Should the Hadron Collider be allowed? (1 Viewer)

[Omium]

. However I actually find it amusing that there are so many of you, who actually without any more qualification than me, claim to have a monopoly on information when it comes to this issue and pretend to be informed. Most of you studied Year 12 Physics, please! Don't make me laugh. I don't think that qualifies you on this issue.

The sad fact is that no one on this forum is qualified to defend their position entirely with their own knowledge, and hence I PROMPTED DISCUSSION. IN WHICH YOU DRAW ON OTHER PEOPLE'S VIEWS, PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE MORE THAN YEAR 12 PHYSICS. I wonder how many of you mindless idiots, so oppressive of discussion also believe that the issue of human-induced global warming is closed. Give me a break!

I agree with you 100%.

If you note my post in the other thread....

It seems that Everyone on this forum has a pHD in particle physics.

People are just regurgitating information they are hearing. (though you are too)

 

[impervious182]

Hmmmmmmm

hehehe... but I wasn't oppressing anyone's view, just disagreeing with the view itself.

I don't like the use of the words scientific consensus to support a theory. If there were a scientific consensus then it wouldn't remain a theory now would it? As is the nature of science.

I agree with you 100%.

If you note my post in the other thread....

It seems that Everyone on this forum has a pHD in particle physics.

People are just regurgitating information they are hearing. (though you are too)

I agree and concede. You worded what I was trying to say much better than I could have.

 

[Kwayera]

Oh and you're right, ACC was suspected in the 30's? Yeah, but then it was 'global cooling' which was the issue not 'global warming' as it is today. You've just shown yet again, an instance when the popular scientists with vested interests are proven wrong.

Uh, no it wasn't, and this work was generally done by scientists who do.. science? I don't know, unlike you, I generally don't listen to the disseminations of science by the media (which you apparently do), and nor do I generally listen to the "sky is falling"-style awareness campaigns (like Al Gore).

You seem to have gotten your opinions from other people, once again proving that you can't be bothered to get off your arse and look at the evidence for yourself.

(This is coming from a former vehement ACC skeptic, who was also once young and foolish).

There are vested interests on either side, but there are MANY scientists, some of whom have been mentioned, who disagree with ACC and have very good reason to. They look at the world's actual warming, much less than that which was predicted by the ICCP. They look at the warming in the stratosphere and the troposphere and corrolate it with the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases such as water vapour... etc. Their argument is becoming better and better substantiated.

...no it isn't. (Is anyone else hearing strains of "Intelligent design! Intelligent design!")

The list of institutions who support ACC and do their own research is also very few. The only reason the view is widespread is because of profiteers like Al Gore and other politicians like Kevin Rudd who have no idea. It's popular with voters because voters become scared and want action. They all base their decisions on the bias ICCP report.

Oh, like, I don't know, practically every university on the planet and thousands of independent research organisations?

The predictions of which have already been shown to be off base, because the modelling was based on false assumptions.

Yes, they underestimated it.

And who included many scientists in their referencing who didn't actually agree with it. They didn't properly undergo the peer review process.

No they didn't, and yes it did.

The fact is that you're derailing the discussion from the fact that you were proven wrong though.

...where?

 

[Kwayera]

Yes I have. Have you? Have you read the many documents which rebuke its findings? Because I've flicked through them as well!

You've read all 1000+ pages, and understood 90% of what was said?


(and yes, I have read a great deal of it, though not all.)

 

[Kwayera]

I don't like the use of the words scientific consensus to support a theory. If there were a scientific consensus then it wouldn't remain a theory now would it? As is the nature of science.

You don't understand the word 'theory' when used in a scientific context.

 

[impervious182]

You don't understand the word 'theory' when used in a scientific context.

Theory is something which is unable to be proven, a hypothesis used to explain data or observation, which becomes a law when it can be proven.

Also, the ICCP's reports have not underestimated the change. They completely OVERESTIMATED it. Who's spreading misinformation now? (That was rhetorical, the inference being that you are.)

 

[HalcyonSky]

Theory is something which is unable to be proven, a hypothesis used to explain data or observation, which becomes a law when it can be proven?

Also, the ICCP's reports have not underestimated the change. They completely OVERESTIMATED it. Who's spreading misinformation now? (That was rhetorical, the inference being that you are.)

lol

 

[Kwayera]

Theory is something which is unable to be proven, a hypothesis used to explain data or observation, which becomes a law when it can be proven?

*sigh*

"In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity."

Also, the ICCP's reports have not underestimated the change. They completely OVERESTIMATED it. Who's spreading misinformation now? (That was rhetorical, the inference being that you are.)

No. They underestimated it, and by a significant amount. Kindly compare SLR data from IPCC 2004 and IPCC 2007.

 

[katie tully]

Theory is something which is unable to be proven, a hypothesis used to explain data or observation, which becomes a law when it can be proven.

Also, the ICCP's reports have not underestimated the change. They completely OVERESTIMATED it. Who's spreading misinformation now? (That was rhetorical, the inference being that you are.)

lol oh hey there

were u just in the god thread?

 

[Trefoil]

Is that alexdore moron still going at it, then?

 

[Azurie]

lol oh hey there

were u just in the god thread?

The mynah birds will get you. You can't hide

 

[katie tully]

The mynah birds will get you. You can't hide

I'll kill them.

With my gun.

Or my mini LHC.

 

[Trefoil]

I'll kill them.

With my gun.

Or my mini LHC.

http://largehardoncollider.com/

 

[katie tully]

I don't really have a penis

 

[3unitz]

Theory is something which is unable to be proven, a hypothesis used to explain data or observation, which becomes a law when it can be proven.

dude whats wrong with this guy...

 

[Graney]

However I actually find it amusing that there are so many of you, who actually without any more qualification than me, claim to have a monopoly on information when it comes to this issue and pretend to be informed. Most of you studied Year 12 Physics, please! Don't make me laugh. I don't think that qualifies you on this issue.

At least one person in this thread is in their third year of undergraduate physics.

However at the same time, there is no consensus on the issue, there are a plethora of scientists as I've already mentioned we disagree with the claims of CERN and other independant scientists. To suggest that there was a consensus is also spreading misinformation.

There is not a plethora of dissenting scientists. A consensus, being defined as a "general agreement" definetly exists. Where is this large, organised block of dissenting physicists? There is none.

As explained in the podcast by dr.karl I linked to above (which anyone interested should really download and listen to), particles with equal energy, particles with less energy and particles with greater energy than the LHC regularly strike our atmosphere. We're still here.

 

[Trefoil]

I'll admit, I'm not a high energy physicist. I only studied 1st year physics at uni and most of my subjects have been applied maths, computer science and chemistry instead.

Still, that's better than knowing sweet fuck all about physics, so I reckon I trump alexdores there.