Stephen Hawking on human extinction
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
ooops, you will learn nothing about climate
anyway, just proves that the masses are gullible dupes.
I think that one was debunked many times, but really... c'mon man, what grown human with a functioning brain really thinks that a flawed grade school experiment can tell us how an atmosphere works?
anyway, just proves that the masses are gullible dupes.
I think that one was debunked many times, but really... c'mon man, what grown human with a functioning brain really thinks that a flawed grade school experiment can tell us how an atmosphere works?
Since you are not educated apparently I will forgive your lack of understanding of how science works.
Since you are making the claim, it is your burden to prove those bottles represent greenhouse effects in Earth's atmosphere. As Sagan said, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
Therefore I will provide 2 criticisms and it then your job to refute them.
1: The primary method of heat transfer away from earth is radiative, however the bottles primary heat transfer mechanism is conductive. Prove that the bottle's conductive mechanism is exactly equivalent to earth's radiation transfer to space under proportionate changes in CO2 levels including all known atmospheric modalities. Be sure to include signal to noise levels in the thermometer.
2: The earth does not have a plastic bottle around it, show that the plastic bottle has no effects on CO2 absorption in the radiation bands of interest. I think they are around 4-5 microns and out near 20 microns.
thanks, I look forward to your answers
....
Since you are making the claim, it is your burden to prove those bottles represent greenhouse effects in Earth's atmosphere. As Sagan said, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
Therefore I will provide 2 criticisms and it then your job to refute them.
1: The primary method of heat transfer away from earth is radiative, however the bottles primary heat transfer mechanism is conductive. Prove that the bottle's conductive mechanism is exactly equivalent to earth's radiation transfer to space under proportionate changes in CO2 levels including all known atmospheric modalities. Be sure to include signal to noise levels in the thermometer.
2: The earth does not have a plastic bottle around it, show that the plastic bottle has no effects on CO2 absorption in the radiation bands of interest. I think they are around 4-5 microns and out near 20 microns.
thanks, I look forward to your answers
....
The predominant scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[6][7] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On the other side we have some message-board-experts on a trading website who have the hubris to think they know better. You see.... denying the expert opinion makes the denier even smarter. They must be smarter. They're contradicting the experts! I'm sure they also predict Nor'easters in week in advance by looking out their window.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[6][7] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On the other side we have some message-board-experts on a trading website who have the hubris to think they know better. You see.... denying the expert opinion makes the denier even smarter. They must be smarter. They're contradicting the experts! I'm sure they also predict Nor'easters in week in advance by looking out their window.
Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications". These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism. In some cases, this occurred at the request of a former oil-industry lobbyist.[214] In June 2008, a report by NASA's Office of the Inspector General concluded that NASA staff appointed by the White House had censored and suppressed scientific data on global warming in order to protect the Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential election.[215]
U.S. officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists,[216] many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.[217][218][219] Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by journalist Chris Mooney in his book The Republican War on Science.
Climate scientist James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in a widely cited New York Times article[220] in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public". NASA denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal, and official government, views in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. Several scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have made similar complaints;[221] once again, government officials said they were enforcing long-standing policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums.
The BBC's long-running current affairs series Panorama recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed".[222]
U.S. officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists,[216] many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.[217][218][219] Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by journalist Chris Mooney in his book The Republican War on Science.
Climate scientist James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in a widely cited New York Times article[220] in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public". NASA denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal, and official government, views in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. Several scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have made similar complaints;[221] once again, government officials said they were enforcing long-standing policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums.
The BBC's long-running current affairs series Panorama recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed".[222]
Pure bunk.
Feel free, however, to take up residence in a cave and eat raw food. Unless you are doing so right now you are a hypocrite. How have you altered your lifestyle in response to this manufactured crisis?
The rest of us will continue to live as we do, thanks.
Frankly the world has serious problems to contend with in the next year like averting World War III.
