The Theory Of Gravity Is Wrong? What Does It Mean For The 'Climate Consensus'?
I am glad a mainstream media was willing to publish this.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I'm hoping that Trump's recent cabinet picks can help sway the masses, but I doubt it. At least maybe he can slow down the every more insistent absurdity and economic damage.
This was also the last book he wrote. He died after advocating that instead of spending billions combating climate change we should spend billions addressing poverty and living conditions around the world because they were things that would actually help people and have a real outcome.
Drop something breakable and it shatters at your feet in hardly more time than the blink of an eye.
The slower gravity of Mars and especially the Moon is way better as long as you can reach down to catch that coffee cup quick enough. Heck, come to think of it, that coffee cup may not even break upon impact
This is clearly not fair. Since our lib amoral betters say 97% of scientists agree we humans have the power to make Earth hotter, we should also be able to make gravity safer so granny won't fall and break her hip.
Granny lives matter!
On sale at all fine stores: Space Cadet Tights cut from the fabric of space.
Our top quality line of No, No, Not Warp 6! Klingons will be coming soon to put Victoria's Secret to shame.
I resent that a lot of gulchers seem to label scientists who accept grants as common whores. I've known quite a few over the course of my career who are pretty objective. Most of them had a lot of integrity irrespective of who paid them--same for engineers. Who would you be more likely to trust to build a bridge, a politician or an engineer? A politician may have his name on it, but he didn't design it.
As for climate change it appears to be a mixed blessing. Like as ice disappears there will be more
arable land, but less--or too much rain fall. Some eskimos will be homeless. Polar bears will devolve to be just plain old brown bears. I'd advise that that if you own land on the coast, you should pray for the best but prepare for the worst.
The value in the scientific method is that it is an objective test. If you cannot present your discovery in that format, then it is not science.
Again, by close analogy, the Babylonians had tables of Pythagorean Triples, but had no proof, no conceptual formulation of why this must be true.
So, I have no problem with a scientist arguing for his theory, even long after everyone else has taken a different path. Edward Morely of Michelson-Morely spent the rest of his life trying to work out the "problems" in the experiment in order to get back to "ether." On the other hand, Georg Ohm was ridiculed in his own time. Now, Ohm's Law is unquestioned.
What I see here is that anti-Climate Change is the mainstream. And to me it sounds like an expression of the anti-intellectual tradition in American politics that was identified by Richard Hofstadter in the previous century.
1. According to Karl Popper, a truly scientific theory must be refutable. As many of you have observed, the man made climate change either doesn't offer refutable predictions or the "believers" don't accept them. Perhaps there are some interests involved in all that :).
2. "What I have attempted to show with this book is that no exceptional brain power is needed to construct a new science or to expand on an existing one. What is needed is just the courage to face inconsistencies and to avoid running away from them just because 'that's the way it was always done'. (The Goal, 1986, E.M.Goldratt). We need more courageous people.
Refutation of the so-called science used by climate alarmists best belongs to fraud.
References to string theory and gravity, constant or changing, muddy the issue.
But what is important here is what is omitted: that the real climate data says that warming is not serious and they don't show that man is the primary contributor to it.
First of all, Investors Business Daily is not an example of mainstream media. It is a free market alternative to the Wall Street Journal. WSJ is mainstream; IBD is not.
On the main point, the research cited on string theory is weak. String theory may have mathematical consistency as an argument, but it lacks empirical evidence. That much is damning. As for that article, if gravity did not exist at the Big Bang, what did? What is the origin of gravity? The author there, Kerry Jackson, admits to not understanding the scientific research cited, yet insists on jumping to a previous conclusion about climate change.
And if "nothing is constant" then the climate is not constant and must be changing. What that means for human action is a different question entirely. The warming climate seems to be enjoyed by wolves, beavers, and elk in Yellowstone. (See here: http://www.yellowstonepark.com/wolf-r...
"A new theory from the University of Amsterdam further strengthens the fact that nothing is constant in this world, even gravity. According to the researchers, gravity is not a fundamental force of nature because it had not really existed at first," says the University Herald of Verlinde's latest work on the subject."
The guy seems to want to make the point that even when considered "settled science" something not previously known can show up and change the "facts". He is making the point with the climate change "For three decades they've predicted disaster and for three decades they've been wrong, yet they can't stop forecasting catastrophe or even generate enough introspection to consider that they might be wrong."
You may disagree with the idea, my agreement with him lies in the fact I do not want anyone ramming their "fixes" down my throat, making me pay taxes, selling me crap fuel, or having to give billions to some foreign country so they can stop spewing a presumed nasty gas. I do not want to have to fund idiots like Gore and his Global Climate Change Business empire, or extend the reach of government to "save the world" or the whales, or the fish, or the poor polar bears. All because a bunch of "scientists" "agree". Climate change may be real, but the efforts to "stop it" will always be an ignorant adventure in manipulation. The only thing man can do is adapt.
One thing that was really interesting some 10 plus years ago is that it was discovered via satellite, that gravity is not consistent over the entire earth. It fit the experiences I've had on my sailing yacht over 12 years...no such thing as a standardized "Sea Level" don't ya know.
President-elect Trump has called climate change a Chinese hoax, vowed to dismantle America's climate and clean energy policies, and appointed climate deniers with ties to the fossil fuel industry to his transition team and Cabinet.
There is too much at stake for us to stay silent. Human-caused climate change threatens America’s economy, national security, and public health and safety. That's why we and over 800 of our colleagues, all of whom work on climate, energy, or Earth science, have written an open letter (read here) urging Donald Trump to take 6 key steps to address climate change:
1) Make America a clean energy leader.
2) Reduce carbon pollution and America's dependence on fossil fuels.
3) Enhance America's climate preparedness and resilience.
4) Publicly acknowledge that climate change is a real, human-caused, and urgent threat.
5) Protect scientific integrity in policymaking.
6) Uphold America's commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement.
Please join us in urging President-elect Trump to #ActOnClimate by signing this petition.
Thank you,
Dr. Suzanne P. Anderson, Professor of Geography, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado at Boulder
Dr. Catherine Gautier, Professor Emerita, Department of Geography, University of California Santa Barbara
Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program, Stanford University
Dr. Dan Kammen, Energy and Resources Group and Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley; Science Envoy, US State Department
Dr. Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University
Dr. R. Pamela Reid, Professor of Marine Geosciences, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami
Dr. Cindy Shellito, Professor of Meteorology, University of Northern Colorado
Dr. Richard C. J. Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego
Dr. Sarah Ann Woodin, Carolina Distinguished Professor Emerita, Department of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina
I am not sure if these guys really have a belief, or if it just fits their funding requests...
It's just accepting reality. I would sign their petition if I thought it mattered. What I personally do, though, matters more than petitioning others. I would probably get more return by giving up Taco Bell, although signing the petition is far easier. This is part of accepting reality, regardless of what we wish were true.
Estimate for -27 for low tomorrow night -60 with wind chill and it's not winter yet. Man made pollution is a reality , that we have any effect on the weather is arrogance! the sun and its cycles can be studied and that will show the climate change is a constant . Solar flares , or lack there of ,CME , planetary alignment these effect the weather. Just checkout Adapt2030 .
There are two problems in this phrase.
1. Humans influencing the environment is not intrinsically a fault. The environment only has value, in human terms, as a place for us to live and make/do things we like. As soon as hunter gather bands started spreading, it started changing the environment and started the current mass extinction event. Even hunter-gather bands sometimes understood the effects of their actions and knew things like hunting young animals decreases the population and reduces value for people next year. Now that there are 7 billion of us, there's even more value at stake. The current mass-extinction and a large percentage of global warming are "our fault" in the sense human activities causes them, but they word fault wrongly implies there's something immoral about it.
2. Science doesn't operate on definitive proof. We have to accept the evidence we have today, always being open to knew evidence. It's the opposite from law where attorneys pick one theory of the case and look for evidence to support it, leaving the responsibility of other theories of the case to the opposing side.
"not inject their politics into it."
This unfortunately happens to a lot of things, even to a project to make an electronic product or something. It's very easy for someone to look at how our actions broadly affect other people and say, "see, we should think of humans all as one big family." The problem is the logic that human actions having broad effects --> collective.
" The current mass-extinction and a large percentage of global warming are "our fault" in the sense human activities causes them,", I must respectfully disagree here, I do noit believe there is sufficient evidence to lay blame anywhere yet. Al Gore started this train, and no one has ever been able to stop it.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/al-g...
http://www.naturalnews.com/053992_Inc...
This one is a supporter of the theory, however, if you look at the Hurricane data there is an set of peaks dating back to 1880 that sort of belie the idea of having been able to effect climate back then. In addition, they pull out the ocean conveyor belt idea, that, when it occurs, will throw us right back into a deep Ice Age. That was proposed as a trigger cause for all Ice Ages about 20 years ago by a Japanese Oceanographer, whose work was poo-pooed as "just theory".:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/c...
Bottom line for me is I just do not have enough reliable data to buy into either side of the story beyond "Yep it does look like things are changing".
If you just don't accept the science, it's a dead-end for me. Science is open to new evidence, so maybe it will turn to be like the scientific knowledge that margarine is more healthful than butter. New evidence disproved it. I hope by some miracle it turns out homeopathy is real, Taco Bell is healthful, and seven billion people living industrial lives on earth has no effect on the climate. Unfortunately I see them all as very unlikely.
Is your use of the words "fault" and "blame" intentional? "Laying blame" is some combination of childish, misanthropic, and manipulative. I'm not saying you're doing that. I think you're just accidentally adopting politicians' language.