I don't see anyone denying that an alternative explanation is possible. Climatologists make the statement that the observed warming is most likely due to increased concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. In that statement is the very admission of an alternative explanation, otherwise they would say that they are 100% sure that the warming is due mostly to increased greenhouse gasses. If you have some evidence that something else is causing most of the warming, please don't keep it a secret!
They're no more anti-scientist than the conservatives who are skeptical of the theory of relativity. Oh, I see. I guess you do have a point. I wonder what they'll be "skeptical" of next...
I've helped my wife, who is a research scientist, by writing scripts to process her data. The IT departments at the companies where she's worked have no idea about what her work is or how she does it, and perhaps have even less interest in helping her. Their function is to keep the infrastructure (networks, file servers, email servers, etc.) working and install software packages onto the computers. They aren't of any use in helping individual users with their work. They will install SAS and S-Plus but will not help by writing SAS and S-Plus code, for example. You might be in the same situation as I am from your comment about your wife.
You're greatly exaggerating by saying biology and computer programming can't get anywhere because of patents. It's rare to have a problem with software patents. When there is a problem, it makes the news on Slashdot. And then again the next week. And the month after that.
Back when Tycho Brahe refused to give Kepler access to his observations of the night sky and Darwin didn't publish his ideas until decades after he first had them. And when Mendel fudged his data about heredity and Millikan threw away data he didn't like about the charge of an electron. Oh, wait.
Some matter is fermions, and fermion number is conserved. But the number of particles of matter is not conserved. A neutron (one particle) can decay into a proton, an electron, and a neutrino (three particles). Energy and matter are equivalent. Particle colliders such as the LHC work by putting lots of energy into particles and colliding them, generating thousands of new particles in the process.
Yes, matter and energy change forms. Matter can become energy and energy can become matter. It's all just different forms of the same thing. You can read more in E=mc^2 explained.
And if you count all the subatomic particles before and after a nuclear reaction, they are all still there as well.
Not true! In beta decay, a neutron decays into a proton, electron, and a neutrino. Three particles from one. Neutrinos are also produced in fusion -- the sun splits them out in huge numbers. Even light bulbs turn energy into photons. New particles are created all the time, even without antimatter.
No, particles are actually energy. Matter and energy are equivalent. Mass is just one form of energy, just as kinetic energy and potential energy are forms of energy.
To give another example, flip on a light switch. You will see photons (light) stream out of it. Those photons are particles. Where did the photons come from? Were they trapped in the light bulb? Did they arrive in the electrical wires? No, the energy of electrons was converted into photon particles. Energy converts to matter all the time.
Einstein disagrees with you. He says that energy and matter and interconvert, according to E=mc^2. This is exactly how particle colliders work. The LHC pumps lots of energy into hadrons and smashes them together, converting some of the energy into many different particles. We hope to be able to see Higgs bosons that are created in this way. Because they are proposed to be massive particles, lots of energy is needed to create them.
This is a common misconception. No, the particles that result from collisions were not already there. The top quark was created from a collisions of particles that did not contain a top quark. The same is true of bottom quarks, strange quarks, and charm quarks. The particles come from the energy of the colliding particles. That's why the energy of the collisions determines the maximum amount of mass of the particles the collider can create.
Just think about it for a few seconds. If new particles could not result, how can we make new types of quarks and antimatter? When we collide electrons and positrons, how could other types of particles possibly result?
Energy converts to matter, and matter to energy, all the time. Check out Feynman diagrams for many examples. Particle colliders are machines built for the purpose of converting energy into matter. When particles collide, some of their energy converts to various forms of matter.
At our local children's museum, there's a model of the Internet as a series of transparent, flexible tubes. Each packet is represented by a ball, and they each take a different path to the destination. I have no idea why he gets so much flak for his tubes explanation of the Internet. He deserves flak for his infamous bridge to nowhere and felony indictment.
I don't doubt that it will have some negative repercussions. I highly doubt that it will gut the economy.
If one country does not switch away from fossil fuels, the others can simply tax goods imported from that country. This would mitigate the negative repercussions you mention.
I think you're exaggerating when you're saying it's gutted. In any case, the economic problems California are having bear no relation to energy efficiency. For example, Sacramento is always broke because California's citizens must approve all new taxes, and they don't like paying for the spending they've asked for. You're going to have to do better than that if you want people to believe that improving energy efficiency destroys the economy.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps take the safe route and reduce carbon dioxide emissions?
You may want to read a bit about denialism so you can recognize it when you see it.
I don't see anyone denying that an alternative explanation is possible. Climatologists make the statement that the observed warming is most likely due to increased concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. In that statement is the very admission of an alternative explanation, otherwise they would say that they are 100% sure that the warming is due mostly to increased greenhouse gasses. If you have some evidence that something else is causing most of the warming, please don't keep it a secret!
They're no more anti-scientist than the conservatives who are skeptical of the theory of relativity. Oh, I see. I guess you do have a point. I wonder what they'll be "skeptical" of next...
I've helped my wife, who is a research scientist, by writing scripts to process her data. The IT departments at the companies where she's worked have no idea about what her work is or how she does it, and perhaps have even less interest in helping her. Their function is to keep the infrastructure (networks, file servers, email servers, etc.) working and install software packages onto the computers. They aren't of any use in helping individual users with their work. They will install SAS and S-Plus but will not help by writing SAS and S-Plus code, for example. You might be in the same situation as I am from your comment about your wife.
You're greatly exaggerating by saying biology and computer programming can't get anywhere because of patents. It's rare to have a problem with software patents. When there is a problem, it makes the news on Slashdot. And then again the next week. And the month after that.
Oh, you mean like making ideas public by publication in journals and filing patents so innovative ideas are made public. Wait, what?
Back when Tycho Brahe refused to give Kepler access to his observations of the night sky and Darwin didn't publish his ideas until decades after he first had them. And when Mendel fudged his data about heredity and Millikan threw away data he didn't like about the charge of an electron. Oh, wait.
No, mass and energy are equivalent. Matter is merely one form of energy.
I thought it was conservatives who are ignorant and out of touch with the world. They astound me every day with how much so!
Some matter is fermions, and fermion number is conserved. But the number of particles of matter is not conserved. A neutron (one particle) can decay into a proton, an electron, and a neutrino (three particles). Energy and matter are equivalent. Particle colliders such as the LHC work by putting lots of energy into particles and colliding them, generating thousands of new particles in the process.
Yes, matter and energy change forms. Matter can become energy and energy can become matter. It's all just different forms of the same thing. You can read more in E=mc^2 explained.
Where do you come up with this conservation of particles bunk? You've just fabricated it. Look up any number of Feynman diagrams to see the number of subatomic particles changing. Matter and energy can be converted from one to the other. Every light bulb turns electricity into photons.
Not true! In beta decay, a neutron decays into a proton, electron, and a neutrino. Three particles from one. Neutrinos are also produced in fusion -- the sun splits them out in huge numbers. Even light bulbs turn energy into photons. New particles are created all the time, even without antimatter.
No, particles are actually energy. Matter and energy are equivalent. Mass is just one form of energy, just as kinetic energy and potential energy are forms of energy.
To give another example, flip on a light switch. You will see photons (light) stream out of it. Those photons are particles. Where did the photons come from? Were they trapped in the light bulb? Did they arrive in the electrical wires? No, the energy of electrons was converted into photon particles. Energy converts to matter all the time.
Einstein disagrees with you. He says that energy and matter and interconvert, according to E=mc^2. This is exactly how particle colliders work. The LHC pumps lots of energy into hadrons and smashes them together, converting some of the energy into many different particles. We hope to be able to see Higgs bosons that are created in this way. Because they are proposed to be massive particles, lots of energy is needed to create them.
This is a common misconception. No, the particles that result from collisions were not already there. The top quark was created from a collisions of particles that did not contain a top quark. The same is true of bottom quarks, strange quarks, and charm quarks. The particles come from the energy of the colliding particles. That's why the energy of the collisions determines the maximum amount of mass of the particles the collider can create.
Just think about it for a few seconds. If new particles could not result, how can we make new types of quarks and antimatter? When we collide electrons and positrons, how could other types of particles possibly result?
Energy converts to matter, and matter to energy, all the time. Check out Feynman diagrams for many examples. Particle colliders are machines built for the purpose of converting energy into matter. When particles collide, some of their energy converts to various forms of matter.
You're right. Trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will do us all in. Might as well slit all our throats now. We're doomed!
At our local children's museum, there's a model of the Internet as a series of transparent, flexible tubes. Each packet is represented by a ball, and they each take a different path to the destination. I have no idea why he gets so much flak for his tubes explanation of the Internet. He deserves flak for his infamous bridge to nowhere and felony indictment.
I don't doubt that it will have some negative repercussions. I highly doubt that it will gut the economy.
If one country does not switch away from fossil fuels, the others can simply tax goods imported from that country. This would mitigate the negative repercussions you mention.
The Kyoto Protocol is history. The Copenhagen Accord is what we're working on now.
I think you're exaggerating when you're saying it's gutted. In any case, the economic problems California are having bear no relation to energy efficiency. For example, Sacramento is always broke because California's citizens must approve all new taxes, and they don't like paying for the spending they've asked for. You're going to have to do better than that if you want people to believe that improving energy efficiency destroys the economy.
In the United States, California has lead the effort in energy efficiency. Their economy doesn't look gutted to me.
You'll have to point out these lifestyle police. I've never seen them for some reason.