doublegunshop.com - home Forums Global warming

Just to clarify, the results of that experiment did indicate that neutrinos were traveling faster than the speed of light, and probably had Einstein spinning in his grave. That was only until the researchers found an error in their test apparatus, which means that their experiment actually did support Einstein's theory, in a manner of speaking.

It's not a fact, it's a theory. Credible and well supported, but still a theory, and probably a correct theory at that.

Those who die each year from the newly mutated flu bug would doubtless agree.

Evolution 'theory' is science at it's best.

ANTHROPOMORPHIC climate change and LCDM cosmology are psudeo-science at it's worst.

Canvasback, you apparently have noticed how nca225 has completely ignored many statements here and stayed the course. He and Gnomon think they win arguments by ignoring the hard or uncomfortable questions. But he and Gnomon would also believe Al Gore and Barack(Barry Soetoro)Obama if they told us a year from now that the world was made of snow. They would even find data to prove that the world really was made of snow.

Just a few short years ago, the Peak Oil theory was all the rage among liberals. We were running out of the juice. Now, we have so damn much oil and "fossil" fuels that if we burn the increased world production, we are going to send the CO2 levels up to a gazillion parts per million. Then we will have runaway atmospheric warming similar to when the world's atmosphere all burned up in a runaway fission reaction when the first atomic bomb was detonated. Oops, that theory didn't quite pan out, fortunately. Also, if this really is fossil based hydrocarbons we're using, where did the oceans of liquid methane on Titan (one of Saturn's moons)come from? But I digress.

I am not going to get into this discussion other than to say that I have done my own research into climate change. The climate certainly is changing. Always has, always will. I took a couple meteorology courses years ago at Pennsylvania State University as electives toward my major, so I have a basic understanding of the "science." The majority of meteorologists in this country are graduates of Penn State University. They have the largest and most prestigious meteorology program in the U.S. And I was embarrassed that my scientists at my Alma Mater were part of the data falsification scandal at East Anglia University. I've seen nothing yet that makes me want to disagree with the founder of Accu-Weather who said, "Global Warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated upon mankind."

No. Relying on the opinion of an expert in their area of expertise is not the same as letting other people make up your mind for you.

Its more akin to taking you doctor's advise, such as is done countless times a day across the world.

I don't play junior doctor or junior scientist and think I know better than the people who work on their area of expertise day in and day out.

Thats pretty telling too since most of the threads I respond too here are of a political nature. I can tell you have politics much to the right of mine and now I can tell that your politics doesn't leave room for other's differing opinions. You can miss a lot if your view is to narrow.

I admit I am culpable of that as well.

Canvas,

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=polar-ice-sheets-melting-faster-than-predicted


I believe Mr. Raal's opinion is in the minority on this one.

You make a very good junior scientist with your college level meteorology courses. But I'll rely on the actual experts thank you.

keith, you just make up weird stuff about others:


and you may well even believe that you "know" this stuff to be true.

And you wonder why people don't "answer" your stuff?

craig, please think about what was written.

You may find the notion strange, but many do because science is either not taught at all or nobody pays attention!

I walked us through the philosophical issues regarding "proof" and "falsification" and won't do it again since it seems not to make a difference. The more evidence that accumulates supporting a theory the "better" the theory is. But it does not "prove" it - the fact that predictions from theory or experiments actually work is nice but it isn't proof.

People built huge buildings in pre-science days. Some fell down and the ones still standing didn't. Modern structures, embarrassingly collapse too. Also, engineering is not science. Please read what I wrote.

By the way, modern philosophers of science would probably not include anatomy and even if it were science (and not descriptive natural history) you are wrong abut the cardiac surgery. Stuff is often not the "right place" and that has to be considered. Look up situs inversus or transposition of the great arteries as a starter.

And I never said I'm going to create matter. Where does that come from?