Ocean Heat Has Shattered Records for More Than a Year. What’s Happening?

OK, let's agree that there's nothing I could point out that could possibly dissuade you from your convictions. Meanwhile virtually everyone else here is aware of the changing view of hospital sterilization, the attitude toward plate tectonics, how ulcers can be caused by bacteria and not stress, the steady state universe, --wait, here's a list:

The top 10 most spectacularly wrong widely held scientific theories
By Eric Berger on November 24, 2010 at 8:34 AM

One of the very best things about science is that the discipline is self-correcting. A scientist makes a set of observations about nature, and then devises a theory to fit those observations.

Other scientists then test the theory, and if it withstands scrutiny it becomes widely accepted. At any point in the future, if contravening evidence emerges, the original theory is discarded. At its essence, and though in practice it’s more messy, this is how science works.

Needless to say there have been a lot of theories discarded along the way. The following represents my best efforts to select the 10 most spectacularly wrong scientific theories.

To qualify for the list, a large number of scientists at any given time must have subscribed to the particular theory before it was eventually discarded. Thus a long list of pseudoscientific ideas, crackpot though they might be, didn’t make the list.

1. Geocentric universe: The concept that the Earth was at the center of the universe dates back to at least 600 B.C. with Greek philosophers who proposed cosmologies of the Sun, Moon and other heavenly bodies orbiting the Earth. The most famous contortion of the system was Ptolemy’s epicycles to explain the retrograde motion of Mars. This is a prime example of fitting scientific evidence into preconceived notions. The theory was disproven with the publication of Nicholas Copernicus’ De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543.

2. Miasmatic theory of disease: This theory holds that diseases such as cholera, chlamydia or the Black Death were caused by a miasma (ancient Greek: “pollution”), a noxious form of “bad air”. This concept was not disposed of until the late 1800s, with the rise of the germ theory of disease. Miasma was considered to be a poisonous vapor or mist filled with particles from decomposed matter that caused illnesses. It was identifiable by its foul smell.

3. Luminiferous aether: Assumed to exist for much of the 19th century, the theory held that a “medium” of aether pervaded the universe through which light could propagate. The celebrated Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 was the first to provide hard evidence that aether did not exist, and the theory lost all popularity among scientists by the

1920s. A photo of the aether appears below.

4. Stress theory of ulcers: As peptic ulcers became more common in the 20th century, doctors increasingly linked them to the stress of modern life. Medical advice during the latter half of the 20th century was, essentially, for patients to take antacids and modify their lifestyle. In the 1980s Australian clinical researcher Barry Marshal discovered that the bacterium H. pylori caused peptic ulcer disease, leading him to win a Nobel Prize in 2005.

5. Immovable continents: Prior to the middle of the 20th century scientists believed the Earth’s continents were stable and did not move. This began to change in 1912 with Alfred Wegener’s formulation of the continental drift theory, and later and more properly the elucidation of plate tectonics during the 1950s and 1960s.

6. Phlogiston: Arising in the mid-17th century, physicians conjured up the existence of a fire-like element called “phlogiston”, which was contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion. Charcoal, for example, left little residue upon burning because it is nearly pure phlogiston. Experiments in the mid-1700s led chemists to conclude the theory was false, giving birth to the field of modern chemistry.


Phlogiston in nearly its most pure form?

7. The “four humours” theory of human physiology: From Hippocrates onward, the humoral theory was adopted by Greek, Roman and Islamic physicians, and became the most commonly held view of the human body among European physicians until the advent of modern medical research in the 19th century. The four humours of Hippocratic medicine were black bile, yellow bile, phlegm and blood.

8. Static universe: Prior to the observations made by astronomer Edwin Hubble during 1920s, scientists believed the universe was static, neither expanding nor contracting. Hubble found that distant objects in the universe were moving more quickly away than nearby ones. Very recently, in 1999, scientists unexpectedly found that not only was the universe expanding, but its expansion was accelerating.

9. A young Earth: In the mid-1800s many scientists, including Lord Kelvin, believed the Earth to be just 20 million to 40 million years old. It was around that time that geologists such as Charles Lyell began to believe that the Earth was much older, and this conformed to the views of biologists such as Charles Darwin, who needed a much older Earth for evolution to unfold. It wasn’t until the middle of the 20th century that scientists came to the accepted conclusion today that the Earth is about 4.55 billion years old.

10. The Earth is flat. Actually, this one doesn’t belong on the list but I put it here to prove a point. While there’s a popular belief that “flat earth” was somehow a widely held “scientific” idea, Greeks such as Aristotle knew the Earth was round, as did Thomas Aquinas. In short, most scholarship suggests learned men and women from the dawn of antiquity knew the Earth was round. So science gets a pass on this one.
​

What's hard for many to understand that while all the above is true, mainstream science is usually right as far as we know. Couple that w/ the fact that we're always learning brings us to the reality that science changes.

​

 

Actually, these days many physicists are not all that happy w/ gravity. What's interesting is that when someone argues against the theory of gravity nobody calls 'em a "denier". What they do is listen and consider.

 

Your inability or unwillingness to admit that the world's climatologists, despite the continuing wealth of empirical data, have a grasp of climatological reality is noted.

The ‘97% climate consensus’ is over. Now it’s well above 99​

October 28, 2021

Despite the overwhelming evidence, it’s still common to see politicians, media commentators or social media users cast doubt on the role of humans in driving climate change.

But this denialism is now almost nonexistent among climate scientists, as a study released this month confirms. US researchers examined the peer-reviewed literature and found more than 99% of climate scientists now endorse the evidence for human-induced climate change.

That’s even higher than the 97% reported by an influential 2013 study, which has become a widely cited statistic by both climate change deniers and those who accept the evidence.

​

​

​

 

You are quite wrong.
By Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

". . . There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor — southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result — despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology — until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2 . Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . ."


Aliens Cause Global Warming
Thursday, January 31st, 2019

 

Deleted.​

 

The claim is fraudulent.

 

Spectacularly idiotic! Modern science was born in the 16th century. And it was born PRECISELY to demonstrate that the universe was NOT Geocentric. That is considered the FIRST structured use of the Scientific Method.

I don't know what kind of clueless idiot wrote that list. But they confuse science with RELIGIOUS beliefs. Because it was THE CHURCH (not science), that held that the Universe was geocentric. The scientist (Galileo) was ordered by the Church to not divulge those things, not because they had scientific proof to the contrary, but because they were blasphemous.

If you were trying to remove the image you have projected of not being a serious poster, you have achieved exactly the opposite.

 

Has anyone conducted a legitimate study that discredits it, or is it being "fraudulent" an article of faith?

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966/pdf

"... We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers skeptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any skeptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four skeptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly skeptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified skeptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly skeptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature."​

 

A vote for Trump is supporting the Village Idiot.

 

Not surprising that the climatopolitical hierarchy dismisses papers that don't toe the "AGW is the primary threat.

 

So why are you torqued over driving to the store?

 

Just abortions for women.

 

The tide is going out on global warming.
People are sick of all the pogy bait the democrats are shoveling taxpayer money after. They are chasing unicorns, while they a funding a global industrial complex to suck more money out of taxpayers budgets for food, fuel, and shelter in an effort to create more industry-dependent voters.

Trump declines to endorse a national abortion ban. He says limits should be left to the states
https://apnews.com/article/trump-abortion-2024-ban-7bf06e0856b88a710c79a6eb85cffa6a
That is simply not true. And you know it.

 

As I have said many times: a great Science Fiction writer (The Andromeda Strain, NOT Jurassic Park... being his masterpiece), but not much of a credible scientist. You could have just as well published some "lecture" by @557 Except that, in Crichton's defense, in 2003 there was still SOME debate among the scientific community about AGW. Not much... but a little.

 

“97% Consensus” — What Consensus?

By: Gregory Wrightstone – Executive Director CO2 Coalition


It appears that Cook and his co-authors manipulated the data to present an altogether untrue narrative of overwhelming support for catastrophic human-caused warming.

 

Crichton was a Harvard MD and a published researcher in the peer-reviewed literature. And I noted you dodged the examples that refute your claim.

 

What legitimate climatology institutions, associations and/or societies, domestically or internationally, refuse to accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change?

Do you imagine a vast, nefarious conspiracy?

 

Nothing is happening? Three years ago, Lytton, BC recorded the highest temperature in the history of Canada three days in a row (121.3 °F on Day 3) and on the fourth day burned to the ground.





Yep. Nothing is happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytton_wildfire

 

What nonsense. Crichton never practiced medicine. And never published any peer-reviewed paper. At least not on Climate Science. Probably not in any other field, but certainly not climatology. What he wrote was a NOVEL in which climate scientists were the bad guys (I kinda enjoyed it, BTW.... but I can't remember the title). Leave it to you to confuse scientific research with a Science Fiction NOVEL.

 

Can you cite an actual climatologist that currently rejects global warming with fossil fuel emissions as a major causative factor?

 

LOL. You certainly need education on the science related to climate change. If showing you peer reviewed research you’ve never imagined existed is a lecture, I guess I’ll take it. I’ll lecture (present educational information to an audience) and you can bloviate about your unsubstantiated opinions.

 

What was the temp today?

 

A number of climate scientists do not believe that fossil fuel emissions are the principal source of warming: Henrik Svensmark, Nir Shaviv, Javier Vinos, Willie Soon, etc.

 

As an undergraduate, Crichton graduated from Harvard summa cum laude and then continued to Harvard Medical School, where he graduated in 1969. He explored the implications of medicine and public policy as a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies before pursuing writing as a full-time career.

 

Read and learn.
michaelcrichton.com
https://www.michaelcrichton.com › ...
Doctor - Michael Crichton
Scientific Publications · Michael Crichton had an essay on medical obfuscation published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1975