Hotter Now Than in the Last 400 Years

Remove all ads!

Again, I am not comparing climatologists to Nazis. I am simply using the Nazis as an example of how a science can be used to promote a political point of view. Consensus science is not always correct science. The minority opinion should be given as much respect as the majority opinion. If the mjority opinion was the only opinion of worth, the world would still be considered flat and evolution would not even be discused. Yes, Nazis may be disgusting and people might rather forget that that they even existed but I think that many things can be learned from thier example, they existed, never forget that from seemingly benign roots a great malignancy can grow. If you consider that beyond distateful and detractive mudslinging then you are judging me from a prejudice point of view.

A lot of the "man is the causing Global Warming" opinion is driven by an extreme leftist political view point just as the "Global Warming does not exist opinion is driven by Right wing extremist ideologues. And if you don't agree with what they say then you are dismissed as uninlightened. That is detractive mudslinging in my book. Most of the good scientific research on this subject will be lost between these two extremes because of a political agenda and extreme points of view that bourders on religious zealotry. This is beyond the distateful to me.

P.S.
If anyone else wants to call me or my views stupid , sick, disgusting, distateful, or any other insulting adjective I would appreciate that they do so in the PM format. Otherwise I am always willing to discus my point of view in a civil, respectful manner with anyone.

[ July 10, 2006, 01:09: Message edited by: Bassil Warbone ]

 

If that is true than 99% of climatologists are "leftist nutjobs".

If you wish to attack peer review, I would kindly like to point out that a scientist submits his work for peer review when he publishes his work in a journal. As I have mentioned before, I don't have blind faith in peer review. I'm just not terribly trusting of work that hasn't been fact checked by an (at least relatively) impartial reviewer qualified and educated enough to understand what he is reading and spot critical errors that a layman like me may miss. Peer review ensures that this has been done. Would you cite Wikkipedia (which is updated so often that you always run the risk of getting innacurate information) as a source for a term paper? Wiki is a good resource, but it is updated so often that there is no way to review every entry before it goes up. Encyclopedia Britanica or World book, on the other hand, have been subject to review before they were published. Sure, errors will still get through and some good info may have been rejected, but I'm a lot less likely to find an error that will make me fail my paper in World Book than I am in Wiki.

On the other hand, I don't think you were attacking peer review. I think you were attacking me.

[ July 10, 2006, 11:15: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

@Bassil

I didnt say you compared climatologists to Nazis. What rubbed me wrong was to see them put in any way, shape or form in a context with Mengele and those of the same spirit by you. No matter what you think of evil and its roots it is simply insensitive, detachted from reality. Speaking of "evil" - some things should not be be hurled about so casually on topics lacking any kind of semblance.

On topic: How can you say the respectable research is lost between the fronts when the vast majority of experts has apparently agreed on a theory? To me it seems more like the scientific community has come to a conclusion through their research, with some stray opinions on the fringe of it all.
I dont know what business you have with leftist nutjobs, much less what root of malignancy you warn of. Where I live our influence on the climate shift is commonly accepted. Mind you, Europe stands to the left of the US. Ought to explain our lack of rational thinking...
Anyway, if wrong the most dire consequence I see coming from acting upon this "leftist theory" is a reduction of pollution. I can take that risk. Shouldnt we all? Right or wrong, our planet profits in both cases. However should the theory of the current minority dictate our action, and should it turn out to be wrong, there's likely to be unpleasantness up ahead.

Unless I failed to notice something, it really is a simple choice for most anyone. Except for certain lobbies.

[ July 10, 2006, 04:24: Message edited by: Dendri ]

 

To me extreme leftist are dangerous and most of the time the front men on the global warming issue are extreme leftist. I am aware of Europe's leftist culture but I don't consider Europeans dangerous leftist nutjobs. Although it causes them problems just as Americas right wing leanings causes us problems. It do not make one more enlightened or rational than the other, but it does give Europeans a smug "we are more enlightened and rational than Americans attitude".

I agree. All I have been trying to say is give other points of view a little respect. as I have stated I do believe global warming is a fact, but the cause is definitly debatable. again give alternative poits of view a fair hearing. I am all for reduction of pollution irregardless of global warming. Just at least recognize that there is a huge political element in this issue and consider other view points with an open mind.

 

The problem here is the risk of 'Emperor's New Clothes' syndrome, where a few scientists with political/idealogical/personal motives publish a bunch of papers showing one point and many more follow along just to be on the band wagon.

We see it in all facets of human society, including science. How many physicists in the early 50's all but worshiped Einstein's theories, never noting the flaws and problems that existed in the originals?

Look at Galileo. His evidence was plain for all to see, yet he was cast out even by the scientific community for publishing a theory that they didn't like.

 

That's not right. He was persecuted by the church for publishing a theory they didn't like.

 

And what those flaws may be, pray tell

About global warming: it seems to be pointless bringing arguments pro and con here. I never noticed anyone being convinced, either way

Someone mentioned above that global warming is a complex issue. I agree with that; it is probably too complex for the majority of people to grasp all its aspects, and definitely too complex to discuss here fully. However, I do not think that is so complex that people which have spent 15 years studying it cannot make some clear statements. So, I choose to trust those scientists ...

 

@Fabius:
Galilleo was criticized by his colligues, too, because they didn't want to get in trouble with the Church.

@khaavern:
Well, the scientific community pretty much abandoned his idea that mass changes with velocity when we found stray protons moving at 99.7% the speed of light hitting the earth on a regular basis. If mass increased as velocity approached the speed of light, these protons would have the mass of the earth or more. His claim that time is relative to velocity has hit some hard examination recently, but nothing definitive has come out either way. There are also a number of minor predictions that Einstein made in his theories that haven't been taken seriously since the late 80's.

 

BTA, is there any way you can simplify this for me? I think I've read it right. Are you saying that mass moving at 99.7% if c (which I assume is the speed of light) would be a very low negative number. In other words, I think you are saying (to NOG), but in a nice way. Nevertheless, even if I did correctly interpret what your point was, I'd appreciate a more liberal-arts-degree-always-took-the-easiest-GER's-available friendly explanation if possible.

[ July 13, 2006, 01:47: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Or, if you prefer, the mass of a proton at rest is approximately 0.000000000000000000000000002 Kg, but it increases to 0.00000000000000000000000002 Kg when accelerated to 99.7% the speed of light.

It should be noted that particle accelerators exist that can accelerate sub-atomic particles to these speeds. If their mass increased to greater than the mass of the earth, the first person who successfully tested a particle accelerator would have destroyed the earth.

These experiments have actually supported Einstein's theory. Mass is increasing as you approach the speed of light. At 99.7% the speed of light, a particle's mass has increased by 13 times over it's rest weight. Now, mass is supposed to increase to infinity at the point of time that you reach the speed of light, so evidently there is a large upwards shift in the graph in that last 0.3%.

 

Also, as the mass increses, ever more energy is need to accelerate it. The closer you get to the speed of light, the greater the mass becomes so that in order to reach the speed of light your talking about an infinite mass object which would require in infinite input of energy to accelerate further.

 

So in summary, the mass scientific community has not actually abandoned Einsteins theory that mass changes with velocity.

 

Heh... there is nothing more I need to say

maybe just that GPS also needs to take into account relativistic effects like time dilatation due to the mass of the earth (which I think is a test for general relativity, rather than special relativity)

* GPS = Global Positioning System

 

It's plenty cool here, what with the air-conditioning and the fans. And as long as they keep shoveling coal into the power plant, I figure it'll stay that way. Plus, the smoke is almost as good as a shade tree.