Phydeaux
Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
So when 1700 scientists sign issue a statement saying client science is settled, why, that should be the end of it, right. 1700 scientists is what it takes to settle an issue.
Actually, that's untrue. Science works by attacking, tearing down and replacing paradigms.
The more thousands people who are convinced that A is true, the more likely the person who proves that A is actually untrue is likely to go down in the history books alongside Darwin, Leevoenhoek, Newton, Gallileo, Copernicus, Einstein, Hawking, etc.
Exactly, Hill. That was the point of the post.
So often those on the global warming will insist - the science is settled because 3221 scientists say so.
It is completely irrelevant how many scientists find agreement. The only thing relevant is
does *any* scientist find a data point that contradicts the theory. Let me make my point by example.
Until the 1800s (call it) Newtonian physics was the law of the land. Thousands of scientists would had no idea of the theory of relativity - or many of the postcalulus mathematics.
They were wrong.
This is why the observations by Svennie and by Cern, and by NASA are so important. Because the data they ran contradict the models postulated by the IPCC. And this is why the temperature flatline for the last 16 years is important. Because in that 16 years carbon dioxide has doubled and temperatures have remained flat.
I don't recall the source, but as one NASA researcher said, we don't even know the sign (plus or minus) of the effect of CO2.
In other words. It is widely presumed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increases temperatures. This is based that in the lower troposphere CO2 absorbs infrared and then radiates it in 360 degrees, thus reflecting part of it back to earth.
However, that same CO2 in the outer reaches of the atmosphere serve to dump huge amounts of radiation out of the atmosphere - more than 95% according to NASA's SABER program.
How long does it take CO2 to go from the troposphere to the exosphere. I don't know. How has the concentration of CO2 in the outer reaches of the exosphere changed. I don't know.
Could an increase in CO2 concentration in the exosphere increase the heat radiated to space? Yes, it could. Does it? I don't know.
But its not only me that doesn't know. To the best of my knowledge, these areas are open areas of science.
These are some of the things NASA was alluding to when it said the net effect of carbon dioxide on global warming is much less than previously projected and would have to be re-examined.
So besides the flaws in the data, besides the historical records of temperature that the IPCC models don't explain, besides the current lull in global warming that the IPCC models failed to predict, the very idea that the science is settled - is well, laughable.
Its like a Newtonian scientist saying- the science is settled.
"Martin Gardner once asked a parapsychologist just what sort of evidence would convince him he had erred in coming to a certain conclusion. The parascientist replied that he could not imagine any such situation, thus — in my opinion — removing him from the ranks of the scientific discipline rather decidedly."
Denigrating someone as a "denier" when they are upholding the fundamental purpose of science -skeptical challenge- moves this from the realm of science.
I am a believer. I believe.... in the absurdity of electromagnetism, in the farce of geometry, in the cruelty of arithmetic, in the murderous intent of logic.
|
RE: Majority of Scientists skeptical of climate crisis - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread