Do "skeptics" here also not believe in relativity or quantum mechanics?

Question

You can't see evidence that they're true. You can't personally do any experiments proving them. You probably don't know enough physics to read the scientific journals and decide the issue for yourself.

You have only the word of the scientific community. And there are scientific "skeptics" about those topics too.

So, do you not believe in them either?

Or, if you do, why is global warming different?

TOMCAT - Here's why that argument is not valid.

Greenhouse gases are by far the most powerful thing changing the climate right now. In statistical terms the "signal" from greenhouse gases is very strong.

So the existing models are more than adequate to detect that signal. Here's one example:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Note how powerful greenhouse gases are, compared to the other factors. The models are what is called "robust". You can vary them a lot, and you still get the same answer.

That's the reason why the scientific community is convinced about this.

Answer 1

My guess is that as with global warming, most skeptics don't know enough about the subject to make an intelligent decision as to the validity of these theories.

The difference is that with global warming they have political motivation to make an uninformed opinion anyway. With relativity or quantum mechanics they couldn't care less if the theories are true.

Answer 2

RE: Quantum Mechanics vs. Relativity? I even have at the instant reread "a short background of Time" with the help of Stephen Hawking and interior the e book, he states that quantum mechanics and relativity are contradictory to one yet another and subsequently can't the two be splendid. I understand that at present day physics lacks a unified concept that comes with the two yet in...

Answer 3

Funny, but I used to believe in AGW until I started seeing arguments form both sides. It was after much fact from both sides that I became a skeptic, I think we are causing a little effect but not so much as many GW alarmists would lead us to believe. The world has been hotter than it is now. It will continue to warm because we are in a natural warming cycle. That is why the Vikings used to live in Greenland, but left when it froze. When I see AGW charts they go back 150 years, but when you look at information from eons you see we are in cycles and some have been hotter. There is only so much heat we can make then we will top out. Eventually we will have an Ice Age again, but probably not for a few more generations, and there is not too much we can do about that either. As far as AGW hype being so big right now, I believe it is "Bread and Circuses" started by the far Right Conservatives to busy up our far Left Liberals and the Left and some of the Middle so they can strangle the freedoms of our people, and do as they please. They then pretend to be against it to keep the sheep in the Right following right along as well. Anyhow, good luck with your causes which ever side you are pulling for in this big charade.

Answer 4

No Quantum Mechanics Scientist ever said to me, "Schroedinger's cat died, and it's all YOUR fault, now pay for it!"

Global Warming is different for a variety of reasons:

1) The Globe ISN'T Warming anymore (no temperature trend since 1998 - I know that grates on you, but all the criticism by your ilk in the world won't change the FACT.)

2) The proposed "fixes" are far worse than anyone has proven the problem to be. Sea Levels are NOT rising any faster now than they have in the last 200 years, Extreme weather events are no more common than they have been for the last 200 years. Extreme temperature events are no more common now than they have been in the last 100 years.

3) CO2 is an essential trace gas, and the plants are doing better now that we've released some more of it into the atmosphere (earlier greening in spring, longer growing season, later die-off in fall). When plants do better, animals do better. It's called the FOOD CHAIN.

4) It seems the "climate experts" all want us to live like medieval serfs with lower thermostats, tiny cars, and uncooled workplaces while they live it up in places like "Rio," "Kyoto," and "Bali," leaving giant carbon footprints for themselves! They've never met a warm climate with lots of bikini clad babes that didn't make them want to hold an "environmental" conference!

Answer 5

Computing power, theory, software, and the data required to make the even the crudest climate models have only been in existence for a couple of decades at most. To assume that humanity has assimilated enough knowledge to reverse engineer earths climate is naive. General circulation models (GCM's) are openly acknowledged as being to rudimentary to account for all of the variables associated with Earths climate. To compare the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics to GCM's is not a valid comparison. Climate theory needs several more decades of study, trial and error and predictions that have actually came true, before it can be classified as a proven science. Geology is a dependable and predictable science with many theories and principles that can be uniformly taught. But it was not always that way, as recently as a few decades ago there were large numbers of competing theories about everything from volcanology to plate tectonics. So the current understanding of climate is too new, that is what is different about global warming.

Bob:

I have seen that model so many times, and it is just as meaningless as the first time I saw it. The model stops in 1991, there are no reliable datasets for atmospheric volcanics, aerosols or sulfates for years prior to about 1960.

Answer 6

Bob,
You've made a lot of dubious statements in Y!A Global Warming, but, this time, you're just plain wrong. Anyone can see with their own eyes direct evidence of the validity of quantum mechanics. They can personally do experiments demonstrating such validity with only a few dollars of supplies. Moreover, they can set up control specimens that do not rely on phenomena of quantum mechanics and that produce results without the influence of such phenomena. Importantly, they can collect all of the data from their own personal direct observation of the experiment in under one minute, so the inaccuracies of trying to rely on data purported to be representative of conditions of centuries or millennia past are not a problem. Unfortunately, purported global warming does not rely on a similar quality of data, so it is much more worthy of skepticism.

Answer 7

Sure, show me the proof of either relativity or quantum mechanics. Oh, and make sure it's not something produced by Al Gore.

While you're at it, prove to me that the earth exists, and that this isn't all some dream that I'm having. I read the other day that there are 10 dimensions that vibrate energy at different frequencies, and some kind of sentient beings are living in one or more of those dimensions, controlling everything. Prove that isn't reality.

Seriously though, knee-jerk environmentalists bug me, and knee-jerk liberals bug me even more. People that are both... well, don't get me started. No offense intended to thoughtful people of any viewpoint, it just bugs me when people don't think.

For example, environmentalists are removing wild trout from lakes in Yosemite, allegedly to help Mountain Yellow-Legged frogs. Prior esearchers have documented that there's no current lack of habitat for frogs (although that's now getting severely distorted), and the trial lake sterilizations have failed to produce results favorable for the frogs. The National Park Service is moving forward anyway, removing the fish and not informing people who show up to get backcountry permits and say they're backpacking in 10 miles to those lakes to go fishing. That program may be expanded to 1000 more lakes, although there are about 3900 with no fish already. Apparently it's better to make an ineffective statement on behalf of the frogs than it is to consider the eageles, osprey, bears, and other wildlife that has come to depend on those fish over the past 100 years, let alone the people who are sympathetic to environmental causes because they enjoy the outdoors (including fishing, but ther are many other users opposed by extreme environmentalists). I have to side with Dr. Jello when it comes to being frustrated with eco fascism.

My distrust of extremist environmentalists notwithstanding, on the topic of global warming, I keep trying to find reliable, trustworthy data to support a skeptical view on global warming, but unfortunately the deeper I dig, the more slime trails I see leading back to ExxonMobil. I don't think anyone's even looked at the coal industry to see what they're up to.

There are a lot of major special interests with their hands in the cookie jar, so to be truly skeptical I have to distrust people and organizations that are compensated by those interests. If there truly does exist research that contradicts the theory, and if there are researchers outside of the petroleum industry that have conducted it, it's a shame that so much junk has been produced by ExxonMobil that it has become impossible to find any nuggets of reliable contradictory data. Frankly, at this point I'd be highly skeptical if or when I found them.

What I don't understand is how people can consider themselves "skeptical," but not be skeptical about information packaged by ExxonMobil. I can't even call them knee-jerk skeptics because they're simply not making the effort to be truly and thoughtfully skeptical.

Besides, being skeptical can generally be a good thing, I just wish people put a little more effort into it and not confuse skepticism with knee-jerk opposition.

Answer 8

Boy Bob are you twisted.
Even the scientists in the USA are way behind other countries in the research in Quantum Physics. Germany, India & Japan are way ahead.
Study the works of Fritz Albert Popp on BIOPHOTONS.
This is where the Pharma Controlled scientists in the USA will ignore or Deny.
Note the Values of UV being the most effective and valuable in the spectrums of Biophotons.
UVB (from sunlight) + Cholesterol in the skin will convert into Vitamin D in the liver.
They are now discovering that Vitamin D + K may be the 2 most valuable vitamins for boosting the body's immune system.
UVA at 480 nm. will REPAIR the DNA double helix.

Answer 9

I believe in them, because scientists are 99% sure of them. Not 80% sure with models being proven wrong every day.

If I was a climate scientist, I could argue about quantum mechanics. I would also argue economic issues, business law, astronomy, blah, blah, blah.

You alarmists are doing everything possible to try and make yourselves look like scientists.

The scientific community........or is it the "alarmists accepted scientific community". Like many scientists have said, you do not need a consensus in science.

You probably also believe that spending 18 hours a day in your parent's basement blogging about this crap is impressive. Get a date already!

Answer 10

Yes, the learned among us do. And incidentely, there is compelling scientific evidence supporting both relativity and quantum mechanics, though both are probably still simplifications of reality.

Answer 11

I leave relativity and quantum mechanics for the scientists to hash out. At least one side is not trying to scare everybody in to acting rashly. And at least those who support those theories admit that they are theories and allow for peer review of their work.

Not so the Global Warming alarmists. The reason I do not believe them is the blatant lies they have been caught in and the deliberate obfuscation of the truth. I am immediately suspicious of anyone who tries to tell me that scientific fact is decided through consensus taking.

Merry Christmas!

.