Hypothesis is kind of clear, but theory has many definitions in acceptable use.
True. But I tend to use the word that means what the word means within the context of the discussion. Claiming a scientific theory is the equivalent od a "wild assed guess", when it means a framework for research that is believed to be true, is intellectually dishonest.
You might have missed the implication that the purpose of a falsifiable theory is that you can forget about it once it is, indeed, falsified. Astrology is a fine scientific theory that has been shown to be wrong. Many more reputable scientific theories have gone that way.
You aren't getting it. Astrology is not scientific at all. Science has been used to prove it wrong. Don't confuse the two.
No. Astrology, even if you are the biggest skeptic, makes testable predictions all the time.
Do you see what I did there?
Taken the first step of a testable hypothesis.
So let's take the theory of Astrology. It's based on the hypothesis that the position of the Stars at your moment of birth determines your personality, and furthermore your life is predetermined by those stars and planets.
So first off, what is the physical mechanism of the stars on your personality? Right away, we have a problem. But that can all be ignored for the moment, if we like.
So now the first test that we can do something about. Finding people born at the exact or very similar time. A study of these folks should show virtually identical personalities, and as long as they followed the same horoscopes every day, there should be remarkable parallels in their lives.
I'd love to see the experiment performed. Given all the people I've met and know, I have an idea how it would turn out. I suspect not many astrologists would want that one performed.
Now on to climate.
We start off with a very simple hypothesis. That gases in a a gaseous mixture will retain more or less energy based on the particular gases and their concentration.
Repeated testing shows this to be as close to a fact as any scientist would ever claim, and any rational non-scientist would consider it to be absolutely true.
So the basic concept has been proven.
Next is the question of scaling. The experiment takes several forms. There are non-earth planetary experiments that might serve to use as an experiment.
Venus is anomalously hot, or would be except that it's atmosphere is around 97 percent CO2. And with a surface temperature of around 730K, why would that happen? The sulight heats the land, the CO2 stores much of the energy given off by the warmed land's infrared radiation, and the result is that at 730K, a sort of equilibrium is reached as the energy escaping is at the same rate as the energy coming in.
Mars on the other hand, has shown some other interesting matters on Greenhouse and other warming effects Early Mars might have been warmed by a combination of CO2, and interestingly enough H2 The H2 would hav ebeen contributed byvolcanic outgassing of CH4, which would have degraded to CO2 and H2, allowing early Mars to be fairly warm, even taking the dimmer sun at the time into account. Today, after most of Mar's atmosphere is gone, while CO2 is the main component of the atmosphere, it is in too small amount to contribute to any warming, and th planet is pretty cold.
So we have that confirming evidence from experiments in assessing extraterrestrial planets.
So now we have an effect that has been proven on other planets as well as earth.
Now there are many experiments that have been performed, and they also do not refute the theory that the so called 'Greenhouse gases" act to retain heat.
Measurements bear it out as well. The "evidence "against it includes cherry picking for any anomalous data, then introducing a false dilemma by saying an anomaly kills the entire concept. Also eliminating years of data to claim that no warming has occurred, or my favorite, claiming weather is climate.
If that were true, I was outside today in shorts and a T-Shirt in the Northeast of the US. waddya think? I'll just claim it is anomalous weather for Christmas, and not claim "So much for So much for Global warning"
And we still have vinyl records, as some people seem to think they are the shitz. And tube amplifiers.
Well, at least vinyl still does something that even CDs can't. Of course, it also does lots of undesirable stuff that CDs don't, as you say. But it arguably has reasons to continue to exist... at least it's better in some way. Audio cassette tape just blows. Big fancy magtape can kick the crap out of a CD, but it doesn't fit in your pocket.
Vinyl and tubes have a certain sound quality to them. And I really can't disparge one of the other if someone likes them better. The problem of vinyl to me is the downhill they go on after they are first played. Diamond on plastic can't be eliminated over time.
Now tubes - there is something interesting. They have an inherent distortion to them that is actually pleasing to many people's ears. I also have a sort of attraction to hollow state technology myself. But its still a distortion.
Tape, especially the little cassettes - which were designed for voice only, yet forced into music use is annoying as hell to me - at decent quality levels, you need a reel to reel running at a decent speed - yuck.
Bah. That is lame compared to the purity of sound in having an actual full symphony orchestra to accompany you everywhere to satisfy one's assorted musical needs.
Sorry, couldn't hear you over the hissssssssssssssssss
And we still have vinyl records, as some people seem to think they are the shitz. And tube amplifiers.
I'm surprised that there aren't people who try to claim the superiority of 78 RPM records, especially the old phenolic ones with the cardbard innards.
Myself, I only listen to original Edison Wax Cylinders, as they have the timeless purity of sound coupled with the enigmatic energy of original recording efforts.
Maryland has only this last election been taken over by a Republican governor. You should perhaps rethink your hatred of Republicans, the Democrats are just the same.
Maryland has had electronic voting for as long as I have been voting (late 90s).
So Trump = Clinton?
Sorry, as the Republican Party teeters on the brink of insanity, with a modern day il Duce as the absolute front runner, I don't think your old "They are all the same" meme quite works any more.
If a computer picks the numbers, it can be rigged.
Better would be to come up with an equation that would take a dynamic natural phenomenon, such as so,e kind solar measurement.or some other naturally occurring and dynamic process in nature, and use that. Or, at the very least have the seed for the random number generator taken from a natural process
Because that would be science.
You think many lottery players would believe in science?
On the other hand, if one ticket costs me the loose change that's been piling up for the last several months and gives me three or four days to daydream while I'm stuck doing an otherwise unpleasant job, so be it. That's $2.00 for three or four days of a greater degree of happiness, and no letdown because I know that I'm not actually going to win.
I was listening to a show on NPR recently about gambling.
They spoke about different people, and why some go on ot become gambling addicts, while others do not.
It turns out that for some people such as myself, if we don't win, we get not enjoyment from it. This would seem correct to me, as in my one experience with gambling was tears ago on a return trip from the West coast, where my wife and I stayed a couple nights in Las Vegas. I tried out the slot machines, won a little then lost it. I figure I lost a total of 50 cents in the end.
But I lost it, and came out with a little less money. No happieness there for me, no real emotional content at all.
Sot some other folks would have been all excited about the initial winning, then disregarded the eventual loss. Seems different folks might be wired a little differently.
But in the studies done, they had people getting the happy reaction even if they almost won. Missing one number on the lottery ticket or one fruit on a slot machine actually makes them feel as good as if they had won.
Actually, it's a tax on people who cannot do math.
I see a lot of people (like you) who suck at math make that claim. Your odds of winning with no ticket are exactly zero. Your odds with 1 ticket are greater than zero. I'm not sure what part of Math class you missed to not understand this.
I agree that purchasing more than 1 ticket for something like the Powerball is silly. Because the difference in odds between 1, 2, or even 100 tickets is insignificant. But 1 ticket is still infinitely greater odds than no ticket at all.
From what I have seen personally, and the number of tickets some folks I know have purchased, I've done better by putting that money in the bank - even at today's crappy rates. Why? Because even when they do win, it's something small, and they do what with it? That's right, they buy more lottery tickets. So they might sink a couple hundred to maybe have a slim chance of winning 50, then buy 50 dollars worth more tickets, but don't win. So they are out that much, where I still have my original couple hundred dollars, and a half cent interest.
So yeah, I'm never going to win the lottery. Then again most people who play the lottery are never going to win the lottery, even with "infinitely" better chances than me.
The distinction is cute, but darn near meaningless.
Wow - they called you a Troll? Should be modded +5 insightful. The poor buy a huge number of lottery tickets, and many others are bought by people who are trying to use it as a retirement plan.
Abut around Slashdot these days, the truth is often considered trolling.
Most human logic is based on arbitrary logic. It only depends on whether the base points of your logic are set in reality (ie science) or non reality (faith-delusion-myth).
I have a similar story from just a few weeks ago about a guy on YouTube who claimed that the 'environmentalists' had been lying for decades and DDT was safe. Stupid just doesn't describe it.
Yeah - weird about the DDT thing. Eggshell thinning and raptor decimation and endocrine disruption aside, it's heyday was only going to end eventually as insects have developed resistance to it. But the kooks seem to think that it's still a wonder insecticide
Oh - and in the places where DDT was used until recently - they have developed that resistance. So we'd get the birds made extinct, the birth defects, the feminized males, and all the other side effects, with little to gain for the wonder insecticide.
By the way, we know about the resistance because DDT is still allowed as a vector control in some cases, but first it has to be proven that insects haven't developed resistance to it before use. Betchya youtube guy didn't know that.
But yeah, they'll blame those whacko tree huggers who use science instead of politics as a metric for determining sciencey things. That's the ticket.
And note the Slashdot clickbait for the denialists, who have, in fine moonlanding conspiracy dudgeon, have now connected the cold fusion debacle with AGW.
But, amusingly, the denialists here seem to have chosen to ally themselves with the cold fusion fraudsters, as fellow 'outsiders'.
Well that's the hell of it. Denialists often will believe any old oddball theory, yet deny any science that is generally accepted.
You can see some of this on Youtube by starting with the heat your house with teacandles and an upside down flowerpot or two
Warning, you quickly get to the kooky part of Youtube doing this.
OK. The best models we have of climate suggest that anthropogenic gasses emitted into the atmosphere (most importantly carbon dioxide) have the same effect as naturally occurring gasses, and the current best estimate for the warming effect of carbon dioxide is that is causes between 1.5 C and 4.5C average global temperature rise per doubling of concentration.
The effect has been known for over a hundred years. It explains why the Earth is not frozen.
The greenhouse effect is critical to life in the first place. This is why I have such fun with denialists. I have yet to get any answer to why atmospheric energy retention either is not real at all - in which case they have to come up with a new reason that it seems to be doing that, or if they do admit the obvious, why it fails based on the input we have made to greenhouse gases.
The answer? Crickets chirping.
They have no answer, because their objections are politically based.
If you cherry pick the right data.
And how! But the problem is twofold.
1. We're dealing with people who have a pecuniary interest in continued use of things like coal, or tobacco products. As in the case of Exxon, they did have science-smart people who actually knew a long time ago that the AGW effect was real, but lied about it.
2. We have people who don't know much about science, but are happy to hear what they would like to hear, and if it takes ignoring data, they'll present what they have been spoon fed to enable their fear of change.
Do you even think that denier will look at your citations? The fact that Exxon knew and lied about AGW, which would make any rational person re-think their opposition to AGW, only causes the true deniers to double down.
No, wait until the sky falls then blame the scientists for not being able to convince you before it was too late.
No- silly, you blame the liberals.
We had a bad river acidification event where a new highway went through a local mountain pass. They cut through pyritic rocks and dumped them in several places, the largest was filling in a valley with the rocks cut out.
Geologists and environmentalists were screaming bloody murder in the run up to construction. Roundly ignored. In fact the construction was completely exempted from environmental review. Then the creeks started running orange as the pyritic rock released sulfuric acid in a reaction with rainwater, mostly as the filled-in valley acted like a gigantic teabag.
Then the construction and politicos tried to say "We had no idea!", after which a geologist noted that they damn well did have an idea, given that in a previous highway cut, a small amount of pyritic rock was exposed, and was used by schools as a geology class tourstop showing an unusual but real non-coalfield pyritic exposure.
The bad part was that the acidic water was very near drinking water wellfields and had already contaminated a number of wells, and the rocks had been used as fill in several places.
So they had to go in, remove the rock already dug out place it in a new monitored landfill with limestone to help mitigate the acidic runoff, come up with a way to stabilize the rock exposure - which was a weird netting on the steep slope with pockets to hold the limestone mitigation agent.
All to prevent the destruction of the entire valley's drinking water, some pristine fisheries, and correct the mess they made.
Now you and I might look at the situation and note that the construction folks and the politicians that exempted this site from environmental review might have been at fault.
Nope - not at all. In an amazing feat, it was the fault of the tree huggers and geologists who complained that they shouldn't have put it there!
Because if they hadn't complained so much the politicians and construction people wouldn't have ignored them.
tl;dr version: When people's science knowledge isn't based on science, don't expect their logic to be based on logic.
From the linked article: "Fossil and temperature records over the past 520 million years show a correlation between extinctions and climate change"
And we all know that correlation equals causation, don't we? The article points out the single charted metric of atmospheric composition and matches that against extinctions, and derives the foregone conclusion that CO2 increase causes extinctions. Nothing about any other possible causes; the goal is to show that increased CO2 is evil, and they've found this correlation, and that's proof enough for them.
You get your science data from the Republican little book of Gawd didit?
There were many causes of extinction - Atmospheric oxygenation, Snowball earth, chicxulub impactor. Note that first one - How can Oxygen be bad? we need it to breathe!
People who have a problem with the idea that the so called greenhouse gases retaining energy probably have a real issue with the idea that Oxygen levels have had anything to do with extinction events.
So any article that purports that CO2 was the exact cause - or even correlated attraction - of all the extinction events is emphatically wrong. It, or another greenhouse gas is critical to maintaining the atmospheric energy retention needed to sustain life. But just like Oxygen, it has it's limits.
Rossi is a huckster who has a black box that he won't let anyone see with inputs that he won't let anyone measure.
If Rossi actually succeeded with cold fusion, he would be the richest man on the planet, instead he is a clown with a black box.
And note the Slashdot clickbait for the denialists, who have, in fine moonlanding conspiracy dudgeon, have now connected the cold fusion debacle with AGW. Boys, take it up with your buddies at Ezzon, who knew, admitted they knew, and purposefully lied about it. At this point, denialists have to get away from their creationist tactics, and bone up on your conspiracy theory stuff.
But to the actual topic at hand, the cold fusion business is largely neglected for the same reason that the concept of heating your house with two tea candles and a couple clay flowerpots. Because as the scientists say - it ain't bloody likely.
And this bit of silliness, the concept of the evil scientists intimidating others only works in the world of the weak-willed.
Hell, after Fleishmann and Pons announced their discovery, many scientists attempted to duplicate their results - very little luck. Even after many critical reviews, The University of Utah created the National Cold Fusion Institute.
side note - when the NCFI reported negative results, Fleischmann and Pons threatend to sue them.
Is this how people want science to operate? Jeezuz, what a bunch of bullshit.
And all Fleishmann and Pons had to do was to duplicate their own goddamned experiment.
It goes down in history as a physics version of the "Vaccines cause autism" debacle.
If you're referring to the so-called "Monkey Sphere" it's 150, not 50. It's supposed to be the largest number of people the average person can maintain an emotional connection with.
Slashdot Mirror
Hypothesis is kind of clear, but theory has many definitions in acceptable use.
True. But I tend to use the word that means what the word means within the context of the discussion. Claiming a scientific theory is the equivalent od a "wild assed guess", when it means a framework for research that is believed to be true, is intellectually dishonest.
You might have missed the implication that the purpose of a falsifiable theory is that you can forget about it once it is, indeed, falsified. Astrology is a fine scientific theory that has been shown to be wrong. Many more reputable scientific theories have gone that way.
You aren't getting it. Astrology is not scientific at all. Science has been used to prove it wrong. Don't confuse the two.
Do you see what I did there?
Taken the first step of a testable hypothesis.
So let's take the theory of Astrology. It's based on the hypothesis that the position of the Stars at your moment of birth determines your personality, and furthermore your life is predetermined by those stars and planets.
So first off, what is the physical mechanism of the stars on your personality? Right away, we have a problem. But that can all be ignored for the moment, if we like.
So now the first test that we can do something about. Finding people born at the exact or very similar time. A study of these folks should show virtually identical personalities, and as long as they followed the same horoscopes every day, there should be remarkable parallels in their lives.
I'd love to see the experiment performed. Given all the people I've met and know, I have an idea how it would turn out. I suspect not many astrologists would want that one performed.
Now on to climate.
We start off with a very simple hypothesis. That gases in a a gaseous mixture will retain more or less energy based on the particular gases and their concentration.
Repeated testing shows this to be as close to a fact as any scientist would ever claim, and any rational non-scientist would consider it to be absolutely true.
So the basic concept has been proven.
Next is the question of scaling. The experiment takes several forms. There are non-earth planetary experiments that might serve to use as an experiment.
Venus is anomalously hot, or would be except that it's atmosphere is around 97 percent CO2. And with a surface temperature of around 730K, why would that happen? The sulight heats the land, the CO2 stores much of the energy given off by the warmed land's infrared radiation, and the result is that at 730K, a sort of equilibrium is reached as the energy escaping is at the same rate as the energy coming in.
Here's a description should you care to look:>p> http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu...
Mars on the other hand, has shown some other interesting matters on Greenhouse and other warming effects Early Mars might have been warmed by a combination of CO2, and interestingly enough H2 The H2 would hav ebeen contributed byvolcanic outgassing of CH4, which would have degraded to CO2 and H2, allowing early Mars to be fairly warm, even taking the dimmer sun at the time into account. Today, after most of Mar's atmosphere is gone, while CO2 is the main component of the atmosphere, it is in too small amount to contribute to any warming, and th planet is pretty cold.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou...
So we have that confirming evidence from experiments in assessing extraterrestrial planets.
So now we have an effect that has been proven on other planets as well as earth.
Now there are many experiments that have been performed, and they also do not refute the theory that the so called 'Greenhouse gases" act to retain heat.
Measurements bear it out as well. The "evidence "against it includes cherry picking for any anomalous data, then introducing a false dilemma by saying an anomaly kills the entire concept. Also eliminating years of data to claim that no warming has occurred, or my favorite, claiming weather is climate.
If that were true, I was outside today in shorts and a T-Shirt in the Northeast of the US. waddya think? I'll just claim it is anomalous weather for Christmas, and not claim "So much for So much for Global warning"
See what I did there?
I was once with a friend who missed his bus. He said he wished he had a Star Trek transporter ... so he could beam himself to the next bus stop.
Darn it Bill. Well done indeed. My hero Yogi Berra would have loved it!
And we still have vinyl records, as some people seem to think they are the shitz. And tube amplifiers.
Well, at least vinyl still does something that even CDs can't. Of course, it also does lots of undesirable stuff that CDs don't, as you say. But it arguably has reasons to continue to exist... at least it's better in some way. Audio cassette tape just blows. Big fancy magtape can kick the crap out of a CD, but it doesn't fit in your pocket.
Vinyl and tubes have a certain sound quality to them. And I really can't disparge one of the other if someone likes them better. The problem of vinyl to me is the downhill they go on after they are first played. Diamond on plastic can't be eliminated over time.
Now tubes - there is something interesting. They have an inherent distortion to them that is actually pleasing to many people's ears. I also have a sort of attraction to hollow state technology myself. But its still a distortion.
Tape, especially the little cassettes - which were designed for voice only, yet forced into music use is annoying as hell to me - at decent quality levels, you need a reel to reel running at a decent speed - yuck.
Bah. That is lame compared to the purity of sound in having an actual full symphony orchestra to accompany you everywhere to satisfy one's assorted musical needs.
As soon as I read that, I thought of these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Family guy Stweie following fat guys with a tuba. No commentary on yourself, just true live music!
Am I the only one who's dying to know what the author's father is doing with those hundreds of blank cassettes every year?
Probably backing off in the jack room?
Sorry, couldn't hear you over the hissssssssssssssssss
And we still have vinyl records, as some people seem to think they are the shitz. And tube amplifiers.
I'm surprised that there aren't people who try to claim the superiority of 78 RPM records, especially the old phenolic ones with the cardbard innards.
Myself, I only listen to original Edison Wax Cylinders, as they have the timeless purity of sound coupled with the enigmatic energy of original recording efforts.
Maryland has only this last election been taken over by a Republican governor. You should perhaps rethink your hatred of Republicans, the Democrats are just the same.
Maryland has had electronic voting for as long as I have been voting (late 90s).
So Trump = Clinton?
Sorry, as the Republican Party teeters on the brink of insanity, with a modern day il Duce as the absolute front runner, I don't think your old "They are all the same" meme quite works any more.
There goes my team name, "The White Weenie Weenies"
Uh... you sunk my battleship?
No - Bingo! The Catholic official sport!
If a computer picks the numbers, it can be rigged.
Better would be to come up with an equation that would take a dynamic natural phenomenon, such as so,e kind solar measurement.or some other naturally occurring and dynamic process in nature, and use that. Or, at the very least have the seed for the random number generator taken from a natural process
Because that would be science.
You think many lottery players would believe in science?
Why would you think lotteries are rigged?
Why would you think they are not?
Obviously people with mod points are ignorant to any discussion on the topic... *sigh*
Probably people with gambling addictions, or pissed because Draft Kings and Fanduel was banned in New York.
On the other hand, if one ticket costs me the loose change that's been piling up for the last several months and gives me three or four days to daydream while I'm stuck doing an otherwise unpleasant job, so be it. That's $2.00 for three or four days of a greater degree of happiness, and no letdown because I know that I'm not actually going to win.
I was listening to a show on NPR recently about gambling.
Here's some excerpts from it. http://www.npr.org/2015/09/29/...
They spoke about different people, and why some go on ot become gambling addicts, while others do not.
It turns out that for some people such as myself, if we don't win, we get not enjoyment from it. This would seem correct to me, as in my one experience with gambling was tears ago on a return trip from the West coast, where my wife and I stayed a couple nights in Las Vegas. I tried out the slot machines, won a little then lost it. I figure I lost a total of 50 cents in the end.
But I lost it, and came out with a little less money. No happieness there for me, no real emotional content at all.
Sot some other folks would have been all excited about the initial winning, then disregarded the eventual loss. Seems different folks might be wired a little differently.
But in the studies done, they had people getting the happy reaction even if they almost won. Missing one number on the lottery ticket or one fruit on a slot machine actually makes them feel as good as if they had won.
Whereas for me, it just annoyed me a little.
Actually, it's a tax on people who cannot do math.
I see a lot of people (like you) who suck at math make that claim. Your odds of winning with no ticket are exactly zero. Your odds with 1 ticket are greater than zero. I'm not sure what part of Math class you missed to not understand this.
I agree that purchasing more than 1 ticket for something like the Powerball is silly. Because the difference in odds between 1, 2, or even 100 tickets is insignificant. But 1 ticket is still infinitely greater odds than no ticket at all.
From what I have seen personally, and the number of tickets some folks I know have purchased, I've done better by putting that money in the bank - even at today's crappy rates. Why? Because even when they do win, it's something small, and they do what with it? That's right, they buy more lottery tickets. So they might sink a couple hundred to maybe have a slim chance of winning 50, then buy 50 dollars worth more tickets, but don't win. So they are out that much, where I still have my original couple hundred dollars, and a half cent interest.
So yeah, I'm never going to win the lottery. Then again most people who play the lottery are never going to win the lottery, even with "infinitely" better chances than me.
The distinction is cute, but darn near meaningless.
The Lottery is a hidden Tax on the Poor.
Wow - they called you a Troll? Should be modded +5 insightful. The poor buy a huge number of lottery tickets, and many others are bought by people who are trying to use it as a retirement plan.
Abut around Slashdot these days, the truth is often considered trolling.
the exact same reason why we all still vote with pieces of paper
I'm afraid I have some bad news for you.
Right States run by Republicans use electroniv voting. Much more reliable results that way.
Most human logic is based on arbitrary logic. It only depends on whether the base points of your logic are set in reality (ie science) or non reality (faith-delusion-myth).
I have a similar story from just a few weeks ago about a guy on YouTube who claimed that the 'environmentalists' had been lying for decades and DDT was safe. Stupid just doesn't describe it.
Yeah - weird about the DDT thing. Eggshell thinning and raptor decimation and endocrine disruption aside, it's heyday was only going to end eventually as insects have developed resistance to it. But the kooks seem to think that it's still a wonder insecticide
Oh - and in the places where DDT was used until recently - they have developed that resistance. So we'd get the birds made extinct, the birth defects, the feminized males, and all the other side effects, with little to gain for the wonder insecticide.
By the way, we know about the resistance because DDT is still allowed as a vector control in some cases, but first it has to be proven that insects haven't developed resistance to it before use. Betchya youtube guy didn't know that.
But yeah, they'll blame those whacko tree huggers who use science instead of politics as a metric for determining sciencey things. That's the ticket.
And note the Slashdot clickbait for the denialists, who have, in fine moonlanding conspiracy dudgeon, have now connected the cold fusion debacle with AGW.
But, amusingly, the denialists here seem to have chosen to ally themselves with the cold fusion fraudsters, as fellow 'outsiders'.
Well that's the hell of it. Denialists often will believe any old oddball theory, yet deny any science that is generally accepted.
You can see some of this on Youtube by starting with the heat your house with teacandles and an upside down flowerpot or two
Warning, you quickly get to the kooky part of Youtube doing this.
OK. The best models we have of climate suggest that anthropogenic gasses emitted into the atmosphere (most importantly carbon dioxide) have the same effect as naturally occurring gasses, and the current best estimate for the warming effect of carbon dioxide is that is causes between 1.5 C and 4.5C average global temperature rise per doubling of concentration.
The effect has been known for over a hundred years. It explains why the Earth is not frozen.
The greenhouse effect is critical to life in the first place. This is why I have such fun with denialists. I have yet to get any answer to why atmospheric energy retention either is not real at all - in which case they have to come up with a new reason that it seems to be doing that, or if they do admit the obvious, why it fails based on the input we have made to greenhouse gases.
The answer? Crickets chirping.
They have no answer, because their objections are politically based.
If you cherry pick the right data.
And how! But the problem is twofold.
1. We're dealing with people who have a pecuniary interest in continued use of things like coal, or tobacco products. As in the case of Exxon, they did have science-smart people who actually knew a long time ago that the AGW effect was real, but lied about it.
2. We have people who don't know much about science, but are happy to hear what they would like to hear, and if it takes ignoring data, they'll present what they have been spoon fed to enable their fear of change.
Do you even think that denier will look at your citations? The fact that Exxon knew and lied about AGW, which would make any rational person re-think their opposition to AGW, only causes the true deniers to double down.
No, wait until the sky falls then blame the scientists for not being able to convince you before it was too late.
No- silly, you blame the liberals.
We had a bad river acidification event where a new highway went through a local mountain pass. They cut through pyritic rocks and dumped them in several places, the largest was filling in a valley with the rocks cut out.
Geologists and environmentalists were screaming bloody murder in the run up to construction. Roundly ignored. In fact the construction was completely exempted from environmental review. Then the creeks started running orange as the pyritic rock released sulfuric acid in a reaction with rainwater, mostly as the filled-in valley acted like a gigantic teabag.
Then the construction and politicos tried to say "We had no idea!", after which a geologist noted that they damn well did have an idea, given that in a previous highway cut, a small amount of pyritic rock was exposed, and was used by schools as a geology class tourstop showing an unusual but real non-coalfield pyritic exposure.
The bad part was that the acidic water was very near drinking water wellfields and had already contaminated a number of wells, and the rocks had been used as fill in several places.
So they had to go in, remove the rock already dug out place it in a new monitored landfill with limestone to help mitigate the acidic runoff, come up with a way to stabilize the rock exposure - which was a weird netting on the steep slope with pockets to hold the limestone mitigation agent.
All to prevent the destruction of the entire valley's drinking water, some pristine fisheries, and correct the mess they made.
Now you and I might look at the situation and note that the construction folks and the politicians that exempted this site from environmental review might have been at fault.
Nope - not at all. In an amazing feat, it was the fault of the tree huggers and geologists who complained that they shouldn't have put it there!
Because if they hadn't complained so much the politicians and construction people wouldn't have ignored them.
tl;dr version: When people's science knowledge isn't based on science, don't expect their logic to be based on logic.
From the linked article: "Fossil and temperature records over the past 520 million years show a correlation between extinctions and climate change"
And we all know that correlation equals causation, don't we? The article points out the single charted metric of atmospheric composition and matches that against extinctions, and derives the foregone conclusion that CO2 increase causes extinctions. Nothing about any other possible causes; the goal is to show that increased CO2 is evil, and they've found this correlation, and that's proof enough for them.
You get your science data from the Republican little book of Gawd didit?
There were many causes of extinction - Atmospheric oxygenation, Snowball earth, chicxulub impactor. Note that first one - How can Oxygen be bad? we need it to breathe!
People who have a problem with the idea that the so called greenhouse gases retaining energy probably have a real issue with the idea that Oxygen levels have had anything to do with extinction events.
So any article that purports that CO2 was the exact cause - or even correlated attraction - of all the extinction events is emphatically wrong. It, or another greenhouse gas is critical to maintaining the atmospheric energy retention needed to sustain life. But just like Oxygen, it has it's limits.
Rossi is a huckster who has a black box that he won't let anyone see with inputs that he won't let anyone measure.
If Rossi actually succeeded with cold fusion, he would be the richest man on the planet, instead he is a clown with a black box.
And note the Slashdot clickbait for the denialists, who have, in fine moonlanding conspiracy dudgeon, have now connected the cold fusion debacle with AGW. Boys, take it up with your buddies at Ezzon, who knew, admitted they knew, and purposefully lied about it. At this point, denialists have to get away from their creationist tactics, and bone up on your conspiracy theory stuff.
But to the actual topic at hand, the cold fusion business is largely neglected for the same reason that the concept of heating your house with two tea candles and a couple clay flowerpots. Because as the scientists say - it ain't bloody likely.
And this bit of silliness, the concept of the evil scientists intimidating others only works in the world of the weak-willed.
Hell, after Fleishmann and Pons announced their discovery, many scientists attempted to duplicate their results - very little luck. Even after many critical reviews, The University of Utah created the National Cold Fusion Institute.
side note - when the NCFI reported negative results, Fleischmann and Pons threatend to sue them.
Is this how people want science to operate? Jeezuz, what a bunch of bullshit.
And all Fleishmann and Pons had to do was to duplicate their own goddamned experiment.
It goes down in history as a physics version of the "Vaccines cause autism" debacle.
If you're referring to the so-called "Monkey Sphere" it's 150, not 50. It's supposed to be the largest number of people the average person can maintain an emotional connection with.
Okey Dokey - thanks.