Newtonian physics is still good in context. It is the physics of almost all
engineering. So for the physics of most applications, Newtonian physics is
settled and rules.
I'll take "unsettled science" over "settled religion" any
Let's see...Michael uses an example of Scientific theory and
Astro Physics -- from over 113 years ago, When most people still
traveled by horse and buggy, few electric lights, few phones, fewer automobiles, no TV, and no radio, The 1st airplane would not
fly for 2 more years, and about 50 years before the first computers.98% of Science tells us man-made Global Climate Change is real and
indeed happening.Tell me -- If 98% of Science predicted doom
if -- If you found a crack in the wing of jet, would you still fly in
it?A major earthquake just happened off the coast of Japan, Thailand,
India, or Hawaii -- and not move to higher ground?Schedule a canoe trip
with a Hurricane moving in?Hike Mt. Timpanogas with major a snowstorm 12
hours away?98% prediction pretty much "settles" it for most
The Theory of Relativity is just that... a theory, and a bogus one at that.
Anyone who believes in that Theory is lost somewhere out in the Space Time
Excellent and accurate article. As our grandparent's science is to us, so
will our science be to our grandchildren. Everything we think we know today will
eventually be proven to be completely wrong or at least very incomplete. So much
for "settled" science! As far as religion goes, my religion is
incomplete as well because I believe in everything God has revealed, everything
He does now reveal and I believe God will yet reveal many great and important
things in the future. Personally, I could never embrace a religion that teaches
otherwise any more that I could embrace science that tries to tell me anything
Follow the money. When government funds "scientists" to "prove"
that man is causing global warming, and when the desire of government is to tax
the people for emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, just what is a
scientist to do?NASA scientists found: "As reported by Principia
Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA
tracked infrared emissions from the earth’s upper atmosphere during and
following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they
found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this
immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than
deposited into earth’s lower atmosphere."James Taylor
wrote this in Forbes: "People who look behind the self-serving statements by
global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always
known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have
access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not
only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these
skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus."
I presume the writer is referring to climate change. In a sense the writer is
correct. Climate science is one of the youngest sciences and readily admits one
of the most complex therefore one of the least settled in it's details.
None of that however casts any doubt on the general theme that
currently the climate is changing with the influence of human activities. A better comparison would be evolution. The details of how evolution
occurs and has occurred are always changing, but none of the discoveries cast
any doubt on the process of life developing through the evolutionary process.
One of the problems with climate science in my opinion is that it
has developed during the era of the 24/7 news cycle, and has become embedded in
political policy, so everyone is always looking for the dramatic. A consequence
of this is predictions that are not well founded. Most sciences use
predictions as a source of driving research and questioning. I'm sure
climate scientists do this also, but their predictions unfortunately also get
hijacked and used as a guide to what the future "will" look like.
@ MikeThe idea that the gov't is funding scientific inquiry on
climate change as a conspiracy to tax people is silly.The reality is
that gov't subsidizes the very things causing global warming -- from the
incentives and subsidies for drilling and mining fossil fuels to the water
necessary to create steam for electricity from burning fossil fuels to the
railroads and pipelines to transport fossil fuels to the ObamaCare needed to
treat Black Lung Disease from coal workers. By your logic, people could think
gov't was out to destroy the planet by keeping the flame burning on fossil
fuels.The denial of climate change is largely because the science
doesn't fit conservative's values and sensibilities. If climate
change were determined to cause "problems" conservatives cared about --
like increases in gay marriage or acceptance of evolution or harm to
"traditional families" -- you'd see greater acceptance and demand
to address climate change. The problem is climate change is often
tied to demands for carbon taxes, collective action, and clean, price-stable
energy -- issues abhorred by conservatives.
@Ranch,Re: "I'll take "unsettled science" over
"settled religion" any day"...But... Global Warming (and
environmentalism) IS "religion" to many hippies....I mean if
you've been to any earth/human worshiping rallies conducted by the so
called "environmentalists"... you would KNOW it's their religion.
And that's OK. To each his own. Just don't force YOUR
religion on ME...And don't use the Government to force me to
live YOUR religion...===I was going to say, "Oh...
not again", when I read the headline... but this is kinda fun...At least it gets us THINKING about Science... and Religion...===I don't think science and religion are necessarily in
conflict BTW. If YOU do... you probably need to re-think your religion.. or
your science. I think science and religion fit well together and are not
enemies. Google "List of Christian thinkers in science"...
it's a huge list.I think you must understand science to
understand religion and why things are the way they are. But just one or the
other alone... is not complete.
You're confusing Newtonian science with the principle of "OJ
Simpsonian" justice. That is, as long as there's a shred of evidence
against it, the entire body of evidence is void because that's what you
want of it.
Mike suggested that you Follow the money. So with that advice...When
the Oil, Coal and Gas Corporations fund "scientists" to "prove"
that God is causing global warming, and when the desire of corporations is to
maximize profits, Whom to believe a scientist with a measly stipend grant or the
above?Incidentally do you believe that cigarettes are safe?Mtnman You got the part about religion not being settled, correct. However
science never claims perfect knowledge, and, although sometimes stubbornly,
changes when new facts are discovered. There is competition among scientists to
prove or disprove theories based on facts, and most scientist readily admit
little is settled.Science and religion should not compete, but often
do, when religions cling to their grandparents knowledge of science as magic or
acts of God, when science can now explain them to folks who can understand.
If I follow the money....why does BYU teach evolution? Because most Mormons
think that science are religion are in tune with each other. As for people who
"claim' that scientists are following the money, that is bogus and
dishonest. The scientific community , for the most part follows guidelines that
protect that from happening. My family gives a lot of money to the University of
Utah science and research programs. I'm insulted when I see people bad
mouth scientists! We put our money where our moth is.
re: MountanmanBut, what if God the ultimate scientist (physical,
natural, & social) uses scientists (Hawking, Einstein, etc...) as his
@2 bits – “But... Global Warming (and environmentalism) IS
"religion" to many hippies....”So now we’re
comparing thousands of PhD climate scientists from countries around the world to
a bunch of stoners at Burning Man? Ok…As a reminder to
maintain a healthy skepticism this is a good letter, and I have yet to meet the
scientist who is not deeply wired with this orientation already. Of course we
all know the real intent of the letter, so in that sense… not so much.If the letter writer truly wants to engage in the behavior of a skeptic,
he would do well to read the article by Dr. David Brin on Climate Skeptics vs.
Climate Deniers to see what true skepticism looks like.Or if his
goals are really just political, he can follow the other 99% of the party of
deniers who have been hijacked and used like puppets by an extremely well-funded
propaganda machine that happens to own a major network.Skeptic or
Denier (i.e., thinking individual or zombie puppet)… you decide.
Tyler D,I wasn't talking about the thousands of PhDs. I would NEVER
disparage a PhD. They are above reproach or questioning...I was
talking about the kind of people who show up at a SUWA meeting, or a Save the
Whales rally, or a Save the Rain-forest rally, or a Save the Earth rally...
I described them as "hippies" to get your attention. But
they are better described at "environmentalists". And yes.. the
environment IS their religion. They have perfect faith in Global Warming, and
they proselyte and defend it the same way I would my Religion.====I like environmentalists... we have the same goals... we just
differ in our extremism or our level of radicalization for the cause. And they
are very good people. But don't deny that they have religion (even if
deity isn't involved).I think they have a right to their
religion, and to observe it ANY way they want. Just don't force ME to
observe it... or pass government regulations forcing ME to observe THEIR
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahFollow the money. ======== OK, guess what?It leads to OIL, Coal, Gas
companies -- who already make $100 Billions in annual profits, and STILL
get $10's Billions in Government hand-outs.You remind me of
those who listened to BIG Tobacco and their "hired" Scientists insisting
that Tobacco does not cause cancer, heart or lung diease.
Here's the problem... there are people who take the existance of
uncertainty over future warming projections (the range is pretty high, something
like 1.5-4.5C by 2100 in the IPCC report because contrary to popular belief they
do account for uncertainty) and then start rejecting things that are
categorically proven like "the Earth has warmed the past century" and
"CO2 is a greenhouse gas". All justified with a shrug and "science
changes". Yeah, science does change, but if you applied that logic as
universally to medicine you wouldn't trust any medical procedures at all.
It shouldn't be used as a means to justify rejecting anything you find
inconvenient.There are going to be errors. Arctic sea ice was still
below every IPCC model projection for 2013 (even with the bounceback from the
very anomalous 2012). But that doesn't mean that everything should be
scrapped (especially when the error shows greater/faster than expected change
since it doesn't make sense to conclude something doesn't exist when
something is even worse than predicted), it just needs to be refined.
Conversely you have those that feel if something is not 100 percent locked down
as a known, it isn't something worth listening to. I am
assuming this is all about the science about weather. The difference here being
there are those who say we should not act at all. Given the example Sir Issac
Newton, people didn't ignore, nor discredit it, but they tested it, and
built new science on top of it. There is a huge difference there. No one said
Newtons laws don't apply, rather they found instances where it doesn't
apply - which are fewer than when the rule does work. Net\Net -
they found the exceptions to the rule, rather than saying the existing rules
were bunk. Entirely different process, and results.Doing nothing...
doesn't prove anything.
Settled science of the 70's and 80's told us that we would all be
starving from overpopulation of the earth today. Instead we are fatter than
ever. So much for settled science. It is a total myth, used by
greedy and power hungry leeches to feed on the masses.
I am still amazed at the lemmings that trust the climate scientists and their
projections.According to a 2008 report by the NOAA, it was virtually
impossible that we would experience more than 15 years without any statistically
significant warming. We are now going on 16 to 17 years without any warming.
That means that the models are wrong.If the models are wrong, why do
we still trust the conclusions based on those models?Recently
scientists have found that the earth sheds more heat than previously thought.
Again, showing that the models are bad.NASA can't account for
where most of the CO2 in the atmosphere goes.The GISS data points
require significant amount of interpolation throughout most of the world becuase
we have few data collection sites in the oceans, Africa, South America, the
poles, and Asia.If that isn't enough, NASA has been caught
adjusting the raw data to make global warming appear larger than it really
is.The amount of information out there that should cast doubt is
astounding. The only thing more astounding is the number of people that believe
in man-caused climate chage despite the facts.
It is easier to disprove science than to disprove the existence of God. Science
ideas get disproved all the time.'Settled science' is an
Happy Valley Heretic:When the Oil, Coal and Gas Corporations fund
'scientists' to 'prove' that God is causing global
warming..."Who caused global warming when the oil, coal, and gas
corporations were not around? And there was global warming when they
weren't around, just ask any scientist for proof. It happened over and
over, many many times.Coulda been those darn cave men and women...
Re: Badgerbadger "If that isn't enough, NASA has been caught
adjusting the raw data to make global warming appear larger than it really
is."??? I think you had better be specific in this charge. Who
"caught" them in this subterfuge? Why would NASA do this?
Yea, global warming is real. Just ask those scientists that are now saying we
are going into a global cooling cycle.
@Christian 24-7 – “It is easier to disprove science than to disprove
the existence of God.”Actually, it’s impossible to
disprove the existence of God just like it is impossible to disprove the
existence of Zeus, Santa Claus and Unicorns.Can we assume that after
you put out cookie for St. Nick this Christmas, you will be attending midnight
services at the Temple of Zeus? I hear they have unicorn stalls…@wrz – “It happened over and over, many many times.”Yes it has… at typical intervals of ~100,000 years, not a few
decades like we’re seeing now. And in a natural warming period CO2 is
always a lagging indicator. In this current human caused cycle, CO2 buildup is
Tyler D:"Yes it has… at typical intervals of ~100,000 years, not
a few decades like we’re seeing now."Perhaps we're
just starting one of your ~100,000 year Mother-Nature-made warmings. If you ask
East Coast folks who lived through several winter storms recently, they'll
likely say that we're actually in a global cooling.
There is a tendency among the political right to portray climate scientists in
their various roles as being "on the take" to force a particular
conclusion - that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. But from what
sources are these presumed payoffs coming? Not industry - industrial interests
are all on the other side.You'd think if these climate
scientists would wise up and serve the interests with the fat pocketbooks - like
the Koch Bros. No, clearly the vast plurality of climate scientists
really believe, based on their research, that the climate is warming, and that
its origin is human CO2 emissions. They assert this in the face of massive
corporate interest to the contrary.Many of you have never done any
science. I have in the area of epidemiology. I know how hard real science is.
I also know something about the dedication scientists have to their disciplines.
Many of you portray them as paid up shills to special interests. But you never
say what those paid up interests are.We are taking a huge risk with
our grandchildren's lives when we do nothing about climate change. You say
"what has posterity ever done for us?"
God or Nature - take your pick, has a nasty way of restoring balance to
parasites who disrupt and inflict damage.Some will call the
clamities we shall see on mankind as a disruption of balance, others will
see it as the judgement of God on the Wicked.I for one see the
Wicked as the ones guilty of causing the imbalance.
@ marxist - Could you please cite exactly which comment I made any claim about
NASA? Time and date. ??? I think you had better be specific in this
charge. I never mentioned NASA.Perhaps you are equally
mixed up about a lot of things.
@marxistThere are adjustments to datasets for various reasons. What
RedshirtCalTech (who you meant to respond to rather than Badgerbadger) ignores
though is that the satellite datasets he touts (RSS and UAH) are also adjusted
at times. In addition, that satellite dataset RSS is the one that shows the
warmest trend in the satellite era (above NASA NOAA CRU and UAH is the lowest
though all 5 are pretty close in the .12-.14C/decade range) so if NASA is
fudging anything with a sinister motive rather than scientifically justified
reasons, it still resides in between the two satellite datasets for warming
trends the past 35 years.
@wrz"Perhaps we're just starting one of your ~100,000 year
Mother-Nature-made warmings."A 100,000 year climate cycle is not
going to see 1C of warming in a 100 year span it'd be more like 1C in 3,000
years. (By the way, those 100k year cycles referred to are Milankovitch cycles
and we're most of the way through the warming period of the current
cycle)."If you ask East Coast folks who lived through several
winter storms recently, they'll likely say that we're actually in a
global cooling."Only if they want to be factually incorrect,
since despite the regionally cool values in the Eastern US it was one of the
warmest winters (well, Dec-Feb periods since it was summer in the southern
hemisphere) on record globally.
To "Schnee" you still don't answer the critical question about the
data. Why do they keep adjusting it?If they are adjusting it based
on the satelite data, then that would mean that the data collected prior to the
satelites is also wrong. If you say they are adjusting it because of urban heat
zones, then why did they only adjust the more recent data and not the entire 100
years of data?No matter how you look at it, you can see that NASA is
cooking the books so that they can continue to dip into taxpayer funds. That is
if you objectively look into why NASA keeps adjusting the raw data.
If you think global warming is 'settled science' you don't
remember this last winter.
"If you think global warming is 'settled science' you don't
remember this last winter."There you go if that tells you all
you need to know about the "skeptics"
@RedshirtCalTech"To "Schnee" you still don't answer the
critical question about the data. Why do they keep adjusting it?""That is if you objectively look into why NASA keeps adjusting the raw
data."If you're supposed to be an example of someone
objectively looking at all this then why are you asking me for the reasons for
NASA temperature adjustments? Shouldn't you already know the answer or do
you just default to "NASA's a fraud"? Well...okay... more like
answers since many adjustments are made. Here's an example: the 2000-2006
numbers for the US were adjusted downward (yes, downward, by an average of .15C)
because of errors with the urban heat island effect.
Schnee:"A 100,000 year climate cycle is not going to see 1C of warming
in a 100 year span it'd be more like 1C in 3,000 years."What does it matter how fast? It's nice to be able to enjoy a little
heat after a danged cold winter... I would suspect the east coasters are now
saying, after shivering in their boots all winter."(By the way,
those 100k year cycles referred to are Milankovitch cycles and we're most
of the way through the warming period of the current cycle)."So,
it should start getting cooler now that we're half way thru?"Only if they want to be factually incorrect, since despite the regionally
cool values in the Eastern US it was one of the warmest winters (well, Dec-Feb
periods since it was summer in the southern hemisphere) on record
globally."Yeah, and take a reading at the Antarctic... the ice
pack is said to growing there.
I wish Religion could come anywhere near together with a better consensus of
truth than this letter writer's implied lack of consensus of truth
within the Scientific community...
2 bits says:"...the environment IS their religion. "At least she's tangible."...forcing ME to observe
THEIR religion."Do you get the irony of your hypocrisy.@Badgerbadger;We're fatter than ever due to the amount of
sugar we consume, not the quality (or even quantity) of our diets.@RedShirtCalTech;If we're wrong, at least we did something to
benefit everybody. But I ask you, what if we're right and you've done
warmings."Welcome!! You've seen the light! Only
"god" can do what you attribute to Mother.
To "Ranch" but all of the current ideas for limiting the emission of CO2
will cause more harm than it will good. According to the liberal documentary
"Cool It", you find that the damage by the environmental "fixes"
will cost more and end up decreasing the food supply. How is starving people
and making goods and services more expensive a beneficial thing?To
"Schnee" so one year makes a trend? Again, go and read the article and
look at the graphs in the UK Register article "Painting by numbers:
NASA's peculiar thermometer". They have one that should probably be
the most disturbing. It is a graph showing the NASA data, UAH, and RSS data
since 1998. The interesting thing is the RSS and UAH data is flat or showing a
decrease in temperature, while the NASA data is climbing by quite a bit. THe
fact that 2 independant sources are showing no warming or a cooling while NASA
is showing a warming only emphasizes the data falsification going on at NASA.
But I don't expect you to believe that because your mind is made up and you
won't change it.
@RedShirtCalTech;Overheating our planet will also shut down our food
production. Higher cost = lower consumption = fewer greenhouse gasses
produced = good thing.
To "Ranch" according to NASA and other sources heating up our planet
will OPEN up additional farm land and allow us to feed millions of more people.
Nice try, but you are wrong.
Unsettled science are tautomers. Any scientist unwilling to continually test
their hypotheses is heading for failure.
Redshirt, go look at the NOAA website. Your conclusion about 15 year change is
taken from right-wing websites cherry-picking the data.
@Baron Scarpia "The problem is climate change is often tied to demands for
carbon taxes, collective action, and clean, price-stable energy -- issues
abhorred by conservatives."In terms of Global Climate Change
being settled science, I am quite willing to accept these scientific
observations and conclusion that something dire might occur if this remains
unchanged. However, I doubt any of these scientists can state that
global carbon taxes will work to resolve this problem, or that it won't
incur anxillary problems.The problem isn't about bad science,
but good science being used to support bad government.
@gmlewis – “The problem isn't about bad science, but good
science being used to support bad government.”Wow, thank you!
What a breath of fresh air amid all the denier nonsense. My guess is
this is the underlying fear of most of the denier crowd. They are simply
misguided in attacking science rather than focusing their efforts on good
government.So let’s start a real conversation about good
government. By the way, I personally favor the most market friendly
(e.g., how we solved acid rain) approaches possible and was not a fan of the
Kyoto Protocol because it allowed China and India to remain “developing
nations” in perpetuity enjoying all the benefits that designation implied
placing Europe and the U.S. at a severe economic disadvantage.
To "Bebyebe" actually it isn't. If you search for the NOAA
document "State of the Climate in 2008" on page S23 it states "The
simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or
more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed
to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."That is waht the document states. We are now in year 16 (possibly 17)
with no warming. According to the NOAA and their document, the models are
wrong. We have met the requirements for a discrepancy.Unless the
NOAA is now a right wing organization that uses cherry picked data, the climate
models are wrong according to the NOAA standards.
There's still no correlation between changes in atmospheric CO2 and changes
in global temperature. There also isn't much correlation between the public
perception of climate science and climate science.
Lets be clear, there is no "settled" science - it is ever evolving.
But there is plenty of science that is understood enough to the level that you
can act upon it. The two are not mutually exclusive of each other. We continue to expand our knowledge of aerodynamics, and yet we have known
enough to have been in flight for over 100 years. We have been pumping oil for
well over 100 years, and yet technology continues to expand our knowledge of
hydro dynamics and sonic resonance... helping us pump more oil from existing
resources.We don't need settled science. I don't think
we will ever have settled science.
@UtahBlueDevil:You're absolutely right. The problem with AGW is
that it's all based on computer models. The real world has failed to
cooperate with the models, and the end result is that there is no mathematical
correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature (also known as
"climate sensitivity"). Without correlation using data from the real
world, there is no way to make an educated guess as to what the consequence
might be of decreased CO2 emissions. Will it save the world? Will it do nothing?
Will it make the temperature go up? Nobody can say with any degree of scientific
certainty - we can only speculate. Well, sir, that is not science. It's
also really bad governance to propose enormous costs with no idea what the
benefits might be.One thing we do know for sure, as there is a
mathematical correlation: increasing CO2 has greened the earth considerably. We
know for sure that if we were to decrease atmospheric CO2, the amount of plant
life would decrease and crop yields would go down. I guess that's a good
thing if you're interested in reducing the human population through a bit
of engineered starvation.
"That is waht the document states. We are now in year 16 (possibly 17) with
no warming. According to the NOAA and their document, the models are wrong. We
have met the requirements for a discrepancy."Good heavens! So I
read the NOAA report for 2008 (just the abstract and introduction, and lookied
at some of the graphs, after all it is a nearly 200 page report), expecting the
report to say that climate change, global warming, is now understood not to be
happening, seeing as how all the models are wrong. Imagine my
surprise! Imagine! When I found it said NOTHING of the sort! That just
absolutely shocked me! Shocked me, I say! When I found out that the NOAA report
did not say what RedShirt portrays it as saying. I don't know how this
report got it so wrong, but it doesn't even come close to saying what
Redshirt is saying. The many scientist that are part of the report actually say
that global warming is happening, and so do their studies, research, and the
evidence. What. . . ?!How did they get it so wrong?
Redshirt says it's not happening.
Pops, global warming is all based on models? Really? Obviously you don't
follow the science. The current issue of Mother Jones has an
article, Empty Nest Syndrome, by Rowan Jacobsen. Anyone who is interested in
what the effects of Global Warming are should read it. (It's one of many,
many articles you can find if you want to really know what's happening. One
line from the article: The Gulf off Maine, the great food processor of the
western Atlantic, was almost out of food. Seems like it has
something to do with the decrease of zooplankton due to increasing water
temperatures. (You know zooplankton, the thing at the bottom of the food chain,
without which everything higher up is affected. Actually it is the phytoplankton
that the zooplankton consume that did not bloom because of the heat.)But, hey! Keep arguing that there is no such thing as settled science. (There
is, of course, it's silly to argue otherwise. Or maybe you've never
heard of sciences such as chemistry. Pretty settled.)
To "mark" if the science is settled, why do they keep making discoveries
that cause the climatologists to re-evaluate how they model the atmosphere.Since 2007, there have been several major discoveries by NASA and other
groups that have added questions to the models. If the science is settled, then
there shouldn't be anything outside of what is expect. However, here are
some news articles describing things that climatologists can't explain:"Science mystery: Himalayan glaciers are growing despite global
warming" Des News. Glaciers are GROWING, going against the models."Natural Particles Confound Climate Scientists and Computer Models"
Scientific American. Natural partices are messing up the models."Sun Oddly Quiet -- Hints at Next "Little Ice Age"?" National
Georgraphic. Apparently the models disagree with solar output models."New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" Forbes.
Apparently the earth releases more heat than the models account for.The point is that for a settled science, there sure are a lot of new
discoveries being made that keep pointing out problems with the models.
Roy Spencer, James H. Taylor, and the Heartland Institute. Really? Hookay. The other articles don't say at all what you are implying they do.
Do you read the articles, or do you just look at the headlines?
To "mark" do you actually read the articles, or do you just repeat what
you liberal masters tell you? You may not like the author, but the fact is they
are providing truth that dispels the notion that climate change is due to man.
You probably think that it is 100% caused by man.What are you going
to start quoting the non-scientist Al Gore and his PowerPoint presentation? How
about you actually do something novel and start reading the articles that have
found evidence that climate change is natural?But then again, I
wouldn't expect you to undestand the science when you did read them.
Thanks to Yale we now know that Tea Party Conservatives understand science
better than liberals.