another physics nobel laureate quits the APS

[wirebender]

Beyond a reasonable doubt is not a scientific concept? The Theory of Evolution is not stated as incontrevertable fact, but as a theory beyond a reasonable doubt by present evidence. The Theory of Relitivity was beyond a reasonable doubt, but if the neutrinos actually were moving at C+, then there is now a reasonable doubt.

Sorry rocks, but is not beyond a reasonable doubt. Far to many holes for such a statement of confidence. If you said that it was as good as we can do right now, you would be more accurate, but certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. Taking a best guess based on evidence that is full of holes isn't science rocks and shouldn't be characterized as science.

 

[wirebender]

Gotta love politically driven asses that deny real science because of their politics.

Guess that explains you as well as anything else.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

while much more understated than Hal Lewis last year, this is pretty direct condemnation

Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS: “Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’

he went on to say that it is OK to discuss the possible change in mass of a proton but not OK to discuss AGW theory. incontrovertable indeed

I think his problem is he has a problem with the word incontrovertible....It is NOT science to think that something is 100 percent fact on a complex subject like global warming...Global warming is a theory that must be tested and looked at by the entire field of science and can be proven false. IT IS NOT A LAW.

Global warming theory is put forward to explain why the earth is warming currently, which they put forward Co2 and other green house gasses as the drivers for that warming. IT IS EXTREMELY COMPLEX as POSITIVES DRIVERS ARE ONLY A PART OF THE EQUATION...There are negative drivers pushing down on them, but what ever remains is the imbalance, which warms or cools the planet. The big time scientist within the field are trying to figure how the system works...So there is a lot to understand about it.

The guy makes a good point. Saying it is a FACT isn't science.

Bingo.

Climate change is something that science needs to research without political bias. Using words like incontrovertible moves it from the realm of science into the realm of politics. The science is not settled on relativity, how can it be settled on anthropomorphic global warming?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

LOL. And does their 'scientific integrity' include lying about the evidence?

No, but yours does.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Whether you look at the increase in major weather disasters over the last few decades, or the melting of the cryosphere, the evidence is incontrovertible that the planet is warming rapidly. Now perhaps they should state that the evidence states that we are responsible for the warming is beyond a reasonable doubt. Would that satisfy you?

The physics of the absorption bands of GHGs has been known since 1858. You add GHGs to the atmosphere, you will warm the atmosphere. You add enough GHGs to the atmosphere to change the CO2 level from 280 ppm to an equivelent of 460 ppm, that warming will be significant. Could there be other factors that are also forcing the warming. Maybe. Is there any evidence that they approach the level of significance of the increase that the GHGs represent. None at all.

Define what you mean by rapid warming. According to the climate alarmists we have seen an increase in average global temp of less than 1 degree K over the last century. Can you point to previous periods of climate change that supports that this rate of increase is abnormally high?

The only incontrovertible thing about science is that everything can be questioned, even the laws of nature.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Really?

Beyond a reasonable doubt is not a scientific concept? The Theory of Evolution is not stated as incontrevertable fact, but as a theory beyond a reasonable doubt by present evidence. The Theory of Relitivity was beyond a reasonable doubt, but if the neutrinos actually were moving at C+, then there is now a reasonable doubt.

Every scientific Theory has problems with reality. A Theory is just a model of how reality works, and is often too simple, and there are other unknown factors, that are not included in the Theory. However, those Theories are still in use, as they are more than adaquete for most purposes. Newton versus Einstein.

Global warming hypothesis simply states that if we add GHGs to the atmosphere, the result will warm the globe. That is what we are observing. Now we are going to carry this grand experiment out to it's illogical conclusion, and probably exceed a GHG equivelent of 1000 ppm of CO2 by the end of this century. And people with a politically driven axe to grind, will still be stating that there is inadaquete science backing up the hypothesis even as all the great port citys of the world have to be moved inland.

No it is not. The Theory of Evolution is used as a model because, to date, it explains every observed fact. This is not beyond a reasonable doubt, because it is quite reasonable to doubt that the theory explains everything in the universe.

By the way, it is entirely possible that special relativity will not collapse if the the OPERA experiment turns out to be accurate. Science has known for years that superluminal velocities are theoretically possible. Particles with enough energy could actually jump to another dimension and then pop back into the ones we perceive, making them travel faster than light by going a shorter distance. There are a couple of other ways it could happen without violating relativity.

Causality is another story.

You really should not try to educate people when you are clearly ignorant.