Uh oh another one jumps ship

[underwasser bolt]

This is strange coming from a scientic person. As far as I understood the above are just theories - not laws. I don't really understand it much - way over my head - but I recently saw a documentary about current thinking that strongly suggested that time does NOT behave in the predicted way. The suggestion was.....heaven forbid.....that Einstein might have got it wrong.
I just Googled to have a look and for starters found this:
E=mc2 is Wrong - Einstein's Special Relativity Fundamentally Flawed

Of course the difference between these types of theories and the topic at hand is that I don't really see how the behavior of time and space are going to threaten our way of life anytime in the near future.

Meanwhile - have you found any solid data to support your assertions about the relative pollution of the US & China? Or do you have any comment on my suggestion that fairly working out a "per person" solution might be a possible way to go?

you may be a great diver, but stay clear of science. Quantum mechanics is VERY well established and even Einstein rejected it; so yes, you are right, Einstein can be wrong. As far as offering opposing research: not required. In order to disprove a "factual" position, a scientist must introduce only ONE legitimate counter-example that violates the "factual" position. consider that ONE example cited, over, and over, and over. and then take a drink of Kool-Aid

 

[underwasser bolt]

Or do you have any comment on my suggestion that fairly working out a "per person" solution might be a possible way to go?

your per person solution, or analysis, is valid; the US consumes more than its share and produces more waste than its share; no doubt. Many other countries are catching up however.

 

[Kim]

you may be a great diver, but stay clear of science. Quantum mechanics is VERY well established and even Einstein rejected it; so yes, you are right, Einstein can be wrong. As far as offering opposing research: not required. In order to disprove a "factual" position, a scientist must introduce only ONE legitimate counter-example that violates the "factual" position. consider that ONE example cited, over, and over, and over. and then take a drink of Kool-Aid

Why do you insist on misunderstanding my posts? First - I'm NOT a scientist, and I've stated that a couple of times just in THIS thread!!!! Second - I'm not the one with the theories about relativity or whatever - I was asked to show if any scientists disputed them....and was also told I couldn't.

Well - I can, and I've posted links to what they say. It's not what I say - it's what they say. From what I've seen recently there are new theories about the nature of time which conflict with the established theories of relativity. I'm the messenger - I have no idea if they carry much weight - but they're there, and enough for the BBC to make an hour long documentary about it quite recently.

 

[DandyDon]

I'm sorry Don but what exactly are the NOW effects of global warming??? Got some examples ...

You're joking, right - you're not that ignorant, are you? Online news is free, see the link given above, ask the polar bears, etc.

Originally Posted by Diver0001 View Post
Sceptics will debate if smoke means fire until the building is burnt to the ground.

GREAT LINE!

I liked it.

case in point. Please clear the way so solution oriented people can do their work...


R..

Yep, either be part of the solution, or at least don't interfere with would like to help.

 

[underwasser bolt]

You're joking, right - you're not that ignorant, are you? Online news is free, see the link given above, ask the polar bears, etc.

online news??? YOUR joking I hope. I hope your entire argument does not come from the ignoronet. The "science" of global warming is questionable, at the very least. globe warming, no doubt. that is about ALL that can be concluded at this point. every thing else is speculation and those who treat it as gospel are Kool-Aid drinkers.

 

[Bryan]

Okay, I brought enough for everyone this time...

Spoiler

 

[underwasser bolt]

are you sure that is enough???

Science can not be cheated, fooled, or short changed, however. Reality is what it is and no amount of wishing can change it. Pseudoscience runs rapid, but is quickly killed. I double dog dare someone to find a valid argument against quantum mechanics; einstein tried, for the remainder of his life. Richard Feynman confirmed and won a nobel prize (a real one, in physics) for his work in quantum electrodynamics (QED). General relativity may fall; it was always on the edge; QED is here for quite a while.

 

[Kim]

I double dog dare someone to find a valid argument against quantum mechanics;

Nobody has tried.

I found one against relativity though....which I was told I couldn't.

Anyway - none of this affects climate change anyway, so it doesn't bother me what's proven or not in these areas.

 

[Far_X]

Ok, so have we been told to conclude that CO2 emissions are not harmful yet?

Question to those who doubt Global Warming: is the quantity of our CO2 emissions harmful or beneficial? If you cannot answer one way or the other, and with proof, then why are you willing to risk the chance that it is harmful? I am not willing to take that chance; I don't care about the street you live on but I do care about my street. Perhaps you are just antagonists getting a kick out of being belligerant.

 

[Skull]

Yeah - all them fancy pants climatologists getting filthy rich off their research studies, buying them expensive tweed jackets with the patches on the elbows and stroking their finely groomed beards - they're just like those Enron and Chevron executives.

Nice try trig ...lets see tenure, full bennies, life time employement with 6 figure salaries and if they publish they get nice bonuses...hmmm now try that again ...Oh did I mention fed, state, and corporate grants for research ....

Not to many starving research scientists ...they may not be capitalist pigs like me ...but they are hardly struggling ...specially the ones who get published...