Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Mainstream Science.
Why do some people disbelieve the current scientific consensus regarding e.g. evolution or man-made global warming? There are people who cherry-pick comments from a tiny minority of scientists so as to find stuff that supports their own views. Where do their views come from if not from an instinct that tells them that mainstream science is against their religion or that it must be wrong simply because it is mainstream?
There is sometimes a view expressed that everybody laughed at so-and-so and called him a crank; and then he was later vindicated. I don't think that 'cranks' are usually right, I think they are usually wrong. Lets face it, mainstream science has led to an understanding of the solar system and powered flight and electronics and social media. Most of the crank stuff has disappeared when it became obvious that it didn't work.
Can anyone name one 'crank' who was later vindicated?
There is sometimes a view expressed that everybody laughed at so-and-so and called him a crank; and then he was later vindicated. I don't think that 'cranks' are usually right, I think they are usually wrong. Lets face it, mainstream science has led to an understanding of the solar system and powered flight and electronics and social media. Most of the crank stuff has disappeared when it became obvious that it didn't work.
Can anyone name one 'crank' who was later vindicated?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Atheist. 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.
Summary of all sources:
IPCC annual report 4: https:/
Etheridge et al, 1996: https:/
Americal Chemical Society on the role of water vapour: https:/
skeptical science, a useful repository of rebuttals for climate change scepticism: https:/
NOAA report on sea levels, 2017: https:/
Slater, Hogg and Mottram, 2020 "Ice sheet losses track high-end sea level rise projections": https:/
Grinsted and Christiansen, 2020: https:/
Bowen et al, on permafrost: https:/
IPCC annual report 4: https:/
Etheridge et al, 1996: https:/
Americal Chemical Society on the role of water vapour: https:/
skeptical science, a useful repository of rebuttals for climate change scepticism: https:/
NOAA report on sea levels, 2017: https:/
Slater, Hogg and Mottram, 2020 "Ice sheet losses track high-end sea level rise projections": https:/
Grinsted and Christiansen, 2020: https:/
Bowen et al, on permafrost: https:/
The latest ipcc report (not annual, a typo -- should have been Assessment Report) is coming next month, by the way. The discussion and sources therein would be recommended reading for anybody wanting to understand the general picture, in particular because it gathers many references and is effectively a review of the present state of the science.
https:/
https:/
As an ignorant pleb but with an interest in science and mathematics, but lousy at understanding either, I'm confused!
If Patrick Moore, co founder of Greenpeace is so way out of line to accepted theories, why?
Is he blind?
Or, has he stumbled on something best hidden?
Let's face it, the man is no fool.
If Patrick Moore, co founder of Greenpeace is so way out of line to accepted theories, why?
Is he blind?
Or, has he stumbled on something best hidden?
Let's face it, the man is no fool.
My guess would be politics/fallings-out behind the scenes; as best I understand it, his initial problems were with tactics, eg with Greenpeace going anti-nuclear, or perhaps with a more apocalyptic interpretation of the science. For example, as I made clear earlier, the expected sea-level rise is in the region of half a metre over the next 80 years, but people could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that it's closer to ten or twenty times that.
Whatever his motivations, though, it's really beside the point. The links above are a tiny fraction of the available literature, but hopefully they are a start. Better to look there, and in particular at skeptical-science -- although I would recommend that you don't regard it as an endpoint, or definitive. Science isn't meant to be static, and it always remains possible that the community has made a mistake in understanding, or is somehow missing something.
Whatever his motivations, though, it's really beside the point. The links above are a tiny fraction of the available literature, but hopefully they are a start. Better to look there, and in particular at skeptical-science -- although I would recommend that you don't regard it as an endpoint, or definitive. Science isn't meant to be static, and it always remains possible that the community has made a mistake in understanding, or is somehow missing something.
Jim360
Wow! That's quite a post. Kudos for taking the considerable amount of time that it must have taken to post what is effectively a validation of my earlier points. Let's go over what you and I posted and what we essentially agree upon. I shall refer to my original statements as “Sx” and your responses to each of them as “Rx”...
S1. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is just 0.04%.
R1. Agreed.
S2. Of that 0.04%, mankind's burning of fossil fuels represents only about 3%.
R1. Agreed. You go on about “gigatonnes” (because that's a big and scary number) and a great many other things but the fact remains that mankind is ONLY responsible for between 2% and 4% of global CO2 emissions.
S3. The UK accounts for around just 1% of global CO2 emissions.
R3. Agreed. Nothing the UK does in terms of reducing CO2 emissions will be significant on the world stage.
S4. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas.
R4. Agreed. Water vapour and a number of other gases contribute significantly more to 'global warming' than CO2.
S5. The ability of CO2 to trap heat is logarithmic.
R5. You say that you've already rebutted. You haven't. You demonstrably do not understand what a logarithmic curve is, nor do you understand why the saturation point of CO2 is relevant to this argument.
S6. Throughout most of the Earth's history, atmospheric CO2 levels have been substantially higher than today.
R6. Agreed. But then you suggest that this is an irrelevance when it is not. You go on to speak about global sea level rise. You claim it's accelerating. It is not. To dispute this fact is to lie. Tidal gauges the world over do not record sea level rise that is anywhere above normal. In some places, sea levels are rising, in others, they are falling. However, overall there is categorically no global sea level rise above the norm (approx. 2-4mm per year). Global sea levels are rising due to entirely natural processes – we're in the middle of an Interglacial Period (started around 12,000 years ago), hence global sea levels are rising mostly due to the melting of land-based ice in Antarctica.
S7. All life on Earth ceases to exist when CO2 drops to around 180ppm.
R7. Agreed. You say, “... I'm not sure that 180ppm is a necessary minimum... ”. Really? The vast majority of life on Earth ceases to function below 180ppm. If CO2 levels dropped this low, homo-sapiens would be finished as a species as would almost all others. The only remaining life on Earth would be some fungi and some particularly hardy insects.
I do appreciate your response Jim. Despite that fact that it's full of obfuscation and contains considerable misinformation derived from websites such as “skepticalscience.com” (a website well known for promulgating falsehoods about this very subject) I'm grateful for your efforts.
Wow! That's quite a post. Kudos for taking the considerable amount of time that it must have taken to post what is effectively a validation of my earlier points. Let's go over what you and I posted and what we essentially agree upon. I shall refer to my original statements as “Sx” and your responses to each of them as “Rx”...
S1. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is just 0.04%.
R1. Agreed.
S2. Of that 0.04%, mankind's burning of fossil fuels represents only about 3%.
R1. Agreed. You go on about “gigatonnes” (because that's a big and scary number) and a great many other things but the fact remains that mankind is ONLY responsible for between 2% and 4% of global CO2 emissions.
S3. The UK accounts for around just 1% of global CO2 emissions.
R3. Agreed. Nothing the UK does in terms of reducing CO2 emissions will be significant on the world stage.
S4. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas.
R4. Agreed. Water vapour and a number of other gases contribute significantly more to 'global warming' than CO2.
S5. The ability of CO2 to trap heat is logarithmic.
R5. You say that you've already rebutted. You haven't. You demonstrably do not understand what a logarithmic curve is, nor do you understand why the saturation point of CO2 is relevant to this argument.
S6. Throughout most of the Earth's history, atmospheric CO2 levels have been substantially higher than today.
R6. Agreed. But then you suggest that this is an irrelevance when it is not. You go on to speak about global sea level rise. You claim it's accelerating. It is not. To dispute this fact is to lie. Tidal gauges the world over do not record sea level rise that is anywhere above normal. In some places, sea levels are rising, in others, they are falling. However, overall there is categorically no global sea level rise above the norm (approx. 2-4mm per year). Global sea levels are rising due to entirely natural processes – we're in the middle of an Interglacial Period (started around 12,000 years ago), hence global sea levels are rising mostly due to the melting of land-based ice in Antarctica.
S7. All life on Earth ceases to exist when CO2 drops to around 180ppm.
R7. Agreed. You say, “... I'm not sure that 180ppm is a necessary minimum... ”. Really? The vast majority of life on Earth ceases to function below 180ppm. If CO2 levels dropped this low, homo-sapiens would be finished as a species as would almost all others. The only remaining life on Earth would be some fungi and some particularly hardy insects.
I do appreciate your response Jim. Despite that fact that it's full of obfuscation and contains considerable misinformation derived from websites such as “skepticalscience.com” (a website well known for promulgating falsehoods about this very subject) I'm grateful for your efforts.
It's an interesting summary because it appears to strip away all of the actual discussion. For example, on point 2, I was criticising your focus on gross emissions when you should be more interested in net emissions, where the human contribution is far more significant. The reference to Gigatonnes isn't meant to be a "big and scary number", it just happens to be the correct unit.
On point 5, I again want to stress that there is no such thing as a "saturation point" in a logarithmic curve, and there is also no such thing as a "downward trough", two phrases that you've used that are simply inaccurate. A "saturation point" would refer to a value of C)2 concentration beyond which temperature wouldn't rise at all any more, but, assuming logarithmic growth, there is no such point: although logarithmic growth is increasingly slow, it is never-ending. Besides, if CO2 emissions are growing exponentially, then it tends to negate the impact of slower growth, because that "slower growth" is happening increasingly fast.
What I mean then is that I didn't rebut the idea of logarithmic growth, so much as the phrases you've attached to that that have no meaning. Can you address those, please?
Also, on S4, I pointed out that I *didn't* agree with you, in the sense that (a) water vapour concentration is not a driver of temperature so much as a function of it, and (b) just because water vapour is a leading contribution doesn't mean that other factors are not important.
On S7, I'd appreciate a citation for the claim that 180 ppm is a necessary minimum. So far as I can tell, 180 ppm is merely the lowest level that has been reached in (recent) history, coinciding with various recent Ice Ages. Given that life was still present during those periods, it therefore seems odd if the levels dipping to 179ppm would have seen all that life checking out. I'm happy to accept the idea that there is some effective minimum CO2 concentration for life to function -- I'm just surprised at this assertion that it is specifically 180ppm.
On point 5, I again want to stress that there is no such thing as a "saturation point" in a logarithmic curve, and there is also no such thing as a "downward trough", two phrases that you've used that are simply inaccurate. A "saturation point" would refer to a value of C)2 concentration beyond which temperature wouldn't rise at all any more, but, assuming logarithmic growth, there is no such point: although logarithmic growth is increasingly slow, it is never-ending. Besides, if CO2 emissions are growing exponentially, then it tends to negate the impact of slower growth, because that "slower growth" is happening increasingly fast.
What I mean then is that I didn't rebut the idea of logarithmic growth, so much as the phrases you've attached to that that have no meaning. Can you address those, please?
Also, on S4, I pointed out that I *didn't* agree with you, in the sense that (a) water vapour concentration is not a driver of temperature so much as a function of it, and (b) just because water vapour is a leading contribution doesn't mean that other factors are not important.
On S7, I'd appreciate a citation for the claim that 180 ppm is a necessary minimum. So far as I can tell, 180 ppm is merely the lowest level that has been reached in (recent) history, coinciding with various recent Ice Ages. Given that life was still present during those periods, it therefore seems odd if the levels dipping to 179ppm would have seen all that life checking out. I'm happy to accept the idea that there is some effective minimum CO2 concentration for life to function -- I'm just surprised at this assertion that it is specifically 180ppm.
In particular, on the water vapour topic, the point is that there's little that can be done about the amount of water vapour in the air. How much the atmosphere can hold is related to temperature: warmer air can hold more moisture. Funnily enough, this was exactly the discussion in the ACS link I provided, which I'm surprised that you decided not to address, especially as it's the far more relevant part of my reply.
To repeat the point: Water vapour does not control the Earth's temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. In assessing *changes* in global average temperature, then, the primary concern should be on the other contributions, most notably on CO2 levels.
To repeat the point: Water vapour does not control the Earth's temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. In assessing *changes* in global average temperature, then, the primary concern should be on the other contributions, most notably on CO2 levels.
Also, just for the record, on the sea level rise point:
"You [jim360] claim that it is accelerating. It is not. To dispute this fact is to lie."
There are at least two errors in this:
1. I make no such claims. Instead, I provided a citation to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 2017 review of sea level rise. They made the claim, based in turn on various scientific studies; I have merely reported it.
2. Therefore, for me at least to "dispute" the claim that the above source is wrong is manifestly not a lie. At worst, I am mistaken or misinformed. The two positions are not remotely the same, and it does nobody any credit to conflate them.
Whether your second sentence is correct or not, ie that this is all natural and that there is no acceleration in sea level rises (or at least not a human-driven acceleration), I won't be so categorical about. However, since this is in effect the claim made in the source I provided, among many others, it clearly is incumbent on you to explain their error, or at the very least to provide counter-sources that attempt to do so.
* * * * * * * * *
What's very obviously lacking in your response is any reference to your own sources. Merely labelling something disinformation doesn't make it so -- yes, I know I effectively did the same earlier, but I was well aware, and acknowledged, that this was never a sufficient response. Hence why eventually I *did* try to construct something more detailed, and provided multiple sources to back that response up. Likewise, the claim that skepticalscience is "well known for promulgating falsehoods" requires more than merely a statement to that effect. Among whom is it well-known, and did they demonstrate this or merely say it? If so, or even if not, are the NOAA, ACS, and IPCC also "well-known" for the same thing? A focus on a single source seems in that respect far too narrow, not to mention unsubstantiated. True, I did encourage others to look at that one in particular, but that's because it's a secondary source that, as far as I can tell, is (a) designed to be readable for the average audience, and (b) provides many of its own sources for those who want to investigate the claims made there.
"You [jim360] claim that it is accelerating. It is not. To dispute this fact is to lie."
There are at least two errors in this:
1. I make no such claims. Instead, I provided a citation to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 2017 review of sea level rise. They made the claim, based in turn on various scientific studies; I have merely reported it.
2. Therefore, for me at least to "dispute" the claim that the above source is wrong is manifestly not a lie. At worst, I am mistaken or misinformed. The two positions are not remotely the same, and it does nobody any credit to conflate them.
Whether your second sentence is correct or not, ie that this is all natural and that there is no acceleration in sea level rises (or at least not a human-driven acceleration), I won't be so categorical about. However, since this is in effect the claim made in the source I provided, among many others, it clearly is incumbent on you to explain their error, or at the very least to provide counter-sources that attempt to do so.
* * * * * * * * *
What's very obviously lacking in your response is any reference to your own sources. Merely labelling something disinformation doesn't make it so -- yes, I know I effectively did the same earlier, but I was well aware, and acknowledged, that this was never a sufficient response. Hence why eventually I *did* try to construct something more detailed, and provided multiple sources to back that response up. Likewise, the claim that skepticalscience is "well known for promulgating falsehoods" requires more than merely a statement to that effect. Among whom is it well-known, and did they demonstrate this or merely say it? If so, or even if not, are the NOAA, ACS, and IPCC also "well-known" for the same thing? A focus on a single source seems in that respect far too narrow, not to mention unsubstantiated. True, I did encourage others to look at that one in particular, but that's because it's a secondary source that, as far as I can tell, is (a) designed to be readable for the average audience, and (b) provides many of its own sources for those who want to investigate the claims made there.
I still put my money on Patrick Moore.
Greening the Sahara?
Polar bear population exploding?
Yes, I think governments have an agenda, or rather, the global elites have an agenda.
https:/
Greening the Sahara?
Polar bear population exploding?
Yes, I think governments have an agenda, or rather, the global elites have an agenda.
https:/
I see. Have you actually gone through the sources I provided? I mean, the answer is obviously no, because you won't have had time. Can I therefore recommend that you *do*, and wait until you've properly digested them before dismissing them?
This is always the problem, really. The scientific consensus, because it's so often difficult, can be intimidating, and a "simpler" explanation of in effect conspiracy easier to swallow. Especially so, when the alternative is to recognise that human activity is responsible for major global changes and damage that will be difficult and expensive to combat and reverse, and will require potentially significant lifestyle changes.
It's disappointing, though, that having been offered the evidence and appearing receptive to it, you've defaulted to the same position with apparently no further thought. Maybe take some time to research for a while, or at least to absorb those resources.
This is always the problem, really. The scientific consensus, because it's so often difficult, can be intimidating, and a "simpler" explanation of in effect conspiracy easier to swallow. Especially so, when the alternative is to recognise that human activity is responsible for major global changes and damage that will be difficult and expensive to combat and reverse, and will require potentially significant lifestyle changes.
It's disappointing, though, that having been offered the evidence and appearing receptive to it, you've defaulted to the same position with apparently no further thought. Maybe take some time to research for a while, or at least to absorb those resources.
Jim, I appreciate the effort you have put in.
Of course I am no scientist, and rely on soundbites for lay people like me.
But, it is not stupid to be suspicious of the global elites whose efforts to subdue the masses never diminishes.
Add global warming into the mix along with The Great Reset Agenda 2021, the push by the elite to increase their control by reintroducing feudalism, Bill Gates now the biggest owner of U.S. farmland, his push for GM crops and seed control, (look at what he has done to India), and the realisation that the tentacles of the monster infiltrate every university, every institution, in every country, and the control of the science, and it makes me question every scare story we are expected to swallow.
But, thank you.
Of course I am no scientist, and rely on soundbites for lay people like me.
But, it is not stupid to be suspicious of the global elites whose efforts to subdue the masses never diminishes.
Add global warming into the mix along with The Great Reset Agenda 2021, the push by the elite to increase their control by reintroducing feudalism, Bill Gates now the biggest owner of U.S. farmland, his push for GM crops and seed control, (look at what he has done to India), and the realisation that the tentacles of the monster infiltrate every university, every institution, in every country, and the control of the science, and it makes me question every scare story we are expected to swallow.
But, thank you.
// "Can anyone name one 'crank' who was later vindicated?"//
erm Lovelace and the Gaia hypthesis is the usual quoted one
but I think anyone who overturns the status quo ( paradigm shift) qualifies - erathosthenes, Hippocrates of Kos, Ptolemy from Before Christ immediately spring to mind
to my mind anyway
erm Lovelace and the Gaia hypthesis is the usual quoted one
but I think anyone who overturns the status quo ( paradigm shift) qualifies - erathosthenes, Hippocrates of Kos, Ptolemy from Before Christ immediately spring to mind
to my mind anyway
A corollary is that nothing I say should ever really be persuasive either (or at least not because I'm saying it with some sort of implied authority): I'm just as much of a middle-man as anybody else involved in the discussion. I can point you to various other sources that lay out the primary evidence in more detail, or attempt to explain it clearly, but that's all, much as I might wish that it were not.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
ChatterBank126 mins ago
Will You Sign This Petition Aimed At...
ChatterBank141 mins ago
