US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers
- Thread starter squarepush3r
- Start date
- Status
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You don't seem to understand the difference between consensus" and "scientific consensus"
Doer
Well-Known Member
Oh good one. This is the big chance for Pad to educate me.
Please do go on. I am all ears. What is the difference as you see it? Tell us.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Don't worry, I wear big boy pants.
A superseded, or obsolete, scientific theory is a scientific theory that mainstream scientific consensus once commonly accepted but now no longer considers the most complete description of reality, or simply false.
In some cases a theory or idea is found baseless and is simply discarded. For example, the phlogiston theory was entirely replaced by the quite different concept of energy and related laws. I
A superseded, or obsolete, scientific theory is a scientific theory that mainstream scientific consensus once commonly accepted but now no longer considers the most complete description of reality, or simply false.
In some cases a theory or idea is found baseless and is simply discarded. For example, the phlogiston theory was entirely replaced by the quite different concept of energy and related laws. I
- Emission theory of vision discredited by Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen)
- Aristotelian physics superseded by Newtonian physics
- Ptolemy's law of refraction, replaced by Snell's law
- Luminiferous aether failed to be detected by the sufficiently sensitive Michelson-Morley experiment, made obsolete by Einstein's work.
- Caloric theory Lavoisier's successor to phlogiston, discredited by Rumford's and Joule's work
- Vis viva Gottfried Leibniz's elementary and limited early formulation of the principle of conservation of energy
- "Purely electrostatic" theories of the generation of voltage differences.
- Emitter theory another now-obsolete theory of light propagation.
- Progression of atomic theory
- Democritus, the originator of atomic theory, held that everything is composed of atoms, which are indestructible
- John Dalton's model of the atom, which held that atoms are indivisible and indestructible (superseded by nuclear physics) and that all atoms of a given element are identical in mass (superseded by discovery of atomic isotopes).[SUP][1][/SUP]
- Plum pudding model of the atomassuming the protons and electrons were mixed together in a single mass
- Rutherford model of the atom with an impenetrable nucleus orbited by electrons
- Bohr model with quantized orbits
- Electron cloud model following the development of quantum mechanics in 1925 and the eventual atomic orbital models derived from the quantum mechanical solution to the hydrogen atom
- All of classical physics, including Newtonian physics, superseded by relativistic physics and quantum physics. However, classical physics is a limiting case of the latter two theories, and it is often a very good approximation.
- Ptolemaic system replaced by Nicolaus Copernicus' Heliocentric model.
- Geocentric universe made obsolete by Copernicus
- Heliocentric universe made obsolete by discovery of the structure of the Milky Way. Heliocentrism only applies to the Solar System, and only approximately, since the Sun's center is not at the Solar System's center of mass.
- Copernican system made obsolete by Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton
- Newtonian gravity superseded by general relativity, to which it is an excellent approximation unless typical speeds approach that of light in a vacuum (c). The anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury was the first observational evidence that Newtonian gravity was not totally accurate.
- Luminiferous aether theory
- Steady State Theory, a model developed by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle whereby the expanding universe was in a steady state, and had no beginning. It was a competitor of the Big Bang model until evidence supporting the Big Bang and falsifying the steady state was found.
- Flat Earth theory. On length scales much smaller than the radius of the Earth, a flat map projection gives a quite accurate and practically useful approximation to true distances and sizes, but departures from flatness become increasingly significant over larger distances.
- Terra Australis
- Hollow Earth theory
- The Open Polar Sea, an ice-free sea once supposed to surround the North Pole
- Rain follows the plow the theory that human settlement increases rainfall in arid regions (only true to the extent that crop fields evapotranspirate more than barren wilderness)
- The following were superseded by Plate tectonics:
- Expanding Earth theory (superseded by subduction)
- Geosyncline theory
- The theory of continental drift was incorporated into and improved upon by plate tectonics
- Catastrophism was largely replaced by uniformitarianism
- Neptunism replaced by Plutonism
Doer
Well-Known Member
Just do a Crtl A, Crtl C before you post...(windoz) At least you preserve your content for another try.
What gets me is in a simple edit, sometime I go through 2 of those Capcha challenges and then I get a database error.
Or sometimes the Mods will delete a post and then claim you said something else.
What gets me is in a simple edit, sometime I go through 2 of those Capcha challenges and then I get a database error.
Or sometimes the Mods will delete a post and then claim you said something else.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Translation: No one has any idea what the answer is, so let's assume it's substantial and totally not pass legislation to curb our emissions. Because as we all know, Pad doesn't want ANY legislation, he just wants to be the thought police and make sure we all believe. Anyone buying that?
Asked and concisely answered multiple times. Like UB, you seem to forget we see the replies to your question, we haven't somehow forgotten you were answered. You seem to think if you act like you weren't answered, that makes it true. It makes you look like an idiot and a delusional narcissist. The question wasn't difficult or impressive the first time you asked it, let it go.
Doer
Well-Known Member
And Buck, your tide gauge stuff is bullshit. In Centimeters??? I know you don't lie in forum, so I will give you, just sadly mistaken and bamboozled into Saganism. It's Millimeters, OK? 1/10 of what you said.
We do expect the slight rise in sea levels, as we proceed in the inter-Ice Age period. You guys are claim Feet and showing Centimeters when it is actually MILLIMETERS. OMG...but you don't lie. I got that.
Please notice the deep layers of scientific reference. It begins at a University and never proceeds to Politics and blogs about sceptically faked, smoke screens.
Tide Gauge Estimates of Mean Sea Level Rise
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/tide-gauge-sea-level
Estimates of global sea level rise which were derived from tide gauge records are found in the table below. Most of the investigators reported that the estimated values were sensitive to the choice of record length and the tide gauges selected. This sensitivity coupled with different computational techniques and modeling would certainly explain some of the differences shown below.
We do expect the slight rise in sea levels, as we proceed in the inter-Ice Age period. You guys are claim Feet and showing Centimeters when it is actually MILLIMETERS. OMG...but you don't lie. I got that.
Please notice the deep layers of scientific reference. It begins at a University and never proceeds to Politics and blogs about sceptically faked, smoke screens.
Tide Gauge Estimates of Mean Sea Level Rise
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/tide-gauge-sea-level
Estimates of global sea level rise which were derived from tide gauge records are found in the table below. Most of the investigators reported that the estimated values were sensitive to the choice of record length and the tide gauges selected. This sensitivity coupled with different computational techniques and modeling would certainly explain some of the differences shown below.
| Sea Level Rise (mm/yr) | Error (mm/yr) | Data Used (years) | # of Tide Gauges | References |
| 2.8 | ±0.8 | 1993-2009 | ~200 | Church & White (2011) |
| 1.7 | ±0.2 | 1900-2009 | >38 since 1900 | Church & White (2011) |
| 1.9 | ±0.4 | 1961-2009 | >190 since 1960 | Church & White (2011) |
| 1.43 | ±0.14 | 1881-1980 | 152 | Barnett (1984) |
| 2.27 | ±0.23 | 1930-1980 | 152 | Barnett (1984) |
| 1.2 | ±0.3 | 1880-1982 | 130 | Gornitz and Lebedeff (1987) |
| 2.4 | ±0.9 | 1920-1970 | 40 | Peltier and Tushingham (1989) |
| 1.75 | ±0.13 | 1900-1979 | 84 | Trupin and Wahr (1990) |
| 1.7 | ±0.5 | N/A | N/A | Nakiboglu and Lambeck (1991) |
| 1.8 | ±0.1 | 1880-1980 | 21 | Douglas (1991) |
| 1.62 | ±0.38 | 1807-1988 | 213 | Unal and Ghil (1995) |
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Experimentation
Pretty simple
Like how you posted the geocentric model of the universe as an example. That was the "general consensus" of the universe propagated by organized religion, not science. Then Nicolaus Copernicus came along in the 16th century and ran some experiments and figured out, using science, that the Earth and all the other known bodies in the solar system revolve around the Sun.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Quote the post where the question was answered
Doer
Well-Known Member
OK.... Tell me what experiments have been done in Climate Science?
You see how easily Consensus falls apart? There is no difference between my .sig about people consensus, ie the common knoweldge and so called, scientific consensus....here to today, gone tomorrow. It is just opinion. Most of science never accepted the consensus AGW, in the first place. So it never was scientific.
It is just what the common people believe right now. Some of this has changed in my lifetime...plate tectonics for example.
But, even plate tectonics may not actually be happening, nor Darwinian evolution. It all could be something else, unknown. That is science.
You are taking politics and belief, what I call Saganism.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Science is not opinion
The vast majority of scientists accept ACC
Plate tectonics and evolution are most definitely happening
http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/journals/journal-of-climate/
http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/journals/journal-of-applied-meteorology-and-climatology/
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Hyuck Hyuck...There's someone named Dolan on the editorial board.
BTW Pada, how would you scale human influence on climate change, or how much of climate change would you ascribe to human causation? 97% anthropogenic? 50-50?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
did someone say dolan?Hyuck Hyuck...There's someone named Dolan on the editorial board.
BTW Pada, how would you scale human influence on climate change? 97% anthropogenic? 50-50?
i'll field that question for pada, or at least give ya my own take: anthropogenic > 0%. in other words, some of it.
if you'll notice, i get my kicks off of watching the people who would deny this fact spin in circles, just like the one winged dove.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
SignificantHyuck Hyuck...There's someone named Dolan on the editorial board.
BTW Pada, how would you scale human influence on climate change, or how much of climate change would you ascribe to human causation? 97% anthropogenic? 50-50?
Doer
Well-Known Member
Would you define scientist for me? Then we can begin. I will blow vast majority out of the water as soon as you tell me the definition.
Regions and snake oil are begging to be accepted. Science is constantly challenged with no such political mind fucks.
Such as: we have to accept it.. you are all deniers and can go to jail if we have our way....Such as: crazy talk.
Nice choice of power words there, Freud.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Are these other people on here saying it is 0% ? I don't think so, or at least I am not getting that overall impression (perhaps I am subconsciously ignoring them).
So you are not actually debating that particular ratio, from my perspective.
I was under the impression you were more aligned to the idea of anthropogenic >50%, and that was what you were trying to argue.
Do you believe that human influence could be, as Scafetta loosely opined, "40-60"?
How about 30%? What is the lower bound?
And once that is known, at what point does the opportunity cost of action (not just in terms of dollars) become wasteful--or inefficiently used--in itself?
This is the question I have been trying to figure out. It's just like Mr. Dark Matter chasing his statistical pimples...at some point, the funding will dry up because the answers are not forthcoming (or being repudiated, possibly).
If it is all for the sake of creating and sustaining a particular field of scientific study, then be honest about it (that's an address to legislators, not you). But if all we are given by them is alarmist models, what is the purpose of their research when empirical fact deviates grossly from estimation ala Hansen?
In whose benefit is the research being conducted then?
"I'm afraid I'll be spending the rest of my career just calibrating the experiment"--Mr. Dark Matter.
Furthermore, what do we do with all the ill-thought, reactionary policies and legislation (i.e. carbon-tax, eco-fees, etc.) which result, just let them fade away into defacto obsolescence? Hopefully no one notices? It could work, I suppose; BC did that when they let AirCare (vehicle emission test) fade out. People were steamed over the years at having to pay it, but nothing changed. Then it was just forgotten as the provincial government phased it out. At the same time, there was a loss of many hundreds of jobs (equivalent to 1000s in the US). Wouldn't it have been better to keep that infrastructure in place and bring back mechanical inspections? But that's a side note...
If there are people who literally say it is zero percent, they are going to be hard-pressed to change their minds because that fact alone proves their incapacity for information processing, if not utter disregard for the topic entirely.
At the same time, your hunt for deniers can be funny at times. Kind of like something Tim Leary said about his work,
"...the performing philosopher does not come down the mountain with truths carved in stone. He/she comes to bat several times a day, trying to whack out a conceptual hit. In baseball, a batter who gets one hit out of three will usually lead the league. A thought-inventor is voted into the Hall of Fame or wins the coveted MVP (Most Valuable Philosopher) award on the basis of batting average over the years. In this book, for example, one-third of the ideas are kinda silly, one-third are kinda boring. But one-third are home runs." --from the intro to Neuropolitique
Keep swinging
Unsatisfactory response. Perhaps you need a different question, being a science buff; what would you consider to be the standard deviation in your percent estimate of human influence on climate? In essence, how wide are your margins of error?
- Status