It would serve you well to learn the difference between actual science and science fraud.
It's on Wikipedia. Check out out.
It would serve you well to learn the difference between actual science and science fraud.
It's on Wikipedia. Check out out.
More mysterious craters found in Russia's remote Siberia region
From: http://news.msn.com/offbeat/more-mys...ocid=ansnews11
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Two more craters of unknown origin have been spotted in Russia's Siberia region, weeks after a similar-looking hole was found in the isolated northernmost area, a local paper reported.
The Siberian Times, an English-language newspaper, published pictures of two new giant holes discovered by reindeer herders, one located in the Yamal and the other in the Taymyr peninsula, both above the Arctic circle.
The paper said that theories of their origin range from meteorites or stray missiles to aliens or an underground gas explosion. The report could not be confirmed independently.
Related Photos: Giant sinkholes around the world
Russian state TV reported earlier this month that a giant hole had appeared in the gas-rich Yamal peninsula where temperatures plummet below -50 degrees Celsius (-58 degrees Fahrenheit) and the sun barely rises in winter.
A Russian scientific expedition arrived at the site to inspect the first crater, nicknamed the "Yamal black hole", earlier this month, according to a recent report by state-run Vesti.ru website.
Yamal, inhabited by indigenous reindeer herders, is one of Russia's richest regions in natural gas.
See http://news.msn.com/offbeat/more-mys...ocid=ansnews11 for rest of story
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
Sherlock Holmes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5637303.html
Explained, but will that explanation be accepted? It seems logical and it fits both the evidence and the science I know, so until something better comes along this does explain it for me.
That is a reasonable answer. I can accept that.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
Sherlock Holmes
What you want to discover is where the truth lies?Originally Posted by Charlie Prime
Are you a climate scientist?
Do you think there is no global climate change? Do you disagree that it's man-made? Do you dispute the fact that Co2 is a green house gas?
What? The approx 95% of climate scientists who believe we are experiencing man-made climate change are all lying?
Just because it offends you that we may have ****** up the planet and haven't sorted it out isn't a reason to ignore the stark facts. The people denying that there is any evidence are the ones who are not listening to the truth ;the one's dogmatically pointing out the one error in Al Gore's video and the very rare scientist denying climate change is man made. Claiming Climate change is a natural cycle as though ever scientist is oblivious to the procession of the equinoxes ect that we are in cycles of ice ages and hot spells is missing the point - this time we've caused it and that an our unprecedented population growth is causing mass extinction on a phenomenal scale. Sorry to depress you.
Or do you believe the scientists are lying about evolution to? And think that God made the earth in seven days as well?
Don't get me wrong I'm not an unbeliever. But the world is a lot more complicated than that, your mobile phone and tv work because some very clever people have figured it out. To disagree with them just because it spoils you perfect little world is naive and dangerous for the rest of us.
If you want to look at conspiracy one hell if a lot of anti climate change propaganda has been funded by and spread by multinationals especially in the states. Why? Because they stand to lose billions and could be sued in the long run for negligence.
Last edited by Longeyes; 08-01-2014 at 08:46 AM.
Always. That's what Science is about. That's why the Scientific Method was developed.
You've repeated the usual logical fallacies fed to you by pop culture, but really did not understand what I said.
It would serve you well to learn the difference between actual science and science fraud.
First, really read this Wikipedia page about the Scientific Method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Don't skim it. Sit down and really read it.
Next, learn what is Science Fraud. This page is not as good as the one above, but it will give you an introduction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct
Some day when you are older, begin studying the ancient Seven Liberal Arts. They are awesome. They are a life path to truth and wisdom which has served great men for thousands of years.
In ancient Rome, the first thing a slave would do upon earning his freedom was begin paying a teacher to teach him first Three of the Seven, called The Trivium.
Bookmark this starting place and explore it later when you have time: https://www.tragedyandhope.com/trivium/
Charlie
Quite well aware of what scientific fraud means and what scientific method is.
My brother is a scientist, I could have been and many of my friends are.
So all climate scientists are falsifying data and constructing results from thin air? Are all scientists responsible of fraud?
Surely you can't believe the whole of one branch of science has conspired to deceive us. There are thousands of papers peer reviewed about climate change and hundreds of individuals working on it.
China when the international community was trying to agree at Copenhagen. Scuppered talks because they did want sanctions to restrict thier economy. It is ridiculously easy to ruin reputations with leaks and slurs, look at the way it's been so easy to ridicule UFO witnesses.
Then you should be aware that to call a thing Science, it must meet criteria that AGW does not meet, such as falsifiability, not popularity.
In this case, falsifiability would be a climate model that can accurately back-cast.
Like that would only be possible with a full set of facts and conditions and a computer that would do a good job handling a minimum of six dimensions. First one would have write up such an algorithm which incorporates chaos theory and feed-backs that are representative of real climate modeling, ain't been done well yet so there is no going on to back-casting. But that is no excuse to say that Global Warming/Climate Change is false. We can't back-cast the Sun's nuclear reactions: that don't mean that it don't shine!
If a computer model cannot back-cast, it certainly cannot fore-cast.
That's science my friend.
Please support Science. It's a good thing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote