Are all "climate change" bets off, now that the earth has shifted on its axis?

[ScienceRocks]

!

You went me to admit that the increase in co2 does not cause a increase in temperature??? Greenland only had ice caps since the planet went below 450 ppm around 20-25 million years ago. And the Antarctic only had them for about 30 million years. That should give you a idea of the effects of the increase of co2. Show me how this information is wrong...If your so fucking knowledgeable.

You bet it is a tiny number that you believe cant do anything, but there are real scientist that study this and have found that it causes a imbalance. Do you know what a imbalance does to a climate system? It causes a decrease or increase of energy within the system. I'm not saying this is for sure, but many believe this to be so. Sure it is tiny and you could be right, but I care to listen to everyone. In what do I find on the skeptic side??? Bs. Jokes, politics...I used to be a skeptic a down right denier, but I couldn't explain why the temperature was not going down with the cycles. There must be something that is causing positive forcing. It sure as fuck is NOT the sun, which we account for the energy that it pushes into the climate system. That post above showing the blue area,,,that is what the natural forcing as of right now would be doing...because we are not within that. I used to be a ice age believer...No more...I think I will listen to both sides equally and think for my self. As thinking one side or the other is not the way of science, but thinking outside of the box is.

Math is straight forward...You need to be accurate, but science is more or less a way to understand the earth around you and how things work. Some times you cant get 100 percent unlike math. If you get that then it is a law...like Newtons laws, Kelpers laws, ect.

Dude, Science is about data, information, which goes to theories with support of your peers. it is the way science works....Of course some one can come forward and propose a idea and destroy the entire understanding of many. At one time we thought that the earth was the center of everything, but today we know we are not even close.

I will be truthful I don't give two shits abut the green movement, but I do about science.

Your right that parts per million is a tiny number YES. Is that what you went answered. The question that needs to be answered is that kind of change within the Atmosphere enough to cause a change or a imbalance. That is what you must answer.

The level of CO2 as a decreasing amount is an interesting point to consider.

The drop of CO2 until relatively times has been the constant in the climate system. It was alomost this low about 320 million years ago and then rose dramatically to around 2500 PPM, then, suddenly and dramatically dropped to levels of the current day.

Filehanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png - Global Warming Art

I had read that when the continents of North and South America collided to close the Isthmus of Panama, that is when the ice ages started. The current Glaciation of Greenland can be confirmed back to about 110 thousand years, maybe 250 thousand, but that's iffy.

What's your source for 25 million years?

Do Greenland ice cores show over one hundred thousand years of annual layers?

Hansens paper... Dr. James E. Hansen — Presentations the first one.

1# The planet was warmer 25-75 million years ago by a great amount and before that the sun was far dimmer as it was a younger star.

I agree that the closing of panama was part of what brought on the ice age cycle that we currently deal with, but to say that everything that Hansen ever put forward is trash is not reasonable. He been doing this his entire life. So he never did anything to advance his science besides spread a fraud? How sad that would be...

 

[Mini 14]

You went me to admit that the increase in co2 does not cause a increase in temperature??? Greenland only had ice caps since the planet went below 450 ppm around 20-25 million years ago. And the Antarctic only had them for about 30 million years. That should give you a idea of the effects of the increase of co2. Show me how this information is wrong...If your so fucking knowledgeable.

You bet it is a tiny number that you believe cant do anything, but there are real scientist that study this and have found that it causes a imbalance. Do you know what a imbalance does to a climate system? It causes a decrease or increase of energy within the system. I'm not saying this is for sure, but many believe this to be so. Sure it is tiny and you could be right, but I care to listen to everyone. In what do I find on the skeptic side??? Bs. Jokes, politics...I used to be a skeptic a down right denier, but I couldn't explain why the temperature was not going down with the cycles. There must be something that is causing positive forcing. It sure as fuck is NOT the sun, which we account for the energy that it pushes into the climate system. That post above showing the blue area,,,that is what the natural forcing as of right now would be doing...because we are not within that. I used to be a ice age believer...No more...I think I will listen to both sides equally and think for my self. As thinking one side or the other is not the way of science, but thinking outside of the box is.

Math is straight forward...You need to be accurate, but science is more or less a way to understand the earth around you and how things work. Some times you cant get 100 percent unlike math. If you get that then it is a law...like Newtons laws, Kelpers laws, ect.

Dude, Science is about data, information, which goes to theories with support of your peers. it is the way science works....Of course some one can come forward and propose a idea and destroy the entire understanding of many. At one time we thought that the earth was the center of everything, but today we know we are not even close.

I will be truthful I don't give two shits abut the green movement, but I do about science.

Your right that parts per million is a tiny number YES. Is that what you went answered. The question that needs to be answered is that kind of change within the Atmosphere enough to cause a change or a imbalance. That is what you must answer.

You are so blinded by your mission, you cannot even grasp the question.

This is the first rule of ALL Science, and you have failed in an epic manner.

CO2 and "parts per million" has nothing to do with the question I asked you and Old Rocks.

I provided you the most basic of statistical equations, and asked you to provide us with an answer. You both have refused to do so, but have not shied away at all from giving us your sermonic missives on AGW and environmental Armageddon.

You are disingenuous and apparently intentionally misleading. Don't kid yourself, you are no Scientist.

And you are shaming the good work done by all those Scientists you profess to respect.

So you think the data is wrong. satellite data showing a decrease in outward energy from the earth, is BS. Prove it. Now is co2 the reason for that...I think it is possible along side a increase in water vapor, which shares many of the same wave lengths. You can only insult, but you have only given a fucking tiny mother fucking number. Guess what; I understand it is a tiny number, but as I explain above does a tiny change within the climate system of a green house gas have a ability to cause a change with most other gases remaining constant. Many scientist think so. Some of course don't. Dont say water vapor because it is a feed back if co2 does in fact cause a warming. Any increase because of co2 of heat within the Atmosphere would increase water vapor=feed back.

I admit that I'm not a climate scientist and even some of the top climate minds on this fucking planet wouldn't be able to get through your head or change your mind. I'm someone that does enjoy reading and looking at science.

I'm not saying that some scientist on the skeptic side don't make good cases...I wonder why the fuck the oceans rate of warming have nearly stopped. That is another question that needs answered. But attacking someone that cant give you 100 percent of your question, while the best of science so far cant do that is beneath the debate. We can understand what we know to be so.

Just say you don't want to solve, or don't know how to solve the equation.

All these fucking words have absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked. It isn't about CO2. It isn't about the Sun. It isn't about AGW.

Its a fucking statistics problem.

Either you can solve it, or you can't.

And the fact that the number is very small is irrelevant. Light travels 1 mile in 8.9469895870429E-8 minutes (that's an even smaller number than .000000025, in case you didn't know). No matter how small that number, it is real, and that is Science.

Just admit you're more adept at political debate than you are Science, there is no shame in that.

But for the love of God and decency, stop trying to pretend that everyone is too stupid to see through your "scientific bullshit" to the real purpose in your missives. It is an insult to Science, and though you won't understand, a MASSIVE deception on your own part.

 

[Old Rocks]

You are so blinded by your mission, you cannot even grasp the question.

This is the first rule of ALL Science, and you have failed in an epic manner.

CO2 and "parts per million" has nothing to do with the question I asked you and Old Rocks.

I provided you the most basic of statistical equations, and asked you to provide us with an answer. You both have refused to do so, but have not shied away at all from giving us your sermonic missives on AGW and environmental Armageddon.

You are disingenuous and apparently intentionally misleading. Don't kid yourself, you are no Scientist.

And you are shaming the good work done by all those Scientists you profess to respect.

So you think the data is wrong. satellite data showing a decrease in outward energy from the earth, is BS. Prove it. Now is co2 the reason for that...I think it is possible along side a increase in water vapor, which shares many of the same wave lengths. You can only insult, but you have only given a fucking tiny mother fucking number. Guess what; I understand it is a tiny number, but as I explain above does a tiny change within the climate system of a green house gas have a ability to cause a change with most other gases remaining constant. Many scientist think so. Some of course don't. Dont say water vapor because it is a feed back if co2 does in fact cause a warming. Any increase because of co2 of heat within the Atmosphere would increase water vapor=feed back.

I admit that I'm not a climate scientist and even some of the top climate minds on this fucking planet wouldn't be able to get through your head or change your mind. I'm someone that does enjoy reading and looking at science.

I'm not saying that some scientist on the skeptic side don't make good cases...I wonder why the fuck the oceans rate of warming have nearly stopped. That is another question that needs answered. But attacking someone that cant give you 100 percent of your question, while of of science so far cant do that is beneath the debate. We can understand what we know to be so.

Matthew, I have a better understanding of science fundamentals than climatologists do. the closest they get to a 'hard' science in their degree field is a requirement for a Bachelors in Geography. There is no requirement for chemistry, physics, or high level mathematics. On the other hand I had to be well versed in ALL of them.

Put even more succinctly, I can teach any course they would care to create. On the other hand they are not qualified to teach any but the basic level classes I am qualified to teach.
The point I am making is that the "mythification" of climatology is just that, myth. They are not special, in point of fact their methodologies are quite poor for the most part. Any person who is well versed in the basic hard sciences knows more then the vast majority of climate scientists about how the world actually functions.

Hoo boy, what an absolutely dumb ass statement from our faux geologist.

James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hansen was born in Denison, Iowa. He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967.[2]

 

[Old Rocks]

CBL Scientist Helps AGU Communicate Climate Science | The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

Hali Kilbourne | The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

Hali Kilbourne
Title:
Research Assistant Professor
Education
University of South Florida, 2006, Ph.D., Marine Science
University of South Florida, 2003, M.S., Marine Science
Smith College, 1998, B.A., Geology
Current Students:
Lisa Warden Candice Canady, Southern Arkansas University (REU summer 2010)
CV Link:
Curriculum Vitae
Regularly Offered Courses:
Geochemistry II------- Previous Courses: Climatology (McDaniel College), Environmental Problem Solving (McDaniel College), Environmental Geology (McDaniel College), Landscape Development (McDaniel College), Environmental Chemistry (McDaniel College)

 

[Old Rocks]

Gavin Schmidt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He was educated at The Corsham School, earned a BA (Hons) in mathematics at Jesus College, Oxford, and a PhD in applied mathematics at University College London.[3]

 

[Old Rocks]

http://dust.ess.uci.edu/job/bio_nsf/bio_nsf.pdf

CHARLES S. (CHARLIE) ZENDER
Department of Earth System Science [email protected]
University of California, Irvine UCI Department of Earth System Science
Irvine, CA 92697-3100 Voice/Fax: (949) 891-2429/824-3874
i. PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION
Harvard University, Cambridge MA Physics B.A. 1990
University of Colorado at Boulder Astrophys., Planetary, & Atmospheric Sci. M.S. 1993
University of Colorado at Boulder Astrophys., Planetary, & Atmospheric Sci. Ph.D. 1996ii. APPOINTMENTS
7/10– Professor of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine (UCI)
7/05–6/10 Associate Professor of Earth System Science, UCI
8/07–8/08 Visiting Researcher, Laboratoire de Glaciologie G´eophysique de l’Environnement
(LGGE), Grenoble, France
3/00–2/06 Affiliate Scientist of the Climate and Global Dynamics (CGD) Division, National
Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, CO
7/99–6/05 Assistant Professor of Earth System Science, UCI
7/98–6/99 Visiting Scientist in Atmospheric Chemistry and CGD Divisions, NCAR
7/96–6/98 Postdoctoral Fellow, Advanced Studies Program, NCAR
8/91–6/96 Graduate Research Assistant, University of Colorado at Boulder and NCAR

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey Walleyes, you want me to post the bios on several hundred climate scientists, all with degrees that qualify them as experts on the subject?

Why are you such an asshole liar about scientists, when you supposedly are one?

 

[Old Rocks]

You are so blinded by your mission, you cannot even grasp the question.

This is the first rule of ALL Science, and you have failed in an epic manner.

CO2 and "parts per million" has nothing to do with the question I asked you and Old Rocks.

I provided you the most basic of statistical equations, and asked you to provide us with an answer. You both have refused to do so, but have not shied away at all from giving us your sermonic missives on AGW and environmental Armageddon.

You are disingenuous and apparently intentionally misleading. Don't kid yourself, you are no Scientist.

And you are shaming the good work done by all those Scientists you profess to respect.

So you think the data is wrong. satellite data showing a decrease in outward energy from the earth, is BS. Prove it. Now is co2 the reason for that...I think it is possible along side a increase in water vapor, which shares many of the same wave lengths. You can only insult, but you have only given a fucking tiny mother fucking number. Guess what; I understand it is a tiny number, but as I explain above does a tiny change within the climate system of a green house gas have a ability to cause a change with most other gases remaining constant. Many scientist think so. Some of course don't. Dont say water vapor because it is a feed back if co2 does in fact cause a warming. Any increase because of co2 of heat within the Atmosphere would increase water vapor=feed back.

I admit that I'm not a climate scientist and even some of the top climate minds on this fucking planet wouldn't be able to get through your head or change your mind. I'm someone that does enjoy reading and looking at science.

I'm not saying that some scientist on the skeptic side don't make good cases...I wonder why the fuck the oceans rate of warming have nearly stopped. That is another question that needs answered. But attacking someone that cant give you 100 percent of your question, while the best of science so far cant do that is beneath the debate. We can understand what we know to be so.

Just say you don't want to solve, or don't know how to solve the equation.

All these fucking words have absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked. It isn't about CO2. It isn't about the Sun. It isn't about AGW.

Its a fucking statistics problem.

Either you can solve it, or you can't.

And the fact that the number is very small is irrelevant. Light travels 1 mile in 8.9469895870429E-8 minutes (that's an even smaller number than .000000025, in case you didn't know). No matter how small that number, it is real, and that is Science.

Just admit you're more adept at political debate than you are Science, there is no shame in that.

But for the love of God and decency, stop trying to pretend that everyone is too stupid to see through your "scientific bullshit" to the real purpose in your missives. It is an insult to Science, and though you won't understand, a MASSIVE deception on your own part.

Ninny, why don't you go down to the local asylum and rant on. Maybe they would bother to listen.

 

[westwall]

So you think the data is wrong. satellite data showing a decrease in outward energy from the earth, is BS. Prove it. Now is co2 the reason for that...I think it is possible along side a increase in water vapor, which shares many of the same wave lengths. You can only insult, but you have only given a fucking tiny mother fucking number. Guess what; I understand it is a tiny number, but as I explain above does a tiny change within the climate system of a green house gas have a ability to cause a change with most other gases remaining constant. Many scientist think so. Some of course don't. Dont say water vapor because it is a feed back if co2 does in fact cause a warming. Any increase because of co2 of heat within the Atmosphere would increase water vapor=feed back.

I admit that I'm not a climate scientist and even some of the top climate minds on this fucking planet wouldn't be able to get through your head or change your mind. I'm someone that does enjoy reading and looking at science.

I'm not saying that some scientist on the skeptic side don't make good cases...I wonder why the fuck the oceans rate of warming have nearly stopped. That is another question that needs answered. But attacking someone that cant give you 100 percent of your question, while of of science so far cant do that is beneath the debate. We can understand what we know to be so.

Matthew, I have a better understanding of science fundamentals than climatologists do. the closest they get to a 'hard' science in their degree field is a requirement for a Bachelors in Geography. There is no requirement for chemistry, physics, or high level mathematics. On the other hand I had to be well versed in ALL of them.

Put even more succinctly, I can teach any course they would care to create. On the other hand they are not qualified to teach any but the basic level classes I am qualified to teach.
The point I am making is that the "mythification" of climatology is just that, myth. They are not special, in point of fact their methodologies are quite poor for the most part. Any person who is well versed in the basic hard sciences knows more then the vast majority of climate scientists about how the world actually functions.

West--I understand that to become a geologist that it takes very high amounts of math, physics, chemistry, ect. I respect you and anyone that busted their backsides to become a scientist. Do you agree with anything I written or do you think I'm just wrong. I will learn more and hopefully improve my knowledge and understanding of the subject.

Hi Matthew,

I think that constantly looking at temperatures for the short term trends is mental masturbation. Thirty years is how long these trends run for on average and looking at anything shorter than that is useless. More importantly the empirical evidence shows that CO2 is not a driver of temps. It is a follower and nothing more. To continue to expend money and time on that failed theory is a crime.

Now Trenberth is trying to change the goal posts yet again by trying to get the null hypothesis reversed so that because they have no data to support their theory they want us to have to prove it wrong. That is not science. That is the ramblings of a crazy person.

Some of what you write is absolutely fine and on point. However, mindlessly repeating things with no regard to history and the geologic record is tiresome and useless. The floods in Oz are a great example. olfraud parrots the party line and ignores the fact that those people would still be alive if the authorities had followed simple building rules that say don't build in a floodplain. That is what the focus should be. Not some ridiculous BS about climate change, not when there is ample evidence that shows that area to be extremely prone to flooding and the historical record shows many previous and more dangerous floods.

 

[westwall]

So you think the data is wrong. satellite data showing a decrease in outward energy from the earth, is BS. Prove it. Now is co2 the reason for that...I think it is possible along side a increase in water vapor, which shares many of the same wave lengths. You can only insult, but you have only given a fucking tiny mother fucking number. Guess what; I understand it is a tiny number, but as I explain above does a tiny change within the climate system of a green house gas have a ability to cause a change with most other gases remaining constant. Many scientist think so. Some of course don't. Dont say water vapor because it is a feed back if co2 does in fact cause a warming. Any increase because of co2 of heat within the Atmosphere would increase water vapor=feed back.

I admit that I'm not a climate scientist and even some of the top climate minds on this fucking planet wouldn't be able to get through your head or change your mind. I'm someone that does enjoy reading and looking at science.

I'm not saying that some scientist on the skeptic side don't make good cases...I wonder why the fuck the oceans rate of warming have nearly stopped. That is another question that needs answered. But attacking someone that cant give you 100 percent of your question, while of of science so far cant do that is beneath the debate. We can understand what we know to be so.

Matthew, I have a better understanding of science fundamentals than climatologists do. the closest they get to a 'hard' science in their degree field is a requirement for a Bachelors in Geography. There is no requirement for chemistry, physics, or high level mathematics. On the other hand I had to be well versed in ALL of them.

Put even more succinctly, I can teach any course they would care to create. On the other hand they are not qualified to teach any but the basic level classes I am qualified to teach.
The point I am making is that the "mythification" of climatology is just that, myth. They are not special, in point of fact their methodologies are quite poor for the most part. Any person who is well versed in the basic hard sciences knows more then the vast majority of climate scientists about how the world actually functions.

Hoo boy, what an absolutely dumb ass statement from our faux geologist.

James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hansen was born in Denison, Iowa. He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967.[2]

Yeah he's the exception to the rule and he decided to become a loon. His new idea is to turn to dictatorship to deal with the problem of climate change. The man is insane.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20101122_ChinaOpEd.pdf

Now, try looking at any college offering a PhD program in climatology and get back to us with their requirements.

 

[westwall]

Gavin Schmidt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He was educated at The Corsham School, earned a BA (Hons) in mathematics at Jesus College, Oxford, and a PhD in applied mathematics at University College London.[3]

Care to show us the chemistry and the physics.

 

[westwall]

Hey Walleyes, you want me to post the bios on several hundred climate scientists, all with degrees that qualify them as experts on the subject?

Why are you such an asshole liar about scientists, when you supposedly are one?

If you bothered to read what I said you would understand the silliness of your comment.

 

[frazzledgear]

Hmmm.......

Magnetic Reversals

How often do reversals occur?
As a matter of geological record, the Earth's magnetic field has undergone numerous reversals of polarity. We can see this in the magnetic patterns found in volcanic rocks, especially those recovered from the ocean floors. In the last 10 million years, there have been, on average, 4 or 5 reversals per million years. At other times in Earth's history, for example during the Cretaceous era, there have been much longer periods when no reversals occurred. Reversals are not predictable and are certainly not periodic in nature. Hence we can only speak about the average reversal interval.

There seems to be absolutely no corelation between magnetic reversals and increases or decreases in biologic activety in the fossil record.

Any other idiocy on your mind, Midnight?

Wow -his point really went right over your head, didn't it. ZOOOOOM! ROFL

 

[code1211]

You went me to admit that the increase in co2 does not cause a increase in temperature??? Greenland only had ice caps since the planet went below 450 ppm around 20-25 million years ago. And the Antarctic only had them for about 30 million years. That should give you a idea of the effects of the increase of co2. Show me how this information is wrong...If your so fucking knowledgeable.

You bet it is a tiny number that you believe cant do anything, but there are real scientist that study this and have found that it causes a imbalance. Do you know what a imbalance does to a climate system? It causes a decrease or increase of energy within the system. I'm not saying this is for sure, but many believe this to be so. Sure it is tiny and you could be right, but I care to listen to everyone. In what do I find on the skeptic side??? Bs. Jokes, politics...I used to be a skeptic a down right denier, but I couldn't explain why the temperature was not going down with the cycles. There must be something that is causing positive forcing. It sure as fuck is NOT the sun, which we account for the energy that it pushes into the climate system. That post above showing the blue area,,,that is what the natural forcing as of right now would be doing...because we are not within that. I used to be a ice age believer...No more...I think I will listen to both sides equally and think for my self. As thinking one side or the other is not the way of science, but thinking outside of the box is.

Math is straight forward...You need to be accurate, but science is more or less a way to understand the earth around you and how things work. Some times you cant get 100 percent unlike math. If you get that then it is a law...like Newtons laws, Kelpers laws, ect.

Dude, Science is about data, information, which goes to theories with support of your peers. it is the way science works....Of course some one can come forward and propose a idea and destroy the entire understanding of many. At one time we thought that the earth was the center of everything, but today we know we are not even close.

I will be truthful I don't give two shits abut the green movement, but I do about science.

Your right that parts per million is a tiny number YES. Is that what you went answered. The question that needs to be answered is that kind of change within the Atmosphere enough to cause a change or a imbalance. That is what you must answer.

The level of CO2 as a decreasing amount is an interesting point to consider.

The drop of CO2 until relatively times has been the constant in the climate system. It was alomost this low about 320 million years ago and then rose dramatically to around 2500 PPM, then, suddenly and dramatically dropped to levels of the current day.

Filehanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png - Global Warming Art

I had read that when the continents of North and South America collided to close the Isthmus of Panama, that is when the ice ages started. The current Glaciation of Greenland can be confirmed back to about 110 thousand years, maybe 250 thousand, but that's iffy.

What's your source for 25 million years?

Do Greenland ice cores show over one hundred thousand years of annual layers?

Hansens paper... Dr. James E. Hansen — Presentations the first one.

1# The planet was warmer 25-75 million years ago by a great amount and before that the sun was far dimmer as it was a younger star.

I agree that the closing of panama was part of what brought on the ice age cycle that we currently deal with, but to say that everything that Hansen ever put forward is trash is not reasonable. He been doing this his entire life. So he never did anything to advance his science besides spread a fraud? How sad that would be...

I don't think that is what I said. About the only thing I know of Hansen's work is that in 1988 he set forth 3 scenarios of atmospheric changes in CO2. He coupled to each scenario a prediction of the climate change that the change in the CO2 would cause.

Given the projected changes in CO2, his predictions of climate change were off by about 300%. His predictions, one would suppose, were based on pretty elegant mathematics and complex science.

Some may conclude that this makes him brilliant. I do not. All I conclude is that, on this one exercise, he was flat out wrong. The question then is only why was he wrong?

Was he wrong because he's just a little slow and not capable of higher thought? Not likely. The guy is obviously a genius. Was he wrong because his theory was not supported by reality? This is more likely.

Babe Ruth struck out allot. Einstein didn't have a brand new E=MC2 on a daily basis. Not every Elvis song went gold. Edison wasted a bunch of time on ideas that went nowhere.

It happens. Even a genius can have a bad day.