Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (484389)	4/25/2012 5:10:01 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	14 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

Anthony Watts adds a postscript to his post: If this blog has sometimes seemed too cocky about the Svensmark hypothesis, it’s because I’ve known what was in the pipeline, from theories, observations and experiments, long before publication. Since 1996 the hypothesis has brought new successes year by year and has resisted umpteen attempts to falsify it. New additions at the level of microphysics include a previously unknown reaction of sulphuric acid, as in a recent preprint. On a vastly different scale, Svensmark’s present supernova paper gives us better knowledge of the shape of the Milky Way Galaxy. A mark of a good hypothesis is that it looks better and better as time passes. With the triumph of plate tectonics, diehard opponents were left redfaced and blustering. In 1960 you’d not get a job in an American geology department if you believed in continental drift, but by 1970 you’d not get the job if you didn’t. That’s what a paradigm shift means in practice and it will happen sometime soon with cosmic rays in climate physics. Plate tectonics was never much of a political issue, except in the Communist bloc. There, the immobility of continents was doctrinally imposed by the Soviet Academy of Sciences. An analagous diehard doctrine in climate physics went global two decades ago, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was conceived to insist that natural causes of climate change are minor compared with human impacts. Don’t fret about the diehards. The glory of empirical science is this: no matter how many years, decades, or sometimes centuries it may take, in the end the story will come out right. wattsupwiththat.com As a lovely side effect, this elegant new theory kills off Anthropogenic Global Warming. Stone dead.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (484389)	4/25/2012 10:16:40 AM
From: Carolyn	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793964

Fascinating. You should post this on the Global Warming thread.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (484389)	4/25/2012 11:34:09 AM
From: carranza2	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

Fabulous. Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. Do you have AlGorythm's email address? I'd love to send this to him, though I doubt he'd read it because it isn't 'political' science. Pun intended. I love it when settled ideas are disturbed, rendered useless, by the creative work of brilliant scientists. Just amazing. Truth will out, eventually, slowly, grudgingly, kicking and screaming, but it will out. Yep, anthropogenic global warming seems stone cold dead.......I had previously not aligned myself with any camp on the issue because I didn't feel competent even as an interested amateur [unlike AlGorythm and his ilk] to pass judgment on such a complex issue. This, however, seems authoritative. I wonder how this will affect things? I wonder how related sunspot activity might be?