This just proves that some smart people DO in fact, smoke crack.

Exactly, Zoomie.

I get so riled up by how mainstream media and the unwashed masses treat scientists like priests!  The fact is, Holger Bech Nielsen publishes lots of papers (at least once a year for two decades), but few of them make it into qualified, peer-reviewed journals.  In this case, the one journal where their "papers" have been published has Ninomaya as a MANAGING EDITOR, who was Nielsen's peer in writing the paper.

Oh, I wonder how he got his damn paper published!

Most of the rest of their papers regarding the LHC are referenced @ arxiv.org, but without publication records.  What a surprise!

Scientists can disagree.  It's part of what makes science great - nothing is believed just because it is said, and everything should be testable.  In this case, these fools have come up with a non-testable theory (in my opinion, their recommendation to pull a spade from a million card deck filled w/ hearts is ludicrous) which was valued by the scientific community accordingly.

But that won't stop mainstream science news from pulling this bullshit up and making it an NYTimes exclusive.  Next up:  SCIENTISTS CAN'T EXPLAIN FREAKISH LASER.

Sort of like the anti-vaccine movement...its scientific foundation is one published paper which was later showed to be riddled with improper methodology and hence rejected by mainstream science.

There are plenty of biases you could argue about in science (for instance, the objectivity of scientists in writing about a medication that a company is paying them to investigate), but things that are flatly rejected are generally rejected with good reason.

Sort of like the anti-vaccine movement...

Wait that's totally different. H1N1 vaccine causes  Birtherism. And the MMWR causes HIV. Hep, HiB and HPV combined cause EBola...

Perhaps this is overly formalistic, but doesn't science by definition separate itself from untestable theories by labeling them "pseudoscience?"
An argument could be made that this is just a reporting error on the part of the presses that view a science degree and a white labcoat as proof that science is being performed.

I get kind of riled by people like philosophy majors who co-opt elegant scientific concepts that they have just heard of, like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and use it to justify wild statements like "according to the science of quantum mechanics, nothing is certain anymore." If you're going to speak knowledgeably about the implications of a scientific concept I'd suggest that understanding the concept is an important prerequisite.

Untestable is not an adjective I would use infront of 'theories'. I'd perfer science not try to test bigbang.

Good point. Why does that always get ignored?

It's an inconvenient truth.

How do we know what the average temperature was in 790?

 Soil, tree rings, ice cores, etc.

 Human history also provides numerous clues, such as records of Romans maintaining vineyards in parts of what is now England which would not support them in our time, for example.

Makes sense.

We're giving up CFC's for a LIE!

The CFC scare was bullshit, but it was different strain of bullshit.

 Although, not-so-coincidentally, the source which produces, by far and away, the majority of the Earth's chlorine (over which CFC's were banned... even though no one ever proved they could in any way rise above an atmosphere they're heavier than and then magically break down into their component molecules) is also by far and away the largest producer of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

 As of yet I am not aware of any attempts to legislate this evil polluter into behaving in a manner more harmonious with Gaia... although that is likely only because there is no easy money to be had from extorting it or political favor gained by vilifying it.

Good point. Why does that always get ignored?

It doesnt. It just isnt all that important, 'cept to point out to the disbelievers in global warming that the other side does understand the temp changes without human involvment.

The poison in rivers in China is also a lie made up by people with weak digestive systems

Knowing the Chinese, I'm going to go ahead and say: "No, not likely."

 But nice move, with your flippant attempt to mock me only serving to illustrate one of the many arguments proving how silly-assed the whole watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) movement is: Even if one were to assume that human activity was somehow altering global temperatures, fucking over the developed world to pursue some pie-in-the-sky plan of powering everything with windmills and unicorn farts would accomplish nothing, as the developing world (i.e. China, India, etc.) would pick up our slack, and then some. People who are struggling to improve their standard of living have little tolerance for such chicanery.

This thread has become too cryptic for me.
I'm not sure if the argument is that the science behind global climate change is bullshit, or if the argument is that the interpretation of the data is bullshit, or if the argument is that nobody can be sure if the interpretation of the data is bullshit or not.

plan of powering everything with windmills and unicorn farts would accomplish nothing, as the developing world (i.e. China, India, etc.) would pick up our slack

Amazingly, Balor just described the entire cap and trade debacle of Pollution Credits.

I love it when he's accidentally informative. And quite correct.

Seriously.  If you believe in cap and trade, I hope you also believe that global warming is bullshit because cap and trade will do nothing to address the problem.

It will, however, make a bunch of scumbags even richer.

My fingers are still itching over the CFCs post.

and Zoomie...thank you for editing out the 'fucking over the developed world part', no..seriously.

It wasn't intentional. I just don't care for the word "chicanery".

It sounds like a racial slur but I can't decide if it sounds anti-Asian or Anti-Latino.

It will, however, make a bunch of scumbags even richer.

That's the real reason why the credit system wouldnt work. They would find a way to profit. AT is base, the concept of credits is ok, but that is where it stops. As soon as the brokers get invloved it falls over.

It wasn't intentional. I just don't care for the word "chicanery".

You are not saying you think the developed word could be 'fucked over' are you ? Read that question knowing im asking it from the - We waste so much shit here its not funny anymore - mindset. and then include your comment about how balor was 'quite correct'. (no, not trying to be a smart ass, just clarifing)

My fingers are still itching over the CFCs post.

 CFC's are too heavy to rise into the upper atmosphere, even if they were, no laboratory has been able to reproduce the chemical reaction claimed to occur there to break them down into ozone-destroying chlorine, the hole over Antarctica was already there the very first time scientists did any tests which would detect such a thing... in 1956, and the natural phenomena which produce atmospheric ozone do not exist over Antarctica. The ocean annually produces several orders of magnitude more chlorine than human beings ever have put out. God help me, I. Am. Not. A. Religious. Man. But help me see the picture here.

 How are your fingers feeling now?

PS- Nothing was accidental, Zoomie.

It will, however, make a bunch of scumbags even richer.

That's the real reason why the credit system wouldnt work. They would find a way to profit. AT is base, the concept of credits is ok, but that is where it stops. As soon as the brokers get invloved it falls over.

I don't really think credits are a good idea.

I think the first step is to eliminate subsidies.  The second step is to apply taxes so the cost of the externalities are included in the product - i.e. if we spend X amount of tax dollars cleaning up after coal mines every year, that should be reflected in the price of coal. 

But I also don't think we should trade with China at all due to their human rights and environmental records...so no one is going to listen to me.

They would find a way to profit. AT is base, the concept of credits is ok, but that is where it stops. As soon as the brokers get invloved it falls over.

This has already happened and been proven.

You are not saying you think the developed word could be 'fucked over' are you ? Read that question knowing im asking it from the - We waste so much shit here its not funny anymore - mindset. and then include your comment about how balor was 'quite correct'. (no, not trying to be a smart ass, just clarifing)

Clarification: Duh. Countries with a conscience will convert and sell their credits to China and El Salvador. China and El Salvador will switch to the cheapest, worst coal there is using our credits, some asshats in London will make millions brokering the deal and the basic status quo of shitting all over our planet will be maintained for another 100 years. And the poor will be poisoned with CFCs, mercury, pesticides, dioxins and Jesus only knows what else. So he's right in that the developing world will "pick up our slack".

Nothing solved. Nothing at all. If you can't fix shit, REALLY fix it, stay home. Morons.

I havent followed the whole credits thing. My opinion of the credits is comming from the 'prefect world' idea.

I didnt mention the 'slack' part at all, I agree with that. I am only interested in the 'fucking over part'. I cant see how the developed will get fucked over.

Let's just say that the real pollution will take place in the countries who can't make token efforts to move to cleaner energy sources.