Things that don't exist according to science

Isolated systems…

_______________________________

 

The consciousness discussion is very interesting…   Consciousness may not be a brain function.  There are records of quite a few people that have very little brain matter, mostly water in the skull and live normal lives. 

Here is just one example:

https://qz.com/722614/a-civil-servant-missing-most-of-his-brain-challenges-our-most-basic-theories-of-consciousness/

“Any theory of consciousness has to be able to explain why a person like that, who’s missing 90% of his neurons, still exhibits normal behavior,”

BaldFriede wrote: It is by no means so that the effect of global warming is EXACTLY equal for every place of the earth.

Freewill

In a similar vain, Elvis sightings. And Big Foot...

Logan wrote: progaardvark wrote: someone_else wrote: Surely there is some consensus about its existence amongst fraudulous scientists whose ... er ... science is subordinate to one or another political agenda . The MSM and governmental organizations try to impose this doctrine on the public in an increasingly agressive way, but I refuse to think that there is anything more scientific about this dogma than - for instance - palmistry. I found an interesting article about it. Don't allow messages from this site because they subscribe you without asking, but it's here.   The thing about this article you posted is that it isn't written by any credible climatologists. You need to research those names mentioned in it to find out what their associations and true backgrounds are. Then you need to find out what "The Daily Caller" is. Is it a scientific publication or journal? Obviously not, since right-winger Tucker Carlson is a founder of it.   When you read the claims in it, you need to find out if they've been debunked by actual climatologists. For instance, the CO2 lag has been debunked here: https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm   Finally, this write-up is just an opinion piece, and like a****les, every one has one. Science is something you cannot find on a right-wing opinion and "news" site, at least from my experience. If these folks had tried to published this in a peer-reviewed climate science journal, they'd be laughed out of town. They would indeed. Very well-explained and illustrated, progaardvark. And scientists who deny the impact that man is having on climate change/ global warming are very much in the minority. And I don't know of any credible ones that are taken seriously amongst climatologists. Of course some people get payola by think tanks and companies to publish papers. it's actually pretty easy science to have a basic understanding of.

Edited by someone_else - August 30 2017 at 06:51

someone_else wrote: Logan wrote: progaardvark wrote: someone_else wrote: Surely there is some consensus about its existence amongst fraudulous scientists whose ... er ... science is subordinate to one or another political agenda . The MSM and governmental organizations try to impose this doctrine on the public in an increasingly agressive way, but I refuse to think that there is anything more scientific about this dogma than - for instance - palmistry. I found an interesting article about it. Don't allow messages from this site because they subscribe you without asking, but it's [URL=http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/12/man-made-global-warming-not-so-man-made-not-so-warm/" rel="nofollow]here[/URL].   The thing about this article you posted is that it isn't written by any credible climatologists. You need to research those names mentioned in it to find out what their associations and true backgrounds are. Then you need to find out what "The Daily Caller" is. Is it a scientific publication or journal? Obviously not, since right-winger Tucker Carlson is a founder of it.   When you read the claims in it, you need to find out if they've been debunked by actual climatologists. For instance, the CO2 lag has been debunked here: [URL=https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm" rel="nofollow]https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm[/URL]   Finally, this write-up is just an opinion piece, and like a****les, every one has one. Science is something you cannot find on a right-wing opinion and "news" site, at least from my experience. If these folks had tried to published this in a peer-reviewed climate science journal, they'd be laughed out of town. They would indeed. Very well-explained and illustrated, progaardvark. And scientists who deny the impact that man is having on climate change/ global warming are very much in the minority. And I don't know of any credible ones that are taken seriously amongst climatologists. Of course some people get payola by think tanks and companies to publish papers. it's actually pretty easy science to have a basic understanding of. I fully agree that the article I mentioned is an opinion piece rather than a contribution to climate science. Regretfully, articles supporting climate scepticism are to be found only on right-wing oriented sites, such as this one, Breitbart, Infowars and some others. OK, the amount of carbon dioxide (which keeps the warmth in the atmosphere, Venus is a fine example with a surface temperature of c. 460°C, 96% carbon dioxide and a pressure of 92000 hPa) has increased with more than 30% since the start of the Industrial Revolution and the temperature has increased with 0.7°C. But it is the political aspect that bugs me, the agressive ways in which it is pushed triggers my alarm bells. The KNMI (Dutch Met Office) has recently adjusted its pre-1951 maximum temperatures by lowering them by up to 1.5 degrees. The measuring methods may have become more accurate during the last decades, but, in today's political climate, this feels like altering the facts to fit the views . I may have become an a****le with an opinion long after I blew my chance to become a scientist and I don't count the heads of people with similar or opposite views, but eppur si muove...

You would blow your chance to be a scientist by denying man's profound effect on the climate. If you studied any science you would know that science is always be reevaluated, and new tools and models are developed and refined. Adjustment is a part of science.   But to throw out some stats, that frankly I doubt most people understand who throw them out, and then say, "Hey see, it wasn't correct so the "theory" must be full of hot air" is ridiculous.

Articles are to be found on such sites, rather in peer reviewed journals where you would normally expect science articles to be taken seriously because the right-wing power players have an agenda: preserve the status quo, pro-big business, generally pro petroleum based revenue. Scientists who have claimed that the whole climate change is fear-mongering have often been in the employ of the oil industry which creates a clear conflict of interest.

Venus has wrongfully been describes, I have read in the past, as sufficiently analogous to global warming on Earth (I remember reading about that in response to Neil deGrasse Tyson's claims). There have been claims by people such as Al Gore that proved inaccurate, and that despite him not even being a scientist seems to be something that climate change skeptics look at it and say, uh uh, see it's all conspiracy by.... Who, I don't know.   It's commonly said look for the profit motive, so may they think consortiums looking to profit from so-called green energy? Climate change and global warming has been talked about and warned about for a very long time, and the skeptics claims don't make sense. One can debate the data, and how great the effect will be, but to throw it out as non-concern, well I think that's evil because humanity is being put at risk due to economic, ideological and political interests that favour very wealthy individuals.

The measuring methods and science will improve, but to say it's not a problem or of great concern is burying one's head in the sand. Science should not be beholden to politics, it goes against the ethos.

Climate change occurs naturally, of course, but the evidence is overwhelming, and just plain obvious, that man, especially since the industrial revolution, has had a very significant impact on the climate and has accelerated change.

A successful Trump presidency.

progaardvark wrote: One thing I would like to point out about your link is that it comes to a conclusion that the original MIT team did not. The source article makes no mentions of "natural cycles" at all. This is the source article: http://news.mit.edu/2008/methane-tt1029 Also, in seven years, more research has been done in this area: http://e360.yale.edu/features/methane_riddle_what_is_causing_the_rise_in_emissions

Nothing doesn't exist according to science. Science is not there to proof the non-existence of things.