The Theory Of Gravity Is Wrong? What Does It Mean For The 'Climate Consensus'?
I am glad a mainstream media was willing to publish this.
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
I'm hoping that Trump's recent cabinet picks can help sway the masses, but I doubt it. At least maybe he can slow down the every more insistent absurdity and economic damage.
1. According to Karl Popper, a truly scientific theory must be refutable. As many of you have observed, the man made climate change either doesn't offer refutable predictions or the "believers" don't accept them. Perhaps there are some interests involved in all that :).
2. "What I have attempted to show with this book is that no exceptional brain power is needed to construct a new science or to expand on an existing one. What is needed is just the courage to face inconsistencies and to avoid running away from them just because 'that's the way it was always done'. (The Goal, 1986, E.M.Goldratt). We need more courageous people.
"A new theory from the University of Amsterdam further strengthens the fact that nothing is constant in this world, even gravity. According to the researchers, gravity is not a fundamental force of nature because it had not really existed at first," says the University Herald of Verlinde's latest work on the subject."
The guy seems to want to make the point that even when considered "settled science" something not previously known can show up and change the "facts". He is making the point with the climate change "For three decades they've predicted disaster and for three decades they've been wrong, yet they can't stop forecasting catastrophe or even generate enough introspection to consider that they might be wrong."
You may disagree with the idea, my agreement with him lies in the fact I do not want anyone ramming their "fixes" down my throat, making me pay taxes, selling me crap fuel, or having to give billions to some foreign country so they can stop spewing a presumed nasty gas. I do not want to have to fund idiots like Gore and his Global Climate Change Business empire, or extend the reach of government to "save the world" or the whales, or the fish, or the poor polar bears. All because a bunch of "scientists" "agree". Climate change may be real, but the efforts to "stop it" will always be an ignorant adventure in manipulation. The only thing man can do is adapt.
Refutation of the so-called science used by climate alarmists best belongs to fraud.
References to string theory and gravity, constant or changing, muddy the issue.
First of all, Investors Business Daily is not an example of mainstream media. It is a free market alternative to the Wall Street Journal. WSJ is mainstream; IBD is not.
On the main point, the research cited on string theory is weak. String theory may have mathematical consistency as an argument, but it lacks empirical evidence. That much is damning. As for that article, if gravity did not exist at the Big Bang, what did? What is the origin of gravity? The author there, Kerry Jackson, admits to not understanding the scientific research cited, yet insists on jumping to a previous conclusion about climate change.
And if "nothing is constant" then the climate is not constant and must be changing. What that means for human action is a different question entirely. The warming climate seems to be enjoyed by wolves, beavers, and elk in Yellowstone. (See here: http://www.yellowstonepark.com/wolf-r...