Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever Quits APS over Stand on Global Warming

[shira]

People like me are a lot more common than you think. Only about 1/5 people identify themselves as smokers, but how many have smoked at least once in their life? It's a lot closer to 5/5. 4/5 people will smoke a cigarette then not enjoy it enough to continue doing it on a regular basis. Same thing happens with alcohol. 100% of us normal people have tried alcohol before and most of us don't depend on it. We drink until we puke then life goes on. There's always that small fraction of people that can't put it down; they feel compelled to keep drinking. It's harder to track this sort of thing with illegal drugs, but I would guess it's the same. An astoundingly large percentage of the people I know have tried cocaine before, but none of them are junkies. They tried it, it was kinda nice, and that was it. It stopped there.
My point is that people who become addicted to things are actually a minority, and that's true for most drugs.

I'll at least admit smoking is a lot more addictive than other things. 1 in 5 is a minority, but it's a much larger minority than any other drug I've run into. Our society would be in major trouble if 1 in 5 people who tried cocaine became seriously addicted to it

Your basis for computing a 1 in 5 rate of addiction is absurd. The Surgeon General defines an "ever smoker" as someone who has smoked at least 100 cigarettes in his lifetime." Yet you want to count everyone who has taken even a single puff. Addiction requires repeated dosing over time.

I would guess that if you forced 10,000 random adults to smoke 20 cigarettes a day for a month, 90% would get hooked (that is, it would take real effort for them to quit).

 

[jackschmittusa]

randomrogue

He's not confused. The second half of my last post explains one reason why.

And just because there have been similar conditions in the past, the current way of life and population dispersal on the planet may well suffer greatly from a repeated environment. It may be prudent to exercise any control we might have to mitigate this.

 

[randomrogue]

Jaskalas


randomrogue

To suggest that climate science relies on 100 years of data to make predictions means that you have little understanding of the subject. Ice cores and seafloor cores offer data stretching at least an order of magnitude longer than that. Past atmospheric conditions are readily deciphered from these things as well as the climactic conditions. If in charting these two things, they find that certain elements of both move in lockstep over such a long time frame, it is reasonable to assume that they will continue to do so. While this is only a small part of the whole of climate science, I hope it is demonstrative that "100 years of data" is an inaccurate statement.

Missed this. I really do have to run out the door though. I agree with you. I hope I didn't imply that was our "only" data.

 

[PeshakJang]

So, the overwhelming consensus was right on that one, eh?

The overwhelming consensus of physicians agree that smoking isn't harmful... these asshole liars who disagree are idiots, and anybody who denies this is an idiot.

Also, that JFK Neo-con Wall-street criminal needs to go, we can't afford his brand of predatory capitalism.

 

[Matthiasa]

Just for anyone who might think you're not a total buffoon, the above quoted text is the exact opposite of the truth.

So opposite of the truth he ends up right back at the truth...

 

[IGBT]

time for the apocalyptic cataclysmic alarmist eco-KOOKS to stop denying their psychosis and mental disorder. Rehab for eco-KOOKS will be big business in the near future. It will be a recognized mental disorder.

 

[Rainsford]

time for the apocalyptic cataclysmic alarmist eco-KOOKS to stop denying their psychosis and mental disorder. Rehab for eco-KOOKS will be big business in the near future. It will be a recognized mental disorder.

You can pretend that the theory of man-made global warming is just supported by a bunch of nutjobs as much as you want, that's not going to make your argument any more true.

The fact is that experts in climate science (ie, not the guy being talked about in this thread) almost universally support the theory of anthropogenic global warming. The face is that scientists of any kind who don't support the idea are outliers. The fact is that despite a lot of conspiracy theory noise about alternative scientific opinions being locked out of the debate, nobody has ever shown that this is happening.

This is one of the most ridiculous debates alive today. Yes, the issue is a pretty big political circus among political clowns on both sides. But the science is pretty convincing.

 

[hal2kilo]

So, the overwhelming consensus was right on that one, eh?

Medical Doctors are not scientists. There are some scientists that happen to be medical doctors though.

 

[Rainsford]

So, the overwhelming consensus was right on that one, eh?

What kind of argument is that? Yes, there have been some situations where the majority of experts ended up being wrong. That's not an argument against THIS particular issue.

 

[sandorski]

Its one big energy balance. Plus fluid mechanics. Physicists are experts in those fields.

It's far more than that, especially for those not familiar with it.

 

[Whiskey16]

time for the apocalyptic cataclysmic alarmist eco-KOOKS to stop denying their psychosis and mental disorder. Rehab for eco-KOOKS will be big business in the near future. It will be a recognized mental disorder.

:thumbsdown: Trolling is trolling.

No content? Why post other than to do that?

 

[Whiskey16]

Ice samples support the idea that the Earth has cyclical temperature changes and that what we are seeing now is not out of the norm.

No, what you feel to be is incorrect. The recent rates of change, coincidently on par with this period of industrialisation, are evidently out of the norm.

Ocean and air temperature readings only go back to like 1890. It's a drop in the bucket and not enough data to draw reasonable conclusions on.

Despite being proven incorrect, you will not retract but stubbornly stick with the same disinformation and discount the accurate presentation of multiple of factos of data collection that not onl correlate modern temperature collection, but provide varying disciplines data of dates to 10,000 years, 100,000's of years, and even through to millions.

randomrogue, you purpetuate the dishonest misinformation campaign that was presented as Manfuctured Deceipt. Let's all be clear, such marketing objectives by those firms and their lobbyists are part of an industry understanding that "the public is in no position to distinguish good science from bad. Create doubt, uncertainty, and confusion."

 

[Matthiasa]

Real temperature calculations from samples are now considered misinformation... good to know.

 

[randomrogue]

Dude post links or shut up.

 

[Harvey]

time for the apocalyptic cataclysmic alarmist eco-KOOKS to stop denying their psychosis and mental disorder. Rehab for eco-KOOKS will be big business in the near future. It will be a recognized mental disorder.

It appears that, either you didn't read my previous post, or you're too reading challenged to comprehend it so I'll repost it.

Consider the alternatives:

1. If the vast majority of the world's credible scientists are wrong, we'll have worked toward solving a problem and preventing a global catastrophy that MAY not occur. Meanwhile, we'll continue to develop more efficient means of producing, storing and using energy and developed other practices that will make this a better planet, even if that catastrophy doesn't happen.

2. If the vast majority of the world's credible scientists are right, but deniers like you succeed in stifling that development, when the predicted catastrophies happen, it will be too late, and humanity will be fucked.

Given the results of those alternatives, I'll opt for the first one. Here's a thought...

Medical Doctors are not scientists. There are some scientists that happen to be medical doctors though.

Been on this planet long? Last time I checked, the practice of medicine is a scientific pursuit. If not, a lot of would be MD's are wasting a lot of time studying biology, chemistry, physiology, pharmacology, radiology and more.

One of the most important things one learns in medical school, and every other field of scientific study, is an understanding of scientific principles and methods that apply to all of those fields. That, alone, is enough to give one informed about any field of real science a head start towards understanding any other scientific field.

 

[ShawnD1]

What is that compels you to defend allowing the continued production and sale of products that, when used as intended, can do nothing but cause the ugliest of pain, disease and death?

They came for our marijuana. I said nothing because I don't smoke marijuana.
Then they came for cigarettes. I said nothing nothing because I don't smoke cigarettes.
Then they came for alcohol, and nobody was left to defend it because all the fun people had already killed themselves because of how boring society had become.

 

[sarsipias1234]

With a population doubling rate of 47 years Asimov calculated humanity would replace the entire biomass on Earth in 624 years (in just over 13 population doublings). In other words, the Earth's total biomass would be composed entirely of humans in just 624 years time. Taking into account the fact that the fixed amount of solar radiation hitting the earth supports an estimated 200 million tons of biomass on Earth, Asimov argued that life on Earth is a zero sum game (Asimov, 1974[1], p.208):

 

[mrkun]

well considering it's basically impossible to research without getting money, your first statement is a tautology.

It's a technically a truism. Tautologies are arguments.

 

[Harvey]

They came for our marijuana. I said nothing because I don't smoke marijuana.
Then they came for cigarettes. I said nothing nothing because I don't smoke cigarettes.
Then they came for alcohol, and nobody was left to defend it because all the fun people had already killed themselves because of how boring society had become.

Care to translate that into English from the original Gibberish?

 

[feralkid]

Care to translate that into English from the original Gibberish?

Google Martin Niemöller.

 

[IGBT]

It appears that, either you didn't read my previous post, or you're too reading challenged to comprehend it so I'll repost it.

Consider the alternatives:

1. If the vast majority of the world's credible scientists are wrong, we'll have worked toward solving a problem and preventing a global catastrophy that MAY not occur. Meanwhile, we'll continue to develop more efficient means of producing, storing and using energy and developed other practices that will make this a better planet, even if that catastrophy doesn't happen.

2. If the vast majority of the world's credible scientists are right, but deniers like you succeed in stifling that development, when the predicted catastrophies happen, it will be too late, and humanity will be fucked.

Given the results of those alternatives, I'll opt for the first one. Here's a thought...

Been on this planet long? Last time I checked, the practice of medicine is a scientific pursuit. If not, a lot of would be MD's are wasting a lot of time studying biology, chemistry, physiology, pharmacology, radiology and more.

One of the most important things one learns in medical school, and every other field of scientific study, is an understanding of scientific principles and methods that apply to all of those fields. That, alone, is enough to give one informed about any field of real science a head start towards understanding any other scientific field.

pathetic agenda drum beating. Maybe you shouldn't walk out the front door because you may get hit by a car attacked by a mob or the sky may fall on you. Or your neighbors solar junk on the roof may blow off and land on you. Yet another alarmist eco-KOOK that the public is well tired of.

 

[BladeVenom]

Can you identify which this is?

Why are you posting pictures of your mom?

 

[BoberFett]

LOL, Harvey is always good for a laugh.

 

[Harvey]

pathetic agenda drum beating. Maybe you shouldn't walk out the front door because you may get hit by a car attacked by a mob or the sky may fall on you. Or your neighbors solar junk on the roof may blow off and land on you. Yet another alarmist eco-KOOK that the public is well tired of.

Do you practice at posting crap that stupid, or is it all natural?

 

[sarsipias1234]

I wish that I could say I was optimistic about the human race. I love us all, but we are so stupid and shortsighted that I wonder if we can lift our eyes to the world about us long enough not to commit suicide.

ISAAC ASIMOV, Yours, Isaac Asimov


What is really amazing, and frustrating, is mankind's habit of refusing to see the obvious and inevitable until it is there, and then muttering about unforseen catastrophes.

ISAAC ASIMOV, Asimov on Science Fiction

In a 1980 interview Asimov put the chances of civilisation still flourishing in 2010 at less than 50% (Freedman, 2005, p.61)


Asimov's warns techno-optimists about the limited ability of science to maintain a food supply for a growing population (Asimov, 1974[1], p.207):

"Science, in other words, cannot keep up with populations no matter what it does."