Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
What, no Higgs Bosun yet found.
Still no Higgs Bosun after all these experiments with the LHC. Could all these scientists be wrong in their prediction? They got it wrong about global cooling and whose to say global warming will go the same way.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1100. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
That is the lamest attempt ever to justify climate change denial.
Global cooling was suggested by a small number of scientists for investigation based solely on the fact that ice ages occur in regular cycles and the next cool phase was due give or take a few centuries. Deniers love to trot it out but it is also a lame argument.
Indeed those who say the current warming is "just a natural cycle" would be best avoiding mentioning global cooling at all because we aught to be be moving into a cool phase by that notion yet the planet is definitely heating. Same with "its all due to sun cycles". The current phase of that cycle should be cooling.
Global cooling was suggested by a small number of scientists for investigation based solely on the fact that ice ages occur in regular cycles and the next cool phase was due give or take a few centuries. Deniers love to trot it out but it is also a lame argument.
Indeed those who say the current warming is "just a natural cycle" would be best avoiding mentioning global cooling at all because we aught to be be moving into a cool phase by that notion yet the planet is definitely heating. Same with "its all due to sun cycles". The current phase of that cycle should be cooling.
The Higgs Boson is predicted by the Standard Model but finding one is a matter of probabilities. At the energy levels of existing equipment and the level currently reached by the LHC, that probability is very very small. It is hoped that the probability will become reasonably high when the LHC is eventually brought to full power.
However the expected energy of the Higgs is a range of values. If it is at the high end of the range than the probability will still be quite low.
If one is created in a collision it will be one of many thousands of particles reaching the detectors in that run alone. A vast amount of data is generated and it takes a lot of work to sift through it for likely candidates.
Even then if the signature matching a Higgs boson is found the confidence of it actually being a Higgs is still a matter of probability. Such is the nature of Quantum Mechanics.
Personally, like a lot of scientists, I find the reference to the Higgs Boson as "The God Particle" quite inane and pointless.
However the expected energy of the Higgs is a range of values. If it is at the high end of the range than the probability will still be quite low.
If one is created in a collision it will be one of many thousands of particles reaching the detectors in that run alone. A vast amount of data is generated and it takes a lot of work to sift through it for likely candidates.
Even then if the signature matching a Higgs boson is found the confidence of it actually being a Higgs is still a matter of probability. Such is the nature of Quantum Mechanics.
Personally, like a lot of scientists, I find the reference to the Higgs Boson as "The God Particle" quite inane and pointless.
It makes me laugh, all this jeering by those of lets say a more religious outlook on life. They forget that we have only been searching for such things as the Higgs-Boson for a few decades, much of that time with equipment insufficient to create the conditions needed - but you could just as well ask where the empirical evidence for "God" is after a few thousand!. :)
Not only have the God-ists failed to show a shred of empirical evidence, their entire basis for the existence of God is built on what is written in a book about how God had previously manifested directly to humans in a tangible way even though He no longer does so.
It is like a physicist writing in their diary that a Higgs boson had revealed itself to them and expecting the world to accept that as complete evidence for its existence.
Though that is actually being generous. The Higgs boson is backed by a theoretical premise that suggests its presence because it is the simplest known explanation to complete the model that explains all known observations about reality.
The God hypothesis is littered with incongruencies that starkly conflict not only with with observation but within its own postulates.
It is like a physicist writing in their diary that a Higgs boson had revealed itself to them and expecting the world to accept that as complete evidence for its existence.
Though that is actually being generous. The Higgs boson is backed by a theoretical premise that suggests its presence because it is the simplest known explanation to complete the model that explains all known observations about reality.
The God hypothesis is littered with incongruencies that starkly conflict not only with with observation but within its own postulates.
Beso -
I respect your opinion but you do sometimes make some quite astonishing statements.
First, you state, “That is the lamest attempt ever to justify climate change denial.”. I agree. However, from a promising start, your post goes down hill fast.
Second, you state, “Global cooling was suggested by a small number of scientists...”. I have to strongly disagree. Global cooling was not suggested by a small number of scientists back in the 1970s and 1980s (which I assume is the period to which you are referring) – it was a widely held theory in the scientific community that the earth was on the verge of the next ice age. Many documentaries were made about the forthcoming freeze. Many scientific, peer reviewed papers were written and published on this subject. It was a widely held scientific theory. It was reported in many newspapers and was a widely debated issue at the time. To suggest that the hypothesis of global cooling was a niche scientific theory is simply untrue and is a misrepresentation of history.
I respect your opinion but you do sometimes make some quite astonishing statements.
First, you state, “That is the lamest attempt ever to justify climate change denial.”. I agree. However, from a promising start, your post goes down hill fast.
Second, you state, “Global cooling was suggested by a small number of scientists...”. I have to strongly disagree. Global cooling was not suggested by a small number of scientists back in the 1970s and 1980s (which I assume is the period to which you are referring) – it was a widely held theory in the scientific community that the earth was on the verge of the next ice age. Many documentaries were made about the forthcoming freeze. Many scientific, peer reviewed papers were written and published on this subject. It was a widely held scientific theory. It was reported in many newspapers and was a widely debated issue at the time. To suggest that the hypothesis of global cooling was a niche scientific theory is simply untrue and is a misrepresentation of history.
Continued...
Thirdly, you state, “... those who say the current warming is "just a natural cycle" would be best avoiding mentioning global cooling at all because we aught to be be moving into a cool phase by that notion yet the planet is definitely heating...”
Again, I have to disagree. For the obvious reason that weather is not climate. When you say that the the planet is definitely heating, where is your baseline? To measure anything, you have to have a baseline from which to measure. I'm not suggesting that the earth's climate isn't rising relative to recent measurements but if your baseline is a very cold period (say, the little Ice Age) then it's pretty obvious that today is warmer than, say 1849, when market stalls were erected in the middle of the frozen Thames.
The last Ice Age was only about 15,000 years ago. That might seem like a long time ago but when viewed on a geological time-scale, it's the blink of an eye. I would tentatively agree that the earth is warming (if we take the end of the last ice age as a baseline) but the rate at which it is doing so and the degree to which this is true is statistically insignificant.
It is a curious fact that even though we're dealing with climate which is the scientific equivalent of geology in terms of time-scale, the climate change advocates seem to think that the last hundred or so years is somehow unusual and important.
You say the planet is warming. Warming relative to what temperature in history? And is that warming greater than at any time in the past or is it warming at a faster rate than at any time in the past?
I don't think that it is, as I have not seen any evidence to substantiate that specific claim.
Thirdly, you state, “... those who say the current warming is "just a natural cycle" would be best avoiding mentioning global cooling at all because we aught to be be moving into a cool phase by that notion yet the planet is definitely heating...”
Again, I have to disagree. For the obvious reason that weather is not climate. When you say that the the planet is definitely heating, where is your baseline? To measure anything, you have to have a baseline from which to measure. I'm not suggesting that the earth's climate isn't rising relative to recent measurements but if your baseline is a very cold period (say, the little Ice Age) then it's pretty obvious that today is warmer than, say 1849, when market stalls were erected in the middle of the frozen Thames.
The last Ice Age was only about 15,000 years ago. That might seem like a long time ago but when viewed on a geological time-scale, it's the blink of an eye. I would tentatively agree that the earth is warming (if we take the end of the last ice age as a baseline) but the rate at which it is doing so and the degree to which this is true is statistically insignificant.
It is a curious fact that even though we're dealing with climate which is the scientific equivalent of geology in terms of time-scale, the climate change advocates seem to think that the last hundred or so years is somehow unusual and important.
You say the planet is warming. Warming relative to what temperature in history? And is that warming greater than at any time in the past or is it warming at a faster rate than at any time in the past?
I don't think that it is, as I have not seen any evidence to substantiate that specific claim.
Mike – Hell doesn’t exist. There's no scientific evidence for it but more importantly, there isn't any theological proof or necessity for it. To believe in the existence of hell just goes to prove how impoverished your mind is to logic and just how frightened and compliant your religion wants you to be.
Hell is simply a none existent torture chamber that has been specifically created by human minds to terrify people in to accepting religious scripture.
You're better than that. Grow up and wake up and leave these childish nightmare behind.
Hell is simply a none existent torture chamber that has been specifically created by human minds to terrify people in to accepting religious scripture.
You're better than that. Grow up and wake up and leave these childish nightmare behind.
Mike – So what are you saying? Have I somehow inadvertently fallen into your cunning trap? If so, the trap has now been sprung and the big 'reveal' is.... oh, there isn't one is there? It just seems to be you talking complete cr@p again.
It may interest you to know that this website is called the Answer Bank and not the B**llsh!t Bank. Some of us like to debate rather than attempt to take to p!ss out of others.
I've said it before, grow up.
It may interest you to know that this website is called the Answer Bank and not the B**llsh!t Bank. Some of us like to debate rather than attempt to take to p!ss out of others.
I've said it before, grow up.
Et tu, Brute!
By the way, I did not introduce religion into this thread, nor did I make anything other than a light-hearted comment. This was obviously too much for certain repressed females with a one-track mind whose only response to any statement with which they disagree is to tell them to, "Grow up".
By the way, I did not introduce religion into this thread, nor did I make anything other than a light-hearted comment. This was obviously too much for certain repressed females with a one-track mind whose only response to any statement with which they disagree is to tell them to, "Grow up".
Latest Posts
News45 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles121 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles239 mins ago
Crosswords249 mins ago
Animals & Nature252 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.