The latest on Global warming.

[Grumblenuts]

Wait, what? Science is based on promoting the establishment?

There you go again, presuming to preach "Science" while flailing at straw for the excuse. Perfect illustration of "determined to defend and promote the establishment at all costs for whatever reason." The scientific establishment in this case, sparky. There actually is one if you've somehow never noticed. And, yes, there obviously are pluses and minuses to establishments. Now, can you illustrate your ability or willingness to be critical of the scientific establishment with just one teensy little example... Not holding my breath. Research scientists simply must be skeptical. Why study things you already feel certain about other than out of sheer boredom, fear of loss, greed, or potential increased status? None of those inspire professional quality results. One must always yearn to know more from the heart, thus always doubt from the head and proudly so.

 

[ahsay]

That's why I put "We" in quotes. I make a genuine effort to speak for myself. No need to hide behind some fallacious numerical advantage comprised of unspecified others. I "know" meaning I'm reasonably certain as a result of prolonged scientific study. However, well over 99% of climate scientists worldwide happen to agree with me. They also claim to "know" such a thing. Contrary to another of your wild assertions..

...and I agree as well but I don't have the arrogance to say..."we" know. A "collective" doesn't make B.S. any more palatable.

apparently we, both you and I, proudly attended public school. What's your excuse for not knowing "any such thing" - Libertarianism?

Humility... What's yours for pretending you DO know "...any such thing..."?

 

[DeletedUser35712]

Now, can you illustrate your ability or willingness to be critical of the scientific establishment with just one teensy little example... Not holding my breath. Research scientists simply must be skeptical. Why study things you already feel certain about other than out of sheer boredom, fear of loss, greed, or potential increased status?

That’s why they rigorously peer review each other’s papers to the highest standards before publishing the results. And afterwards try to replicate the experiment and see if it matches the results. Scientists are always skeptical about new data, or they wouldn’t do those things.

 

[DeletedUser35712]

There you go again, presuming to preach "Science" while flailing at straw for the excuse. Perfect illustration of "determined to defend and promote the establishment at all costs for whatever reason." The scientific establishment in this case, sparky. There actually is one if you've somehow never noticed.

What do you define as the scientific establishment? The current science consensus, or what? If you define the establishment as the current consensus, have you read the rest of my comment detailing examples of how scientists have overturned previous knowledge, and how scientific consensus changes based on new evidence?

 

[Grumblenuts]

...and I agree as well but I don't have the arrogance to say..."we" know. A "collective" doesn't make B.S. any more palatable.

That's funny. The attempt to speak for oneself apparently interpreted as arrogance. Repeatedly employing boiler plate logical fallacy? No, NEVER! For the record, a sampling of things you've already stated here:

We know the earth is warming.

We also know the earths temperature is a continual up and down cycle.

We know mankind affects that cycle.

we don't know is how much.

We don't know any such thing.

Could we be more judgmental?

Collective B.S. or arrogance? You decide. And please, never stop digging..

 

[ahsay]

There have been many ice ages during the last 2.6 million years but when people talk about the Ice Age, they are often referring to the most recent glacial period, which peaked about 21,000 years ago and ended about 11,500 years ago.
Man is arrogant to think they can affect the earth's climate. Weather comes and goes in cycles.
In the 1980's the cover of Time magazine was "The coming of the next ice age." We cannot control it, and never will.

I tend to think along those lines too.

Where we differ is the word control. I've never heard anyone use the word "control". The overwhelming consensus is Humans have a major influence over, what some would say is the biggest factor in Global Warming, carbon emissions. That we can control.

 

[DeletedUser]

That’s why they rigorously peer review each other’s papers to the highest standards before publishing the results. And afterwards try to replicate the experiment and see if it matches the results. Scientists are always skeptical about new data, or they wouldn’t do those things.

In an ideal world all this would be true. Unfortunately, it's not. Peer review is only as good as the peers who do the reviewing. Science is populated by human beings, just like every other corner of society, and you know how dishonest human beings can be when it comes to money and fame.

 

[ahsay]

That's funny. The attempt to speak for oneself apparently interpreted as arrogance. Repeatedly employing boiler plate logical fallacy? No, NEVER!

Boilerplate logic??? I have no idea what the means. I'll bet you don't either.

For the record, a sampling of things you've already stated here:

We know statistics. If you go fishing and catch 5 and keep 3 your keep rate is 3 fish @ %60..."we" know that. That's called collected data. All I did was "agree" with the collected data. "We do know" what the collected data is.

We don't know how a world without the industrial revolution would affect statistical warming. You're guessing at the fish keep rate on a fishing trip that never existed. I'll say again...there can't be any collected data from a world without the industrial revolution.

You're guessing that the industrial revolution is responsible for the rise in temperature. I'd say that's a pretty damn good guess but...it's still a guess. "We" can't definitively know that..comprende'?

 

[Grumblenuts]

What do you define as the scientific establishment? The current science consensus, or what?

Ever do your own homework? Try Google next time instead of simply surrendering to your straw attack addiction. Easy, honest, straightforward. Example, first hit - http://science.sciencemag.org/content/136/3522/1099. See? Establishments exist. They really, really do. Wherever possible. Always have. Now try dealing with this reality as though you actually believed it for a change.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Boilerplate logic??? I have no idea what the means. I'll bet you don't either.

Jesus. Textbook, mundane, every day, standard! Hey, don't understand a word or phrase? Here's an idea! - Google it. Don't twist your laziness and ignorance into my responsibility. Now.. ah say, ah say,.. go away, son! Ya begginin ta botha me.

 

[Grumblenuts]

That’s why they rigorously peer review each other’s papers to the highest standards before publishing the results. And afterwards try to replicate the experiment and see if it matches the results. Scientists are always skeptical about new data, or they wouldn’t do those things.

Here you uncritically attribute scientific method to the behavior of "Scientists" across the board. Yes, one naturally hopes they take that approach daily. But sorry, they're just people like everyone else. Same flaws. Bigger, much tenderer egos on average! Don't think that helps though.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Sight is not the only quality that we can use to determine whether something exists or not.

And that's called dodging the question by, you guessed it, attacking a straw man instead. (Ever seen an electron?) Still waiting for an honest, straightforward response...

JJ Thomson discovered the electron after putting an electrical charge through a cathode tube, and used opposing magnets.

In other words, even JJ Thompson never claimed to have seen an electron. Nor a single electron charge. Nor one's "spin". All simply convenient abstractions used to explain perceived (and otherwise highly unexplained) electromagnetic phenomena. "Discover" is a fascinating concept though. Did man invent the wheel or discover it? How about numbers? Math? Probability? Did JJ Thompson picture this electron orbiting the nucleus? As in the Bohr model? Like our planet orbiting the Sun? If so, sorry, physicists don't actually believe that crap any more. For good reason. So what did he actually "discover" again? Here's a little hint. You haven't the foggiest. Well neither do most physicists today. Know who did? Newton for one. Tesla. Einstein until he went nuts. Sometimes science just gets itself hopelessly tied up in knots of self-delusion. Because, after all, people are only human. Even scientists.. and skeptics..

 

[Grumblenuts]

The math seems to work out so far? Fits their apparent movement after collisions? That's it?

Sounds like somebody knows more: you, or the thousands of physicists working on their research. I can't comment because I am not smart. I'm just stating what happened with the scientists and their work. Feel free to talk to some physicists about their work.

Why? No one asked you to 'splain anything here.. nor provide links to the much vaunted scientific milestones..? You're "not smart" when it comes down to simply expressing your own personal opinion about something extremely basic? I mean how much more fundamental can one get than the atom? Just can't do it, eh? But you can offer up politically correct views galore instead. Establishment approved history out the ying yang.. You know, they never tire of doing exactly that in our schools either. And, too often, little more. Lauding the long dead, white heroes and heroins of science.. Students being bored to death with it from coast to coast.. Like an epidemic.. Don't think for yourself.. DON'T YOU DARE THINK!.. Celebrate instead!.. Everything's been all figured out for ages.. Don't worry, be happy now.. Trust the experts.. The establishment.. The super rich will surely save us should any of that nasty proverbial manure actually threaten to soil our precious proverbial fan.. Sleep.. SLEEP!..

 

[Grumblenuts]

You're guessing that the industrial revolution is responsible for the rise in temperature. I'd say that's a pretty damn good guess but...it's still a guess. "We" can't definitively know that..comprende'?

El voto negativo. Sorry to burst your bubble, but in reality? The fossil fuel (carbon extracted from well beneath the Earth's crust - oil, natural gas, coal) that we (mankind) have been burning for energy or whatever thus far.. has produced carbon dioxide in the atmosphere possessing zero measurable radioactivity. In stark contrast, all the organic (carbon based) material already near or above the Earth's crust that's been converted to atmospheric carbon dioxide over the same period (with mankind's help or not) is radioactive due to its much greater exposure to cosmic radiation and the Sun. That's how "We know."

 

[DeletedUser35712]

In an ideal world all this would be true. Unfortunately, it's not. Peer review is only as good as the peers who do the reviewing. Science is populated by human beings, just like every other corner of society, and you know how dishonest human beings can be when it comes to money and fame.

And the peer reviewers do make mistakes, but I would argue that it is the best safeguard we have. To suggest that peer reviewers and journal editors are in it for the money and fame, and as a result, decreases the quality of the academic journals requires evidence on your part.

 

[ahsay]

Jesus. Textbook, mundane, every day, standard! Hey, don't understand a word or phrase? Here's an idea! - Google it. Don't twist your laziness and ignorance into my responsibility. Now.. ah say, ah say,.. go away, son! Ya begginin ta botha me.

Any yet you did.

Mundane...me? Now that's hilarious. No wonder why I had no clue.

 

[DeletedUser35712]

And that's called dodging the question by, you guessed it, attacking a straw man instead.

What was your question then? If electrons are visible to the eye in the first place? I addressed that in my previous post on how nobody knows what an electron looks like, but one can derive from other forms of evidence to make an assertion that electrons exist.

 

[ahsay]

Interesting I'd never read that about C 14

 

[DeletedUser35712]

Why? No one asked you to 'splain anything here.. nor provide links to the much vaunted scientific milestones..?

You made an assertion that we can’t see electrons, and implied that it could possibly not be true. I provided links and evidence on the discoveries of such particles and what lines of evidence these scientists used. You can think my statements are merely just my opinion, even though it’s not merely just my opinion, but rather conclusions derived from decades of replicated experiments. Is it an opinion to say 2+2=4, even though that assertion is backed up through various observations?

 

[DeletedUser35712]

I mean how much more fundamental can one get than the atom? Just can't do it, eh?

Those are all of the subatomic particles that we know of right now.

Establishment approved history out the ying yang

That's not how historiography works though. Historiography involves historians to come up with their own arguments based on multiple lines of evidence and debating each other. I understand your concern that sometimes, politicians can try to distort history to suit their agenda, but to say that a specific "history" has been approved is a misunderstanding of how historiography works. https://www.britannica.com/topic/historiography

You know, they never tire of doing exactly that in our schools either.

In my experience, my teachers have shown me viewpoints of various historical events from various schools of history, including the Marxist types, Great man history, etc. There's a lot more schools than that: https://www.librarything.com/topic/61376

Lauding the long dead, white heroes and heroins of science

Back then, the scientific community was extremely prejudiced, and because of discrimination towards black people, most were unable to get any chance of getting an education that would allow them to become scientists. However, many black people in history have become scientists in spite of this:
https://www.biography.com/people/groups/famous-black-scientists

Students being bored to death with it from coast to coast.. Like an epidemic.. Don't think for yourself.. DON'T YOU DARE THINK!.. Celebrate instead!.. Everything's been all figured out for ages.. Don't worry, be happy now.. Trust the experts.. The establishment.. The super rich will surely save us should any of that nasty proverbial manure actually threaten to soil our precious proverbial fan.. Sleep.. SLEEP!..

I don't know what school you went to, but my school has always emphasized that we don't know everything and there's still a lot more to discover out there. What evidence do you have to show for this? And do you not like the rich (I assume from that comment, and from your Bernie Sanders picture)?

In other words, even JJ Thompson never claimed to have seen an electron. Nor a single electron charge. Nor one's "spin". All simply convenient abstractions used to explain perceived (and otherwise highly unexplained) electromagnetic phenomena.

Like I've said earlier, he shot a beam of electrons through a cathode tube with magnets, and the beam was attracted to the positive end of the magnet, and deduced that since opposite charges attract, the beam had particles of a negative charge. He never saw an electron, and I never said he did. I just said that he found evidence to confirm the existence of electrons.

Nor one's "spin".

He didn't find the spin. Another scientist and two grad students discovered that.

Did JJ Thompson picture this electron orbiting the nucleus? As in the Bohr model?

No, he simply figured out that electrons exist. In his time, the contemporary idea was the Plum Pudding model. The Bohr model came years later.

As in the Bohr model? Like our planet orbiting the Sun? If so, sorry, physicists don't actually believe that crap any more. For good reason.

Because they analyzed the positions and arrangements of electrons and figured that the electron cloud model or the quantum model is so far the most accurate based on observations. The only good use for the Bohr model is to teach students about the concepts of energy levels.

So what did he actually "discover" again? Here's a little hint. You haven't the foggiest.

The electron? Nobody knew of negatively charged subatomic particles before his work, so I think it's fair to credit him for his discovery of the electron.

Well neither do most physicists today. Know who did? Newton for one. Tesla. Einstein until he went nuts. Sometimes science just gets itself hopelessly tied up in knots of self-delusion.

Because you either have to be either really lucky, or cutting-edge to make discoveries. And there are way more physicists than those 3 who have contributed to the field.
Carl David Anderson & Seth Neddermeyer for the muon
Georges Lemaître for the Big Bang
Erwin Schrödinger (I can't believe that you forgot this guy. Everybody knows about his cat thought experiment)
C.F. Powell, Giuseppe Occhialini, César Lattes for the discovery of the pion
Peter Higgs for his proposal of the Higgs-Boson particle that was later confirmed through collisions.
James Chadwick for the neutron
Werner Heisenberg for the uncertainty principle
Edwin Hubble for discovering that the universe is expanding
Nowadays, a lot of the newer discoveries are made by teams of scientists working together.