- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,772
I've virtually stopped posting on here due to the level of personal abuse and blinkered posts. However, I view you usually fair and polite. So, here's my reply to your post.
In regards to Brexit - I (like most Brexit supporters) accept that there will be some disruption when we leave. Of course, over time this will mitigate. The 'Project Fear' being espoused by those who wish to have another referendum won't work. The EU have already admitted that there won't be a hard border in Ireland and they are working on contingency plans to ensure that security, aviation, etc., still function properly. I believe that after things settle down after Brexit, this will allow the UK economy to grow at a faster rate and to focus on future industries such as AI, robotics., space exploration. We are already a leader in some of these new emerging technologies, so I do not fear the future post Brexit.
Next to climate change. Everyone accepts that there was warming towards the end of the 20th century and that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased. However, all predictions of temperature change based on the 'models' have consistently been wrong and overstated the rate of change. The science is far from settled and the constant scare stores we hear about the impacts of a slightly warming world have been wrong. Such as more hurricanes, tornado's, lack of snow, etc.
Just because someone questions the cause of climate change does not make them a 'flat-earther' or conspiracy theory nut-job. Science is constantly evolving and our understanding is improving.
For example, the big bang theory and dark matter/dark energy. At the end of the 20th century it was widely accepted that the universe was about 13.6bln years old, and expansion was still on-going as observed by red-shift of light. However, new calculations throw this into doubt as the observed mass of the universe only makes up 5% of the mass/energy required. Yes, the total of all of the galaxies etc is only 5% of the mass which the theories need. The rest is dark matter/energy which we can't detect. So, 95% of the universe we are saying we can't detect if.
From wikipedia:
The primary evidence for dark matter is that calculations show that many galaxies would fly apart instead of rotating, or would not have formed or move as they do, if they did not contain a large amount of unseen matter.[2] Other lines of evidence include observations in gravitational lensing,[3] from the cosmic microwave background, from astronomical observations of the observable universe's current structure, from the formation and evolution of galaxies, from mass location during galactic collisions,[4] and from the motion of galaxies within galaxy clusters. In the standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the universe contains 5% ordinary matter and energy, 27% dark matter and 68% of an unknown form of energy known as dark energy.[5][6][7][8] Thus, dark matter constitutes 85%[note 2] of total mass, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95% of total mass–energy content.[9][10][11][12]
So, to question science is not a stupid thing to do - it's what has allowed mankind to develop. To constantly challenge the accepted.
Also, remember that Einstein was ridiculed for the theories and proven to me right in the end, so don't assume that the supposed numerical advantage of climate change scientists are correct. And no, I don't claim to be like Einstein, it's just that accept theories change.
A collection of various criticisms can be found in the book Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein), published in 1931.[4] It contains very short texts from 28 authors, and excerpts from the publications of another 19 authors. The rest consists of a list that also includes people who only for some time were opposed to relativity. Besides philosophic objections (mostly based on Kantianism), also some alleged elementary failures of the theory were included; however, as some commented, those failures were due to the authors' misunderstanding of relativity. For example, Hans Reichenbach described the book as an "accumulation of naive errors", and as "unintentionally funny". Albert von Brunn interpreted the book as a backward step to the 16th and 17th century, and Einstein said, in response to the book, that if he were wrong, then one author would have been enough.[5][6]
It is strange what time and perception can do, because I thought you stopped posting because you kept on being proven wrong and had no idea what would happen in a 'no deal' situation other than a pathetic hope that 'it will be alright in the end' based on nothing whatsoever
But show us who kept on 'personally abusing you', because I, for one, would want to get them banned from NSC and I'm sure the mods are very hot on that
Last edited: