Two Theories

[SSDD]

If you disagree, show us some evidence of your claim. A poll of the general public is hardly evidence concerning the choices of "those capable of critical thinking".

Most of the 20th century warming happened prior to 1940 when CO2 was supposedly at "safe" levels. Co2 has increased half as much since 1998 as it did from 1940 to 1998 and there has been no warming at all. The "CO2 as climate control knob simply doesn't stand up to the facts.

A single failure of a hypothesis is justifiable reason to disregard it and go back to the drawing board...the fact that most of the 20th century warming occurred prior to 1940 and the fact that there has been no warming for almost 2 decades now while atmospheric CO2 has steadily increased represent 2 failures of the hypothesis.

How many failures would cause you to acknowledge that it has been falsified?

 

[IanC]

Little by little, the people who are still capable of critical thinking are seeing the huge holes in the whole AGW religion.

No, they are not. Those capable of critical thinking accept AGW as a valid description of climate behavior. There are no huge holes in AGW and there is no AGW religion.

If you disagree, show us some evidence of your claim. A poll of the general public is hardly evidence concerning the choices of "those capable of critical thinking".

And little by little, those who take the time to really look at the propaganda are becoming skeptics--not deniers but skeptics.

Again, what evidence do you have that those who have become skeptics have taken the time to "really look at the propaganda"? You have none whatsoever. For that matter, what evidence do you have that evidence supporting AGW is propaganda? Again, you have none.



Rasmussen polls might as well be conducted by the editorial staff of Fox News. No offense, but they are crap. The CONSISTENTLY show greater support for conservative positions than ANY OTHER POLLING organisation.



Those must be the people incapable of critical thinking, who have not taken the time to really look at the propaganda. Right?

And I find it more than a little amusing after FCT (and IanC) has attempted to rake me over the coals for the quality of the surveys showing majority support for AGW among climate scientists, that he wouldn't raise the slightest peep over a survey asking whether or not "Americans do believe in global warming". What do you mean Ms Fyre? Was this a poll asking whether or not they believed the world was getting warmer or whether or not human activity had anything to do with it? Their really aren't a lot of folks who reject the FACT that the world has gotten warmer - some... some here. But out in the real world, not many at all. It's sort of a nutcase, flatEarther position.



And, of course, the general public are the experts. And they have so consistently shown a willingness to PAY for fending off complex and difficult-to-discern problems decades away. This is certainly hard proof that human have had nothing to do with global warming and that there is nothing to worry about. Or perhaps even that there is no warming taking place at all. Right?



How much less than 100% do they believe they have been? Have they been 99% honest? 1% honest? Something in between? And what is it they've been dishonest about? There are a lot of scientists on Earth and they have told us a great many different things. Here's another survey that all my experience informs me FCT would speak out against. Yet not a peep. Not a single peep.



How many times, in discussions about consensus views, have deniers brought up that a majority of scientists thought the Earth was the center of the Solar System, thought diseases were caused by demons, thought the stars were attached to crystal spheres? From these sorts of points, we can only assume that they believe scientists are idiots and fools and their opinion on just about anything should not be taken. But are we then to take the opinion of the far less educated general public? And not their consensus opinions - not that of some overwhelming majority of the public rejecting AGW, but that support among them for the AGW theory is something less than a strong consensus - on THAT they argue we should reject the overwhelming support it gets from the true experts in the field.



Really? Are you certain? That is AMAZING!



So, we are back to the basics. When the deniers think that simply repeating their falsehoods will convince the public - as polls show they have - to doubt science and to doubt scientists when they talk about global warming and human's role in the process...

, and when there is apparently no research done to support the theory that it human caused CO2 will endanger civilization as we know it

And when deniers take advantage of their willingness to lie about just about anything

those capable of critical thinking are paying attention to that.

Is that you? Do you believe yourself to be capable to a superior degree of critical thinking? Is this post evidence of that? Is it?

Amazing. FCT, Ian, do you see nothing wrong in this lady's post? Do you see no flaws in the logic displayed here? Do you see no problem with the surveys she mentions? Are you REALLY okay with arguments such as those she's made here? Do you believe them to be as valid as necessary to form an informed opinion? Eh? I'd really like to hear your HONEST opinions.

do you not see your double standard when it comes to polling? Rasmussen was judging public opinion and Im sure they added the boilerplate of adding theuncertainty of the answers, and the caveat of 19 times out of twenty. why do you get to choose which polls are right and which ones are wrong? the skeptical side has indeed criticized past papers that put forth the 97% consensus meme. they have specific complaints which have not been addressed. often the data is hidden away to thwart scrutiny, such as in the latest Cook/ U of Queensland fiasco.

but you cannot see that point of view, can you?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This was great fun. We got to watch as your most fundamental claim was completely and totally refuted - and then enjoyed the added entertainment of watching you all falling all over each other in an absolutely PATHETIC attempt to say it wasn't so.

It really was fun.

Er, sorry, when did I miss the experiment you posted showing a temperature increase by increasing CO2 by 120PPM?

 

[Foxfyre]

Little by little, the people who are still capable of critical thinking are seeing the huge holes in the whole AGW religion.

No, they are not. Those capable of critical thinking accept AGW as a valid description of climate behavior. There are no huge holes in AGW and there is no AGW religion.

If you disagree, show us some evidence of your claim. A poll of the general public is hardly evidence concerning the choices of "those capable of critical thinking".



Again, what evidence do you have that those who have become skeptics have taken the time to "really look at the propaganda"? You have none whatsoever. For that matter, what evidence do you have that evidence supporting AGW is propaganda? Again, you have none.



Rasmussen polls might as well be conducted by the editorial staff of Fox News. No offense, but they are crap. The CONSISTENTLY show greater support for conservative positions than ANY OTHER POLLING organisation.



Those must be the people incapable of critical thinking, who have not taken the time to really look at the propaganda. Right?

And I find it more than a little amusing after FCT (and IanC) has attempted to rake me over the coals for the quality of the surveys showing majority support for AGW among climate scientists, that he wouldn't raise the slightest peep over a survey asking whether or not "Americans do believe in global warming". What do you mean Ms Fyre? Was this a poll asking whether or not they believed the world was getting warmer or whether or not human activity had anything to do with it? Their really aren't a lot of folks who reject the FACT that the world has gotten warmer - some... some here. But out in the real world, not many at all. It's sort of a nutcase, flatEarther position.



And, of course, the general public are the experts. And they have so consistently shown a willingness to PAY for fending off complex and difficult-to-discern problems decades away. This is certainly hard proof that human have had nothing to do with global warming and that there is nothing to worry about. Or perhaps even that there is no warming taking place at all. Right?



How much less than 100% do they believe they have been? Have they been 99% honest? 1% honest? Something in between? And what is it they've been dishonest about? There are a lot of scientists on Earth and they have told us a great many different things. Here's another survey that all my experience informs me FCT would speak out against. Yet not a peep. Not a single peep.



How many times, in discussions about consensus views, have deniers brought up that a majority of scientists thought the Earth was the center of the Solar System, thought diseases were caused by demons, thought the stars were attached to crystal spheres? From these sorts of points, we can only assume that they believe scientists are idiots and fools and their opinion on just about anything should not be taken. But are we then to take the opinion of the far less educated general public? And not their consensus opinions - not that of some overwhelming majority of the public rejecting AGW, but that support among them for the AGW theory is something less than a strong consensus - on THAT they argue we should reject the overwhelming support it gets from the true experts in the field.



Really? Are you certain? That is AMAZING!



So, we are back to the basics. When the deniers think that simply repeating their falsehoods will convince the public - as polls show they have - to doubt science and to doubt scientists when they talk about global warming and human's role in the process...



And when deniers take advantage of their willingness to lie about just about anything

those capable of critical thinking are paying attention to that.

Is that you? Do you believe yourself to be capable to a superior degree of critical thinking? Is this post evidence of that? Is it?

Amazing. FCT, Ian, do you see nothing wrong in this lady's post? Do you see no flaws in the logic displayed here? Do you see no problem with the surveys she mentions? Are you REALLY okay with arguments such as those she's made here? Do you believe them to be as valid as necessary to form an informed opinion? Eh? I'd really like to hear your HONEST opinions.

do you not see your double standard when it comes to polling? Rasmussen was judging public opinion and Im sure they added the boilerplate of adding theuncertainty of the answers, and the caveat of 19 times out of twenty. why do you get to choose which polls are right and which ones are wrong? the skeptical side has indeed criticized past papers that put forth the 97% consensus meme. they have specific complaints which have not been addressed. often the data is hidden away to thwart scrutiny, such as in the latest Cook/ U of Queensland fiasco.

but you cannot see that point of view, can you?

You have no clue what point of view I can or cannot see and I made no comment on what polls are right or wrong. I do know how Rasmussen does his polling, and it is perhaps the most respected in the country by both left and right. If you look at the data he compiles, you will see that it supports your point of view as much as anybody elses. But your knee jerk reaction to my post is exactly the point I was making about the warmers being incapable of critical thinking. So thanks for the illustration.

 

[IanC]

No, they are not. Those capable of critical thinking accept AGW as a valid description of climate behavior. There are no huge holes in AGW and there is no AGW religion.

If you disagree, show us some evidence of your claim. A poll of the general public is hardly evidence concerning the choices of "those capable of critical thinking".



Again, what evidence do you have that those who have become skeptics have taken the time to "really look at the propaganda"? You have none whatsoever. For that matter, what evidence do you have that evidence supporting AGW is propaganda? Again, you have none.



Rasmussen polls might as well be conducted by the editorial staff of Fox News. No offense, but they are crap. The CONSISTENTLY show greater support for conservative positions than ANY OTHER POLLING organisation.



Those must be the people incapable of critical thinking, who have not taken the time to really look at the propaganda. Right?

And I find it more than a little amusing after FCT (and IanC) has attempted to rake me over the coals for the quality of the surveys showing majority support for AGW among climate scientists, that he wouldn't raise the slightest peep over a survey asking whether or not "Americans do believe in global warming". What do you mean Ms Fyre? Was this a poll asking whether or not they believed the world was getting warmer or whether or not human activity had anything to do with it? Their really aren't a lot of folks who reject the FACT that the world has gotten warmer - some... some here. But out in the real world, not many at all. It's sort of a nutcase, flatEarther position.



And, of course, the general public are the experts. And they have so consistently shown a willingness to PAY for fending off complex and difficult-to-discern problems decades away. This is certainly hard proof that human have had nothing to do with global warming and that there is nothing to worry about. Or perhaps even that there is no warming taking place at all. Right?



How much less than 100% do they believe they have been? Have they been 99% honest? 1% honest? Something in between? And what is it they've been dishonest about? There are a lot of scientists on Earth and they have told us a great many different things. Here's another survey that all my experience informs me FCT would speak out against. Yet not a peep. Not a single peep.



How many times, in discussions about consensus views, have deniers brought up that a majority of scientists thought the Earth was the center of the Solar System, thought diseases were caused by demons, thought the stars were attached to crystal spheres? From these sorts of points, we can only assume that they believe scientists are idiots and fools and their opinion on just about anything should not be taken. But are we then to take the opinion of the far less educated general public? And not their consensus opinions - not that of some overwhelming majority of the public rejecting AGW, but that support among them for the AGW theory is something less than a strong consensus - on THAT they argue we should reject the overwhelming support it gets from the true experts in the field.



Really? Are you certain? That is AMAZING!



So, we are back to the basics. When the deniers think that simply repeating their falsehoods will convince the public - as polls show they have - to doubt science and to doubt scientists when they talk about global warming and human's role in the process...



And when deniers take advantage of their willingness to lie about just about anything



Is that you? Do you believe yourself to be capable to a superior degree of critical thinking? Is this post evidence of that? Is it?

Amazing. FCT, Ian, do you see nothing wrong in this lady's post? Do you see no flaws in the logic displayed here? Do you see no problem with the surveys she mentions? Are you REALLY okay with arguments such as those she's made here? Do you believe them to be as valid as necessary to form an informed opinion? Eh? I'd really like to hear your HONEST opinions.

do you not see your double standard when it comes to polling? Rasmussen was judging public opinion and Im sure they added the boilerplate of adding theuncertainty of the answers, and the caveat of 19 times out of twenty. why do you get to choose which polls are right and which ones are wrong? the skeptical side has indeed criticized past papers that put forth the 97% consensus meme. they have specific complaints which have not been addressed. often the data is hidden away to thwart scrutiny, such as in the latest Cook/ U of Queensland fiasco.

but you cannot see that point of view, can you?

You have no clue what point of view I can or cannot see and I made no comment on what polls are right or wrong. I do know how Rasmussen does his polling, and it is perhaps the most respected in the country by both left and right. If you look at the data he compiles, you will see that it supports your point of view as much as anybody elses. But your knee jerk reaction to my post is exactly the point I was making about the warmers being incapable of critical thinking. So thanks for the illustration.

are you addressing me or crickham? I was addressing crickham as the quote clearly shows.

 

[mamooth]

Deniers, what does Occam's Razor tell you concerning your theory? That is, which would be more probable:
1. That the whole planet is engaged in a vast socialist conspiracy.
2. That you screwed something up.

 

[IanC]

Deniers, what does Occam's Razor tell you concerning your theory? That is, which would be more probable:
1. That the whole planet is engaged in a vast socialist conspiracy.
2. That you screwed something up.

Warmers, what does Occam' Razor tell you? Was the coincidental warming of the '90's enough to prove your theory? Do we just throw away all the other data?

The bureaucracy formed at that time, as well as groupthink, has made it difficult to back down from the catastrophic predictions made. No one likes to lose face over being found out that they made a mistake and jumped to erroneous conclusions.

 

[Foxfyre]

do you not see your double standard when it comes to polling? Rasmussen was judging public opinion and Im sure they added the boilerplate of adding theuncertainty of the answers, and the caveat of 19 times out of twenty. why do you get to choose which polls are right and which ones are wrong? the skeptical side has indeed criticized past papers that put forth the 97% consensus meme. they have specific complaints which have not been addressed. often the data is hidden away to thwart scrutiny, such as in the latest Cook/ U of Queensland fiasco.

but you cannot see that point of view, can you?

You have no clue what point of view I can or cannot see and I made no comment on what polls are right or wrong. I do know how Rasmussen does his polling, and it is perhaps the most respected in the country by both left and right. If you look at the data he compiles, you will see that it supports your point of view as much as anybody elses. But your knee jerk reaction to my post is exactly the point I was making about the warmers being incapable of critical thinking. So thanks for the illustration.

are you addressing me or crickham? I was addressing crickham as the quote clearly shows.

Ah yes, I did misread who was quoting whom. I was addressing him in the erroneous assumption he was addressing me. So just ignore it. My bad.

 

[jc456]

If you disagree, show us some evidence of your claim. A poll of the general public is hardly evidence concerning the choices of "those capable of critical thinking".

Most of the 20th century warming happened prior to 1940 when CO2 was supposedly at "safe" levels. Co2 has increased half as much since 1998 as it did from 1940 to 1998 and there has been no warming at all. The "CO2 as climate control knob simply doesn't stand up to the facts.

A single failure of a hypothesis is justifiable reason to disregard it and go back to the drawing board...the fact that most of the 20th century warming occurred prior to 1940 and the fact that there has been no warming for almost 2 decades now while atmospheric CO2 has steadily increased represent 2 failures of the hypothesis.

How many failures would cause you to acknowledge that it has been falsified?

I see as, they think they are right, so therefore, they are right and nothing, I mean nothing will ever convince them otherwise. They have no eyes or reason. They are just right! So, they think they are gods!!!!! That's why they believe they get to choose what data to use, instead of ones that mother nature provides them, why they get to release peer papers only, count which polls are most accurate and on and on, etc'era, etc'era.

Nice post by the way!

 

[mamooth]

Warmers, what does Occam' Razor tell you? Was the coincidental warming of the '90's enough to prove your theory? Do we just throw away all the other data?

Um ... what?

The bureaucracy formed at that time, as well as groupthink, has made it difficult to back down from the catastrophic predictions made. No one likes to lose face over being found out that they made a mistake and jumped to erroneous conclusions.

A fine history of the denier movement. Instead of admitting they messed up, they instead choose to dig ever deeper into the conspiracy hole.

 

[jc456]

You have no clue what point of view I can or cannot see and I made no comment on what polls are right or wrong. I do know how Rasmussen does his polling, and it is perhaps the most respected in the country by both left and right. If you look at the data he compiles, you will see that it supports your point of view as much as anybody elses. But your knee jerk reaction to my post is exactly the point I was making about the warmers being incapable of critical thinking. So thanks for the illustration.

are you addressing me or crickham? I was addressing crickham as the quote clearly shows.

Ah yes, I did misread who was quoting whom. I was addressing him in the erroneous assumption he was addressing me. So just ignore it. My bad.

it happens

 

[jc456]

Little by little, the people who are still capable of critical thinking are seeing the huge holes in the whole AGW religion.

No, they are not. Those capable of critical thinking accept AGW as a valid description of climate behavior. There are no huge holes in AGW and there is no AGW religion.

If you disagree, show us some evidence of your claim. A poll of the general public is hardly evidence concerning the choices of "those capable of critical thinking".

And little by little, those who take the time to really look at the propaganda are becoming skeptics--not deniers but skeptics.

Again, what evidence do you have that those who have become skeptics have taken the time to "really look at the propaganda"? You have none whatsoever. For that matter, what evidence do you have that evidence supporting AGW is propaganda? Again, you have none.



Rasmussen polls might as well be conducted by the editorial staff of Fox News. No offense, but they are crap. The CONSISTENTLY show greater support for conservative positions than ANY OTHER POLLING organisation.



Those must be the people incapable of critical thinking, who have not taken the time to really look at the propaganda. Right?

And I find it more than a little amusing after FCT (and IanC) has attempted to rake me over the coals for the quality of the surveys showing majority support for AGW among climate scientists, that he wouldn't raise the slightest peep over a survey asking whether or not "Americans do believe in global warming". What do you mean Ms Fyre? Was this a poll asking whether or not they believed the world was getting warmer or whether or not human activity had anything to do with it? Their really aren't a lot of folks who reject the FACT that the world has gotten warmer - some... some here. But out in the real world, not many at all. It's sort of a nutcase, flatEarther position.



And, of course, the general public are the experts. And they have so consistently shown a willingness to PAY for fending off complex and difficult-to-discern problems decades away. This is certainly hard proof that human have had nothing to do with global warming and that there is nothing to worry about. Or perhaps even that there is no warming taking place at all. Right?



How much less than 100% do they believe they have been? Have they been 99% honest? 1% honest? Something in between? And what is it they've been dishonest about? There are a lot of scientists on Earth and they have told us a great many different things. Here's another survey that all my experience informs me FCT would speak out against. Yet not a peep. Not a single peep.



How many times, in discussions about consensus views, have deniers brought up that a majority of scientists thought the Earth was the center of the Solar System, thought diseases were caused by demons, thought the stars were attached to crystal spheres? From these sorts of points, we can only assume that they believe scientists are idiots and fools and their opinion on just about anything should not be taken. But are we then to take the opinion of the far less educated general public? And not their consensus opinions - not that of some overwhelming majority of the public rejecting AGW, but that support among them for the AGW theory is something less than a strong consensus - on THAT they argue we should reject the overwhelming support it gets from the true experts in the field.



Really? Are you certain? That is AMAZING!



So, we are back to the basics. When the deniers think that simply repeating their falsehoods will convince the public - as polls show they have - to doubt science and to doubt scientists when they talk about global warming and human's role in the process...

, and when there is apparently no research done to support the theory that it human caused CO2 will endanger civilization as we know it

And when deniers take advantage of their willingness to lie about just about anything

those capable of critical thinking are paying attention to that.

Is that you? Do you believe yourself to be capable to a superior degree of critical thinking? Is this post evidence of that? Is it?

Amazing. FCT, Ian, do you see nothing wrong in this lady's post? Do you see no flaws in the logic displayed here? Do you see no problem with the surveys she mentions? Are you REALLY okay with arguments such as those she's made here? Do you believe them to be as valid as necessary to form an informed opinion? Eh? I'd really like to hear your HONEST opinions.

What a hoot, and does not compute! You're wrong, even if you posted this another hundred/ thousand times, you ....... are......... wrong!!!!!!!!

 

[IanC]

You have no clue what point of view I can or cannot see and I made no comment on what polls are right or wrong. I do know how Rasmussen does his polling, and it is perhaps the most respected in the country by both left and right. If you look at the data he compiles, you will see that it supports your point of view as much as anybody elses. But your knee jerk reaction to my post is exactly the point I was making about the warmers being incapable of critical thinking. So thanks for the illustration.

are you addressing me or crickham? I was addressing crickham as the quote clearly shows.

Ah yes, I did misread who was quoting whom. I was addressing him in the erroneous assumption he was addressing me. So just ignore it. My bad.

No problem. I assumed it was just a mixup.

 

[IanC]

Warmers, what does Occam' Razor tell you? Was the coincidental warming of the '90's enough to prove your theory? Do we just throw away all the other data?

Um ... what?

The bureaucracy formed at that time, as well as groupthink, has made it difficult to back down from the catastrophic predictions made. No one likes to lose face over being found out that they made a mistake and jumped to erroneous conclusions.

A fine history of the denier movement. Instead of admitting they messed up, they instead choose to dig ever deeper into the conspiracy hole.

No conspiracy, at least on our part. The climategate emails do make your side look bad though. Mann' sequestered emails would be even worse.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warmers, what does Occam' Razor tell you? Was the coincidental warming of the '90's enough to prove your theory? Do we just throw away all the other data?

Um ... what?

The bureaucracy formed at that time, as well as groupthink, has made it difficult to back down from the catastrophic predictions made. No one likes to lose face over being found out that they made a mistake and jumped to erroneous conclusions.

A fine history of the denier movement. Instead of admitting they messed up, they instead choose to dig ever deeper into the conspiracy hole.

The Decline Hider weighs in

Tell us about Mann's "Nature" Trick

Hey anyone else remember East Angelia?

 

[elektra]

The claim is cosmic radiation causes the C02 in the atmosphere to vibrate thus giving off heat.

Say what?

Please, do go on about your "cosmic radiation causes global warming" theory. I'm sure everyone would love to hear more. Could you link us to someone else stating this theory?

Sure, too easy. Now that I explained what the Science states, maybe you could tell us what you thought it was, with a link. So, please do tell, we are all breathlessly awaiting your simplest of explanations.


How does increasing the carbon dioxide level cause global warming

In more detail:
The greenhouse effect has kept the earth warm for millions of years. The natural carbon cycle of the earth keeps a steady amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Some of the sun's infrared radiation is reflected back into space, and some is trapped by greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, in the earth's atmosphere. This is good, because this keeps the earth's temperature at one we can live in, and not too cold.

Because the radiation is trapped, it is absorbed by the double bonds of carbon dioxide molecules, which transfer the radiation to kinetic energy as the bonds stretch and vibrate. The energy is then re-emitted at heat energy, which causes the atmosphere to warm up. If extra carbon dioxide appears, this warming will happen more, and the atmosphere will heat up too much.

Since the start of the Industrial revolution, 200 years ago, atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen exponentially, and we have witnessed a corresponding exponential rise in temperatures over time; the PPM of CO2 nearly doubling, and the average high temperatures increasing by 0.5~3*C depending on location. This has strongly suggested that the increase in CO2 levels is directly responsible for the rise in temperature levels.

 

[mamooth]

Cosmic radiation would be the extremely high energy particles and photons coming from outside our solar system.

Elektra, however, seems to think cosmic radiation is the same as infrared radiation.

That's not the worst blunder I've seen here, but it's up there.

 

[jc456]

Cosmic radiation would be the extremely high energy particles and photons coming from outside our solar system.

Elektra, however, seems to think cosmic radiation is the same as infrared radiation.

That's not the worst blunder I've seen here, but it's up there.

And again, the experiment that prvoes your hypothesis to theory? You know, the one that proved the hypothesis so one could call it a theory.

Oh that's right, you ain't got one.

 

[SSDD]

Cosmic radiation would be the extremely high energy particles and photons coming from outside our solar system.

Elektra, however, seems to think cosmic radiation is the same as infrared radiation.

That's not the worst blunder I've seen here, but it's up there.

Speaking of blunders...you are a f'ing idiot admiral hairball...

What is cosmic radiation? Is it dangerous?

Cosmic radiation is a collection of many different types of radiation from many different types of sources. When people speak simply of 'cosmic radiation' they are usually referring specifically to the cosmic microwave background radiation. This consists of very, very low energy photons (energy of about 2.78 Kelvin) whose spectrum is peaked in the microwave region and which are remnants from the time when the universe was only about 200,000 years old. There are also very old remnant neutrinos in the cosmic radiation. Neutrinos pass through just about everything with no effect so they are harmless. The photons are too low in energy to be dangerous.

On top of these there are higher energy particles that are being created constantly by all luminous objects in the universe. Photons of all different energies/wavelengths are being created by our sun, other stars, quasi-stellar objects, black-hole accretion disks, gamma-ray bursts and so on. These objects also produce high-energy massive particles such as electrons, muons, protons and anti-protons. These higher energy particles are potentially dangerous, but most of these particles never make it to the earth. They are deflected by magnetic fields between us and the source, or they interact with other particles, or they decay in flight.

The particles that do make it to the earth interact with our atmosphere, which acts as a 'radiation shield.' The high-energy cosmic rays bombard us all the time, but they interact quickly, producing particles of much lower energy which impact the earth harmlessly. If this was dangerous to us, we wouldn't be here to discuss these things! Some particles, like neutrinos and high energy muons, are passing through us all the time, but they interact so weakly that they have no effect on our bodies. Of course, if we were in space without the protection of our atmosphere then we would need some other type of shielding from the radiation (spacesuits and protective covering on our spacecrafts).

TThe radiation to worry about, of course, is the 'cosmic' radiation produced by our sun. There is only one type of cosmic radiation known to adversely affect us and that's UV radiation from our sun, which causes skin cancer in millions of people every year.. Again, our atmosphere serves as a shield, but ultraviolet photons do make it through -- and without that protective ozone layer which blocks these photons we're all going to need a lot more sunscreen!

 

[mamooth]

Go type "cosmic radiation" into wiki, and you'll get the same page as "cosmic rays". The two terms are basically interchangeable.

What SSDD is rambling about here is .... well, some of it is about "cosmic background radiation", a rather different thing. And some is just him getting hysterical. The basic point is that he doesn't know what he's talking about either.