenhouse gases causing it. This is called “mitigation”, in the jargon. Moreover, if there were an outside possibility of something catastrophic, such as a 6°C rise, that could justify drastic interventions. This would be similar to taking out disaster insurance. It may seem an unnecessary expense when you are forking out for the premiums, but when you need it, you really need it. Many economists, including William Nordhaus of Yale University, have made this case.

 

If, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6°C increase is trivial), the calculation might change. Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge. There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you do not live in an earthquake zone. In this case more adaptation rather than more mitigation might be the right policy at the margin. But that would be good advice only if these new estimates really were more reliable than the old ones. And different results come from different models.

 

It also notes that if the increase in temperatures is trivial, it is pointless to spend trillions or billions to mitigate that which won't happen. It would be like spending thousands to raise your house above the level of flooding that might occur when it isn't in a flood plane. The money can be better spent and help people more directly. People are hurting and we are borrowing to mitigate their carbon footprint rather than provide them with help. Worse still, the climate cronies will get rich from their schemes rather than help out our world.

 

People are dying from these decisions. To use some BR logic, he is keeping them from turning the furnace on to warm their home claiming it will warm the planet and instead people are dying from the cold.


Edited by trumptman - 4/1/13 at 6:21pm

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #92 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well trumpy he is right and anyone who even remotely tries to imply that they might have a better answer for the age of the universe is just talking out of their ass.

 

Considering your views on GW and other things.....well talk about a leap from reality.1rolleyes.gif

 

Are you just trolling at this point or just that desperate to support hate speech that you run around setting up strawmen to knock down?

 

No one here has said anything about creationism or religion. There is not one person I'm aware of on these forums arguing the age of the earth or that global warming might not exist due to "God says so."

It's really easy for you to just pull the " Trolling " tactic out of your hip pocket isn't it? You are arguing against the experts conclusions about age of the universe now which by the way do you have a better way to ascertain that? If not why are you still talking about it?1wink.gif

 

I'm not arguing against them. I'm simply noting that per BR reasoning, anyone who comes to a different conclusion or who analyzes the data and has a different answer is hateful, murderous and wants people harmed. He compared people who disagree with him to those trapping people in a burning movie theater.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


I notice people who really don't have a good argument against the idea of GW and that we have a big part to play in it always fall back on their tiny talking points as if the emotional garbage there ( " The children etc. "  ) will almost sound logical and will sway anyone who's just halfway listening. It's called obfuscation.1wink.gif

 

I notice that you don't confront hate speech and prefer to rationalize it.

 

Looks like the latest articles investigating the conclusions of the IPCC reports aren't promising.

 

 

Quote:

New Model Army

 

Other recent studies, though, paint a different picture. An unpublished report by the Research Council of Norway, a government-funded body, which was compiled by a team led by Terje Berntsen of the University of Oslo, uses a different method from the IPCC’s. It concludes there is a 90% probability that doubling CO₂ emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2-2.9°C, with the most likely figure being 1.9°C. The top of the study’s range is well below the IPCC’s upper estimates of likely sensitivity.

 

This study has not been peer-reviewed; it may be unreliable. But its projections are not unique. Work by Julia Hargreaves of the Research Institute for Global Change in Yokohama, which was published in 2012, suggests a 90% chance of the actual change being in the range of 0.5-4.0°C, with a mean of 2.3°C. This is based on the way the climate behaved about 20,000 years ago, at the peak of the last ice age, a period when carbon-dioxide concentrations leapt. Nic Lewis, an independent climate scientist, got an even lower range in a study accepted for publication: 1.0-3.0°C, with a mean of 1.6°C. His calculations reanalysed work cited by the IPCC and took account of more recent temperature data. In all these calculations, the chances of climate sensitivity above 4.5°C become vanishingly small.

 

If such estimates were right, they would require revisions to the science of climate change and, possibly, to public policies. If, as conventional wisdom has it, global temperatures could rise by 3°C or more in response to a doubling of emissions, then the correct response would be the one to which most of the world pays lip service: rein in the warming and the greenhouse gases causing it. This is called “mitigation”, in the jargon. Moreover, if there were an outside possibility of something catastrophic, such as a 6°C rise, that could justify drastic interventions. This would be similar to taking out disaster insurance. It may seem an unnecessary expense when you are forking out for the premiums, but when you need it, you really need it. Many economists, including William Nordhaus of Yale University, have made this case.

 

If, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6°C increase is trivial), the calculation might change. Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge. There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you do not live in an earthquake zone. In this case more adaptation rather than more mitigation might be the right policy at the margin. But that would be good advice only if these new estimates really were more reliable than the old ones. And different results come from different models.

 

It also notes that if the increase in temperatures is trivial, it is pointless to spend trillions or billions to mitigate that which won't happen. It would be like spending thousands to raise your house above the level of flooding that might occur when it isn't in a flood plane. The money can be better spent and help people more directly. People are hurting and we are borrowing to mitigate their carbon footprint rather than provide them with help. Worse still, the climate cronies will get rich from their schemes rather than help out our world.

 

People are dying from these decisions. To use some BR logic, he is keeping them from turning the furnace on to warm their home claiming it will warm the planet and instead people are dying from the cold.

 

 

Quote:
I notice that you don't confront hate speech and prefer to rationalize it.

 

 

Trumptman I've heard you say hateful things about Boomers implying that their failing bodies ( hip replacements ) were the result of drug use etc. That's a terrible way to stereotype the average Boomer. Also when I tried to tell you might face some of these things also someday you were in total denial.

 

Also the conclusions of one research panel from Norway when compared to the mountain of growing evidence out there that contradicts their conclusions shows how shallow the support for that position is. You do know this is just one viewpoint right?

 

It's easy to find some isolated viewpoint out there that tells you what you want to hear.1wink.gif

 

 

 

This :

 

 

Quote:

.To use some BR logic, he is keeping them from turning the furnace on to warm their home claiming it will warm the planet and instead people are dying from the cold.

is just stupid.1rolleyes.gif


Edited by jimmac - 4/1/13 at 6:58pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #93 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

Also the conclusions of one research panel from Norway when compared to the mountain of growing evidence out there that contradicts their conclusions shows how shallow the support for that position is. You do know this is just one viewpoint right?

 

It's easy to find some isolated viewpoint out there that tells you what you want to hear.1wink.gif

 

The Economist article is actually a rather good lay explanation of where some of the recent discrepancies between the empirical numerical and mechanistic models might arise from. Well worth a read. The problem looks more to be that he only read the first half, didn't understand it, and then quoted a couple of selective conditional observations.

post #94 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Trumptman I've heard you say hateful things about Boomers implying that their failing bodies ( hip replacements ) were the result of drug use etc. That's a terrible way to stereotype the average Boomer. Also when I tried to tell you might face some of these things also someday you were in total denial.

 

Also the conclusions of one research panel from Norway when compared to the mountain of growing evidence out there that contradicts their conclusions shows how shallow the support for that position is. You do know this is just one viewpoint right?

 

It's easy to find some isolated viewpoint out there that tells you what you want to hear.1wink.gif

 

 

 

This :

 

 

Quote:

.To use some BR logic, he is keeping them from turning the furnace on to warm their home claiming it will warm the planet and instead people are dying from the cold.

is just stupid.1rolleyes.gif

 

Boy talk about someone changing the topic.......suddenly this is about Baby Boomers?!?! You can't even do that right as you keep setting up your caricatured strawman rather than address the real points made (Boomers coming into retirement less healthy, more obese, owning less of their house and having saved nothing for retirement, etc. while expecting "lifestyle" health care rather than life or death health care.

 

BTW, I am still waiting for Muppetry to source the "consensus" statistic. You can feel free to source it as well since you repeat it as well. You claim consensus but you haven't read the reports or the studies themselves. If a political organization tells you what you want to hear, you accept it with no skepticism. Also claiming actual people dying from the cold "is just stupid" is about the most heartless and hateful thing I can imagine someone saying.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

Also the conclusions of one research panel from Norway when compared to the mountain of growing evidence out there that contradicts their conclusions shows how shallow the support for that position is. You do know this is just one viewpoint right?

 

It's easy to find some isolated viewpoint out there that tells you what you want to hear.1wink.gif

 

The Economist article is actually a rather good lay explanation of where some of the recent discrepancies between the empirical numerical and mechanistic models might arise from. Well worth a read. The problem looks more to be that he only read the first half, didn't understand it, and then quoted a couple of selective conditional observations.

 

You're so sweet when being condescending! The main point for me is that people will claim a benefit from addressing global warming even if it mitigates nothing. The point is that there is indeed a cost in addressing it. We don't just end up with a better planet and everyone ends up with a better life. No in this case, people are ending up dead. The resources of society are finite and when they are misdirected, there is a cost in that misdirection. Perhaps you can understand that without some sort of nasty retort.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #95 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Trumptman I've heard you say hateful things about Boomers implying that their failing bodies ( hip replacements ) were the result of drug use etc. That's a terrible way to stereotype the average Boomer. Also when I tried to tell you might face some of these things also someday you were in total denial.

 

Also the conclusions of one research panel from Norway when compared to the mountain of growing evidence out there that contradicts their conclusions shows how shallow the support for that position is. You do know this is just one viewpoint right?

 

It's easy to find some isolated viewpoint out there that tells you what you want to hear.1wink.gif

 

 

 

 

 

This :

 

 

Quote:

.To use some BR logic, he is keeping them from turning the furnace on to warm their home claiming it will warm the planet and instead people are dying from the cold.

is just stupid.1rolleyes.gif

 

Boy talk about someone changing the topic.......suddenly this is about Baby Boomers?!?! You can't even do that right as you keep setting up your caricatured strawman rather than address the real points made (Boomers coming into retirement less healthy, more obese, owning less of their house and having saved nothing for retirement, etc. while expecting "lifestyle" health care rather than life or death health care.

 

BTW, I am still waiting for Muppetry to source the "consensus" statistic. You can feel free to source it as well since you repeat it as well. You claim consensus but you haven't read the reports or the studies themselves. If a political organization tells you what you want to hear, you accept it with no skepticism. Also claiming actual people dying from the cold "is just stupid" is about the most heartless and hateful thing I can imagine someone saying.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

Also the conclusions of one research panel from Norway when compared to the mountain of growing evidence out there that contradicts their conclusions shows how shallow the support for that position is. You do know this is just one viewpoint right?

 

It's easy to find some isolated viewpoint out there that tells you what you want to hear.1wink.gif

 

The Economist article is actually a rather good lay explanation of where some of the recent discrepancies between the empirical numerical and mechanistic models might arise from. Well worth a read. The problem looks more to be that he only read the first half, didn't understand it, and then quoted a couple of selective conditional observations.

 

You're so sweet when being condescending! The main point for me is that people will claim a benefit from addressing global warming even if it mitigates nothing. The point is that there is indeed a cost in addressing it. We don't just end up with a better planet and everyone ends up with a better life. No in this case, people are ending up dead. The resources of society are finite and when they are misdirected, there is a cost in that misdirection. Perhaps you can understand that without some sort of nasty retort.

You were previously referring to " Hate Speech " I just thought showing where you had done this is turn about and fair play. 1wink.gif

 

 

 

Quote:

You're so sweet when being condescending!

 

And you're not?lol.gif


Edited by jimmac - 4/3/13 at 10:46pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #96 of 249
Thread Starter 
We know more today than we did yesterday. We will know more tomorrow than we did today. Thanks, science.

Quote:
Geneva 3 April 2013. The international team running the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) today announced the first results in its search for dark matter. The results, presented by AMS spokesperson Professor Samuel Ting in a seminar at CERN, are to be published in the journal Physical Review Letters. They report the observation of an excess of positrons in the cosmic ray flux.

...

Dark matter is one of the most important mysteries of physics today. Accounting for over a quarter of the universe’s mass-energy balance, it can be observed indirectly through its interaction with visible matter but has yet to be directly detected. Searches for dark matter are carried out in space-borne experiments such as AMS, as well as on the Earth at the Large Hadron Collider and a range of experiments installed in deep underground laboratories.

“The AMS result is a great example of the complementarity of experiments on Earth and in space,” said CERN Director General Rolf Heuer. “Working in tandem, I think we can be confident of a resolution to the dark matter enigma sometime in the next few years.”

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #97 of 249
Thread Starter 
Fantastic! Kepler (the space telescope) has helped us discover an Earth-sized white dwarf star around which a larger red dwarf star orbits. How? A ramification of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity--gravitational microlensing. Spacetime is bent by the large gravitational pull of the white dwarf and caused the light of the red dwarf to be focused as the white dwarf transited. Awesome. Science is real--and the universe is so much more amazing than the scribblings of long dead desert dwellers make it out to be.
Quote:
The Kepler space telescope’s prime objective is to hunt for small worlds orbiting distant stars, but that doesn’t mean it’s not going to detect some extreme relativistic phenomena along the way.

While monitoring a red dwarf star — designated KOI-256 — astronomers detected a dip in starlight in the Kepler data. The NASA space telescope is constantly on the lookout for these dips as they can be an indicator of an extrasolar planet passing in front of the star’s disk. This event is known as a “transit” and Kepler has the unprecedented sensitivity to detect sub-Earth-sized worlds drift in front of their host stars.

When a transit was detected in the KOI-256 system, researchers led by Caltech’s Phil Muirhead thought they’d just witnessed a massive planet orbiting the star. However, something was very strange about this particular transit.

“We saw what appeared to be huge dips in the light from the star, and suspected it was from a giant planet, roughly the size of Jupiter, passing in front,” said Muirhead.

Using the ground-based Palomar Observatory in California, Muirhead’s team applied another exoplanet-hunting technique to KOI-256. The “radial velocity method” can detect worlds in orbit around other stars through the careful analysis of the spectrum of starlight. If an exoplanet is in orbit, the mass of the world will gravitationally “tug” on the host star. This tugging creates a slight wobble, generating a red- and blue-shifting of light; a tell-tail sign that a planet is there.

Radial velocity measurements of KOI-256, however, revealed that something else was there — and it certainly wasn’t an exoplanet. The star was found to be wobbling “like a spinning top” meaning something way more massive is in orbit — a compact white dwarf star, the stellar husk of a burned-out star.

Although red dwarfs are small, white dwarfs are even smaller, but very, very dense. The white dwarf in the KOI-256 binary is about the size of Earth and yet packs the mass of the sun. “It’s so hefty that the red dwarf, though larger in physical size, is circling around the white dwarf,” added Muirhead.

Most of the stars in our galaxy are binary stars; two stars in a tight cosmic dance is not a rarity.

With the help of another NASA space observatory, the Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX), which analyzes the ultraviolet light of the stars in Kepler’s field of view, the researchers noticed that as the white dwarf passed behind the red dwarf, the starlight would dim, but when the white dwarf passed in front, the light would be slightly brighter than expected. This is counter-intuitive to how transits work, but KOI-256 is anything but intuitive.

As the white dwarf passed in front of the red dwarf, its extreme gravitational field was causing spacetime to bend, focusing the light from the red dwarf, enhancing the starlight. As the white dwarf passed behind the red dwarf, there would be no gravitational disruption of starlight and therefore no starlight enhancement. This finding will be published on April 20 in the Astrophysical Journal.

“Only Kepler could detect this tiny, tiny effect,” said Doug Hudgins, Kepler program scientist at NASA Headquarters, Washington. “But with this detection, we are witnessing Einstein’s theory of general relativity at play in a far-flung star system.”

Indeed, this relativistic effect, known as “microlensing,” has been used to detect exoplanets before, but this is one of the first examples of a binary stellar partner being detected through the analysis of the light of its lower-mass sibling.

Microlensing is a transient event, but large-scale lensing events have been recorded in deep space. For example, the Hubble Space Telescope has identified arcs of light surrounding massive galactic clusters as distant light being bent around warped spacetime. This light is often from distant galaxies behind the galactic clusters, magnifying and focusing the ancient galaxy’s light.

These are nature’s natural cosmic magnifying lenses, and with this new white dwarf discovery, Einstein has teamed up with Kepler to reveal a fascinating twist in our hunt for extrasolar planets (and, now, white dwarfs).

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #98 of 249

11,000-year study’s 20th-century claim is groundless - Marcott

 

 

Quote:

Stephen McIntyre of climateaudit.org began examining the details of the Marcott et al. work, and by March 16 he had made a remarkable discovery. The 73 proxies were all collected by previous researchers, of which 31 are derived from alkenones, an organic compound produced by phytoplankton that settles in layers on ocean floors, and has chemical properties that correlate to temperature. When a core is drilled out, the layers need to be dated. If done accurately, the researcher could then interpret the alkenone layer at, say, 50 cm below the surface, to imply (for example) the ocean temperature averaged 0.1 degrees above normal over several centuries about 1,200 years ago. The tops of cores represent the data closest in time to the present, but this layer is often disturbed by the drilling process. So the original researchers take care to date the core-top to where the information begins to become useful.

 

According to the scientists who originally published the alkenone series, the core tops varied in age from nearly the present to over a thousand years ago. Fewer than 10 of the original proxies had values for the 20th century. Had Marcott et al. used the end dates as calculated by the specialists who compiled the original data, there would have been no 20th-century uptick in their graph, as indeed was the case in Marcott’s PhD thesis. But Marcott et al. redated a number of core tops, changing the mix of proxies that contribute to the closing value, and this created the uptick at the end of their graph. Far from being a feature of the proxy data, it was an artifact of arbitrarily redating the underlying cores. Worse, the article did not disclose this step. In their online supplementary information the authors said they had assumed the core tops were dated to the present “unless otherwise noted in the original publication.” In other words, they claimed to be relying on the original dating, even while they had redated the cores in a way that strongly influenced their results.

 

It gets worse.

 

 

Quote:

It finally appeared over the weekend, and contains a remarkable admission: “[The] 20th-century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”

 

If you drew a conclusion from the end of their graph, you are an idiot!

 

THANKS SCIENCE!!!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #99 of 249
Maybe I don't get it, but why do we need a proxy for 20th century data? For at least the second half, we have actual measurements.
post #100 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Maybe I don't get it, but why do we need a proxy for 20th century data? For at least the second half, we have actual measurements.

 

If the proxy doesn't match the actual temps, then you can't just ignore the proxies and substitute the temps. Either the proxies work or they don't. If the proxies divulge from the actual recorded temperatures for the 20th century, then what good are they for guessing the climate 11,000 years ago. A second point that is brought up is that there are many more points or extremes to be drawn from the proxies but they apply smoothing algorithms to them. It appears they don't apply this to the non-proxies which again, makes the results look very different. The conclusion is that two types of data treated in two different ways look different. That isn't the conclusion of the paper though nor what was reported. Finally as I bolded above, Marcott manipulated and redated proxies to get the result he wanted.

 

All that said however the deeper point, as the article noted is that when such studies are dug into, basically are checked and the extreme conclusions they draw are either dramatically reduced or eliminated, it is called denialism not skepticism.

 

BR with this thread doesn't declare that people who have skepticism with regard to studies that make dramatic and planet changing claims are warranted. He declares they are akin to mass murderers. They are people blocking the exits of a burning movie theater per him.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #101 of 249
Thread Starter 
Respone by Marcott. In addition to the information presented by Marcott, Tamino has presented several clear responses.
Quote:
Update: Tamino has three excellent posts in which he shows why the Holocene reconstruction is very unlikely to be affected by possible discrepancies in the most recent (20th century) part of the record. The figure showing Holocene changes by latitude is particularly informative.

Make that six excellent posts as of today. Here are the rest:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/for-the-record/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/too-little-time/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smearing-climate-data/

From the last post after a robust analysis:
Quote:
My opinion: the Marcott et al. reconstruction is powerful evidence that the warming we’ve witnessed in the last 100 years is unlike anything that happened in the previous 11,300 years.

The idea so terrifies those in denial of global warming, that they have undertaken a concerted effort to “smear” this research. That’s because it clearly implies that modern global warming is unprecedented, and shines a light on the folly of throwing a monkey wrench into the climate machine. And that means we ought to change our ways, which just happen to involve some of the biggest money-making ventures in the history of humankind.

The idea also terrifies me. For a different reason.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #102 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Respone by Marcott. In addition to the information presented by Marcott, Tamino has presented several clear responses.
Quote:
Update: Tamino has three excellent posts in which he shows why the Holocene reconstruction is very unlikely to be affected by possible discrepancies in the most recent (20th century) part of the record. The figure showing Holocene changes by latitude is particularly informative.

Make that six excellent posts as of today. Here are the rest:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/for-the-record/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/too-little-time/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smearing-climate-data/

From the last post after a robust analysis:
Quote:
My opinion: the Marcott et al. reconstruction is powerful evidence that the warming we’ve witnessed in the last 100 years is unlike anything that happened in the previous 11,300 years.

The idea so terrifies those in denial of global warming, that they have undertaken a concerted effort to “smear” this research. That’s because it clearly implies that modern global warming is unprecedented, and shines a light on the folly of throwing a monkey wrench into the climate machine. And that means we ought to change our ways, which just happen to involve some of the biggest money-making ventures in the history of humankind.

The idea also terrifies me. For a different reason.

 

 

First your source does a bit of plagiarism.

 

Second his opinion isn't science. If he had science instead of opinion, he wouldn't feel the need to wander into the messenger intent. He even notes he is operating from a frightened state. That certainly isn't science either.

 

Using your analogy, folks like yourself and Tamino are screaming fire in a theater because someone has a lighter. They are trying to activate a mob and bring about a violent and irrational response because no one is reacting to the lighter in the theater as if it were a fire.

 

The "bad guys" in Tamino reasoning have such insane logic that you have to wonder why he can assign it to them even as a strawman to knock down or to support his caricature. Their logic is I'll be dead, so will all my offspring as will the planet but darn it, I'll be RICH!!!!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #103 of 249
Thread Starter 

 

Before spouting off, try reading.

 

Quote:

Since Anthony Watts has decided to repeat Steve McIntyre’s accusation, I’m posting my response to a previous comment on this blog:

wte9 | April 1, 2013 at 11:40 pm | Reply

“Also for your information, the original version of this post mentioned McIntyre (and linked to his posts) extensively. But prior to posting I decided to remove that, since McIntyre had already fully explored the ‘low road.’”

Can you clarify something: Are you saying you used McIntyre’s ideas, but removed any citations attributing those ideas to him because he was taking the low road? Or are you saying something different? Thanks.

[Response: All I "learned" from McIntyre's "analysis" is that Marcott et al. had re-calibrated proxy ages, that McIntyre blamed the uptick on the re-dating process, and that he was happy to hint at the possibility of deliberate deception on the part of the authors. The references to McIntyre in my original version were to his insulting tone regarding this work, but I finally decided it was better to ignore that and comment on the science. It now seems that on the "dot earth" blog he chose to accuse me of having "shamelessly plagiarized" his ideas on why the exaggerated uptick occurs in the Marcott et al. temperature reconstruction. He's wrong. [emphasis mine]

I didn't read all his posts about the paper, for two reasons: first, there are so many, and I find them so full of sneering and thinly veiled innuendo that they're sickening; second, there's really very little to be learned from him. In my opinion he's just not interested in understanding the science, he only wants to kill hockey sticks.

I'm hardly ignorant of the effect of station dropout (in this case, proxy dropout) on averaging temperature data, I've known about it since long before Marcott et al. was even published. If Steve McIntyre wants to claim that he identified proxy dropout as the reason for the extreme recent temperature uptick in the Marcott paper before I did, fine. It wouldn't be the first time two different people had the same idea. I congratulate him on his insight. As for his assuming that I got the idea from him and didn't credit him, it's no surprise that he would assume the worst possible motives in others.

My opinion: perhaps if Steve McIntyre had been more careful in explaining himself, more interested in communicating reality than in demeaning the results, and less indulgent of his own sneering, people might refer to him rather than me when mentioning the impact of proxy droupout, and the "dot earth" blog might be referring to his posts rather than mine as "illuminating."

Also my opinion: if Steve McIntyre were really interested in the science rather than just killing hockey sticks, he might have applied the "differencing method" himself and discovered that the uptick is still there (but reduced in size) when the impact of proxy dropout is dealt with, whether one uses the re-calibrated ages or the original published ones.

But that would require him actually to do some science.

Notice that I not only identified (quite independently) the reason for the exaggerated uptick, I also implemented a method to overcome that problem? Notice how I showed the result and compared it to Marcott's reconstructions? Notice how I computed the result using both the re-calibrated and the originally published proxy ages? Notice how I did so for the same latitude bands as Marcott, and compared those too? Notice how I even did an area-weighting of those latitudinal results? Science. [color emphasis mine]

Notice also that I disputed the reality of the exaggerated uptick in the Marcott et al. reconstruction without once even hinting that the authors had manipulated the data for nefarious purposes?

As for the differencing method, I didn't credit the inventor (I don't even know who it is) although I didn't come up with that one independently. Perhaps McIntyre will accuse me of having "shamelessly plagiarized" that as well.]

 

 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #104 of 249
Thread Starter 

Ok, let's pause from the latest thread invasion of the repugnant anti-science lobby (Mr. One Note in case it isn't obvious) and instead focus on remembering a man who died recently.  Don Glaser invented one of the most important devices used by particle physicists during the last century: the bubble chamber.

 

 

 

Quote:

A pressure cooker with windows? That was the basic idea behind the bubble chamber, a powerful instrument for the study of atomic particles that led to a 1960 Nobel Prize in Physics for its inventor, UC Berkeley professor Donald Glaser.

Donald GlaserGlaser first conceived of the bubble chamber in 1952, at the age of 25, while a faculty member at the University of Michigan. According to scientific lore, Glaser was enjoying a cold beer when he observed the stream of bubbles in his brew. It was a moment of saloon science that inspired a tool second only in importance to the cyclotron for atomic physicists.

The first bubble chamber, no bigger than its inventor's thumb, contained a clear, super-heated liquid in the path of charged atomic particles accelerated by an atom smasher. As the particles pushed through the liquid, they created a trail of tiny bubbles that could be photographed through the window of the chamber. Analyzing the bubbles provides physicists with insight about the particles and related forces.

Over the years, bubble chambers increased in size--surrounded by a magnet the size of a bus to control the particles--and capability as scientists around the world embraced the instrument. Indeed, Luis W. Alvarez, another Berkeley Nobel Laureate (Physics, 1968), and his colleagues, expanded on Glaser's work to develop their own hydrogen bubble chamber. The device enabled the researchers to discover many new resonance particles, subatomic particles with incredibly short lifetimes.

 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #105 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

 

Before spouting off, try reading.

 

I did thanks. Your quotation there is paraphrased as 'a very long winded rationale for why one doesn't have to cite their sources if you think they are mean or have bad intention even while doing good work.' It doesn't hold up.

 

He ignores the question that was put to him and that you quoted as well...

 

Can you clarify something: Are you saying you used McIntyre’s ideas, but removed any citations attributing those ideas to him because he was taking the low road? Or are you saying something different?

 

He wasn't saying something different. He just said it longer. If I don't like the guy (aka he is taking the low road per my characterization of him) then I am free to REMOVE (they were previously there) the citations I made to his work.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Ok, let's pause from the latest thread invasion of the repugnant anti-science lobby (Mr. One Note in case it isn't obvious) and instead focus on remembering a man who died recently.  Don Glaser invented one of the most important devices used by particle physicists during the last century: the bubble chamber.

 

This is called a diversion. Science doesn't care that someone died. You need a distraction because this is going so badly for you. The one note is science remember. No other notes count per you. If you want to hold up someone as important then go join the ancient desert dwellers with their moldy tome per you.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #106 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Ok, let's pause from the latest thread invasion of the repugnant anti-science lobby (Mr. One Note in case it isn't obvious) and instead focus on remembering a man who died recently.  Don Glaser invented one of the most important devices used by particle physicists during the last century: the bubble chamber.

 

 

 

 

 

 

U of Michigan? I hear they have some good faculty there. I run the science fair at my kids' school and one kid made a cloud chamber. He had a QR code that linked to a You Tube video of an event. Damn good. 

post #107 of 249

Ok, let's pause from the latest thread invasion of the repugnant anti-science lobby (Mr. Ad-hom in case it isn't obvious) and instead focus on a man of science who is skeptical of global warming.

 

 

Real World vs Computer Models

 

"There are people who just need a cause that’s bigger than themselves," said Happer. "Then they can feel virtuous and say other people are not virtuous."

 

Indeed he is right. We've got the Global warming theists desperate to feel virtuous and more than willing to say other people have ill intent so they can feel better about themselves.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #108 of 249
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

 

 

U of Michigan? I hear they have some good faculty there. I run the science fair at my kids' school and one kid made a cloud chamber. He had a QR code that linked to a You Tube video of an event. Damn good. 

That is impressive--both the kid's project and that you run the science fair.  Good on you.  I don't want to cast aspersions, but is it safe to assume that the science fair avoids being one of these things?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #109 of 249
Thread Starter 

Carbon dioxide does not care how I feel about myself.  It also doesn't care when a brilliant scientist in one field oversteps his expertise and makes a fool of himself in another.  More distractions.  More woo.  Please try to keep that sort of thing isolated in one of the anti-science denialist threads.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #110 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

That is impressive--both the kid's project and that you run the science fair.  Good on you.  I don't want to cast aspersions, but is it safe to assume that the science fair avoids being one of these things?

 

Yea, no. My kids go to a an "Open" school organized under the local public school system. Anyone with half a brain can find it via google. I proudly state with no quantitative data that we have the largest percentage of students that actually do their own science fair projects. My 5 year old worked out a plausible hypothesis based on what she wanted to do anyway. 1hmm.gif I just couldn't get her to actual make the poster.

post #111 of 249
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

 

Yea, no. My kids go to a an "Open" school organized under the local public school system. Anyone with half a brain can find it via google. I proudly state with no quantitative data that we have the largest percentage of students that actually do their own science fair projects. My 5 year old worked out a plausible hypothesis based on what she wanted to do anyway. 1hmm.gif I just couldn't get her to actual make the poster.

Awesome.  I hope your daughter goes all in next year.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #112 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Carbon dioxide does not care how I feel about myself.  It also doesn't care when a brilliant scientist in one field oversteps his expertise and makes a fool of himself in another.  More distractions.  More woo.  Please try to keep that sort of thing isolated in one of the anti-science denialist threads.

 

Then why have you been linking all day long to a blogger who isn't a climatologist and demanding we all bow down to his responses on this matter?

 

There's no rhyme or reason to your actions. How exactly is remembering Don Glaser helping us understand or discuss global warming?

 

Finally the thread title is Science is real. However I guess it isn't real when you don't like the scientist. In denial much?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #113 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Carbon dioxide does not care how I feel about myself.  It also doesn't care when a brilliant scientist in one field oversteps his expertise and makes a fool of himself in another.  More distractions.  More woo.  Please try to keep that sort of thing isolated in one of the anti-science denialist threads.

 

Then why have you been linking all day long to a blogger who isn't a climatologist and demanding we all bow down to his responses on this matter?

 

There's no rhyme or reason to your actions. How exactly is remembering Don Glaser helping us understand or discuss global warming?

 

Finally the thread title is Science is real. However I guess it isn't real when you don't like the scientist. In denial much?

 

Quote:
Finally the thread title is Science is real. However I guess it isn't real when you don't like the scientist. In denial much?

 

 

 

Trumpy scientists are people also. They can be as wrong your average plumber or electrician. That doesn't make science wrong.

 

 

Quote:
Finally the thread title is Science is real. However I guess it isn't real when you don't like the scientist. In denial much?

 

Do you mean this guy : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_A._Glaser

 

Quote:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Jump to: navigation, search
Donald A. Glaser
Donald Glaser.jpg
Donald A. Glaser
Born Donald Arthur Glaser
(1926-09-21)September 21, 1926
Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.
Died February 28, 2013(2013-02-28) (aged 86)
Berkeley, California, U.S.
Fields Physics, Molecular biology
Institutions
Alma mater
Doctoral advisor Carl David Anderson
Known for
Notable awards
Spouse
  • Ruth Bonnie Thompson (m. 1960; 2 children)
  • Lynn Bercovitz (m. 1975)

Donald Arthur Glaser (September 21, 1926 – February 28, 2013) was an American physicist, neurobiologist, and the winner of the 1960 Nobel Prize in Physics for his invention of the bubble chamber used in subatomic particle physics.

Born in Cleveland, Ohio, Glaser completed his Bachelor of Science degree in physics and mathematics from Case School of Applied Science[1]:10 in 1946. He completed his Ph.D. in physics from the California Institute of Technology in 1949. Glaser accepted a position as an instructor at the University of Michigan in 1949, and was promoted to professor in 1957. He joined the faculty of the University of California at Berkeley, in 1959, as a Professor of Physics. During this time his research concerned short-lived elementary particles. The bubble chamber enabled him to observe the paths and lifetimes of the particles.

Starting in 1962, Glaser changed his field of research to molecular biology, starting with a project on ultraviolet-induced cancer. In 1964, he was given the additional title of Professor of Molecular Biology. Glaser's position (since 1989) was Professor of Physics and Neurobiology in the Graduate School.

 

Well much as you probably don't like it as you noted the title of the thread is " Science is Real " and I think this guy qualifies.1wink.gif

 

Once again you're obfuscating by trying to tell us what should be included in the thread and what shouldn't when this clearly qualifies.

 

You sound silly but by all means keep on keeping on.lol.gif

 

As far as Mr. Dyson I have been a fan of many of his theories. He designs many good products also. However once again isolated opinion vs. mountains of evidence and widely held opinion. Now they all could be wrong but right now there's no reason to believe that.

 

Here's another opinion :

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/the-danger-of-cosmic-genius/308306/

 

 

Quote:

The Danger of Cosmic Genius

In the range of his genius, Freeman Dyson is heir to Einstein—a visionary who has reshaped thinking in fields from math to astrophysics to medicine, and who has conceived nuclear-propelled spaceships designed to transport human colonists to distant planets. And yet on the matter of global warming he is, as an outspoken skeptic, dead wrong: wrong on the facts, wrong on the science. How could someone as smart as Dyson be so dumb about the environment? The answer lies in his almost religious faith in the power of man and science to bring nature to heel.

Now you could say Mr. Brower is full of it because he's on the side you disagree with. However he's also on the side where that mountain of evidence resides. Above all of this there is the fact that something is happening to our environment at a rapid pace that doesn't seems to be the result of natural forces (  volcanic activity as in natural items that have caused these kinds of changes in the past ). These changes are undeniable. If it isn't us we still need to do something about it as it's clear species are dying out due to their natural environment going away. That means eventual trouble for us. You don't have to be a genius to see that.

 

 

 

Quote:

Then why have you been linking all day long to a blogger who isn't a climatologist and demanding we all bow down to his responses on this matter?

Oh! By the way Mr. Dyson isn't a climatologist either.1wink.gif


Edited by jimmac - 4/6/13 at 3:42pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #114 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Trumpy scientists are people also. They can be as wrong your average plumber or electrician. That doesn't make science wrong.

 

You are equating a person with a field of study all while setting up a strawman. Can you show where anyone in this thread said science is wrong because scientists are people?

 

Here again is what BR said....

 

It also doesn't care when a brilliant scientist in one field oversteps his expertise and makes a fool of himself in another.

 

Address him. Don't be a hypocrite and has that he not act in a hypocritical manner. He is the guy who ignores a brilliant scientist while proclaiming we should listen to an anonymous blogger on the topic who at best may be a mathematician, not a climatologist.

 

Quote:
Well much as you probably don't like it as you noted the title of the thread is " Science is Real " and I think this guy qualifies.1wink.gif

 

Again hypocrisy and you fail to address it. BR called linking to articles and scientists that disagree with his conclusion as an "invasion of the repugnant anti-science lobby" and attempted to distract, much like you do with your strange strawmen.

 

Quote:
As far as Mr. Dyson I have been a fan of many of his theories. He designs many good products also. However once again isolated opinion vs. mountains of evidence and widely held opinion. Now they all could be wrong but right now there's no reason to believe that.

 

You fail to address his chief complaint, that a computer model isn't proof. Clearly you didn't watch the interview of him because you look foolish calling computer models that don't even properly model known past events as "proof" of future events. Also nice to know that you have proof of the future.

Quote:
Now you could say Mr. Brower is full of it because he's on the side you disagree with.

 

I couldn't saw Mr. Brower is full of it because instead of relying on science he merely attacks the man by claiming bad intentions about him?

 

How could someone as smart as Dyson be so dumb about the environment? The answer lies in his almost religious faith in the power of man and science to bring nature to heel.

 

Please feel free to explain how that phrase is science, or a study or proof of anything. You've just linked to a writer who dismissed a great scientist by claiming he has a bad intention. It is a bad intention that has never once blemished nor brought lack of credibility to any of his other scientific endeavors, just this one.

 

You are supporting an argument that amounts to, he is wrong on global warming because he believes in science. Have you honestly read the quote you put down there?

Quote:
However he's also on the side where that mountain of evidence resides.

 

By mountain of evidence you mean non-predictive computer models.

Quote:
Above all of this there is the fact that something is happening to our environment at a rapid pace that doesn't seems to be the result of natural forces (  volcanic activity as in natural items that have caused these kinds of changes in the past ).

 

By rapid change you mean no changes in the last decade or do you mean the changes from the 50's to mid 70's that had everyone proclaiming we were going to freeze the planet because it was cooling the entire time?

 

 

Quote:
These changes are undeniable.

 

Science that cannot be disputed, challenged or changed? That isn't science. That is dogma.

Quote:
If it isn't us we still need to do something about it as it's clear species are dying out due to their natural environment going away. That means eventual trouble for us. You don't have to be a genius to see that.

 

Species dying out is a norm. We have multiple instances of mass extinctions without humans even having existed. We have had massive planet-wide climate change and also massive topographical change. You are attributing norms to humans as ill intentions and demanding control of people and their lives for norms occurring. It is no different than me demanding to sacrifice your daughter to the gods to make the rains come or stop the earth from shaking. It isn't science.

Quote:
Oh! By the way Mr. Dyson isn't a climatologist either.1wink.gif

 

Science demands openness, transparency and accountability. I don't see how you get from an anonymous blogger.

 

 

Quote:
This cartoon imagines Tamino, aka statistician and folk singer Grant Foster, putting things right. Do suggest some more songs that Tamino might like to try. I am sure he will be very grateful.

Edited by trumptman - 4/7/13 at 6:52am

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #115 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Trumpy scientists are people also. They can be as wrong your average plumber or electrician. That doesn't make science wrong.

 

You are equating a person with a field of study all while setting up a strawman. Can you show where anyone in this thread said science is wrong because scientists are people?

 

Here again is what BR said....

 

It also doesn't care when a brilliant scientist in one field oversteps his expertise and makes a fool of himself in another.

 

Address him. Don't be a hypocrite and has that he not act in a hypocritical manner. He is the guy who ignores a brilliant scientist while proclaiming we should listen to an anonymous blogger on the topic who at best may be a mathematician, not a climatologist.

 

Quote:
Well much as you probably don't like it as you noted the title of the thread is " Science is Real " and I think this guy qualifies.1wink.gif

 

Again hypocrisy and you fail to address it. BR called linking to articles and scientists that disagree with his conclusion as an "invasion of the repugnant anti-science lobby" and attempted to distract, much like you do with your strange strawmen.

 

Quote:
As far as Mr. Dyson I have been a fan of many of his theories. He designs many good products also. However once again isolated opinion vs. mountains of evidence and widely held opinion. Now they all could be wrong but right now there's no reason to believe that.

 

You fail to address his chief complaint, that a computer model isn't proof. Clearly you didn't watch the interview of him because you look foolish calling computer models that don't even properly model known past events as "proof" of future events. Also nice to know that you have proof of the future.

Quote:
Now you could say Mr. Brower is full of it because he's on the side you disagree with.

 

I couldn't saw Mr. Brower is full of it because instead of relying on science he merely attacks the man by claiming bad intentions about him?

 

How could someone as smart as Dyson be so dumb about the environment? The answer lies in his almost religious faith in the power of man and science to bring nature to heel.

 

Please feel free to explain how that phrase is science, or a study or proof of anything. You've just linked to a writer who dismissed a great scientist by claiming he has a bad intention. It is a bad intention that has never once blemished nor brought lack of credibility to any of his other scientific endeavors, just this one.

 

You are supporting an argument that amounts to, he is wrong on global warming because he believes in science. Have you honestly read the quote you put down there?

Quote:
However he's also on the side where that mountain of evidence resides.

 

By mountain of evidence you mean non-predictive computer models.

Quote:
Above all of this there is the fact that something is happening to our environment at a rapid pace that doesn't seems to be the result of natural forces (  volcanic activity as in natural items that have caused these kinds of changes in the past ).

 

By rapid change you mean no changes in the last decade or do you mean the changes from the 50's to mid 70's that had everyone proclaiming we were going to freeze the planet because it was cooling the entire time?

 

 

Quote:
These changes are undeniable.

 

Science that cannot be disputed, challenged or changed? That isn't science. That is dogma.

Quote:
If it isn't us we still need to do something about it as it's clear species are dying out due to their natural environment going away. That means eventual trouble for us. You don't have to be a genius to see that.

 

Species dying out is a norm. We have multiple instances of mass extinctions without humans even having existed. We have had massive planet-wide climate change and also massive topographical change. You are attributing norms to humans as ill intentions and demanding control of people and their lives for norms occurring. It is no different than me demanding to sacrifice your daughter to the gods to make the rains come or stop the earth from shaking. It isn't science.

Quote:
Oh! By the way Mr. Dyson isn't a climatologist either.1wink.gif

 

Science demands openness, transparency and accountability. I don't see how you get from an anonymous blogger.

 

 

Quote:
This cartoon imagines Tamino, aka statistician and folk singer Grant Foster, putting things right. Do suggest some more songs that Tamino might like to try. I am sure he will be very grateful.

 

Quote:

You are equating a person with a field of study all while setting up a strawman. Can you show where anyone in this thread said science is wrong because scientists are people?

 

Here again is what BR said....

 

It also doesn't care when a brilliant scientist in one field oversteps his expertise and makes a fool of himself in another.

 

Address him. Don't be a hypocrite and has that he not act in a hypocritical manner. He is the guy who ignores a brilliant scientist while proclaiming we should listen to an anonymous blogger on the topic who at best may be a mathematician, not a climatologist.

 

 

Sorry trumpy but Dyson ( brilliant scientist ) isn't a climatologist either so who's the hypocrite?1wink.gif

 

 

Quote:

You fail to address his chief complaint, that a computer model isn't proof. Clearly you didn't watch the interview of him because you look foolish calling computer models that don't even properly model known past events as "proof" of future events. Also nice to know that you have proof of the future.

 

 

By mountain of evidence you mean non-predictive computer models.

 

The whole of the GW theory doesn't rest on computer models. And not a whole part of the mountain of evidence I'm talking about.1wink.gif

 

No trumpy. Once again you're attempting obfuscation by ignoring the fact that Mr. Dyson while brilliant is making a comment about something that's not his field of study. and it's just one man's opinion weighed against a large group of opinions ( by certified scientists ) who's field of study is climatology. So Dyson doesn't like computer models. That doesn't disprove GW. It isn't even conclusive enough to disprove computer models. Nice try trumpy but no cigar on this one.

 

Quote:
Again hypocrisy and you fail to address it. BR called linking to articles and scientists that disagree with his conclusion as an "invasion of the repugnant anti-science lobby" and attempted to distract, much like you do with your strange strawmen.

Again trumpy you're trying to base this on a couple of people. Once again scientists are people that can have opinions and they can be wrong. It's much more unlikely that a large group of them are wrong however. It does happen but it's an unlikely event in the extreme. Nice try.

 

 

Quote:

Science that cannot be disputed, challenged or changed? That isn't science. That is dogma.

Sure it can be challenged. I didn't see any conclusive study done by Dyson that disproves GW. Did you?1wink.gif

 

 

 

Quote:

Species dying out is a norm. We have multiple instances of mass extinctions without humans even having existed. We have had massive planet-wide climate change and also massive topographical change. You are attributing norms to humans as ill intentions and demanding control of people and their lives for norms occurring. It is no different than me demanding to sacrifice your daughter to the gods to make the rains come or stop the earth from shaking. It isn't science.

lol.gif Now here's the whopper! Yes we've had mass extinctions that were clearly caused by something. We're experiencing a large group of extinctions right now. It's clear part of that is because their environment is going away. This is happening at a rapid pace. Much more rapid than the " Mass extinctions " you were talking about. You put the extinctions and the much more obvious change to the environment ( ice shelves melting and breaking off in large sections or the polar ice shrinking for instance ) and you don't have to be a climatologist to know something out of the ordinary is going on. What ever is causing it the danger to us is right there in your face and we must do something about it. Tell me why trumpy? We have all of this happening at a much more rapid pace than any recorded, you've supplied no reason for that, and call it " a norm "?lol.gif 

 

Most of those mass extinctions in the past took millions of years ( the exception would the odd passing asteroid or comet however it's thought that things were already on the downslide in the Cretaceous for example due to volcanic activity poisoning the environment of the time ).

 

 

 

Quote:
Quote:. We have had massive planet-wide climate change and also massive topographical change.

 

Millions of years in the making remember. Go check it out if you don't believe me. Where's the cause for this much more rapid change now?

 

 

Quote:
Quote: by me
These changes are undeniable.

and you :

Science that cannot be disputed, challenged or changed? That isn't science. That is dogma.

 

The changes are something you can see. You believe your eyes don't you?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2057165/New-York-sized-iceberg-born-Antarctica-18-mile-crack-glacier-opens.html

 

http://www.globalissues.org/issue/178/climate-change-and-global-warming

 

http://penguinplacepost.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/penguins-and-global-warming/

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/misunderstanding-climate-change_n_2973676.html

 

I know though no matter what you just don't get it. We're in danger here and you're acting like it's business as usual. You clearly have no feel for how fragile and tied together everything is on this planet of ours

 

Nah! Sure it's just normal.lol.gif

 

 

" A little suntan lotion my dear? "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by jimmac - 4/7/13 at 11:24am
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #116 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

Quote:

You are equating a person with a field of study all while setting up a strawman. Can you show where anyone in this thread said science is wrong because scientists are people?

 

Here again is what BR said....

 

It also doesn't care when a brilliant scientist in one field oversteps his expertise and makes a fool of himself in another.

 

Address him. Don't be a hypocrite and has that he not act in a hypocritical manner. He is the guy who ignores a brilliant scientist while proclaiming we should listen to an anonymous blogger on the topic who at best may be a mathematician, not a climatologist.

 

 

Sorry trumpy but Dyson ( brilliant scientist ) isn't a climatologist either so who's the hypocrite?1wink.gif 

 

The hypocrits are those who declare we must listen to the scientists while dismissing the scientists using links to a mathematician/folk singer/anonymous blogger. That is pure hypocrisy.

 

 

Quote:
Quote:

You fail to address his chief complaint, that a computer model isn't proof. Clearly you didn't watch the interview of him because you look foolish calling computer models that don't even properly model known past events as "proof" of future events. Also nice to know that you have proof of the future.

 

 

By mountain of evidence you mean non-predictive computer models.

 

The whole of the GW theory doesn't rest on computer models. And not a whole part of the mountain of evidence I'm talking about.1wink.gif

 

No trumpy. Once again you're attempting obfuscation by ignoring the fact that Mr. Dyson while brilliant is making a comment about something that's not his field of study. and it's just one man's opinion weighed against a large group of opinions ( by certified scientists ) who's field of study is climatology. So Dyson doesn't like computer models. That doesn't disprove GW. It isn't even conclusive enough to disprove computer models. Nice try trumpy but no cigar on this one.

 

It does rely on computer models. You are just making up nonsense at this stage to dismiss what you don't care to address. To claim global warming, you have to show current climate is an anomoly, something that has never happened before. Then you take this anomoly and project it forward using computer models. If you claim different then it is not being honest.

 

 

Quote:

Again trumpy you're trying to base this on a couple of people. Once again scientists are people that can have opinions and they can be wrong. It's much more unlikely that a large group of them are wrong however. It does happen but it's an unlikely event in the extreme. Nice try.

 

Please provide proof for your claim that large groups of scientists cannot be wrong. Large groups often are wrong and then when new information or a radical new theory displaces the old dogma, they fall in line again. Scientists are no different than most human endeavors. A large percentage do not question and go about their business. A small percentage do and that is often where the biggest gains occur. This is even more true in this day and age because since research is expensive, many papers are just meta-analysis, aka trying to see the trends within several prior research projects. The very study we are discussing here isn't new research at all. It is combining several prior studies of proxies for past climate.

 

So prove your point or withdraw it. History has shown that large numbers of scientists are wrong and new understanding invalidiates much of the prior claims from the larger whole.

 

 

Quote:

Sure it can be challenged. I didn't see any conclusive study done by Dyson that disproves GW. Did you?1wink.gif

No one has to disprove a computer model for future behavior. It is folks like yourself who are making demands of others and in the name of society who are wringing your hands or supporting hate speech when people won't give you what you want. The models have not been predictive. We shouldn't take action on future events for no good reason.

 

As for the nonsense claimed about mass extinctions, do some reading.

 

More than 90 percent of all organisms that have ever lived on Earth are extinct. As new species evolve to fit ever changing ecological niches, older species fade away. But the rate of extinction is far from constant. At least a handful of times in the last 500 million years, 50 to more than 90 percent of all species on Earth have disappeared in a geological blink of the eye. 

 

I looked at your links but they have to be a crude attempt at humor. They aren't science. They aren't current and most of them look like terrible templates to generate Google ad-sense hits. Please stop embarassing yourself.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #117 of 249
Thread Starter 

 I like how "listen to the scientists!!!!" is really "listen to the 3% of experts that sort of loosely agree with me and ignore the 97% of experts that don't!"  You don't get to play the "listen to the scientists" card and then call 97% of them retards.  You're going all in with a 7 high against a straight flush.  I call.  You lose.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #118 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

 I like how "listen to the scientists!!!!" is really "listen to the 3% of experts that sort of loosely agree with me and ignore the 97% of experts that don't!"  You don't get to play the "listen to the scientists" card and then call 97% of them retards.  You're going all in with a 7 high against a straight flush.  I call.  You lose.

 

Actually it is listen to the scientists that are right regardless of percentages. However since the claim for the 97% has never been proven, just repeated by yourself and others, I ask again for you to cite proof for that number.

 

Also I don't lose. I have the same rights as you. We all understand your desire to deny rights by claiming that exercising said rights is the same as shooting someone in the head with a gun or trapping them in a burning movie theater but that only means someone loses in your mind. Perhaps we will read about it in the news when they lose in reality since it is increasingly clear you cannot tolerate dissent.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #119 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

Quote:

You are equating a person with a field of study all while setting up a strawman. Can you show where anyone in this thread said science is wrong because scientists are people?

 

Here again is what BR said....

 

It also doesn't care when a brilliant scientist in one field oversteps his expertise and makes a fool of himself in another.

 

Address him. Don't be a hypocrite and has that he not act in a hypocritical manner. He is the guy who ignores a brilliant scientist while proclaiming we should listen to an anonymous blogger on the topic who at best may be a mathematician, not a climatologist.

 

 

Sorry trumpy but Dyson ( brilliant scientist ) isn't a climatologist either so who's the hypocrite?1wink.gif 

 

The hypocrits are those who declare we must listen to the scientists while dismissing the scientists using links to a mathematician/folk singer/anonymous blogger. That is pure hypocrisy.

 

 

Quote:
Quote:

You fail to address his chief complaint, that a computer model isn't proof. Clearly you didn't watch the interview of him because you look foolish calling computer models that don't even properly model known past events as "proof" of future events. Also nice to know that you have proof of the future.

 

 

By mountain of evidence you mean non-predictive computer models.

 

The whole of the GW theory doesn't rest on computer models. And not a whole part of the mountain of evidence I'm talking about.1wink.gif

 

No trumpy. Once again you're attempting obfuscation by ignoring the fact that Mr. Dyson while brilliant is making a comment about something that's not his field of study. and it's just one man's opinion weighed against a large group of opinions ( by certified scientists ) who's field of study is climatology. So Dyson doesn't like computer models. That doesn't disprove GW. It isn't even conclusive enough to disprove computer models. Nice try trumpy but no cigar on this one.

 

It does rely on computer models. You are just making up nonsense at this stage to dismiss what you don't care to address. To claim global warming, you have to show current climate is an anomoly, something that has never happened before. Then you take this anomoly and project it forward using computer models. If you claim different then it is not being honest.

 

 

Quote:

Again trumpy you're trying to base this on a couple of people. Once again scientists are people that can have opinions and they can be wrong. It's much more unlikely that a large group of them are wrong however. It does happen but it's an unlikely event in the extreme. Nice try.

 

Please provide proof for your claim that large groups of scientists cannot be wrong. Large groups often are wrong and then when new information or a radical new theory displaces the old dogma, they fall in line again. Scientists are no different than most human endeavors. A large percentage do not question and go about their business. A small percentage do and that is often where the biggest gains occur. This is even more true in this day and age because since research is expensive, many papers are just meta-analysis, aka trying to see the trends within several prior research projects. The very study we are discussing here isn't new research at all. It is combining several prior studies of proxies for past climate.

 

So prove your point or withdraw it. History has shown that large numbers of scientists are wrong and new understanding invalidiates much of the prior claims from the larger whole.

 

 

Quote:

Sure it can be challenged. I didn't see any conclusive study done by Dyson that disproves GW. Did you?1wink.gif

No one has to disprove a computer model for future behavior. It is folks like yourself who are making demands of others and in the name of society who are wringing your hands or supporting hate speech when people won't give you what you want. The models have not been predictive. We shouldn't take action on future events for no good reason.

 

As for the nonsense claimed about mass extinctions, do some reading.

 

More than 90 percent of all organisms that have ever lived on Earth are extinct. As new species evolve to fit ever changing ecological niches, older species fade away. But the rate of extinction is far from constant. At least a handful of times in the last 500 million years, 50 to more than 90 percent of all species on Earth have disappeared in a geological blink of the eye. 

 

I looked at your links but they have to be a crude attempt at humor. They aren't science. They aren't current and most of them look like terrible templates to generate Google ad-sense hits. Please stop embarassing yourself.

 

 

Quote:
Large groups often are wrong and then when new information or a radical new theory displaces the old dogma, they fall in line again.

As I've said previously this does happen but it's a rarity. Check your history. More often than not there's the individual who wants to support a point of view on a feeling rather than good science. And with this there's a lot of evidence one can see without computer models.

 

From your link :

 

 

Quote:
At least a handful of times in the last 500 million years, 50 to more than 90 percent of all species on Earth have disappeared in a geological blink of the eye. 

 

 

 

 

 

That' " Geological blink of an eye ". can be millions of years on that scale. And from your link when it mentions causes of previous extinctions do you see any " volcanoes " or " asteroids " causing our current mass extinction under way? Keep it up trumpy. It's clear that you really just want to win the debate at any cost.  You make a rather poor scientist but why am I surprised at that?1wink.gif As far as mass extinctions the more you talk the more you display your lack of knowledge about them.1rolleyes.gif

 

 

 

Did your link did mention a cause that we can see today? Well  I did " do some reading "  and it did. As it turns out you need to read all the way to the bottom..1biggrin.gif

 

Also from your own link trumpy :

 

 

Quote:

Today, many scientists think the evidence indicates a sixth mass extinction is under way. The blame for this one, perhaps the fastest in Earth's history, falls firmly on the shoulders of humans. By the year 2100, human activities such as pollution, land clearing, and overfishing may have driven more than half of the world's marine and land species to extinction.

 

 lol.gif Gotcha!1wink.gif1smoking.gif


Edited by jimmac - 4/9/13 at 5:46pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #120 of 249

Global warming may be contentious (for some) but I don't think that you can argue that CO2 levels have risen dramatically since the industrial revolution and coupled with that, the size of carbon sinks have been rapidly shrinking through de-forestation. Which begs the question - where does all the CO2 go...? Into the oceans?

 

The science surrounding CO2 absorption in the oceans is fairly simple and fundamental. Perhaps we need to think of the broader consequences for the environment. After all, you can't have an economy without one...

 

http://oceanacidification.net/fast-facts/

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Science is Real.