Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

2010-05-25 18:01:51
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Theory of Relativity was actually proven recently. Einstein was 100% correct.
LOL is this a joke?
No.

Under his name in the Oxford English Dictionary is the simple definition: genius. Yet for decades physicists have been asking the question: did Albert Einstein get it wrong? After half a century, seven cancellations and $700m, a mission to test his theory about the universe has finally confirmed that the man was a mastermind - or at least half proved it.

The early results from Gravity Probe B, one of Nasa's most complicated satellites, confirmed yesterday 'to a precision of better than 1 per cent' the assertion Einstein made 90 years ago - that an object such as the Earth does indeed distort the fabric of space and time.

But this - what is referred to as the 'geodetic' effect - is only half of the theory. The other, 'frame-dragging', stated that as the world spins it drags the fabric of the universe behind it.

Francis Everitt, the Stanford University professor who has devoted his life to investigating Einstein's theory of relativity, told scientists at the American Physical Society it would be another eight months before he could measure the 'frame-dragging' effect precisely.

'Understanding the details is a bit like an archeological dig,' said William Bencze, programme manager for the mission. 'A scientist starts with a bulldozer, follows with a shovel, then finally uses dental picks and toothbrushes to clear the dust away. We're passing out the toothbrushes now.'

The Gravity Probe B project was conceived in the late 1950s but suffered decades of delays while other scientists ran tests corroborating Einstein's theory. It was Everitt's determination that stopped it being cancelled. The joint mission between Nasa and Stanford University uses four of the most perfect spheres - ultra precise gyroscopes - to detect minute distortions in the fabric of the universe. Everitt's aim was to prove to the highest precision yet if Einstein was correct in the way he described gravity.

According to Einstein, in the same way that a large ball placed on a elasticated cloth stretches the fabric and causes it to sag, so planets and stars warp space-time. A marble moving along the sagging cloth will be drawn towards the ball, as the Earth is to the Sun, but not fall into it as long as it keeps moving at speed. Gravity, argued Einstein, was not an attractive force between bodies as had been previously thought.

Few scientists need the final results, which will be revealed in December, to convince them of Einstein's genius. 'From the most esoteric aspects of time dilation through to the beautiful and simple equation, e=mc2, the vast bulk of Einstein's ideas about the universe are standing up to the test of time,' said Robert Massey, from the Royal Astronomical Society.

He said the mission was 'legitimate science' to test a theory and confirm its brilliance, but others have criticised the costs and length of the study, claiming that what was announced had already been shown. Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, said the announcement would 'fork no lightning'.

The theory explained

When Einstein wrote his general theory of relativity in 1915, he found a new way to describe gravity. It was not a force, as Sir Isaac Newton had supposed, but a consequence of the distortion of space and time, conceived together in his theory as 'space-time'. Any object distorts the fabric of space-time and the bigger it is, the greater the effect.

Just as a bowling ball placed on a trampoline stretches the fabric and causes it to sag, so planets and stars warp space-time - a phenomenon known as the 'geodetic effect'. A marble moving along the trampoline will be drawn inexorably towards the ball.

Thus the planets orbiting the Sun are not being pulled by the Sun; they are following the curved space-time deformation caused by the Sun. The reason the planets never fall into the Sun is because of the speed at which they are travelling.

According to the theory, matter and energy distort space-time, curving it around themselves. 'Frame dragging' theoretically occurs when the rotation of a large body 'twists' nearby space and time. It is this second part of Einstein's theory that the Nasa mission has yet to corroborate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/ … n.universe
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-05-25 18:03:58
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Yeah, which is why any scientist worth his salt talks about those theories as theories. They are theories that make a lot of sense, but particularly with respect to the degree that the theories function there is a lot we don't understand. From personal experience the professor in cosmology that I have talked about working under before made it very clear that the Big Bang theory was just a theory, a lot of evidence points towards it but we understand so little about how everything works that there could be many other explanations for the data we gather. We even had a long talk specifically about the theoretical nature of the theory of relativity, even though a lot of lay persons take it as "fact" it is still a theory that is continually being tested. One of the key aspects of a theory is that it predicts the outcome of future situations, and so far the theory of relativity has passed that test quite well. Even so, it is not infallible and many people in his field were constructing theories that were at odds with the theory to various degrees.
Well, the theory of relativity has been revised considerably since Einstein's time, but I get what you mean.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Global warming is nowhere near that level of acceptance in the scientific community. Yes the basic concept of the greenhouse effect makes a lot of sense, but the magnitude of its actual effect on the Earth and on top of that the effect of that effect on the Earth is really a shot in the dark.
It may not be as solidly grounded as evolution or the Big Bang, but there certainly is a very disingenuous movement coming from mostly the oil industry to discredit global warming.  And global warming really is accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Economic theories are a matter of social logic. Physical theories are the product of natural truth. The two are incomparable.
Ok, I'll give you that one.
Theory of Relativity was actually proven recently. Einstein was 100% correct.
Quantum Theory does alter the stage somewhat.  General and special relativity each hold true for the most part when the conditions they apply to are present, however, it seems that the rules change a bit the smaller the perspective is, so to speak.

Admittedly, I still don't fully understand Quantum Theory.
2010-05-25 18:05:49
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

It may not be as solidly grounded as evolution or the Big Bang, but there certainly is a very disingenuous movement coming from mostly the oil industry to discredit global warming.  And global warming really is accepted by the majority of the scientific community.
So? Just because some people are doing it for less-than-pure motives doesn't mean they aren't right, especially when the other side lacks evidence as well.

The majority of the scientific community does not support global warming and all the theories and outcry associated with it indiscriminately. Really I don't know anyone besides Al Gore that has personally gone nutzo with the concept. The fact is the models are rudimentary at best, and we really don't know what will happen. To say that most scientists accept the numbers politicians spew is ridiculous.
Are the models rudimentary at best? I honestly don't know but you seem to have some understanding...

Who is saying that most scientists accept the numbers politicians spew out?  I didn't read that but I may have missed it.
Did you not read Superfreakonomics, or did you just think it was shit?

Meteorological models are rudimentary by nature. We don't have the computing power and we certainly don't have the modeling techniques to develop any serious, accurate models of the future. Shortcuts have to be taken, and as the guy in the book said most of those shortcuts were taken in the same direction because of funding reasons.

Turquoise said that (paraphrasing) most scientists agree on global warming. Last I checked, there wasn't some count where everyone who calls themselves a scientist got together and took a vote. The only thing that scientists could possibly be agreeing/disagreeing with en masse is the popular staging ground for such arguments - politics.
2010-05-25 18:08:50
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

So? Just because some people are doing it for less-than-pure motives doesn't mean they aren't right, especially when the other side lacks evidence as well.

The majority of the scientific community does not support global warming and all the theories and outcry associated with it indiscriminately. Really I don't know anyone besides Al Gore that has personally gone nutzo with the concept. The fact is the models are rudimentary at best, and we really don't know what will happen. To say that most scientists accept the numbers politicians spew is ridiculous.
Now you're putting words in my mouth.  I'm talking specifically about the theory itself.  This isn't so much about what's going to happen as it is what's already happened.  I'm not saying that these scientists are soothsayers.  I'm saying they do have evidence of what has already occurred, and projections can be drawn from them.  Now, I would agree that not all scientists agree on what will happen in the future, but there is certainly an agreement on what has already.
2010-05-25 18:13:51
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Theory of Relativity was actually proven recently. Einstein was 100% correct.
LOL is this a joke?
No.

Under his name in the Oxford English Dictionary is the simple definition: genius. Yet for decades physicists have been asking the question: did Albert Einstein get it wrong? After half a century, seven cancellations and $700m, a mission to test his theory about the universe has finally confirmed that the man was a mastermind - or at least half proved it.

The early results from Gravity Probe B, one of Nasa's most complicated satellites, confirmed yesterday 'to a precision of better than 1 per cent' the assertion Einstein made 90 years ago - that an object such as the Earth does indeed distort the fabric of space and time.

But this - what is referred to as the 'geodetic' effect - is only half of the theory. The other, 'frame-dragging', stated that as the world spins it drags the fabric of the universe behind it.

Francis Everitt, the Stanford University professor who has devoted his life to investigating Einstein's theory of relativity, told scientists at the American Physical Society it would be another eight months before he could measure the 'frame-dragging' effect precisely.

'Understanding the details is a bit like an archeological dig,' said William Bencze, programme manager for the mission. 'A scientist starts with a bulldozer, follows with a shovel, then finally uses dental picks and toothbrushes to clear the dust away. We're passing out the toothbrushes now.'

The Gravity Probe B project was conceived in the late 1950s but suffered decades of delays while other scientists ran tests corroborating Einstein's theory. It was Everitt's determination that stopped it being cancelled. The joint mission between Nasa and Stanford University uses four of the most perfect spheres - ultra precise gyroscopes - to detect minute distortions in the fabric of the universe. Everitt's aim was to prove to the highest precision yet if Einstein was correct in the way he described gravity.

According to Einstein, in the same way that a large ball placed on a elasticated cloth stretches the fabric and causes it to sag, so planets and stars warp space-time. A marble moving along the sagging cloth will be drawn towards the ball, as the Earth is to the Sun, but not fall into it as long as it keeps moving at speed. Gravity, argued Einstein, was not an attractive force between bodies as had been previously thought.

Few scientists need the final results, which will be revealed in December, to convince them of Einstein's genius. 'From the most esoteric aspects of time dilation through to the beautiful and simple equation, e=mc2, the vast bulk of Einstein's ideas about the universe are standing up to the test of time,' said Robert Massey, from the Royal Astronomical Society.

He said the mission was 'legitimate science' to test a theory and confirm its brilliance, but others have criticised the costs and length of the study, claiming that what was announced had already been shown. Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, said the announcement would 'fork no lightning'.

The theory explained

When Einstein wrote his general theory of relativity in 1915, he found a new way to describe gravity. It was not a force, as Sir Isaac Newton had supposed, but a consequence of the distortion of space and time, conceived together in his theory as 'space-time'. Any object distorts the fabric of space-time and the bigger it is, the greater the effect.

Just as a bowling ball placed on a trampoline stretches the fabric and causes it to sag, so planets and stars warp space-time - a phenomenon known as the 'geodetic effect'. A marble moving along the trampoline will be drawn inexorably towards the ball.

Thus the planets orbiting the Sun are not being pulled by the Sun; they are following the curved space-time deformation caused by the Sun. The reason the planets never fall into the Sun is because of the speed at which they are travelling.

According to the theory, matter and energy distort space-time, curving it around themselves. 'Frame dragging' theoretically occurs when the rotation of a large body 'twists' nearby space and time. It is this second part of Einstein's theory that the Nasa mission has yet to corroborate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/ … n.universe
ahahaha you just gobble that shit up from the guardian huh?

BOTH the time dilation effect and the space bending effects have already been observed. They hyped this like crazy, there is a reason nobody heard about this/gave a shit. Don't trust a source that has to explain what the theory of relativity is at the bottom.

You don't "prove" a theory. It doesn't happen. You can never know FOR SURE that theories hold true under all circumstances, because you can't know exactly what is happening to form the cause and effect relationship. Newton's theories haven't been proven, much less fuckin relativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_g … relativity
2010-05-25 18:16:19
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Now you're putting words in my mouth.  I'm talking specifically about the theory itself.  This isn't so much about what's going to happen as it is what's already happened.  I'm not saying that these scientists are soothsayers.  I'm saying they do have evidence of what has already occurred, and projections can be drawn from them.  Now, I would agree that not all scientists agree on what will happen in the future, but there is certainly an agreement on what has already.
What is that agreement?
2010-05-25 18:31:15
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Now you're putting words in my mouth.  I'm talking specifically about the theory itself.  This isn't so much about what's going to happen as it is what's already happened.  I'm not saying that these scientists are soothsayers.  I'm saying they do have evidence of what has already occurred, and projections can be drawn from them.  Now, I would agree that not all scientists agree on what will happen in the future, but there is certainly an agreement on what has already.
What is that agreement?
Well, the first major agreement is that the Earth has gone through some very dramatic temperature swings long before man.

The second is that the timeframe for some of these swings has been short enough for mankind to have experienced full cycles of them.

Another agreement is that some of the most dramatic temperature swings of the distant past have resulted from volcanic eruptions and meteor impacts.

Eruptions themselves are of particular interest to scientists when examining the possible connections between manmade pollution and global warming, because of the similarities in their composition.  Obviously, volcanic eruptions tend to produce pollution that is much larger in dispersion and more concentrated, but there are still enough commonalities to draw certain parallels.

Yet another agreement is that what we've observed in the last century regarding temperature swings has been much more dramatic than previous ones, at least in terms of the timeframe.

One of the main reasons why there is a theory that we have an effect on these swings is because of what appears to be a temperature variance (and certain climatic shifts in places like East Africa) that corresponds with pollution rises.  And this goes beyond just air pollution.  Changing oxygen levels in various parts of the oceans and the melting of the poles all seem to come together to suggest a connection.  Also, the melting of various glaciers bear mentioning.
2010-05-25 18:35:55
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85
1) yes

2) Yes full cycles of swings, but hardly even the largest of the swings the Earth has encountered, and who is to say that naturally the swings could max out at a significantly higher/lower level than those past swings? Geologically man is not even infantile.

3) yes

4) Since when? The entire global warming argument is that in the future there will a dramatic uptick. The actual warming that has taken place is minimal at best to date.

As for the last paragraph, correlation does not imply causation.
2010-05-25 18:44:58
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

1) yes

2) Yes full cycles of swings, but hardly even the largest of the swings the Earth has encountered, and who is to say that naturally the swings could max out at a significantly higher/lower level than those past swings? Geologically man is not even infantile.

3) yes

4) Since when? The entire global warming argument is that in the future there will a dramatic uptick. The actual warming that has taken place is minimal at best to date.
A rise in the average annual temperature by a degree or two is only "minimal at best" when taking a surface level look at how temperature changes work across the planet.  This change certainly is dramatic, at least when defined by a species like ourselves that can only survive a small rise in average annual temperature without suffering major food shortages and a massive amount of destruction to some of our biggest population centers as a result of rising sea levels.

Just because we don't necessarily see it in everyday life doesn't mean that it can't have a serious effect on us in the long run.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

As for the last paragraph, correlation does not imply causation.
Well, there have been an awful lot of coincidences then. 

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-05-25 18:52:53)

2010-05-25 18:54:58
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

A rise in the average annual temperature by a degree or two is only "minimal at best" when taking a surface level look at how temperature changes work across the planet.  This change certainly is dramatic, at least when defined by a species like ourselves that can only survive a small rise in average annual temperature without suffering major food shortages and a massive amount of destruction to some of our biggest population centers as a result of rising sea levels.

Just because we don't necessarily see it in everyday life doesn't mean that it can't have a serious effect on us in the long run.
It is a small change compared to changes in the past. It is basically as small a change as can be measured with any level of certainty that there is a change caused by something.

We are hardly going to starve. We are far, far too good at making food at this point to be dramatically affected by any change in temperature of the magnitude we are experiencing now. Much more likely of a problem would be something to do with the oceans, but the chance of it being a "The Day After Tomorrow" scenario are stupid low.

Turquoise wrote:

Well, there have been an awful lot of coincidents then.
This is the point. It is hardly an academic certainty. Even putting that list of coincidences next to theories like Newton's laws is ridiculous, because it really, really could be a coincidence. The weather is quite possibly the aspect of the Earth that we understand the least about. It's too hard to measure, it's too hard to predict, and we have been experiencing it for such an absurdly short amount of time that we haven't even had a chance to get our bearings.
2010-05-25 18:59:23
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6391|eXtreme to the maX

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

But you didn't ask for an argument the other way, clearly implying the burden of proof lies on the refuters by default.
Thats how scientific debate works, put forward a reasonable theory to explain observed events - let people debunk it if they can.
This is the point. It is hardly an academic certainty. Even putting that list of coincidences next to theories like Newton's laws is ridiculous, because it really, really could be a coincidence. The weather is quite possibly the aspect of the Earth that we understand the least about. It's too hard to measure, it's too hard to predict, and we have been experiencing it for such an absurdly short amount of time that we haven't even had a chance to get our bearings.
We have millenia of climate and CO2 data, 'weather' is irrelevant.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-05-25 19:00:49)

Fuck Israel
2010-05-25 19:00:44
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

Dilbert_X wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

But you didn't ask for an argument the other way, clearly implying the burden of proof lies on the refuters by default.
Thats how scientific debate works, put forward a reasonable theory to explain observed events - let people debunk it if they can.
Coming up with a theory to explain observed events is easy. You can say God did it, that's pretty easy. The theory has to be able to predict something to be of any note.
2010-05-25 19:01:29
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

But you didn't ask for an argument the other way, clearly implying the burden of proof lies on the refuters by default.
Thats how scientific debate works, put forward a reasonable theory to explain observed events - let people debunk it if they can.
Coming up with a theory to explain observed events is easy. You can say God did it, that's pretty easy. The theory has to be able to predict something to be of any note.
Well, the Big Bang theory doesn't predict anything...
2010-05-25 19:04:44
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85
Big Bang theory predicted CMB and red-shift.
2010-05-25 19:06:40
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It is a small change compared to changes in the past. It is basically a small a change as can be measured with any level of certainty that there is a change caused by something.

We are hardly going to starve. We are far, far too good at making food at this point to be dramatically affected by any change in temperature of the magnitude we are experiencing now. Much more likely of a problem would be something to do with the oceans, but the chance of it being a "The Day After Tomorrow" scenario are stupid low.
Well, I'm not necessarily suggesting we're going to starve.  People living in areas that rely on subsistence farming have a much higher chance of it though.  What's happening across Africa is pretty dramatic even from a humancentric perspective.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

This is the point. It is hardly an academic certainty. Even putting that list of coincidences next to theories like Newton's laws is ridiculous, because it really, really could be a coincidence. The weather is quite possibly the aspect of the Earth that we understand the least about. It's too hard to measure, it's too hard to predict, and we have been experiencing it for such an absurdly short amount of time that we haven't even had a chance to get our bearings.
There's a difference between being rationally skeptical and in denial.  There clearly is a significant group of people in our society that flat out deny anything significant with regard to temperature is happening and seem to discredit any suggestion that we might have something to do with it.

Being rationally skeptical at least acknowledges the possibility of us having an effect on global temperature, even if you don't side with the idea.

I think what Ken's getting at are the people who are simply in denial.
2010-05-25 19:07:50
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Big Bang theory predicted CMB and red-shift.
Shit...  I knew I was forgetting something....
2010-05-25 19:50:15
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It is a small change compared to changes in the past. It is basically a small a change as can be measured with any level of certainty that there is a change caused by something.

We are hardly going to starve. We are far, far too good at making food at this point to be dramatically affected by any change in temperature of the magnitude we are experiencing now. Much more likely of a problem would be something to do with the oceans, but the chance of it being a "The Day After Tomorrow" scenario are stupid low.
Well, I'm not necessarily suggesting we're going to starve.  People living in areas that rely on subsistence farming have a much higher chance of it though.  What's happening across Africa is pretty dramatic even from a humancentric perspective.
Yeah but I mean people are already starving now, and we don't give enough of a shit to really do anything about it.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

This is the point. It is hardly an academic certainty. Even putting that list of coincidences next to theories like Newton's laws is ridiculous, because it really, really could be a coincidence. The weather is quite possibly the aspect of the Earth that we understand the least about. It's too hard to measure, it's too hard to predict, and we have been experiencing it for such an absurdly short amount of time that we haven't even had a chance to get our bearings.
There's a difference between being rationally skeptical and in denial.  There clearly is a significant group of people in our society that flat out deny anything significant with regard to temperature is happening and seem to discredit any suggestion that we might have something to do with it.

Being rationally skeptical at least acknowledges the possibility of us having an effect on global temperature, even if you don't side with the idea.

I think what Ken's getting at are the people who are simply in denial.
Perhaps that is who he was aimed at. I feel he hit everyone that is "against" global warming instead.
2010-05-25 19:53:09
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6785|so randum
without reading the thread, the people i meet who denounce climate change (i study geography at university...so i have a nice view on the situation) generally commit to the 'commies are evul, darkies are taking my land and buy american fuck those jap cars' identity.

You have to be a literal retard to ignore the FACTS that humankind are influencing this worlds climate for the worse.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2010-05-25 19:56:30
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6696|'Murka

There is a distinct difference between denying climate change overall and being skeptical about anthropomorphic climate change.

The latter is not necessarily inclusive of the former.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-05-25 20:06:29
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6279|Truthistan

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

The article has nothing we haven't heard before. it basically says, "we've been saying this for a while, we've managed to convince a lot of people to believe this, so it should be accepted as fact... why won't you accept it as fact... what's wrong with you.... you are killing the earth... we should tax you out of your hummer and make you cry when you pay your electric bill."

Its just a cry to rally the enviro base. I expect more propaganda as the we approach the fight on cap and trade.

Here's a video apparently not everyone agrees with the models and the mathematics.
But they aren't saying any of that, you are.  There is no mention of carbon credits or creating a commodities market in the letter.  You are the one putting that argument forth for them, very stylistic of lowing.  Where is the propaganda?  The science and studies aren't being supressed, yet you and others have this knee-jerk reaction regarding the implementation of carbon tax credits.  So I guess you personally don't really question the science behind it, only the proposed solutions?  Or maybe you don't understand the science and choose to follow a CNN pundits position from a youtube video?

I personally don't like cap and trade any more than I like the trading of bundled loans or oil or gold - I hate commodities trading with a passion, even more so when it's a made-up commodity like clean energy credit.  But that isn't the issue.

@DDBrinson - there is no mention of recycling in the article or this debate.  I guess I could look for a youtube link that succintly sums up the arguments but I can't be bothered to look for it.

@11 bravo - you bring up an interesting and valid point - the American government has a history of subsidizing energy exploration and refinement of all kinds, including oil exploration and offshore drilling.  I'm not really sure if the balance is tipping in favor of alternative/green forms of energy but sure, as long as subsidies flow to oil, coal and other forms of fossil fuels it's going to hurt the ability for new forms to break into the market.  Appealing to the consumer's emotions is only going to get green tech so far.
The pro-GW people have to face reality, the whole debate has been poisoned. Just saying GW is real because 1200 scientist say so IS the poster child of the people pushing carbon credit and other solutions. So when another study or another news story saying the same tired old BS, you have to realize that the crowd is fickle. Once upon a time, the models kept getting more and more grand in their predictions, you've got hockey sticks, sea level rise in our life time, world is unlivable in 300 years, you really have to wonder where science ends and science fiction begins.

If people who are passionate about GW really want to receive a sympathetic ear from the people who will be paying the taxes and the higher costs for energy caused by solutions for GW (if it exists at all), then, IMO these 1200 scientists and there supporters should come up with some technological solutions, or at the very least, get out there in public and work to kill political solutions like carbon credits and increased taxation because what we need are technological solutions.

Or how about a statement about how 1200 scientists think that their budgets should be cut and the money put toward a climate change engineering studies program to advance technological solutions. Somehow I doubt that will ever happen.

The science of GW faces a problem similar to the one faced by critical studies, sure you can deconstruct the issue, dazzle everyone with your brilliance, but then they do nothing to suggest how to make it better and that really leaves people feeling hollow. So don't be shocked when the pro-GW come with a negative message saying, the earth is getting hotter, its all your fault and..... and..... and..... the crowd gets pissed off waiting for a workable solution.

BTW people are also getting tired of people saying we need nuclear power because its carbon free, and then have people crying no nukes. OR people saying yes to wind generators and then others crying about migrating birds. Like it you not you're bundle up with that crowd and after a while people just say fine, I'll stick with my internal combustion engine, dont even think about taxing me and screw the lot of you.


In nutshell here is the PR problem facing GW, anyone can cry "the sky is falling" but if the sky really is falling then you're going to want an engineer to fix it because what you don't need is 1200 other idiots standing there and pointing up.
2010-05-25 23:55:11
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6960|Canberra, AUS

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Yeah, which is why any scientist worth his salt talks about those theories as theories. They are theories that make a lot of sense, but particularly with respect to the degree that the theories function there is a lot we don't understand. From personal experience the professor in cosmology that I have talked about working under before made it very clear that the Big Bang theory was just a theory, a lot of evidence points towards it but we understand so little about how everything works that there could be many other explanations for the data we gather. We even had a long talk specifically about the theoretical nature of the theory of relativity, even though a lot of lay persons take it as "fact" it is still a theory that is continually being tested. One of the key aspects of a theory is that it predicts the outcome of future situations, and so far the theory of relativity has passed that test quite well. Even so, it is not infallible and many people in his field were constructing theories that were at odds with the theory to various degrees.
Well, the theory of relativity has been revised considerably since Einstein's time, but I get what you mean.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Global warming is nowhere near that level of acceptance in the scientific community. Yes the basic concept of the greenhouse effect makes a lot of sense, but the magnitude of its actual effect on the Earth and on top of that the effect of that effect on the Earth is really a shot in the dark.
It may not be as solidly grounded as evolution or the Big Bang, but there certainly is a very disingenuous movement coming from mostly the oil industry to discredit global warming.  And global warming really is accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Economic theories are a matter of social logic. Physical theories are the product of natural truth. The two are incomparable.
Ok, I'll give you that one.
Theory of Relativity was actually proven recently. Einstein was 100% correct.
Galt, I respect your knowledge over mine on a lot of matters but trust me on this one.

He wasn't.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

The article has nothing we haven't heard before. it basically says, "we've been saying this for a while, we've managed to convince a lot of people to believe this, so it should be accepted as fact... why won't you accept it as fact... what's wrong with you.... you are killing the earth... we should tax you out of your hummer and make you cry when you pay your electric bill."

Its just a cry to rally the enviro base. I expect more propaganda as the we approach the fight on cap and trade.

Here's a video apparently not everyone agrees with the models and the mathematics.
But they aren't saying any of that, you are.  There is no mention of carbon credits or creating a commodities market in the letter.  You are the one putting that argument forth for them, very stylistic of lowing.  Where is the propaganda?  The science and studies aren't being supressed, yet you and others have this knee-jerk reaction regarding the implementation of carbon tax credits.  So I guess you personally don't really question the science behind it, only the proposed solutions?  Or maybe you don't understand the science and choose to follow a CNN pundits position from a youtube video?

I personally don't like cap and trade any more than I like the trading of bundled loans or oil or gold - I hate commodities trading with a passion, even more so when it's a made-up commodity like clean energy credit.  But that isn't the issue.

@DDBrinson - there is no mention of recycling in the article or this debate.  I guess I could look for a youtube link that succintly sums up the arguments but I can't be bothered to look for it.

@11 bravo - you bring up an interesting and valid point - the American government has a history of subsidizing energy exploration and refinement of all kinds, including oil exploration and offshore drilling.  I'm not really sure if the balance is tipping in favor of alternative/green forms of energy but sure, as long as subsidies flow to oil, coal and other forms of fossil fuels it's going to hurt the ability for new forms to break into the market.  Appealing to the consumer's emotions is only going to get green tech so far.
The pro-GW people have to face reality, the whole debate has been poisoned. Just saying GW is real because 1200 scientist say so IS the poster child of the people pushing carbon credit and other solutions. So when another study or another news story saying the same tired old BS, you have to realize that the crowd is fickle. Once upon a time, the models kept getting more and more grand in their predictions, you've got hockey sticks, sea level rise in our life time, world is unlivable in 300 years, you really have to wonder where science ends and science fiction begins.
So why, then, don't you actuall try to learn the science behind it, and examine their arguments from your own point of view using your own logic like a good scientist would? I mean, it's really easy to sit on your high horse and denigrate their work when you don't try to comprehend it. As I said it is founded in fairly simple chemistry and simple physics (and that one resonant frequency of the C-O double bonds is in precisely the correct range for the atmosphere is not exactly something one can dispute without sounding like a complete quack - and this is the basis of the whole theory)

If people who are passionate about GW really want to receive a sympathetic ear from the people who will be paying the taxes and the higher costs for energy caused by solutions for GW (if it exists at all), then, IMO these 1200 scientists and there supporters should come up with some technological solutions, or at the very least, get out there in public and work to kill political solutions like carbon credits and increased taxation because what we need are technological solutions.

Or how about a statement about how 1200 scientists think that their budgets should be cut and the money put toward a climate change engineering studies
Read mcminty's link.

Last edited by Spark (2010-05-26 00:00:26)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-05-26 00:03:26
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6507|teh FIN-land

FatherTed wrote:

without reading the thread, the people i meet who denounce climate change (i study geography at university...so i have a nice view on the situation) generally commit to the 'commies are evul, darkies are taking my land and buy american fuck those jap cars' identity.

You have to be a literal retard to ignore the FACTS that humankind are influencing this worlds climate for the worse.
a nice succinct summary as usual from Ted. Well said sir.
2010-05-26 02:04:06
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6936|USA

FatherTed wrote:

without reading the thread, the people i meet who denounce climate change (i study geography at university...so i have a nice view on the situation) generally commit to the 'commies are evul, darkies are taking my land and buy american fuck those jap cars' identity.

You have to be a literal retard to ignore the FACTS that humankind are influencing this worlds climate for the worse.
Ok you are studying it, and you say humans are influencing it for the worst. If humans were not here, what would the climate be doing now. I mean since the climate has been changing ever since their has been climate.

So a good documentary on the history channel about the "little ice age" that lasted from the 13th to the 19th centuries.


http://www.history.com/images/media/pdf … _guide.pdf

blame has to assigned, where we gunna put it?
2010-05-26 02:21:15
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6960|Canberra, AUS
Magnitude and speed matter, lowing. One degree in three centuries is not the same as three degrees in one century.

I mean, I just don't see the point of this whole business any more. There is nothing of value to be gained by debating people who refuse to study the science and actually try to find out for themselves rather than relying on tabloids, blogs, and documentaries which are generally, on both sides, pretty crap.

There is no reason any more that with a bit of time and effort you can't teach yourself basically anything in science just using the internet.

Last edited by Spark (2010-05-26 02:30:25)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-05-26 02:33:29
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6936|USA

Spark wrote:

Magnitude and speed matter, lowing. One degree in three centuries is not the same as three degrees in one century.

I mean, I just don't see the point of this whole business any more. There is nothing of value to be gained by debating people who refuse to study the science and actually try to find out for themselves rather than relying on tabloids, blogs, and documentaries which are generally, on both sides, pretty crap.
I dunno has the change been 3 degrees in one century?

and if it is all true.

why this is this necessary?

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/20/d … ing-fraud/

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard