Quantum theory is perhaps the most successful scientific idea ever.

[PostmodernProphet]

The Big Bang is supported by multiple lines of evidence including spectral redshift of galaxies, nucleosynthesis of hydrogen and helium, and the cosmic microwave radiation background.

or creation is......depends on your opinion of Who caused it..........

 

[Cypress]

or creation is......depends on your opinion of Who caused it..........

Both religious Jihaddists and militant materialists consistently get something wrong about science.

The scientific method answers the question How? It is not generally equipped to answer the question Why?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Both religious Jihaddists and militant materialists consistently get something wrong about science.

The scientific method answers the question How? It is not generally equipped to answer the question Why?

and what does the scientific method (the real one and not its new, weakened replacement) tell us about the "How" of what happened before our universe became a universe?......suddenly instead of empirical testing the "scientific method" has transformed into "your guess is as good as mine".......

 

[Cypress]

and what does the scientific method (the real one and not its new, weakened replacement) tell us about the "How" of what happened before our universe became a universe?......suddenly instead of empirical testing the "scientific method" has transformed into "your guess is as good as mine".......

If it's not testable, it's not science.

What, if anything, existed before the observable universe is strictly the subject of conjecture and speculation

 

[McRocket]

I dunno.

Penicillin has probably saved a hundred+ million people.

And the atomic bomb ended major wars....that saved, possibly over a hundred, million people.

My brother has a degree in Physics from Cal-Berkeley.
And I love and respect the guy.

But how many lives has Quantum Physics saved?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Why relationships are the key to existence


From subatomic particles to human beings, interaction is what shapes reality

Quantum theory is perhaps the most successful scientific idea ever. So far, it has never been proved wrong. It is stupendously predictive, it has clarified the structure of the periodic table, the functioning of the sun, the colour of the sky, the nature of chemical bonds, the formation of galaxies and much more. The technologies we have been able to build as a result range from computers to lasers to medical instruments.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...ea-why-relationships-are-the-key-to-existence

I’m not so sure about that. My inventing a jet powered beer cooler is right up there.

Particularly if you categorize it as greatest Male Scientific Discover. I received a life time Man’s Club Membership for that one!

 

[cancel2 2022]

I dunno.

Penicillin has probably saved a hundred+ million people.

And the atomic bomb ended major wars....that saved, possibly over a hundred, million people.

My brother has a degree in Physics from Cal-Berkeley.
And I love and respect the guy.

But how many lives has Quantum Physics saved?

The whole modern world revolves around the understanding of quantum physics, especially electronics and semiconductors.

 

[cancel2 2022]

If it's not testable, it's not science.

What, if anything, existed before the observable universe is strictly the subject of conjecture and speculation

Much of climate science is not testable or falsifiable. I remember you seriously telling me once that climate models are as good as empirical evidence, that still makes me crack up!

 

[Cypress]

Much of climate science is not testable or falsifiable. I remember you seriously telling me once that climate models are as good as empirical evidence, that still makes me crack up!

Sure it's falsifiable. You can test the isotopic signature of GHG in the atmosphere for a human fingerprint. You can test if global temperature rises are significantly correlated to solar cycles or volcanic activity. You can conduct lab experiments to confirm or refute that CO2 and CH4 have the properties of greenhouse gasses. The possibilities are endless.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Sure it's falsifiable. You can test the isotopic signature of GHG in the atmosphere for a human fingerprint. You can test if global temperature rises are significantly correlated to solar cycles or volcanic activity. You can conduct lab experiments to confirm or refute that CO2 and CH4 have the properties of greenhouse gasses. The possibilities are endless.

I notice that you've chosen to ignore the fact that you claimed climate models were as good as empirical evidence. One of the more important claims from alarmists is there is a positive feedback effect at play. This has never been proved and indeed the sign could equally well be negative.

As for the rest, so what? Hardly denies anybody denies that there is an anthropogenic signal present. The question is how much for which nobody is able to answer, least of all the IPCC. As prof. Richard Lindzen states:

Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/lindzens-seminar-at-the-house-of-commons/

 

[cancel2 2022]

I notice that you've chosen to ignore the fact that you claimed climate models were as good as empirical evidence. One of the more important claims from alarmists is there is a positive feedback effect at play. This has never been proved and indeed the sign could equally well be negative.

As for the rest, so what? Hardly denies anybody denies that there is an anthropogenic signal present. The question is how much for which nobody is able to answer, least of all the IPCC. As prof. Richard Lindzen states:

Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/lindzens-seminar-at-the-house-of-commons/

Whilst methane is potentially a powerful greenhouse gas, in practice its effect is negated by water vapour already absorbing the same frequencies. Water vapour has already absorbed the very same infrared radiation that methane might have absorbed. This is well known but ignored by the IPCC and climate alarmists.

 

[Cypress]

I notice that you've chosen to ignore the fact that you claimed climate models were as good as empirical evidence. One of the more important claims from alarmists is there is a positive feedback effect at play. This has never been proved and indeed the sign could equally well be negative.

As for the rest, so what? Hardly denies anybody denies that there is an anthropogenic signal present. The question is how much for which nobody is able to answer, least of all the IPCC. As prof. Richard Lindzen states:

Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/lindzens-seminar-at-the-house-of-commons/

I am not stooping to debate evolution denial, vaccine denial, or climate denial.

 

[cancel2 2022]

I am not stooping to debate evolution denial, vaccine denial, or climate denial.

Of course not, no great surprise there.