Story submitted by Eric Worrall
Doug Sisterson, senior manager at the Argonne National Laboratory, thinks climate alarmists need to ditch the positive mental attitude when communicating about climate, that they need to make the message more frightening.
According to Forbes;
“… according to a climate scientist at Argonne National Laboratory who says it’s time to replace the term climate change, itself a replacement for global warming, with a new term: climate disruption.
“Positive mental attitude is a really wonderful way to deal with change,” research meteorologist Doug Sisterson told about 200 people at the University of Chicago’s International House Tuesday night. “We’ve learned that we want to be optimists and have a positive mental attitude, and the way we deal with that is by thinking ‘Not all change is bad.’ Well, talking about climate change, it’s not good. So maybe it’s wrong to portray climate change with a positive mental attitude.”
It is a little difficult to see exactly how climate alarmists could tone down the optimism in their doom laden pronouncements. How do you reduce the optimism implicit, in say James Hansen’s boiling ocean / runaway greenhouse scenario?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/10/why-a-compelling-theory-is-not-enough/
Maybe Sisterson means that the message needs to be be more vivid. Instead of simply saying “the oceans will boil”, perhaps climate scientists could accompany this statement, with an artist’s impression of what the boiling oceans will do to the Easter Bunny.
Prove causation.
Otherwise, get out of my face.
Done, thanks to decades of research in a multitude of diverse scientific fields. Thanks for changing your mind.
Explain the pause, please.
References needed on that claim. Heck, last few years by themselves should cause doubt by themselves for correlation.
Could you please summarize this proof in say 10 bullet points?
Most idiotic statement I’ve read today. Thanks for contributing.
Causation has not been proved, maybe you might want to look up the word.
Well, that’s a pretty neat trick, especially considering there’s no defined baseline of an “undisrupted” climate.
“Done, thanks to decades of research in a multitude of diverse scientific fields. Thanks for changing your mind.”
Someone orders his cool aid directly from the sks gift shop.
Sir HArry,
Only simple minds would fall for your simple argument.
Oh thank you for the enlightenment.
Geez, you fart out a thirteen word sentence to a human being that you probably don’t know, or have ever met a day in his life, and gratuitously thank yourself for having changed his mind when you couldn’t possibly really know whether your thirteen word bloviation actually achieved such a thing, or could have. May I recommend that you at least make an attempt to grow up and recognize that other people have minds that are distinct from that little gray blob that you call your own and resides in your head, or wherever else it has migrated to in your body. What arrogance!
The only causation that’s been proven is that a small portion of the extremely mild 0.7C warming over the last 150 years is due to CO2.
hunter: That would explain why Sir Harry has fallen for it.
Harry, if your statement was TRUE, then there would be no need to create any type of campaign, scarey or optimistic, to promote it. Just like if the statement “the science is settled” had been true, there would have been no need for “decades of (redundant) research in a multitude of diverse scientific fields. “
Dear Mark W.,
NO amount of causation (of CO2 causing climate change) has been proven. NONE. There is speculation. There are extrapolations only (from highly controlled laboratory conditions that in NO WAY replicate the earth as a “system.”) about CO2 and climate. NO evidence.
I can tell that you are for truth in science, thus, I want to you to know that I am only writing to make sure that no one reading your comment is misled by it.
That CO2 MIGHT cause the earth’s climate to change to some infinitesimally tiny degree may be true (if the laboratory correctly predicts reality in the system “earth”). Just writing it, however, gives such speculation FAR more weight than it ought to have. Some (I’m not saying this is you) on WUWT apparently think that it makes them appear more reasonable and “scientific” to admit the possibility that CO2 might cause a tiny bit of warming in the system called “earth.” There is NO EVIDENCE that it can (only conjectured extrapolation) and there IS evidence that it cannot (e.g., CO2 up – warming stopped).
For the cause of truth in science, those who stroke their egos by asserting the fine point about CO2 properties in laboratory experiments do far more to mislead than to enlighten. REAL scientists deal in: observations, not speculation.
There are also those who persist in calling the no warming since about 1998 a “hiatus.” This is unhelpful (at best) terminology given the importance of the issue at hand.
Again, Mark W., this comment is not directed at you; it is directed at those who will take what you said and use it (mistakenly, I realize) to promote AGW.
Your Ally for Truth,
Janice
The granfather of global warming and super alarmist Dr. James Hansen said:
He later dialled it down when it was pointed out by one of the founders of the IPCC, Dr. John Theodore Houghton, that “There is no possibility of such runaway greenhouse conditions occurring on the Earth.”
Others have started the countdown clock to make sure we all understood that we had only years, months and days to save the planet. A recent UN sponsored global poll put ‘climate change’ right near the bottom of most people’s concerns.
Others have indeed tried to make
global warmingclimate change more frightening.Just what is a “disrupted” climate, Flashman?
Is it when for an undefined period we don’t have a climate at all?
Or is it manifested by mangoes growing in Siberia and cross country skiing holidays in Saudi Arabia?
Go on define it for us.
Give the world something to laugh about.
@Sir Harry Flashman
I appreciate your trolling but, unfortunately you’ve got nothing but empty claims.
Please prove me wrong by listing and then explaining in a coherent, scientific manner every single failed “climate change” prediction. You will then have earned, and only then, the credibility with which to make claims based on nothing but your word.
Not Done.
Causation never has been proven, and never will be.
Even the correlation is now destroyed.
pure coincidence for a very short period of time using heavily adjusted data.
so not even a coincidence, but a fabrication.
I think this is what is called thread hijacking
The only causation that’s been proven is that a small portion of the extremely mild 0.7C warming over the last 150 years is due to CO2.
==============
no, that has not been proven.
Ok…seriously. This troll is WAY over his cookie quota for the day.
SHF ”thanks to decades of research in a multitude of diverse scientific fields.”
and Billions of Dollars pumped into this research, and there’s still no empirical evidence to support the CAGW nonsense.
It’s unfortunate your mind is so closed and unable to change, despite the obvious failure you so desperately cling on to.
Eamon
Come on then you science moron, how about three bullet points? Everyone, i.e. the entire readership is sniggering at you because it’s zero, as proven by your no-show.
When he shows up on another thread, would someone please remind him that he has some unfinished business with me over here?
…. and if there are any other climates science w@nkers reading this, feel free to have a go. I’ll enjoy ruining your day.
I don’t know why some of you guys get upset by the trolling. It has no substance whatsoever, no merit or worth of any kind, and it is instantly shot down from a dozen directions. The warm-monger Illuminati are making fools of themselves with these trolling tactics.
If they really had the arguments, they would use them… and they would use them on us, not because we are “deniers” (what does that even mean?) but because we actually give a damn about the subject, unlike most of humanity.
Brute, if that’s directed at me, don’t worry, I’m not upset. I just went into “goad mode” as a tactic. It’s not about him, and it’s not about me. It’s about the thousands of readers who can see that, despite the plethora of warmist propaganda sites from which to cut and paste 10 bullet points, if such existed, he can’t.
He’s a blowhard with nothing to back it up.
The alarmist above who wants us to make ‘climate change’ more alarming is Doug Sisterson. Here is a little bit about where he works. Is he trying to get more money? Prevent funding cuts?
Thank you for more great information.
Janice Moore March 12, 2015 at 10:54 am
OUTSTANDING comment Janice!!
We all kind of want to “admit” that CO2 at least does something. But what do we gain from doing that? Nada. Let the fear mongering warmists fight for every inch of ground. And on CO2, Janice, you are right, there is ZERO evidence that CO2 does anything, see the classic 3 minute video on that topic showing Al Gore’s lies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag
ERIC SIMPSON! #(:))
Glad to see you are still around. Your both- (or all 4, heh)-barrels enthusiasm is missed around here. THANK YOU, so much, for your affirmation. That really made my depressing day bright! Wow. Really glad I just happened (God, I think!) to scan this thread to copy the link to my apology to Eustace C — I just spotted him on another thread! — gotta go… hoping THIS time, he will see it).
Keep on posting!
Janice
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
That was back when there WAS some global warming. Not so much any more, which is why that particular doom does not invoke the necessary gloom… Sounds like “climate change” is no longer in vogue either. Such exciting science these days, researching new vocabulary.
It doesn’t matter what you call it, it’s busted.
They’re using models to come up with these terminology changes for describing what their models are not predicting
Hi Wado. Sounds about right. 🙂
Icouldunderstandit
I think you should go back to sleep.
Do you seriously think some small time republican pollster initiated the switch from CAGW to CC? If you could give up the Republican vs. Democrat mentality, and just think objectively, you wouldn’t seem to be so anti-science.
Yes. If one reads issues of Science magazine from around the year 2000, one runs into the phrase “climate change” all the time. It may have been picked up by the media when the global warming meme started sounding a bit ridiculous, but it’s been out there for a long time.
Global Warming. If they want more pop they could call it “CAGW” Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. (Of course when the C, the G and the W are all MIA, they must revert back to climate change.
The truth is many of these folk want the A” to disappear excluding themselves of course.
It is time to ditch faux scientists like Doug Sisterson.
What world do these people live in? Clearly it’s not the real one
You’re talking about this site, right?
Flash man. Name one extreme weather event that is unprecedented.
Actually you should take a look in the mirror and there will be the answer.
Flashy
no actually he was talking about you.
No, YOU are.
When are you going to answer the question from ‘philincalifornia’ above?
To Sir Harry Flashman:
You can look at the real world on the graph below about the evidence for global warming and if it has anything to do with CO2 increasing atmospheric concentrations since 1959, a little after major increase in fossil fuels burning in the industrialized world. Extremely reliable monthly CO2 concentrations results from Mauna Loa (showing expected seasonal photosynthesis as you can verify from the data sets available from the internet site of Mauna Loa Observatory) plotted against monthly temperature anomalies until January 2015. Yes, there is correlation between the increase in both for a while. You can decide, spurious or not.
Whether or not temperature anomalies will continue to very slowly increase stay about the same or decrease, I have no idea, but obviously things have changed between 1959 and January 2015.
As far as CO2, it looks like it will continue to increase, but I am making no prediction. Mother Nature will decide. You can get the CO2 data plotted vs. year directly, showing the almost constant increase with year from the Mauna Loa Observatory, no slowdown in the increase like for temperature.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20VersusCO2.gif
My thoughts exactly. After years of breathless doomsday-is-just-around-the-corner reports from the media, from UN officials (like “50 million climate refugees by 2010 [I think it was]”), and from scientists themselves, saying that “We’ve learned that we want to be optimists and have a positive mental attitude, and the way we deal with that is by thinking ‘Not all change is bad.’ ” is almost surreal. This really does qualify as some kind of dissociation phenomenon.
True. IPPC makes a lot of claims but they NEVER produced a graph showing any kind of correlation between CO2 increase and temperature increase for any period of time after industrial world increase in fossil fuels burning.
Faked “Boiling oceans” imagery as opposed to the actual Arctic landscape – huge blocks of ice – imagery on Cape Cod.
senior manager at the Argonne National Laboratory
Well if the science isn’t on your side, put your manager’s hat on and try marketing.
What’s “dusruption”? (title) Is that a new word that combines dust and corruption?
“A rose is still a rose …”
And a rat a rat. 🙂
Australians have a saying: “You can’t polish a turd.” [feces]
but you can sprinkle it with glitter. 🙂
In simplified English . . .
We need to hype, exaggerate, fear monger and create false hysteria if we are to keep our First Class seats on the R&D funding $Gravy $Train
I think the truthful term is anthropogenic global warming. We now have politicians that believe that driving an SUV creates carbon which controls climate and causes everything from floods to prostitution. We have school kids indoctrinated into this nonsense to the point they are being used to harass the politicians that don’t believe. Many don’t even know the discussion is about CO2. Most haven’t thought about how the magic “carbon” will cause floods etc. without causing a temperature change let alone how to measure the effect. Its just “they told us it will be bad”. without truth in the conversation there can be no mutual understanding and no progress toward knowledge.
“We now have politicians that believe…We have school kids indoctrinated…don’t even know the discussion is about CO2…”
Sounds like mission accomplished to me.
Politicians believed (or, at least asserted they did) in race supremacy… and school kids were indoctrinated … . Yet… .
Truth won.
Politicians believe (or, at least assert that they do) in Mao’s communism… and school kids are indoctrinated…. . Yet… One of those kids grew up and did this…
(man and tanks in Tiananmen Square)
Thousands of those kids are fleeing China every year. They still love liberty. They still love truth.
Truth is much older and more powerful than Communism.
(and than Envirostal1nism)
Truth will win.
Here is the video link {with gaps to prevent the dud control window from appearing here} the owner refused to activate (sigh):
https: //www. youtube. com/watch?v=q q8zF LIftGk
Do not leave the C” off of CAGW Without it, they have no case for post normal science.
To make a story really scary, one has to invoke “tugging at the heart strings” types of mental images. Usually this means including grandchildren ala Hansen and nature with a personal note as well, such as what I posted at Climate Etc.:
“I am truly sorry that my capricious and wasteful ways means that my grandchildren will suffer the consequences of my conflagrant ways. What it means of course is that from our cabin on the shores of Gichi-gami we will see the forests burn, the waters go dry, the air will be foul, and people will fight for the last insect, snake and vole as food.”
There. Doesn’t that description make for mind altering images?
We live in the “Twilight Zone” of climate science.
If we based the term on the most powerful effect to date from CO2, it would be called “Global Greening”
Seriously.
http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx
Strange that this link is not working now. Try this one:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/17/greening-the-worlds-deserts/
Actually, these links are better, though the first one is old.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431160500033682#.VQMp-46aJ8E
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html
Welll they tried changing focus from doom and gloom to “countless green jobs” and “new business opportunities”, it may look as if that did not work out as planned. So now it is back to brimestone again? Good luck.
BTW, “Climate Disruption” is already old, old, old! Is it not “Climate Weirding” that is the new catchphrase these days?
I still think the way to go is from “Climate Change” to “Climate Mange”. Us humans and all being a blight on the planet kind of like mange.
Quite right, Science Czar John Holdren was pushing “global climate disruption” in 2010, and “global climatic disruption” back in 1997 during his associations with an ozone depletion activist group. Please see:
The Curious History of ‘Global Climate Disruption’ http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/10/the_curious_history_of_global.html
How about Climate Contortions? That’d be apt.
Climate Climax. Mother Earth is in heat.
ConTrari is correct. ‘Climate Disruption’ is old hat!
There is an old trial lawyers’ saying “When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on you side, pound the table.”
It is way past time for the alarmist to pound the table
Indeed. 🙂
They are now pounding the floor:
(WWE wrestler throws tantrum – youtube)
Pitiful.
Hahahahaha, ah Christian, he was a great wrestler, loved his stuff and he loved us back!
Yeah, they’re pounding something alright.
Thus, “warren lb.”
Old trial layers know better.
A good old trial lawyer knows how to pound the law.
A good old trial lawyer knows how to pound the facts.
A great old trial lawyer knows the judge.
I have a suggestion.
How about in addition to planetary doom, we all are certain to end up in hell suffering an eternity without any charging source for our cell-phones.
I imagine internet and cable TV would be a problem too, even though you’d think with all that fire and heat down there they’d have figured out a way to convert heat to electricity. I guess they don’t get the brightest bulbs in hell.
Be careful what you wish for. I understand the Pope is about to pronounce on this issue shortly.
And (thank You, Lord), his congregants will follow his “CO2 is ev1l” dictate just like they do their church’s ban on birth control, heh.
lol.
Re: last clause: Oooo, I dunno, Alx. Ol’ Stal1n wasn’t exactly a dimbulb… and then there’s… .
😉
I have a novel suggestion to Doug Sistern and his ilk: How about telling the truth for a change.
A Little Vignette
*** Dedicated to all our loyal opposition (a.k.a. “trolls”) without whom this site would be far less entertaining. ***
#(:))
Easter Bunny (nice one, E. Worrall): Hey, Doug Nephew! How’s i —
D. Sisterson: SISTERSON!! Why — do — you — keep — calling — me — that!!! You and Santa (head shake)… misses me every year!
Bunny: (chuckle) — oops. Okay. Hey! Do you want extra peeps or extra hollow chocolate rabbits in your basket this year? Ya know, what with gloooobbbballl waaaarrrrming (wink, wink), might be a good P. R., er, EXAMPLE to set to ask for peeps. They don’t melt as easily. Meh. As you thuthtainability (barf) guys like to say, “it’s all good.” (eye roll)
Sis: … Well, talking about CLIMATE CHANGE {– get it right, Bun –} it’s not good.
Bunny: Windmill sca — er investors are doing pretty good…. for now… — what’s the problem?
Sis: It’s just this: CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Bunny: Well, duh. Like tell me something I haven’t known for over a decade.
Sis: Bunny! Listen to me!!! We — are — doomed!….. unless……… we can find some way to really, really, REALLY, scare people. They just aren’t scared anymore. They need to be horrified. They’re more frightened by the thought of losing their job due to high energy costs than by climate change. Which is real! It is real! REAL, REAL, REAL REEEEEEEAAAALLL!
Bunny: Chill.
Sis: NOOOOOOOOOOOO! (ahem) No. We are going to do something calm and rational about this.
Bunny: What?
Sis: We are going to Las Vegas. We are going to throw you into the pool at The Mirage with 20 slot-machine addicts (they will not let go of the machine nor stop stuffing in quarters and pulling the handle — great turbulence!), throw red light on you, and you will cry out in a blood-curdling voice —
Bunny: Here comes Peter Cottontail! Hoppin’ down —
Sis: No! You will scream (like you’re dying): I AM BOILING TO DEATH IN THE OCEAN!
Bunny: Hooo, boy, Nephew. I don’t know. I don’t know… . That’s just not really me… .
Sis: Just think “James Hansen.”
Bunny: Not Al Gore?
Sis: Too dead. Hysterical Hansen is your man.
**Note: The term “climate change” as used by the majority of Envirostalinists and Enviroprofiteers means: “climate change caused by human CO2 emissions.”
I looked real hard at the words “climate change” and I didn’t find “human”, “CO2”, or “emissions” anywhere in there.
I looked real hard, honest.
Well, dear Eustace Cranch, what a pleasure to hear from you.
And I suppose when your boss said to you: “Fired!” you came back to work the next morning and responded to his or her angry glare with: “Oh, my boss, my boss, I looked eeeverywhere for “You are” and could not find it.”
Seriously, Mr. Cranch, it is in the “Definition of Terms” section of your manual, that is usually the FIRST section. You skipped that one didn’t you? Tsk, tsk.
Surely everyone knows I jest.
But it’s toward a serious point of the Orwellian misuse of words.
Dear Mr. Cranch,
Yes, indeed, I mistook you for a troll. Please forgive me. After your fine comment here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/12/claim-climate-communication-needs-to-be-less-optimistic-more-climate-disruption/#comment-1881152 , written with admirable brevity (something to which I aspire… sigh…), there is no excuse for my mistake. Just a bit oversensitive after so much mischaracterization of the accurate view: “CO2 has not been shown to cause climate change” as: “climate does not change.”
I’ll try to read your comments with more care in the future.
Janice
“Eustace Cranch
March 12, 2015 at 9:20 am
I looked real hard at the words “climate change” and I didn’t find “human”, “CO2″, or “emissions” anywhere in there.
I looked real hard, honest.:
Yeah, but Eustace, the climate didn’t change until we human’s began emitting CO2 into the atmosphere, so it must be our fault.
/grin
There are several shorthand terms used in discussions on this topic. “Climate d*nier,” for instance. The denotation of such terms doesn’t spell out their connotation, which is what Janice was commenting on.
I think the correct term should be “Global Hellfire and Brimstone, Raining Down on Deniers Heads and Creating Hell On Earth For All the Apostates and Non-Believers”
IMHO. Have a nice day 🙂
David
Now that was funny.
You forgot to mention Hiroshima bombs.
I think Global Climate Adjustment would be most appropriate for two reasons;
1) It is what we need to do when the climate does change, up or down
2) it is what was done to the data to get us to this point
Correct. The discussion can then continue with differing accepted definitions/meaning of the terms and everyone “is” still happy have an argument they can be involved in. Although, for slow pokes like me, it gives me a significant disadvantage; I still can’t even understand the distinctions between the various definitions of “is”.
My choice had been “Climate Morphing”. Seems a more apt description of what has been done to the data and the initial premise.
“Climate morphing” is good, but… it would make them think of too much of aliens and then they’d look up Arrhenius (sp?) on panspermia and it would just confuse them… .
how about climate dis-harmonization
“Global Climate Adjustment” better?
Why, is Global Climate BS already taken?
/grin
Here’s my contribution to Thursday Funny.
I created a new, less optimistic poster for the climate alarmists, per their request.
Grave Concern
http://www.maxphoton.com/grave-concern/
Well, lol, Max Photon — very clever, heh, heh, heh. All saavy promotion/sales people know that “a confused mind says, ‘No.'” So…… that just took their target audience from:
“Oh, boy, Mither Hanthen, YES — human CO2 is bad,”
to:
“Oh. ?? …. Will I buy this?……. mmmmmm… ‘No.'”
Definitely less positive.
And, Max P. — nicely done graphics — you are talented.
Max,
Excellent.
Thanks,
“He who wants to persuade should put his trust not in the right argument, but in the right word. The power of sound has always been greater than the power of sense.” ~Joseph Conrad
I guess in “finding the right balance of effectiveness and honesty”, he’s recommending honesty be removed from the equation.
The warmunists are in panic mode.
Because there hasn’t been a global warming trend in almost 19 years, the “global warming” meme has fallen out of favor because warmunists don’t like being eye-rolled and snickered at…
The new ploy is to use the term “climate change”, and blame everything under the sun on CO2 emissions. This has been met with eye-cramp inducing hyper-eye-rolling and outright peals of laughter to the consternation of the warmunists…
Acordingly, they must now fabricate a new meme to scare the aggressively ignorant and young children…
Climate Disruption is even more pitiful… It sounds like something you get when you drink too many cheap tequila shooters, and has the same effect on all thinking (though very drunk) adults; including the projectile vomiting…
They need to come up with a more sinister meme like…. Death Spiral Climate, or perhaps CO2 Death Ray Armageddon X…
CAGW has become a joke.
Perhaps they should use “Marvin the Martian” and instead of his “space modulator” weapon they could use a CO2 powered “Climate Disruptor”…… “Mr. Bunny you are making me very angry I will use my CO2 Climate Disruptor and annihilate you!” hmmmm might make a good cartoon! 🙂
Cheers,
Joe
Heh. Good one Joe Civis 🙂 — Now they’re down to a time frame of SECONDS until the earth explodes!
Marvin the Martian and Bugs Bunny (youtube)
Well, lol, you WUWT commenters are better at writing than the Sistersons of the world (and more up-to-date, too, (cough)).
The bottom line is, they used “global warming” for too long and now
they are STUCK with it. Like any ad jingle — after awhile it is “forever.”
Like….
“My baloney has a first name.
It’s _ _ _ _ _ .”
(Oscar Mayer hot dog ad — youtube)
“How’s that?” (a–NNOYING — lololol)
(that little kid is about 50 years old, now)
GLOBAL WARMING.
GLOBAL WARMING.
GLOBAL WARMING.
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaa!
John Holdren singing:
“My baloney has a first name,
it’s C – L- I – M – A – T – E.
My baloney has a second name,
it’s C – H – A – N – G – E.”
(ed note: it’s actually spelled “bologna”, but who cares?)
lol — I did that for the announcer — but (shrug) as you could hear, he pronounced it “balone-ya” anyway. 😉
You don’t see the other “settled sciences”, like gravity, evolution, the big bang, electronics, magnetism, quantum physics, etc., needing to update their slogans to get people to believe in them. There was a paper recently questioning the big bang, but I don’t recall Wilson and Penzias taking to the blogs to rebrand it as the Huge Hit, Super Slap, Catastrophic Clang, or any other stupid thing.
Brilliant!
Great point, rh.
Good point, but I wouldn’t throw the big bang in that group though, as it’s definitely not settled. It’s just an extrapolation of relatively recent trends…and we all know how well that worked out in climate science, right?
I would like to borrow this if I may.
Of course you may, I’m humbled.
“…the other “settled sciences”, like gravity, …”
Wait, would gravity be settled science
or
science on the rise?
I mean, seriously, what is the attraction to the science of gravity?
I think too many scientists have been pulled into it.
/grin
I’m literally LOLing out loud. /obscure Monk reference
The new slogans / branding are for public consumption – the public no longer cares.
I forgot the pdf link.
http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/P-150-ARTFORUMpdf.pdf
Gravity is poorly understood. We know how to work with its effects, but not how to manipulate them. I wish they would hurry up and figure it out because all sorts of cool stuff would follow. 🙂
That gravity is poorly understood is an understatement.
Have you ever picked up the 1215 page ‘physics’ (*cough*) text titled Gravitation?
Best I can tell, that monster is the very source of gravity itself. (But it must be correct because it’s so thick, right?)
http://www.graphene-lda.com/_Media/image-69_med.png
Max, to be honest, understanding such things is well beyond my simple rational mind. When folk tell me space is expanding, I always want to ask “What is it expanding into?” And if I am in a detailed mood I ask, “What is this space, and what is it expanding into?” I think it is all suspicious.
@ur momisugly David A.
Don’t get me started on the problems with mainstream science in Cosmology! You think cronyism, groupthink and making stuff up to rationalise contrary observations is bad in Climatology!? Just take a quick look at the comet they just crash landed on and tell me that’s a dirty snowball and not a great big lump of rock!