Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: + + + + + + + +
Real science and its ramifications - to HelpJazz
:::By "theory" I meant not a specific proposed mechanism, but the science behind the mechanism. In other words, I didn't mean that "ozone depletion catalyzed by atmospheric halides is causing an increase of skin cancer," I meant "halides, when exposed to high-energy radiation catalyze ozone". The former is controversial, but the latter is not and can be derived from other theories (such as quantum mechanics) as well as shown in the lab. Similarly, I meant not "CO<sub>2</sub> emmissions are causing global warming," but, "CO<sub>2</sub> absorbs energy in the wavelength of that emitted by the earth, while passing energy in the wavelength of that emitted by the sun."
:::By "theory" I meant not a specific proposed mechanism, but the science behind the mechanism. In other words, I didn't mean that "ozone depletion catalyzed by atmospheric halides is causing an increase of skin cancer," I meant "halides, when exposed to high-energy radiation catalyze ozone". The former is controversial, but the latter is not and can be derived from other theories (such as quantum mechanics) as well as shown in the lab. Similarly, I meant not "CO<sub>2</sub> emmissions are causing global warming," but, "CO<sub>2</sub> absorbs energy in the wavelength of that emitted by the earth, while passing energy in the wavelength of that emitted by the sun."
:::I'm not sure I'd say that the mechanisms (that is, the first clauses of my two sentences above) aren't "mainstream science;" they very clearly are. They are also highly debated, highly controversial, and highly political. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:40, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm not sure I'd say that the mechanisms (that is, the first clauses of my two sentences above) aren't "mainstream science;" they very clearly are. They are also highly debated, highly controversial, and highly political. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:40, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::Oh, okay. Sorry for that typical conservative reaction. ;-) Please feel free to write about climate science, i.e., mechanisms which are known to exist and are not in any way controversial.
::For example, we know that heating up your brain is bad for you. That can be established statistically, with the amount and duration of heating compared to the incidence of brain tumors. What we don't know is whether cell phone usage (with its tiny 10th of a degree heating) has actually caused a brain tumor in anyone.
::Likewise, we know that overexposure to nuclear radiation causes cancer. What we did not know after Chernobyl is how many people would die. It turned out to be spectacularly less than "feared" (not to say "estimated", i.e., "guessed"). One of the biggest news stories of the century would be the immense relief people had when they found out that estimates of 10,000 to 100,000 deaths were not borne out by facts.
::But the story was suppressed by the liberal media, it seems. Just like the story of the utter uselessness of the Montreal Protocol has been suppressed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:01, 2 October 2007 (EDT)