4 ms·
...or the fact that's it's increasingly looking as if cosmic rays cause cloud formation thereby controlling climate change. The climate is a chaotic system and
by curt 14y ago
...or the fact that's it's increasingly looking as if cosmic rays cause cloud formation thereby controlling climate change. The climate is a chaotic system and by it's very definition you can't predict or model said system.
No real scientist would ever write what you just did. Is this like Einstein's cosmological constant, expansion of the universe, or any number of other supposed knowns that have been proven wrong.
- nl 14y ago...or the fact that's it's increasingly looking as if cosmic rays cause cloud formation thereby controlling climate change. No it isn't. A recent study showed that cosmic rays can, in some circumstances trigger liquid drop formation. However, it did not show that this happened often enough for clouds to be formed, let alone often enough for it to have any effect on the climate. http://www.skepticalscience.com/cern-cosmic-rays-basic.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/cern-cosmic-rays-basic.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/GCR-Backing-the-wrong-horse.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/GCR-Backing-the-wrong-horse....
- justsee 14y agoThis is a perfect example of the pseudo-scientific sentiment that has been cultivated in the non-scientific community. Assert confidently that real science knows that it is impossible to model anything accurately, and that climate change concerns are guesses that will magically be proven wrong at a later date. Also, pretend that science is about 100% certainty (which it is not) and then judge climate change theories based on that figure. There is scientific consensus (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-co...) that humans are causing global warming, and this is based on climate models developed and refined over decades, from a variety of scientific disciplines. Yet in the face of this reality people like yourself have no qualms dismissing the science based on their own notions of science and are entirely able to convince themselves that they hold a scientific position. I think the process is as follows: 1. Construct your own notion of how science works. 2. Dismiss climate science based on 1. 3. Convince yourself you hold a scientific position.
- lmm 14y agoNah, you've got the order wrong. 1. Dismiss climate science because you don't like its conclusions 2. Construct a notion of how science works that lets you do 1 3. Convince yourself you hold a scientific position
- justsee 14y agoAh yes, that makes even more sense! (Although talking about sense in this context doesn't seem appropriate).