Hundreds of papers with bogus peer review to be retracted...

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I honestly believe the Internet now is doing the opposite of what it was designed to do. I remember a time when I could type about anything into a search engine and come up with views from either side of the issue. Sure, some were so far "out there" they were barely visible to the naked eye from Earth, but they were there. Along with everything in between.

Now type in any political question and you get page after page after page of the official narrative, and nothing about any differing opinions. Just try it with anything Global Warming related... you'll usually need to go through 5 or 6 pages of "OMG! We're all doomed! Carbon Credits, save us!" before you get to a single page that actually speaks to the science. It's information overload on a scale that, a few scant years ago, I could not have imagined.

And, of course, the Internet is made up of computers! Computers are smart! Computers have Artificial Intelligence now! We must believe the computers! The computers will save us!

Yeah, right. In 1969, the USA put men on the moon and safely returned them to Earth using slide rules. Now we have supercomputers that can execute calculations at billions of cycles per second... and Artemis I is still sitting in the repair bay working on the goal of being the most expensive paperweight ever built. We cannot seem to figure out how to make it go up without blowing up in the process. Tell me again how computers are always right?

The simple fact is that, like everything else around us, the Internet, the one-time savior of open expression and truth, has been turned against both. it is now just more propaganda. I should have added that to my list: "Internet: corrupted"

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I honestly believe the Internet now is doing the opposite of what it was designed to do. I remember a time when I could type about anything into a search engine and come up with views from either side of the issue. Sure, some were so far "out there" they were barely visible to the naked eye from Earth, but they were there. Along with everything in between.

Now type in any political question and you get page after page after page of the official narrative, and nothing about any differing opinions. Just try it with anything Global Warming related... you'll usually need to go through 5 or 6 pages of "OMG! We're all doomed! Carbon Credits, save us!" before you get to a single page that actually speaks to the science. It's information overload on a scale that, a few scant years ago, I could not have imagined.

And, of course, the Internet is made up of computers! Computers are smart! Computers have Artificial Intelligence now! We must believe the computers! The computers will save us!

Yeah, right. In 1969, the USA put men on the moon and safely returned them to Earth using slide rules. Now we have supercomputers that can execute calculations at billions of cycles per second... and Artemis I is still sitting in the repair bay working on the goal of being the most expensive paperweight ever built. We cannot seem to figure out how to make it go up without blowing up in the process. Tell me again how computers are always right?

The simple fact is that, like everything else around us, the Internet, the one-time savior of open expression and truth, has been turned against both. it is now just more propaganda. I should have added that to my list: "Internet: corrupted"

TheRedneck

Indeed!!

I have discussed this myself online and offline numerous times. Most pages are dedicated to some official narrative with little or no relevance to the real world. Propaganda in a few words.

If you Google global warming you will come across the green activism and all the ludicrous doom and gloom scenarios and the end of the world by people who are irrelevant with science and especially physics and mathematics.

Along the way you will come across the emotional appeals of Greta Thunberg and predictions that have no basis in anything. No science exists there other than left wing activism, green activism, and NGOs.

You may have come across Freeman Dyson, one of the greatest scientists and theoretical physicists, who has obliterated the climate change ideology several times. Here is a video of him doing what he does best

youtu.be...



Here is an article by the WSJ

www.wsj.com...

A major deception on global warming

a reply to: Asmodeus3

That WSJ article is 25 years old and behind a paywall.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

That WSJ article is 25 years old and behind a paywall.

Being 25 years old is a testimony to hoe this climate change ideology started getting strong several years ago. Is not an irrelevant article. If anything the opposite it true.

I can't do much about the membership thing.



Here is a more recent one from 2013. No membership needed.

www.independent.org...

Title:
IPCC’s Bogus Evidence for Global Warming
November 13, 2013
By S. FRED SINGER


The video by Freeman Dyson is the most entertaining as he obliterates the climate change ideology as usual.

youtu.be...

a reply to: Asmodeus3

With something like this you really cant be using things that are 25 years old now. or nearly 10 years old either.

Things change at a rather fast pace and what was once thought or known becomes obsolete.

These guys work fast, some claim they work at the speed of science.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Freeman Dyson... isn't he the guy who came up with the (thus far theoretical as we are nowhere close to actually being able to construct one) Dyson Sphere? The concept of creating a spherical structure around a star that could harvest nearly 100% of its energy?

I've actually read up on the concept, as I thought the idea was nonsensical at first... but it turns out Dyson's actual concept is well-rooted in science and theoretically very possible given the technology to actually perform the construction. Smart fellow!

I watched a few minutes of that video interview. He is quite correct when he says that computer models are great for understanding a system, but can be very poor at predicting how an unknown system will react. The purpose of computer models of an unknown system is to identify all the potential feedbacks in the system, and until those feedbacks are identified and accurately quantified, they are simply a research tool and not a predictive tool.

I find the very concept of doom and gloom over 400 ppmv CO2 to be fantastical itself. Of course the planet is greening under the influence... we have known for quite some time that plants thrive better in higher concentrations of CO2. Plant life uses CO2 and sunlight in the same way we use oxygen, Photosynthesis results in the equation CO2+2H2O -> 2O2+C+4H (used for organic molecules, aka food). that's an endothermic reaction; it requires energy from sunlight (via the Cl- ion, which is why plants are green). Animal life on the other hand, uses a reverse exothermic (produces energy) equation: O2+C (from food) -> CO2. In other words, plant life produces oxygen for us from carbon dioxide, the same way we produce carbon dioxide from oxygen for plants.

Commercial greenhouses use elevated levels of CO2 (as high as 1500 ppmv) to speed up plant growth, and have for decades. Why would we expect different (actually opposite) results on a larger scale (planetary versus a greenhouse)?

The result is another known and well-understood scientific principle: water evaporation is one of the most efficient cooling mechanisms known to mankind. We use evaporational cooling regularly in industrial applications where more common and cheaper household methods (Freon-based heat pumps and air conditioning) are simply too inefficient. Plants give off water through their "pores" during the photosynthesis reaction, so they also cool the air in relation to the amount of photosynthesis occurring, which is also proportional to how much carbon dioxide is available.

In summary, as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the planet greens. As the planet greens, the greening cools the planet and offsets any minor "greenhouse effect" from the increased CO2 levels. The only question is, by how much? The answer to that appears to be near 100%.

I have here, on this very computer (and backed up on others) a complete spreadsheet of NOAA temperature readings from the nearest large city. The data goes back to 1950 and extends to today. Using that data, I calculate the average temperatures and chart any potential increase/decrease in those average temperatures over a span of 72 years. The result? No noticeable long-term variations. I did discover that we were under a warming cycle for a while, after being in a cooling cycle prior to 1960 and since around 2000 (the exact minima and maxima are difficult to accurately quantify visually and I have not completed the Fourier analysis I intend to do; that should give me a very close cycle period).

In other words, it is a cycle with a period of, based on what i can see with my eyes graphically, 60-80 years.

Early in the 20th century, CO2 levels were less than 300 ppmv. Plant life starts to struggle to survive around 270 ppmv. From that perspective, any additional CO2 we added to the atmosphere from fossil fuels has been a blessing... without it, the food chain would not be able to support us today. We should be celebrating the fact that our involvement for once has resulted in a positive effect, not terrified of fantastical imaginings of politicians looking to pad their pockets with new and innovative ways to tax us.

TheRedneck

a reply to: nonspecific

With something like this you really cant be using things that are 25 years old now. or nearly 10 years old either.

Scientific principles do not change with time the way political agendas do. If a principle has been around for 25 years and not disproven in that time, that establishes it as true much more than whatever someone came up with last Tuesday.

Gravity works the same way today it did in the year 100. Our understanding may have improved, but the scientific principles underlying it have not changed and will not change.

"New" is not "better" in science.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

With something like this you really cant be using things that are 25 years old now. or nearly 10 years old either.

Things change at a rather fast pace and what was once thought or known becomes obsolete.

These guys work fast, some claim they work at the speed of science.

I can't see anything that has changed in this climate change ideology. If anything it has become much more bizarre and absurd.

Indeed!! The speed of science!! The new constant of nature. Just as we say the speed of sound or the speed light.

By the way, is this a new argument?! I mean the date of publication of the articles. That's new to me. I haven't seen you claiming it before. Should we only link articles that are a few years old? Or even no more than a year old?

Is 25 years that much? What about 9 years? 3 years?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Apparently physics now changes itself every few years. I guess that sells more textbooks or something.


TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Id say that if we are talking about climate change and its effects and possible cause then 25 years is a pretty long time wouldn't you?

I'm not talking about the laws of physics I'm talking about the available data and what we know about the universe.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Freeman Dyson... isn't he the guy who came up with the (thus far theoretical as we are nowhere close to actually being able to construct one) Dyson Sphere? The concept of creating a spherical structure around a star that could harvest nearly 100% of its energy?

I've actually read up on the concept, as I thought the idea was nonsensical at first... but it turns out Dyson's actual concept is well-rooted in science and theoretically very possible given the technology to actually perform the construction. Smart fellow!

I watched a few minutes of that video interview. He is quite correct when he says that computer models are great for understanding a system, but can be very poor at predicting how an unknown system will react. The purpose of computer models of an unknown system is to identify all the potential feedbacks in the system, and until those feedbacks are identified and accurately quantified, they are simply a research tool and not a predictive tool.

I find the very concept of doom and gloom over 400 ppmv CO2 to be fantastical itself. Of course the planet is greening under the influence... we have known for quite some time that plants thrive better in higher concentrations of CO2. Plant life uses CO2 and sunlight in the same way we use oxygen, Photosynthesis results in the equation CO2+2H2O -> 2O2+C+4H (used for organic molecules, aka food). that's an endothermic reaction; it requires energy from sunlight (via the Cl- ion, which is why plants are green). Animal life on the other hand, uses a reverse exothermic (produces energy) equation: O2+C (from food) -> CO2. In other words, plant life produces oxygen for us from carbon dioxide, the same way we produce carbon dioxide from oxygen for plants.

Commercial greenhouses use elevated levels of CO2 (as high as 1500 ppmv) to speed up plant growth, and have for decades. Why would we expect different (actually opposite) results on a larger scale (planetary versus a greenhouse)?

The result is another known and well-understood scientific principle: water evaporation is one of the most efficient cooling mechanisms known to mankind. We use evaporational cooling regularly in industrial applications where more common and cheaper household methods (Freon-based heat pumps and air conditioning) are simply too inefficient. Plants give off water through their "pores" during the photosynthesis reaction, so they also cool the air in relation to the amount of photosynthesis occurring, which is also proportional to how much carbon dioxide is available.

In summary, as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the planet greens. As the planet greens, the greening cools the planet and offsets any minor "greenhouse effect" from the increased CO2 levels. The only question is, by how much? The answer to that appears to be near 100%.

I have here, on this very computer (and backed up on others) a complete spreadsheet of NOAA temperature readings from the nearest large city. The data goes back to 1950 and extends to today. Using that data, I calculate the average temperatures and chart any potential increase/decrease in those average temperatures over a span of 72 years. The result? No noticeable long-term variations. I did discover that we were under a warming cycle for a while, after being in a cooling cycle prior to 1960 and since around 2000 (the exact minima and maxima are difficult to accurately quantify visually and I have not completed the Fourier analysis I intend to do; that should give me a very close cycle period).

In other words, it is a cycle with a period of, based on what i can see with my eyes graphically, 60-80 years.

Early in the 20th century, CO2 levels were less than 300 ppmv. Plant life starts to struggle to survive around 270 ppmv. From that perspective, any additional CO2 we added to the atmosphere from fossil fuels has been a blessing... without it, the food chain would not be able to support us today. We should be celebrating the fact that our involvement for once has resulted in a positive effect, not terrified of fantastical imaginings of politicians looking to pad their pockets with new and innovative ways to tax us.

TheRedneck

They believe carbon dioxide is a pollutant...
Hence there needs to be very little in the atmosphere so we won't get fried due to global warming.

I think it's about 270-280 parts per million for CO2 when photosynthesis is no longer possible and we get extinct.

Freeman Dyson was a star 🌟 and unfortunately is no longer with us. Very critical how science has been corrupted by various ideologies and politics and very critical of the political establishment.

As for the Dyson sphere, it doesn't necessarily needs to be a sphere... A structure that can harvest plenty of energy directly from the sun is considered a Dyson sphere.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: TheRedneck

Id say that if we are talking about climate change and its effects and possible cause then 25 years is a pretty long time wouldn't you?

I'm not talking about the laws of physics I'm talking about the available data and what we know about the universe.

Laws of physics in action again.
But 25 years is a tiny amount of time in the grand scheme of things and especially when the age of the Earth is about 4.6 billion years. How much the climate change over a period of 25 years?

This thought is entertained by left wing activists and children like Greta Thunberg

A dyson swarm is a far more viable option than a sphere.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Freeman Dyson... isn't he the guy who came up with the (thus far theoretical as we are nowhere close to actually being able to construct one) Dyson Sphere? The concept of creating a spherical structure around a star that could harvest nearly 100% of its energy?

I've actually read up on the concept, as I thought the idea was nonsensical at first... but it turns out Dyson's actual concept is well-rooted in science and theoretically very possible given the technology to actually perform the construction. Smart fellow!

I watched a few minutes of that video interview. He is quite correct when he says that computer models are great for understanding a system, but can be very poor at predicting how an unknown system will react. The purpose of computer models of an unknown system is to identify all the potential feedbacks in the system, and until those feedbacks are identified and accurately quantified, they are simply a research tool and not a predictive tool.

I find the very concept of doom and gloom over 400 ppmv CO2 to be fantastical itself. Of course the planet is greening under the influence... we have known for quite some time that plants thrive better in higher concentrations of CO2. Plant life uses CO2 and sunlight in the same way we use oxygen, Photosynthesis results in the equation CO2+2H2O -> 2O2+C+4H (used for organic molecules, aka food). that's an endothermic reaction; it requires energy from sunlight (via the Cl- ion, which is why plants are green). Animal life on the other hand, uses a reverse exothermic (produces energy) equation: O2+C (from food) -> CO2. In other words, plant life produces oxygen for us from carbon dioxide, the same way we produce carbon dioxide from oxygen for plants.

Commercial greenhouses use elevated levels of CO2 (as high as 1500 ppmv) to speed up plant growth, and have for decades. Why would we expect different (actually opposite) results on a larger scale (planetary versus a greenhouse)?

The result is another known and well-understood scientific principle: water evaporation is one of the most efficient cooling mechanisms known to mankind. We use evaporational cooling regularly in industrial applications where more common and cheaper household methods (Freon-based heat pumps and air conditioning) are simply too inefficient. Plants give off water through their "pores" during the photosynthesis reaction, so they also cool the air in relation to the amount of photosynthesis occurring, which is also proportional to how much carbon dioxide is available.

In summary, as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the planet greens. As the planet greens, the greening cools the planet and offsets any minor "greenhouse effect" from the increased CO2 levels. The only question is, by how much? The answer to that appears to be near 100%.

I have here, on this very computer (and backed up on others) a complete spreadsheet of NOAA temperature readings from the nearest large city. The data goes back to 1950 and extends to today. Using that data, I calculate the average temperatures and chart any potential increase/decrease in those average temperatures over a span of 72 years. The result? No noticeable long-term variations. I did discover that we were under a warming cycle for a while, after being in a cooling cycle prior to 1960 and since around 2000 (the exact minima and maxima are difficult to accurately quantify visually and I have not completed the Fourier analysis I intend to do; that should give me a very close cycle period).

In other words, it is a cycle with a period of, based on what i can see with my eyes graphically, 60-80 years.

Early in the 20th century, CO2 levels were less than 300 ppmv. Plant life starts to struggle to survive around 270 ppmv. From that perspective, any additional CO2 we added to the atmosphere from fossil fuels has been a blessing... without it, the food chain would not be able to support us today. We should be celebrating the fact that our involvement for once has resulted in a positive effect, not terrified of fantastical imaginings of politicians looking to pad their pockets with new and innovative ways to tax us.

TheRedneck

They believe carbon dioxide is a pollutant...
Hence there needs to be very little in the atmosphere so we won't get fried due to global warming.

I think it's about 270-280 parts per million for CO2 when photosynthesis is no longer possible and we get extinct.

Freeman Dyson was a star 🌟 and unfortunately is no longer with us. Very critical how science has been corrupted by various ideologies and politics and very critical of the political establishment.

As for the Dyson sphere, it doesn't necessarily needs to be a sphere... A structure that can harvest plenty of energy directly from the sun is considered a Dyson sphere.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

So are you saying that an article from 25 years is as scientifically valid as one from now?

I find that interesting.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

So are you saying that an article from 25 years is as scientifically valid as one from now?

I find that interesting.

I am not saying anything. These are your questions.
I am referring you to the comment made above by TheRedneck around 1:46 (few replies back)

Also a follow up question: Left wing?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

That replay should have been to the redneck, appologies.

As to the question, pm me if you want to discuss that as it will cause thread drift and detract.

a reply to: nonspecific

I'm not talking about the laws of physics I'm talking about the available data and what we know about the universe.

If you're not talking about the laws of physics, you are not talking about science. All of science as we know it is based on the laws of physics and nothing else.

I cannot believe you actually said that: "I'm not talking about science, I'm talking about science."

As for the 25 years being too long, no, as I said, that actually makes the information more relevant. If we are talking about science, that is.


You might be shocked to know that Newton's Laws of Motion are still relevant as well, as long as we stay well below the speed of light. They're 335 years old.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

That is not what I am saying and I think you know that and are now arguing with me for the sake of it.

Can you clarify that you think that nothing has changed of any significance in our understanding of things that any news article from 25 years ago is just as relevant as one from today?

If so then why do people still do research?

a reply to: nonspecific

Well, since that was supposed to be to me...

So are you saying that an article from 25 years is as scientifically valid as one from now?

No, I am not. I am saying it is more relevant, unless it has been specifically disproven through... wait on it... peer review.

I find that interesting.

Of course you do. Most people who have no concept of how science operates do.

Every researcher stands on the shoulders of those researchers who have come before them. They in turn stood on the shoulders of those who came before them. And so on ad infinitum until we get back to a caveman discovering that fire burns. Remove that support from all those years of study and experimentation and we have no basis to work from. Everything collapses and we have to start over and figure out fire burns again.

I strongly recommend if you are interested in this type of thing, you spend a little time in academia. Your entire premise and understanding of what science even is seems to be lacking.

TheRedneck

a reply to: nonspecific

Our understanding may have advanced, and our technology may have advanced, but the underlying physics has not changed. If a paper from 25 years ago has not been disproved by peer review, then it is more relevant than a newer paper because it has stood the test of time.

This seems to go back to that belief you have that a scientist who manages to get a paper published in a journal must be correct by definition until someone else gets a paper published with a different opinion. That is patently and absolutely false, and is the very thing this thread is about. Getting a paper published does not make it true: time and actual peer review by peers who are not chosen by editors verifies truth.

TheRedneck