Five years after the previous event that marked the opening of the decade for the Science website, for the opening of the 15th year we are organizing an event that will tell about four threats: the denial of evolution, the denial of global warming, the return of mysticism and the end of the manned space program
Update, Hamada's management is requesting a registration of the participants due to the high demand (don't worry there will be room for everyone, you just have to prepare correctly). For details
We are entering the 15th year of the foundation of the knowledge site. From a site in the MEMBERS corner of IOL on Alia HaShalom, the departure for independence in 2002, to the current status where it is used as a scientific reference for many topics, according to feedback I receive from educators and even the recognition I received from the Israel Association for Science in Communication and the National Academy of Sciences.
But that's the good part. The negative part is that the site is one of the main barriers to the flood that passes over the whole world of enjoying the fruits of science (the Internet for example) while using them to spread conspiracy theories and lies of various kinds.
To describe this difficult and frustrating situation, I invited four good friends and people who are experts in their field to a conference to be held in collaboration with Hamada on 2/11/2011 to review the situation, and try to understand if it can be fixed.
And these are the lectures:
- Climate change and global warming: the war of the deniers. Lecturer: Prof. Yoav Yair, Department of Natural and Life Sciences, Open University
- Denying Evolution: A Powerful Threat. Lecturer:Roey Tsezana, PhD student in nanotechnology at the Technion and researcher at the Technological Foresight Center at Tel Aviv University
- The strengthening of mysticism and the New Age - anti-science at its worst. Lecturer: Gilad Diamant, project manager and researcher in the field of computer science
- The end of the shuttle project and an uncertain future for the American space program. Lecturer: Tal Inbar, Head of the Space Research Center at the Fisher Institute
For coverage of the previous conference (2006)
- The aerospace industry is the core of the space industry in Israel
- Eloup: From Vax to Venus to Hypersector Cameras
142 תגובות
A. Ben-Ner:
Your first conclusion is wrong - there are other competing hypotheses and the truth is that in order to claim that hypothesis A is incorrect, you don't even need to present hypothesis B (indeed - there are those who do this and claim that the warming is not man-made without presenting an alternative explanation).
Your second conclusion is in serious doubt because Nir Shabiv's theory - at least according to what became clear in the debate mediated between him and Pinchas Alpert (the one I quoted from the Galileo website) because from this debate it is possible to learn that Nir Shabib's theory is wrong without any connection to other theories (it is simply hidden by the findings ).
(see here: https://www.hayadan.org.il/threat-on-wisedom-011011/#comment-309482 )
Mysticism (even if it is vanity mysticism) helps a lot of people live a healthy life, those who live well without it - fine, but what do you care if others live well as long as they don't threaten you.
Gentlemen of the learned, the learned, the Galileans - wise Philogta scholars.
From reading many of your responses I learned that there are two explanatory theories
The measured findings regarding warming as follows:
One - the theory of the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, which increases with the rise
in the concentration of hydrocarbon fuel combustion products.
The second - Nir Shabiv's theory that links the greenhouse effect with quantity
The cosmic radiation, as Ehud explained in his first response
To my surprise I did not find that any of you think that both theories may be
willingness. After all, the above two theories do not contradict each other as they may indicate
on two independent factors that affect the climate.
The question is, then, is it possible to plan an experiment, or a series of experiments, that will try to measure
The relative impact that each of the above effects has on the climate.
This is of course a question for the experts and it seems that an experiment like this is a complicated and expensive task
which requires international cooperation. Does anyone know of such an experiment being planned / carried out?
I did not follow the whole discussion, so I will add part of my discussion with Gabi Avital in the aviation industry
First of all, Gabi Makrob is a pleasant and kind person. Gabi started to write a blog and attached a diagram of the global temperature measurement from satellites where the last minimum was lower than the average due to the last Alninia.
For the sake of the discussion, I went to the same source and downloaded the last graph from there and as expected you see warming. When I showed the graph and Gabi recognized the source and I asked him if you agree that there is warming as seen in the graph Gabi replied "No. I don't trust these scientists"
In my opinion, there is no body or scientist who can convince him and this goes beyond rational discussion. For the same discussion except for a diagram containing 4
Results of global temperatures I added the data of the meteorological services of Canada, Germany and Australia. ZA 6 bodies I spent hanging, but it doesn't seem to me that another 50 similar graphs would have convinced Gabi, Rick Perry and their friends.
for everyone
As it happens many times, Mikael and I agree between us (:))
And I would be happy if people would contact the address that Mikael referred to in his last response from 11:35 today and express their opinion.
Happy Holidays
Sabdarmish Yehuda
In my opinion, a few more apologies are indeed necessary here, but completely different apologies than the ones Yehuda is thinking of.
And for those who want to decide on their own the question "illusory or not so scientific", I suggest reading the following response and the threads marked from it:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/max-plank-and-first-days-of-quantoms-physics-1111083/#comment-137730
To my father Blizovsky and Michael
For the sake of good order and out of respect for you, my father, I personally apologize to Michal for a possible injury that I caused him in a storm of emotions. Hope my apology is accepted.
Regardless, I think there should be a few more apologies here but that's your business.
In addition, I am glad, father, that you defined my theory as "not so scientific" instead of defining it as "delusional" by Michal.
Happy Holidays
Damn it!!!!!!!!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda, you are violating the site's rules about not attacking a person personally, and also your commitment not to harass about your not-so-scientific theory. Here you directly defamed Michael and you first of all owe him a personal apology.
Well, well, Shimon:
I see that I will not get an answer from you.
You only know how to write personal attacks and the fact that all the phrases I used are an accurate description of facts (and what to do - people are really arrogant and take advantage of opportunities to do PR for their delusions) is of no importance to you.
In your eyes, the liar is better than the one who warns about a lie.
I await the next defamation.
Dear Michael
After all, before you are pearls that I collected from more than 10 responses (not only to me). Guess who wrote them:
A. Yair: It seems to me that your claims towards me are sheer arrogance.
B. Yair: If you leave the matter to interpretation, then your last response is also sheer arrogance.
third. Yehuda: Are you starting with conspiracy theories again? After all, even your cheeky and defamatory comments are published!
d. Shimon Gat: Your words are based on ignorance of the facts and disdain for science.
God. Shimon Gat: Now you're just rambling!
and. Yehuda: I didn't refer to the site at all and you - as usual you found another opportunity to try to make PR for your delusions.
G. Your claim that I did not answer about the threat to science is another nonsense.
H. It's more bullshit.
ninth. "I might also think that expressing strong opinions on subjects you know nothing about is a regular habit with you."
J. Would you prefer that instead of saying you're rambling I use the more accurate phrase?
XNUMX. What description would you suggest I use to describe someone who makes claims that he knows are untrue?
XNUMX. Don't you call that a lie? Or maybe the word "defamation" is more appropriate? What do you think?
My dear Michael, I've been beating sin for hours. How could I have missed the fact that these beautiful phrases are the fruit of pure logic - in which you specialize, as you say - with perfect scientific claims? How in my stupidity did I think they were more suitable for a preacher defending his beliefs than for a discussion of a subject that is still in dispute among scholars? I confess my sin today: I sinned by suspecting that your claim that the opponents of the greenhouse effect theory are only doing so for self-interested reasons, while the supporters of the opinion (including scientists who benefit from large research budgets) are doing so only out of a genuine interest in science. Well, I suspected in Kosher that such a position expresses a political position and it is not correct to listen to another opinion.
I thank you for setting me up for my mistake. You showed me that I am aggressive and arrogant, a liar, a slanderer and a gossip. What will I do, and my wisdom is short from understanding the pure reason and pure logic in your arguments and for that I am very sorry!
Shimon
Leave Mikael, he's not worth spending even an extra second on him.
It is true that sometimes he says interesting things that deserve attention, but many times his unscientific behavior is offensive and many times personal
leave him
He can no longer add to the topic in question here so why bother?
This site is a good site with interesting articles despite Michael. It's the least we have to suffer to watch and react to.
Good night and sincere appreciation Shimon
Good night to you too, Michael
It's time to sleep
Sabdarmish Yehuda
point
The scientific analysis you are doing on me excites me. But I have to correct you. I don't think I'm right or that I'm the only one who knows the truth. I just have an opinion and I defend it. I don't care if the opinion is in consensus or not. It's not that important.
I don't think all scientists are stupid but most of them go with the flow.
Stop looking for hidden intentions in my comments because there are none.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Shimon Gat:
And you still haven't given a factual answer.
I repeat the example question.
You say that faith has replaced research for me.
Can you point to one statement that justifies your claim?
If not - what are you doing when you make this claim? Don't you call that a lie? Or maybe the word "defamation" is more appropriate?
What do you think?
Michael Michael
Who am I and what am I, dirt at your feet. If you say that I am rambling - then there is no doubt that you are right. If you claim that I am lying - who like you knows what a lie is. And if you say that I am making claims that I know are not true - then you are one of the greatest kidney and heart researchers, since you know things about me that even I do not know about myself. And of course you're right that I don't have anything to do with it. After all, all the scientists I mentioned above, all the links I offered to their opinions, must have been fabricated from the bottom of my heart (after all, I've already been proven a liar).
But luckily for us you are on the site, and gently, while completely avoiding personal attacks and insulting epithets of all kinds, you put me and all those who think like me in our rightful place: quacks, liars and delusional.
Cheers Michael!!!
And regarding my back: I examine it every morning in the mirror. And you?
Shimon Gat:
And when you remembered the saying your father told you - didn't you think to try to see your back in the mirror?
Doesn't the fact that your entire response is an aggressive and condescending moralizing show that you have no substantive argument?
Can you, for example, point to one thing of mine that could be interpreted as the same "faith instead of research" that you accuse me of?
Would you prefer that instead of saying you're rambling I use the more accurate phrase?
What description would you suggest I use to describe someone who makes claims they know are untrue?
And how would you sharpen the description in light of the fact that the claims - not only are not true but are intended to hurt someone?
Yehuda, from my impression of you, the problem with you is that you think you are right only because you are not in the consensus. As if you have a conspiratorial world view that all scientists are stupid and mislead the public and only Yehuda knows the truth.
Dear Simon
Your comments are very objective and it would be a shame if they cancel your comments outright.
Accept that Hidan is a site that is not ready to condone opinions that are not accepted by consensus.
We both know they are wrong in their approach. Big mistake.
I don't understand why a site dealing with science should behave like this
But that's what it is.
I would love to hear your opinions on these and other issues
Few details about me
I am a 65-year-old engineer in industrial management, a member of the Israeli Astronomical Society and the editor of its publication "Astronomy"
Resident of Herzliya
I would also like to hear details about you
sevdermishy@gmail.com
Happy Holidays
Sabdarmish Yehuda
For some reason my comment was not published. I repeat it again and again.
The honorable Mr. Rothschild. I was amazed at the tenderness of your soul and the discovery of your good taste in all your responses and especially in the wonderful section you recently added:
"Shimon Gat:
And your claim that you argue with subjects that have become faith instead of research is not nonsense?
What exactly is it based on?
Is she not aggressive?
Certainly she is aggressive, but contrary to my claim that you are rambling, she is also not true.
You don't know what I'm talking about in regards to Judah, but you still allow yourself to preach morality to me.
It's more bullshit.
I might also think that expressing strong opinions on subjects you know nothing about is a regular habit with you."
There is no doubt that proof of speech culture, a matter-of-fact statement and utmost caution not to hurt or insult, peace be upon you. There is no doubt that the word nonsense, repeated over and over and over again, proves that the truth and justice are on your side and it definitively refutes any statement that is not in line with your thoughts.
I was especially surprised by your statement regarding: "I might even think that expressing strong opinions on subjects you know nothing about is a regular habit with you."
I don't know why, but when I read these words of wisdom and greatness, I remembered what my late father used to say: the camel never sees the hump on its own back.
point. You didn't understand what I wrote, I gave the local example, so all the more if they should be exempted from responsibility for their immediate environment, they should also be exempted from responsibility for the fate of the planet, because this is contrary to business development.
The biggest capitalists are also global warming deniers and not as you wrote. Science is fighting tooth and nail against the capitalists who own the means of communication and through which they influence the public and convince them the same way they convinced you that global warming is fraud. The IPCC - the organization that won the Nobel Prize together with Al Gore a few years ago includes 3,000 scientists who go through every study in the field, check its quality and implications, and this is the aggregate conclusion from thousands of studies. The unequivocal knowledge from millions of instruments and dozens of satellites cannot be bent to the will of science-hating capitalists. I have no idea how many fish will be in the sea, what the coastline will be, and what climate changes will turn fertile areas into deserts just because of this pigmy myopia, which you are also convinced of for some reason.
Father, warming up is exactly the biggest conundrum.
Air pollution causes people to die early due to cancer, not because of global warming.
Those factory owners, who have an interest in diverting the discussion to global warming. After all, even if they are directly responsible for the warming, it still does not cause any harm.
Certainly no one should be allowed to pollute nature and make money from it. But this is no excuse to turn the issue of global warming into a seemingly scientific contradiction.
To Shimon and to the point.
It is not true that this is an issue charged with scientific controversy, there is a political position that simply claims that in order to be pro-business, businesses should be exempted from worrying about solving the problems of air pollution (both the local one in S20 and the warming), and when they are asked if so then who should worry about those who suffer from the smoke and die From lung diseases, is the state the answer - God forbid - every person should take care of himself. (And I have heard and argued with American Republicans and their friends on certain blogs in Israel who truly believe that any disruption to business is the end of the world).
Of course this is nonsense, factories should worry because otherwise the public pays 2.5 times more for the costs of curing the sick than it costs to install filters against dust and sulfur, but since it is not their expense it simply does not interest their ass. Therefore, the role of the state is to tax the pollution so that it is more profitable for them to deal with it - by the way, also on the subject of sewage, the Fox network is full of articles full of crocodile tears about how the EPA imposes billions of dollars in clean air and water regulations and is harmful to businesses. It does not harm businesses, it simply requires them to realize the true cost of their operation, and this is correct economics.
This is also the reason for the opposition to global warming, or at least for the fact that humans are responsible for it, because if humans are responsible for it, then the governments must impose taxes to make businesses lower carbon emissions and this is of course like any selfless concern - contrary to business.
We don't have to be stupid like the average American who fights against abortion because he is pro-life but kills living adults with infections and by not providing adequate medical care (because they left the decision to each person for himself and to the mercy of the insurance companies who only take a premium but when the need to treat comes they save). We in Israel at least need to be smarter as befits a nation with the largest percentage of Nobel winners (Jews make up about a quarter of Nobel winners in general - about half of this year's winners).
The point is that there are scientists, and I'm talking about the source of this trouble - the Americans - who are conservative in their views and therefore they are forced to choose between the need to protect the planet, even if this includes the imposition of green taxes - even though they oppose taxes in principle, and the scientific position. Some prefer to choose politics over science. It won't help the planet because political considerations are always short-term.
The claim: "The Earth is warming" cannot be scientific without defining the time range.
1) "Warming" is in the present, and no one knows if the earth is warming in the present.
2) "The Earth" The Earth is a huge sphere, and it can be assumed that as a sphere it actually cools down, because the core in the center is very hot and emits heat.
3) Measuring an average over a certain range does not indicate what will happen the next day, it is possible that a small increase in temperature will lead to cooling.
4) present the increase in temperature as a disaster. It is no longer scientific at all. Earth has known much harder times.
Therefore, in my opinion, this is not at all a matter of a war against science, but a war against people's care and treatment of climate measurement results. That is, those who take the issue of "warming" as an issue to represent science are making a serious mistake.
Shimon Gat:
And your claim that you argue with subjects that have become faith instead of research is not nonsense?
What exactly is it based on?
Is she not aggressive?
Certainly she is aggressive, but contrary to my claim that you are rambling, she is also not true.
You don't know what I'm talking about in regards to Judah, but you still allow yourself to preach morality to me.
It's more bullshit.
I might also think that expressing strong opinions on subjects you know nothing about is a regular practice with you.
It is true that Dan Shechtman said that these are beliefs that are difficult to root, but the difficulty in rooting them was largely technical.
There is no contradiction between these two claims of Dan Shechtman.
It is clear that faith played a role there, but it really does not belong to the current discussion.
There - as I said - there was no theory that would justify the belief. It was pure faith - a faith born of a lack of imagination. There are such beliefs and I'm sure I'll find them in you too.
For example - if I tell you that it is possible to rotate a straight segment a light year long at any possible angle within an area the size of a square millimeter - I guess you won't believe it easily, but it is still a fact.
Your claim that I did not answer about the threat to science is another nonsense.
I answered I also answered.
The threat to science is not that there is a debate between professionals, but that it has become a public debate in which the laymen scream their uneducated opinion and turn the discussion, which is fundamentally scientific, into a public relations campaign.
If you are looking for examples to compare the issue of global warming to, the example of the rejection of the legislation against the cigarette companies is much more appropriate than the example of Shechtman's debate with his colleagues.
I see no point in continuing to grind water on issues that have become faith instead of research. But Michael. With all due respect, what is this aggression to you? You wrote to me: "Now you're just rambling!" To Yehuda you wrote: "And you - as usual you found another opportunity to try to make PR for your delusions". Dear Ishii! A little respect for those who think differently from you won't hurt. I don't know who Yehuda Svardamish is - you can always find out - but I find his taunts to be quite reasonable. Even if you think otherwise - I don't think that calling them "hallucinations" is an honorable act.
And as for Dan Shechtman: he himself explained the opinions of his opponents "with beliefs that are difficult to root". The matter of the microscope is also irrelevant. Today it is known that observations similar to Shechtman's have already been revealed to others, some even earlier, but the observers refused to accept them because everything they believed in was against him. Even the explanations given to Shechtman, when he published his discovery, that "it is about two crystals" were not born from the technical problem of what means are used to test the phenomenon, but from its complete rejection.
And you still haven't answered my question, if you think the rejection of the greenhouse effect model constitutes, as my father defined, "a threat to science and reason in the 21st century". Do you think so too?
to Michael
When you said that Shimon was talking, I thought to Tommy that you also meant his words about the site. If not then I apologize.
And as for the hallucinations you found, we'll leave that for another time
Happy Holidays
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda, my last car was sold in 2005. I share with my wife in one car since then and thereby conserve more of the earth's resources.
Yehuda:
I did not refer to the site at all and you - as usual you found another opportunity to try to make PR for your delusions (instead of referring to the countless errors that were discovered in them)
Father, then this is a subjective matter.
To Shimon and Mikael
May I know where you got/took that the site doesn't exist?? Where is your evidence that he does not exist?
Mickelson Morley experiment???
What was discovered in this experiment is that light does not need a site to move. point.
Nothing follows from this, but nothing about the existence or non-existence of the site!!
The light also does not need Avi Blizovsky's car to move, does it follow that Avi's car does not exist???
Sorry but, if we define the ether as a gas that fills the entire universe then, this gas must surely exist!!
You want to know the answer - what is this gas made of?
the answer:-
Natrines, cosmic rays and possibly axion groytons and much more. All these particles moving from place to place, colliding with each other, filling every vessel in which they are found, they are under the definition of a gas!!
So it's great that everyone in the consensus believes that there is no site, but it exists!! It is not nice to repeat stupid words that everyone in the consensus repeats such as: - There is no site, it does not exist. Nonsense, some thought please
And that's right, electromagnetic rays don't need it to move!
Please respond gently. Thanks.
And by the way, it's cool outside!
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Shimon Gat:
Now you're just rambling!
The progress of knowledge nowadays surpasses any progress before the age of science.
The reason for this is, of course, the scientific method which - in the end - destroys any consensus in the face of contradictory findings.
This is not wishful thinking but a fact that requires a great deal of self-deception to ignore.
I insist on my words only because I am convinced they are true.
When two people argue - both insist and when one party accuses the other party of this, he dismisses his own fault.
In Shechtman's case - you are so insistent that you ignore - not only the explanations I gave for the differences but also Shechtman's own reports (who explained that as long as his reports were based on electron microscope observations, the scientists had difficulty accepting them and that when this limitation disappeared they accepted them - a technical problem par excellence).
You didn't address the explanations I gave at all (such as the difference between estimates resulting from a theory that interprets reality - such as global warming - and estimates resulting from the absence of a theory - such as the lack of knowledge of how a non-periodic crystal can form - a topic that was even mentioned in the award committee's announcement).
I don't know what exactly the conference is aiming for.
I assume that even if the issue was not stated - it is about the following motivation:
When there is a disagreement between scientists, no one sees it as a threat to science. It is an essential part of the process of the development of science.
When the controversy breaks into society and all kinds of laymen start screaming their uneducated opinions, it becomes a threat to science because the screaming laymen also influence - through the budgets - scientific research - and the problem turns from a scientific problem into a public relations problem.
Michael
I wasn't going to come back here, but since you insist, let's leave it to Aristotle and get to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As we know, the scientists of the 17th-19th centuries believed in the existence of the ether. Even when evidence accumulated that the ether does not exist, important scientists refused to give up this belief. Below is a partial list:
Oliver Joseph Lodge, Albert Abraham Michelson, Edmund Taylor Whittaker, Harry Bateman, Ebenezer Cunningham, Charles Émile Picard, Paul Painlevé, Herbert E. Ives therefore your argument, according to which "at a time when there was a consensus that the Earth was flat - there was no science at all.
There is no similarity between that situation and the situation nowadays.
The whole idea of confirming or refuting theories through experiment and observations was accepted in the world - more or less - during Galileo's time and since then the world looks completely different and the meaning of the word consensus has also changed beyond recognition.
” is more wishful thinking than logically charged. Furthermore: Dan Shechtman's example certainly catches on. You claim that his opponents did not use the technology with which he discovered the quasi-crystals and therefore they were wrong. In doing so, you ignore a simple fact: they refused to accept his claims not because of problems with the testing technology, but out of a complete belief that what Shechtman says simply cannot be. Just like the believers in the existence of the site, who could not give up their faith, so too are Shechtman's opponents, led by Poling. I again claim that what was claimed above, at least in my father's words, does not represent a scientific discussion of belief in the religion of the greenhouse effect. I again claim that in the current state of knowledge, this is a subject of debate and not a proven model, which brings me back to the beginning of the discussion: there is no place to compare the claims of those who oppose the greenhouse effect theory to the claims of those who oppose the issue of evolution. There is certainly no place to include the opposition to the theory in a conference entitled: "The threats to science and reason in the 21st century". Don't you also think that the opposition to the theory is a threat to science and reason? That is the question. Everything else is water grinding.
Shimon and Yehuda:
Of course I wrote the things in a concise way and each summary can be detailed more.
If you want to understand what I meant - you are welcome to read on Wikipedia Value Science.
The important sentence for the matter is found in the introduction and it says:
the dawn of modern science is generally traced back to the early modern period during what is known as the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries.[10]
Simon:
If you don't read what I wrote, that's no reason for me to repeat things again.
I referred to the Dan Shechtman matter and explained the huge differences between the two matters.
Yehuda:
As you said - Aristotle pretty much fabricated his claims from his heart.
That his theories have held up means nothing. After all, there was no science to test them and disprove them.
The scientific process is a defined process and to call someone who makes claims about reality from his heart a scientist is ridiculous.
Point, I went out at nine in the morning to the supermarket and cooked.
What kind of warming are people talking about? It's cool right now
Shimon
I think you were wrong
Aristotle spoke what was in his heart and almost avoided experiments. He claimed that all desires for example all things go to their collection for example the water and the rivers go to the sea the smoke to the clouds and the fire to the stars and the stones to the earth. And since a large stone has a desire to reach the ground more than a small stone, therefore a large stone will reach the ground faster.
The one who did the experiment was Galileo who climbed the tower in Pisa and proved that the big and the small arrive at the same speed.
But to say that Aristotle was not a scientist is ridiculous. Let us not forget that his theories have endured for over fifteen hundred years
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Shimon, we agreed that we disagree, after 100 comments on the subject, I think we're exhausted.
LeMichael: And I explained to Tomi that Aristotle already talked about observations and experiments... and regarding consensus nowadays, see the Dan Shechtman section...
Shimon Gat:
One thing I feel I must add.
At a time when there was a consensus that the earth was flat - there was no science at all.
There is no similarity between that situation and the situation nowadays.
The whole idea of confirming or refuting theories through experiment and observations was accepted in the world - more or less - during Galileo's time and since then the world looks completely different and the meaning of the word consensus has also changed beyond recognition.
Shimon, and with this I end the discussion on Yehuda's advice - there is nothing to be done, without consensus in our post-modern and New Age era we will not get far, there needs to be some common denominator, which is the consensus.
A scientist who thinks otherwise must convince the scientific community and not the external media that cover the science, and it seems to me that in the case of the global warming deniers, the main effort comes from the direction of the media because it is difficult for them to convince the scientists.
consensus? For thousands of years there has been a consensus that the Earth is the center of the universe. For hundreds of years there has been a consensus that the Milky Way includes all the stars in the universe. Since 1912 there has been a consensus that crystals must have repeating symmetry.
Stick to the consensus? This is the most unscientific thing I know.
Dear Friends
Shouldn't we relax??
I think everyone has already explained their opinion here and it doesn't seem to me that there is any point in continuing the struggle.
At such moments, the participants in the debate may say things in a fit of rage, things that they would not have said on second thought.
I have already retired and think you should do the same
After all, now we are in the times of joy
So let's be happy
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Shimon, I appreciate scientists who fight for their opinion, but what can I do, I don't have the tools you think I have to evaluate their work, so I rely on whoever it is their job, otherwise, as I mentioned, I'll be doing my job. I'm glad you go by your real name but still, that shouldn't change the fact that man-made warming is the consensus, and that I'm close to the consensus.
As you can see in the link that Michael posted, there is a scientific means to check whether it is man-made or said to be due to a change in the sun's activity, if it is the sun the stratosphere should also have warmed and if it is man - meaning from below, only the troposphere (the living layer - the lower layer of the atmosphere) will warm Whereas the stratosphere will cool because the heat is trapped in the middle. And this is indeed the results of satellite measurements.
The conclusion is that so far there is a scientific answer to every argument of those who state that warming is not man-made. As soon as there is one such proposal that has no response (and on the SKEPTICAL SCIENCE website there are hundreds of responses to every argument put forward by climate deniers, with references and links to sources and not ideology as you attribute to the warming claimants), those whose job it is - climate scientists - will have to answer it.
my father
On what basis do you determine that scientists from Harvard, Princeton, MIT and a long list of other important research institutions in the USA, researchers from universities in Great Britain, Canada, Russia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Norway, France, Germany and Israel deny the theory of the greenhouse effect "Because of financial or political interest"?! This is a serious charge that requires evidence. Since these are professors of meteorology, geology, paleoclimate, space science, environmental science, astrophysicists and similar fields, I don't understand why you mock them when you write: "I don't know your "serious" scientists." Sorry, if you don't know them that makes them worthy of ridicule and a target for slander as if they are acting out of financial and political interest?! Are you writing this because their claims are against your faith? Besides relying on Science and Nature, do you have enough knowledge to judge scientists you don't know at all? And that in Science and Nature there were not in the past rejections of serious articles that later turned out to be correct and revolutionary?
And do you think that scientific journals that did publish articles contradicting the theory are also "serious" in the language of Sagi Nahor? I will give you some examples:
American Meteorological Society Bulletin; environmental geology; Energy & Atmosphere; Journal of Geophysical Research; Bulletin of the Geological Society of America; Harvard University Gazette.
If you ask I will send you a few more names of journals that have published articles on the subject.
Your response, the lack of any attempt to check the things I bring up but dismiss them with mocking language, do not necessarily indicate that you are right. In my opinion, they testify to the very opposite of scientific research: the establishment of absolute truths that the challenger deserves nothing but contempt. Fortunately, nowadays, those who are not so sure of accepted dogmas are no longer put in the spotlight.
If you want not to "jeopardize the prestige of the site that was built in 15 years because some commenter who calls himself Shimon Gat is not satisfied", then with a dogmatic approach you will not boast about the path you are walking (Judges 9:XNUMX). If you want a real scientific journal, you must accept the fact that there are those who think differently than you and they are not necessarily wrong, and certainly not mock them.
And a final point: it is true that my code name in my comments is Shimon Gat, but what if it is also my real name... You can even check it on the net and in several of my publications in respected journals (for example: "Katedra" brochures no. 101, 123).
This is the place to point out that I have an agreement to translate the above website and if someone volunteers to help with the translation I would be happy.
Best regards
Avi Blizovsky
You should read a little here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html
Shimon Gat!
Pay no attention to those who try to kill you. To your credit it will be said that your writing is a joke, and for that you will be blessed.
Happy Holidays (and joking, because Purim was not long ago).
I don't know your "serious" scientists. Not everyone who denies a scientific theory, because of financial or political interest, is a hero like Einstein or Galileo.
And in the meantime, my adherence to Science and Nature has proven that there are professional magazines that you can work on when you write something in a field that is close to the field covered by the magazine, and I have no criticism, in their fields these magazines are excellent and they also correct themselves after discovering such a mistake. Whereas in Science and Nature there are experts in all fields, so the chance that something will go wrong with them is much smaller. As long as it's their line, I'm not going to risk the prestige of the site that was built in 15 years because some commenter who calls himself Shimon Gat is not satisfied.
My father allowed me to dispute the unequivocalness of the above evidence. If they were so unequivocal, serious scientists would not stand up and argue with them. To remind you, the great scientists in the 18th century, most of them believed in the existence of phlogiston and ether. And by the way: how many of those 3000 IPCC scientists you mentioned, benefit from fat research grants thanks to their support for the theory? And you still haven't answered me why the opinions of serious scientists that I mentioned in a previous comment are nothing more than an assertion "that any high school kid can see is wrong", and what is the scientific basis for your assertion. In any case, comparing the words of these scientists to the fools of evolution is like saying that those who disagreed with Einstein's views about quantum theory were similar to those who discredited Galileo. Please give a little more respect to serious researchers who think differently than you and the 3000 IPCC scientists.
Shimon, there are 3,000 scientists in the IPCC, the British Parliament appointed a commission of inquiry to look into the matter following the accusation of the scientists of cheating (what is known as Climategate) and the commission unequivocally acquitted the University of East Anglia and all it claimed against it was that it did not conduct itself transparently and that it considered opponents disturbing. An audit report by the BBC criticized the conduct of the network which does exactly what you said - giving the right of response and even more to the warming fools. The evidence is unequivocal, you asked why it is felt only in the last 25 years - well there is also a matter of accumulation and positive feedback.
Simon:
For the avoidance of doubt - I never claimed that you are against the attempts to find alternative sources of energy.
However - in my opinion - the fact that laymen in the field allow themselves to debate it is a direct result of the economic interests behind it.
The fact is that although quasi-crystals were also subject to debate among scientists, no one in the general public was eager to debate it.
The economic interests behind this debate are undoubtedly those of the oil suppliers and they are the ones who caused the public debate (partly through fraudulent acts).
Along the way, all kinds of things happened, such as the story with the lack of food, which is not a problem in principle, but only a problem of incorrect determination of prices.
For the avoidance of doubt: I am a great supporter of all attempts to find alternative and clean energy for burning hydrocarbons. I also want to live in a world where there will be no air pollution, as I am very concerned about soil pollution and the pollution of the world's water sources and seas. But the fight against environmental pollution has nothing to do with the issue of climate warming. In my opinion, the pollution of our water sources is no less serious than the pollution of the atmosphere, but the subject is probably much less sexy. The automatic suspicion of anyone who does not completely accept the opinion about the greenhouse effect, binds him to those who have interests in the continuation of the infections, which is of course complete nonsense. I'm no less "green" than other writers here, only that I don't involve it in things that, in my opinion, are far from proven.
And regarding alternative energy: we all remember what happened when they started producing "clean" fuels from corn a few years ago. Food prices in the world skyrocketed at once and worsened the plight of hunger in quite a few countries of the third world. It is also clear who benefited from that commotion. I claim that there are enough interested parties who want to intensify the fear of the greenhouse effect because they benefit from it financially.
Clean energy is a wonderful thing. One only has to think what prices might be paid for it. And I wish they would devote 10% of the resources currently devoted to research about the greenhouse effect to the following questions:
A. How can additional sources of food be developed in a world where hungry mouths are increasing.
B. How to prevent, or at least reduce water and soil pollution.
third. What is the way to a more just distribution of resources between the developed and the underdeveloped world.
These are the burning questions of our world. Not future warming of the climate due to unproven human activity.
My father and Michael
Sorry but you seem so unconvincing in your arguments to the outright negation of the opponents of global warming. It's also not suitable for a site like science
See you in Hamada
Happy Holidays
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The above statements are of course more true regarding the claims that deny human influence, in which we have no possibility of conducting an experiment, than the claims based on human influence for which, at least in principle, one can stop polluting and see what happens.
Simon:
There will never be any empirical evidence on the matter because no one will take any earth and do experiments on it.
All claims are based on statistical findings (not assumptions) and will remain so.
There is nothing wrong with that.
Hello father
You do not respond to the list of scientists I sent you and you do not answer a simple question: have you read their articles? What exactly are the tools with which you determine that their claim is nothing more than a claim "that any high school kid can see is wrong"? This is an assertion as if there is one absolute truth and forgetting a basic principle: the basis of all scientific research is doubt. Terminology of absolute truths belongs to the world of faith, not research.
And in response to Michael: It is possible that my statement quoted by you was too harsh. I still maintain that the links between the change in the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and permanent changes in temperature are based on statistical assumptions and not on empirical evidence.
Simon:
I read carefully what you wrote and I took that into account.
I refer you to this response: https://www.hayadan.org.il/threat-on-wisedom-011011/#comment-309964
There you gave a description of nonsense that even a high school student does not do and ended with the sentence "As of today, after going through articles by those who support the greenhouse effect theory and those who oppose it, I am convinced of one thing: the logical links between the various measurements are not more serious than the example I just presented."
This is unjustified and baseless disdain for scientists.
You insist that you are not being disrespectful and I have no problem accepting that, but then I must also conclude that the above response was "offended" to you and does not truly reflect your thoughts.
my dear father
Below is a very partial list of those who reject the theory of the greenhouse effect, whose arguments you say are such that "any high school kid can see that they are wrong".
Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology from MIT.
Sally Balionas, an astronomer and astrophysicist at the Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics at Harvard.
Freeman Dyson, member of the Royal Society of Sciences, professor of environmental sciences, member of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the School of Environmental Sciences.
Habib Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor in the School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sciences at the University of Auckland in New Zealand.
Prof. William Gray, head of the project for the study of meteorology in the tropics in the Department of Atmospheric Studies at the University of Colorado.
David Ligates, Professor of Geography and Director of the Climate Research Center at the University of Delaware.
Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology at Carleton University in Canada.
I will be content with this list. I could add to it more than 100 names of important researchers in the relevant fields. Have you read anything these people have written? Do you even have the tools to define their arguments as such that "any high school kid can see that they are wrong"?! Forgive me if I say so, but there is quite a bit of arrogance in such a position.
And Michael: read carefully what I said. I am not disparaging science but I am claiming that links based on statistical data are not necessarily causal. The example of the female students is intended to illustrate the absurdity that people charged on a static basis can reach.
It seems to me that we have exhausted the issue and I see no further point in any of us repeating our positions. I would recommend to my father and his ilk a little more openness and a desire to examine in depth even opinions that contradict their beliefs.
I refer to the body of an argument not to the body of a person.
my father
But there are also professors among them. Doesn't it deserve that their arguments be addressed in a more in-depth way?
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Shimon Gat, when the argument of the opponents is such that any child in high school can see that it is wrong, and apart from the fact that they constantly claim a conspiracy against them, says that they probably do not have enough scientific basis, if these are their arguments.
Shimon Gat:
When I wrote that your words are based on disdain for science, etc. - of course I did not refer to all of your words.
For example - there is no disrespect for science in the sentence "I'm hungry" because you've probably had to say it here and there.
I meant, of course, the comment I was responding to and this comment attributed to scientists who think that the warming is man-made is a mistake that even a high school student does not make when even the links you have already received refute this claim.
Michael
I didn't write: "Your words are based on ignorance of the facts and disdain for science." Well not only do I not despise science. On the contrary. I did not define the opposition to the greenhouse effect theory as "threats to science and reason". I just called on my father, who published the above headline and everyone who accepts this concept to be careful with their words. The one who despises science is the one who casually dismisses the words of those who believe otherwise as "threats to science and reason". The personal attacks on me by those who think differently from me are also insulting. All I'm saying is that proofs based on statistics and links between statistics are problematic. The example of the female students from Bar-Ilan is meant to illustrate - of course in a parody way - where this approach could lead.
Where is the disdain for science in your possession? And how come you didn't read claims supporting the theory? But I also read other opinions, whose authors are respected and know no less.
And another note: you say that "those who claim that the warming is man-made (who are, obviously, most of the experts on the subject)". What exactly does the statement that a certain group is the majority in science prove? Is it necessary to mention the ridicule that Einstein encountered from most of the scientific community when he published, in 1905, the special theory of relativity? Or Shechtman's story? Or a less famous example, the ridicule of the German meteorologist, Wegener, by the entire geological establishment when he claimed that all the continents were once part of one continent?
The majority is the majority, but that doesn't make it more right.
Simon:
Have you ever read what I wrote?
Did you read any comment I wrote in general about scientists denying man-made warming?
no and no!
All in all I was complaining about the shallow and baseless claims That you A reference to the scientists who claim that the warming is man-made (who are, obviously, most of the experts on the subject)
Michael Shalom
Certainly the scientists who support the theory of the greenhouse effect studied at the university. But so do scientists who deny it. Please enter several links.
See what meteorologist Prof. Richard Lindzen, from MIT, writes:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
Or read, for example, the words of John Christie, professor of atmospheric sciences from the University of Alabama:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Or the arguments of Sally Balionas, an astronomer and astrophysicist from the Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics at Harvard:
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-real-story-about-climate-change
If you'd like, I'll send you at least 100 more links to what meteorologists, astrophysicists, environmentalists, and other related fields say, showing data that contradicts the claims of the scientists you quoted above.
And as for the fan's link: I actually entered it. The degree of his neutrality can be learned from the picture next to the article, which shows everyone who does not accept the theory as an ostrich with its head in the sand. When data appears on the site of pre-convinced people, they are also pre-suspect.
Do not go, to Ohad, to Yuval and my father, to underestimate those who have a different opinion. These are key researchers in the field.
And here I return to the point where we opened the discussion in the first place: the audacity to define the opinions of these researchers and other distinguished scientists as "threats to science and reason". Their opinions are just as important as those of the supporters of the theory. My main conclusion - and you don't need to be an expert in climatology to reach this conclusion - is simple: as of today, the theory of the greenhouse effect cannot be proven or disproved. Like the well-known joke about that man who was asked: "How is your wife in bed" and answered: I don't know exactly. Some say this and some say that."
Yehuda:
Yair's words contained personal and unfounded allegations against me.
Rather they aimed at gagging.
That's why I called them sheer audacity and I stand by my opinion.
If it prevented him from continuing to be rude - how good!
Nothing in my speech prevented him from addressing the scientific matter.
Mikael and my father
People are not here to entertain you or to be rude to you
It was completely unfair to treat Yair's comments as rude
It looks like you managed to shut him up and the guy decided it wasn't for him.
And understand that he could even be a professor, but that doesn't interest you because you are used to attacking professors who are not to your liking (Nir and Shabiv for example)
Believe me, my father, that the reason why they chose the Academy of Sciences to give you a certificate of appreciation is not the gagging, but despite the gagging. And you should correct yourself.
The commentators in science have no objection to the threats to science from the evolutionists, but many commentators in science have an objection to the definition of global warming as threats. They do not claim that nothing will happen, the professors at Biv predict cooling and the destruction of the plankton and fishing in the sea.
The fact that you, my father, advocate that humanity should prepare itself for a period of heat and not for cold and lack of food is irresponsible on your part.
Invite the Shebib professors to express their opinion here
Maybe also explain to Mikael why their name was not mentioned in the first place
Merry Christmas and happy holidays
And by the way it's cool outside
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Shimon Gat:
Your words are based on ignorance of the facts and disdain for science.
The claims regarding the human origin of the warming are not based on such a trivial argument and such an elementary mistake.
The scientists who you claim are guilty of this also studied - whether at the university where you studied and you teach, or at better universities, and their reasoning ability does not fall short of yours, but you - in your arrogance - accuse them of considerations that even a high school student knows are incorrect.
By the way - you base your words on everything you read.
Are we to conclude that you avoided reading the links sent to you by a fan?
For example this link:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-emissions-correlation-with-CO2-concentration.htm
Besides - you didn't pay any attention to what Yuval said.
He even referred to the practical choice of behavior and not to his theoretical debate - as well as you - you don't have the tools to deal with it.
jubilee
There is a famous story about Moshe Sena - when he was the head of the national headquarters of the Haganah - who wrote to himself the beginning of chapters for a speech he was about to deliver: weak reasoning! shout!
Watch your tone: "You want to deny human involvement in global warming? OK! Deny as much as you like. "There is no dealing here with the claims I raised, according to which they took two statistical results and created a connection between them that has not yet been empirically proven. What is it similar to?
At the university where I studied and taught, Bar-Ilan, there is a fascinating statistical phenomenon that repeats itself every year in a sample of close to 1000 units. Every year 1000 female students, who started the year with an open mind, switch during the year to wear a hat. Almost all of them give birth to a baby in the following months.
The logical conclusion, according to you, would be simple: the hat has the ability to make women pregnant! After all, the two phenomena are close to each other.
As of today, after going through articles by those who support the greenhouse effect theory and those who oppose it, I am convinced of one thing: the logical links between the various measurements are not more serious than the example I just presented.
Here you can start reading specifically the arguments of some scientists who do not accept the AGW theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Position:_Accuracy_of_IPCC_climate_projections_is_questionable
Shimon!
You want to deny human involvement in global warming? OK! Deny as much as you like. Even if you're wrong, luckily you won't live on this ball long enough to prove it (or unluckily, if you're right).
Currently, a model based on accurate measurements of two different phenomena is accepted and a relationship (which you may say is purely coincidental) has been found between the amount of fossil fuel burning and global warming.
To you, and to everyone who believes or believes that this relationship is purely coincidental, my camp friends and I say that even if the chance that you are right is significant, we are not willing to take a risk.
Yehuda:
Are you starting conspiracy theories again?
After all, even your cheeky and defamatory comments are published!
Did someone stop Mahud from speaking out?
Did someone stop you from speaking out?
It's a shame you don't take advantage of the freedom you're given to say things of interest.
Yuval, are you sure of what you wrote? "When there were upheavals in the earth in ancient geological ages, man was not present"? Sorry, and I thought that in the 11th century, we were a little less than 1000 years ago, there were already humans on earth!
You must have noticed that I did not go into the whole subject of the ice ages, although there is no reason to assume that the same factors that led to the alternating warming and cooling of the climate in the Pleistocene do not exist today, or have a different effect than they did during the last two million years. Please remember that man appeared on earth already at the beginning of the Pleistocene, meaning he was very present during those powerful climatic changes.
But since climatic changes also occurred during the historical periods when the globe had already hit millions of people, it is not clear to me from what you conclude that what caused the warming 1000 years ago is not necessarily the cause of the warming today. why? Because there are tiny changes in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Has anyone already checked other possibilities that cause the climatic changes nowadays and ruled them out? Part of scientific research is also testing alternative possibilities and ruling them out with scientific tools. This is certainly not enough for fans of the greenhouse effect model. And by the way: to this day not even one explanation for the cyclical changes that occur in our bodies has been unequivocally proven. The greenhouse effect is one possibility for which all the "proofs" to date have been no more than an interpretation of data and not necessarily empirical proofs. But for those who see those who think differently from him as "threats to science and reason in the 21st century", surely he is not presenting an objective claim but rather a position that amounts to a personal belief. Even Einstein sinned in this when he refused to accept the quantum theory claiming "God does not play with dice". And if Einstein sinned in a position that is religious rather than scientific, it could happen to any of us and this, to the best of my judgment, is what happens to those who fanatically adhere to the theory of the greenhouse effect. But such beliefs certainly do not promote open scientific discussion.
Shimon
I'm sorry because you took my sting as an insult. My response was prompted by your previous response which was repulsed by the typical flavor of known conspiracy theories.
And to your last words: when there were upheavals on the earth in ancient geological ages, man was not present. To the known cycles of change must be added today the influence of man.
Shimon
Spectrographic analyzes of the atmosphere show that there is an increase in infrared radiation towards the Earth that results from greenhouse gases and mainly carbon dioxide as predicted by the greenhouse effect and in accordance with the theory.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
Regarding the composition of carbon dioxide, see here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-emissions-correlation-with-CO2-concentration.htm
And who knows? Well the people who legislate the issue.
And the greenhouse effect is not an invention of the last generation, it is an effect that has been known for several decades. However, as the research accumulated, its importance grew more and more.
sympathetic
I'm sorry, but from my experience on the site, they won't allow the opponents of warming to express their opinion with all kinds of excuses.
They take two things
A. There is warming
B. The percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased.
conclusion:
The increase in the percentage of carbon dioxide causes warming.
You can give a few more examples of this stupid logic, for example
Dieters are fat people
conclusion
Dieting makes people fat
(On second thought, maybe this is not a good example because maybe it is true)
But let's get back to the Shabib family. they say
A. There is warming due to cosmological phenomena mainly increased cosmic radiation
B. The oceans are warming
third. The oceans emit the carbon dioxide in them (98% of the carbon dioxide is always trapped at the bottom of the oceans, and only a minority is found in the atmosphere)
God. Carbon dioxide creates clouds, blocks the sun's radiation from reaching the ground, and subsequently cooling and precipitation
and. The carbon dioxide returns to the oceans, and the cycle is closed.
It seems very convincing to me and it's a shame that Hidan and Co kill it with joy and shame out of hand.
At least mass and dark energy aren't being blamed for the warming celebration so that puts me at ease.
Happy Holidays
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Abi, you have already published such an article in the past, the article about the experiment for the formation of clouds in Sarn (https://www.hayadan.org.il/unprecedented-insight-into-cloud-formation-2908113/) is directly related to the theory of Shaviv and Svensk, which shows that in the scientific community their theory is not ignored and efforts are invested to test it. The point is that currently the available data is far from supporting it and some of it even contradicts it.
to the fan
There is no dispute that carbon dioxide is a gas that prevents heat from escaping. However, it must be remembered that it is only one component of the atmospheric gases (and to this must be added vapors and tiny solid particles floating in the atmosphere. It has not yet been proven that a change in fractions of a percentage in the amount of this gas is the main factor - if any - for the above effect. Note that the claims about the warming effect have a background The political and cultural mafiosi of the last generation and I have no doubt that the very appearance of the charge, precisely in these terms, is deeply influenced by those cultural and political changes.
Where did you get the claim that there is an isotopic difference between natural CO2 and the one left over from burning fuels?
And last but not least: you wrote "It is known that this is not the process that occurs today because the source of CO2 is human." Known to whom?
A few comments on topics raised:
1. The ability of CO2 to prevent the escape of heat has been well demonstrated in a number of laboratory experiments and hence the conclusion is simple: more CO2 in the atmosphere => less heat escaping from the earth => the earth is warming. This is the greenhouse effect and it is not only theoretical, but has also been proven in measurements made from satellites and from Earth. So the claim that there is no empirical evidence for the greenhouse effect is a false claim.
2. Beyond the adjustment between CO2 emissions from human activity and the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, it should be noted that the CO2 emitted from burning fuels has a different isotopic composition than that of natural CO2, so that it is possible to know whether the source of the CO2 is human or not and the measurements show that the source is human.
3. Regarding the "warming before carbon dioxide": this is a well-known and well-known process that does not contradict global warming. First of all, there is a false dichotomy here that a certain process is or causes warming caused by heating, in reality it can be both, this is called feedback. In this case, changes in the Earth's orbit caused the increase in temperature that resulted in the release of CO2 from the oceans. The CO2 in turn increased the heating even more. The change in orbit alone is too weak to explain the temperature increase over that time period. As mentioned, it is known that this is not the process that occurs today because the source of CO2 is human.
For some reason, a response I sent to the words of Mr. Yuval Chaikin, was not received and was not published. I will try to restore it.
The honorable Mr. Chaikin. It is not clear to me why there is a need for personal slander along the lines of "Shimon Gat - an exemplary conspirator". You don't know who I am, nor what I do nor what body of knowledge I have.
And for our purposes. You claim: "Since the industrial revolution began, about three hundred years ago, there has been a constant increase in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. At the same time, there is a constant increase in the global temperature." Since my occupation happens to be partly in history, let me be a little more precise and start with the Middle Ages. In the 8th century, warming and desertification processes occurred in large areas of the world, including in Israel. In the 11th century there was a considerable climatic warming. Following it, the line of glaciers retreated hundreds of kilometers. Tundra and taiga areas became fertile. Cultivated areas in Europe have grown by thousands of dunams and crops have really grown. Frozen areas became human habitation. This is the century in which the Vikings settled in Greenland (note the name they gave the island!) and New Poundland. At that time, the renewal of the cities in the heart of Europe began and the period was awarded the nickname: the peak period of the Middle Ages.
Starting from the beginning of the 14th century, the trend changed. Considerable climatic cooling caused the abandonment of many areas. The cold wave, along with the Hundred Years' War and the Black Plague, caused the loss of a third of Europe's population. This cold wave lasted until the middle of the 19th century. Then there was a change in trend and climatic warming began (only then. Not 300 years ago). It is certainly true that this warming happened at the same time as the intensification of the industrial revolution, but to date no causal connection has been proven. Furthermore: since the middle of the 19th century there have been a number of volcanic events - the most serious was the explosion of the island of Krakatoa in 1887 - which released greenhouse particles into the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, in an amount that far exceeds what is raised by industrial production.
If the claim that the process of the greenhouse effect started already 300 years ago is true, why didn't anyone put their heart into it until 25 years ago? To remind you, in the years 1983-1985, climatologists claimed that the climate is actually getting colder...
I do not rule out the greenhouse effect model outright. I only claim that as of today it is nothing more than computer models and circumstantial evidence that can be interpreted differently.
And finally: Please, Mr. Chaikin. In an argument, speak to the merits of the matter and not to the merits of a person. It's completely unnecessary.
Yuval Chaikin Shalom
This? Have we moved to personal insults? Do you even know who I am and what I am, that you call me an "exemplary conspirator"?
And a bit of historical accuracy (in the case of the field in which I specialize): in the 8th century, warming and desertification processes occurred in large areas of the earth. Another wave of warming was recorded in the 11th century, when the glacier line retreated hundreds of kilometers and the tundra and taiga areas became greener cultivation areas and expanded human settlement to the north. This is the century in which the Vikings settled in Greenland (note the name of the island in their mouths!) and Newfoundland, an area that today lies under a glacial cover. The warming of the climate allowed a demographic revolution in Europe, thanks to a considerable increase in the arable areas and the growth of crops. This is the period when the cities in the heart of Europe are renewed and it is known by the lawmen as "the Middle Ages at their peak". All this flourishing came to an end when in the 14th century a climatic cooling began which wiped out the settlement in Newfoundland and caused - aside from the Hundred Years' War and the Black Plague - to reduce the population of Europe by a third. The cold period lasted until the middle of the 100th century and since then there has been a climatic warming.
There is an overlap in time between the intensification of the industrial revolution (not its beginning. It started already in the 18th century) and the change in the climatic trend. This, in itself, is not proof of anything.
As for the change in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: I have not yet seen unequivocal proof that it was caused by the burning of fuels. Every serious volcanic eruption releases greenhouse particles, including this gas, in an amount that far exceeds the additions of industrial production in the world.
In this I do not mean to completely dismiss the theory of the greenhouse effect. I claim that as of today it is a theoretical model that has not yet been proven empirically but only in computer models and circumstantial evidence, which by nature are a matter of interpretation.
And another simple point: if it is a process related to the industrial revolution, how did the scientists wake up to it only in the last 25 years? To remind you, in the years 1983 - 1985, the claim that the earth's climate is getting colder and we are approaching a new ice age was saturated. What has happened since 1985 with the "scientific" claim is more related to political and cultural developments and not necessarily to any solid evidence.
also. Cultivating this model are mainly laws that benefit from heavy funds due to it.
And please, Mr. Chaikin, don't call me or anyone who thinks differently than you in these and other places. A matter of fact and not a person's body.
Ehud and Yehuda
As soon as an important journal will publish their articles, and not articles like the ones published so far that touch on the subject in the margins. I will post them on mine too.
Shimon Gat, did you recently see a debate between Republican candidates on the Fox network? They tie up their religious beliefs and the fight against evolution in the fight against the global warming claim, people who are unable to accept one set of scientific evidence, are probably also unable to accept other sets.
As for Al Gore, I'm not sure that investing in green companies is the reason for his views, but on the contrary, he understands that in order to promote the understanding that the earth is in trouble, it must be done through the private market.
And secondly, as someone who has not been able to take out even one advertisement from green energy companies despite the thousands of articles on the site concerning global warming, it is hard for me to understand where there is so much money here. I write things that I believe in, and I believe that most scientists are also incapable of betraying the truth just for a few dimes, besides Greenpeace has revealed exactly how much oil companies are paying to bribe scientists.
For the avoidance of doubt:
I also think there is no room for a comparison between the theory of warming and the theory of evolution.
Regarding evolution, there is no doubt in the scientific community, while regarding man-made warming - there is and there is.
On the other hand, I think that at the operative level there is no escape from the logic that, in the conclusion that with the current data that we have as laymen on the subject, we must act as if the warming is indeed man-made.
For me, the operative level is expressed in the purchase of a hybrid vehicle, in the installation of photovoltaic panels on the roof and in an attempt (which has not succeeded so far) to replace gluttonous halogen bulbs with economical ones.
Shimon Gat, an exemplary conspirator.
Since the industrial revolution began, about three hundred years ago, there has been a constant increase in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. At the same time, there is a constant increase in the global temperature. You can call it a "coincidence" and see it as "circumstantial evidence" only, but this is the existing model and according to which we operate. It is accepted by us that in order to disprove an existing model it is not enough to simply make claims, but a convincing alternative model must be brought. As of now I have not heard another good explanation for that unfortunate "coincidence".
sympathetic:
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
I am not expressing a personal opinion.
I am giving you, however, data that I know for sure.
Is it because this data leads you to a certain conclusion that you want me to hide it?
The fact that Nir Shabiv opposes the man-made warming theory is said by Nir Shabiv himself.
Have you decided to forbid me from quoting even such a clear statement of his?
The same goes for the fact that Giora Shabib presented his son's theory in an article in Galileo and invited the audience to a conversation on the subject within Galileo's website. These are facts, not opinions. Do you want me to hide them?
Giora Shabiv did not answer a fundamental question for the theory. This is also a fact and it is documented in the link I gave. Was I supposed to hide this fact?
The beauty is that you are the one talking about gagging!
Under no circumstances do I expect them to conclude from these things that the man-made warming theory is true.
You are welcome to read my first reference to the theory of the shebeevs in this response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/threat-on-wisedom-011011/#comment-309482
Did you really not notice that I wrote "specifically in relation to Nair Shabib" just to avoid the kind of interpretations you are trying to put in my mouth?
On the contrary - I said that I personally am unable to reach such a conclusion - neither based on the disqualification of Nir Shabiv's theory nor based on all the additional information I have.
That is why I said that I refer to it only on the operative level and because I am not an expert on the subject - I am not expressing an opinion on the theoretical level.
I repeat: finding a contradiction in theory A does not mean that theory B is correct. It is part of the thousand house of logic.
I never said that anyone should conclude that man-made warming is true just because there is a contradiction in Nir Shabiv's theory.
Never!
But you still try to claim it - just to shut up.
Anyone who reads the above exchange understands one simple thing: there is no scientific debate here. My father's claim as if it has been unequivocally proven that the burning of fuels by humans is the cause of the change in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere still needs proof. At the moment it is only a discount.
As for the claim that there are those who finance the opponents of the greenhouse effect model and the crude allusion to the oil companies, it should be said that as a mirror image there are those who pump up the theory and not only from pure motives. For example, Al Gore manages a venture capital fund that invests in "green" companies, also in Israel. It is clear that spreading the story of the greenhouse effect greatly pushes his business.
And as for the so-called scientific consensus: First, the very fact that there are scientists who oppose the theory disproves the claim of consensus. Second, it should be noted that the main scientists who support the theory, their studies on the greenhouse effect receive extensive funding from government and other sources. If they admit that there is no real theory, they will lose all the funding. In any case, putting the views of the opponents in the same camp as the opponents of evolution is an act of believers (in the case of the greenhouse effect religion) and not of scientists.
Avi,
Your logic is definitely not scientific. You write "simple logic, the cause of the increase in carbon dioxide is not a mysterious factor that needs to be searched for and tried to be deduced from the question of what affects what. The cause is known - burning of fuels by man." You determine what the solution to the question is and then say that there is no need to look for a solution.
Science and scientists work in a different way (unlike politicians). They ask if there is a single mechanism leading to a certain phenomenon? Do correlations between phenomena point to laws of cause and effect. He who knows all the solutions is not a scientist. Serious scientists like Nir and Giora Shabib raise serious doubts that you dismiss with a wave of your hand. But as I already wrote, I'm tired of this ridiculous argument.
Michael,
You say that you do not intend to experience a personal position, but you raise the following series of claims:
Nir Shabiv is against the theory of global warming (as a result of human activity), Nir Shabiv's father
Pretending to present his position on a website, Nir Shabiv's father fails to answer a question asked about
by an expert. Do we have to understand from this that the accepted theory about global warming is valid? What are you trying to argue?
Both you and I are not experts in the field and on the other hand I have some knowledge about science and politics and in my opinion global warming is not the same as the theory of evolution deniers. Beyond all that, science advances by raising doubts and not by keeping mouths shut, but actually this debate bores me and I don't think I will continue to respond.
Meir 1
It's the most natural thing that a site like the scientist was supposed to do, and let the Canadians decide!
but,
Do you expect the scientist to lend a hand to encourage the conspiracy theories of Professor Giora Shaviv and his sons, who may be financed by the largest oil corporations in the world???,
God forbid!
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Meir:
1. Why do you think there is a problem?
2. Why do you think that the science site will answer the questions that are still waiting to be answered on the Galileo site?
I don't understand what the problem is.
Can't the science system contact Prof. Shabib (the son or the father) to explain his theory here in the article and answer the questions?
By the way - if we are talking about a mystery - it is still not clear to me why attempts were made to hide the name of Giura Shabib at the beginning of things.
Yehuda:
Maybe read the comments and see that I already answered your question long before you asked it and without any mystery?
To my father
You will be surprised, but Giora is aware of the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide and even sees this as a great environmental damage to the fish and the upper layer in the oceans. But his conclusion is that cooling is expected because this is what happened throughout ancient history.
So the oil Bruneis would not be relieved by the words of Prof. Giora of wanting to burn fuels because he simply likes fish.
Dear Mikael, maybe you can show us the mysterious question Giura was asked and did not know how to answer so that we can all understand what bothers you about his explanations.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
By the way, I wasn't talking about anything I asked Nir Shabib but about a conversation with Professor Giora Shabib.
I also provided a link to the conversation itself.
Yehuda:
I must say that Mr. Yehuda's words amuse me quite a bit.
I present a conversation in which an explicit question was not answered by Giura Shabib for months and Mr. Yehuda came and told me that he answered his own questions.
It's really to the point!
I suppose he would have answered the same questions that Mr. Yehuda asked, but since I don't value myself the way Mr. Yehuda values himself - I didn't ask my own questions but forwarded questions from an expert - questions that, as mentioned, Shabiv was unable to answer.
Let there be no doubt: Shabib is a very serious scientist and when he talks about things in his field of expertise it is advisable to listen to him with the utmost attention. I assume that most of the questions asked were actually in his area of expertise so I understand Mr. Yehuda's impression of the man.
Of course, this does not change the fact that he did not answer an expert's question about findings that disprove the theory regarding the causes of the current warming.
To Judah
The argument of what preceded what could have been convincing and true, if the cause was not known, not something from nature that needs to be checked thousands of years back, but human activity.
Eric - Cosmology has no practical importance, but for some reason the Nobel Prize was awarded for a discovery in the field just a week ago.
To my father
I came to the lecture of professor Giora Shabib who was hosted at the observatory in Givatayim. I must point out that I have come to fight as well as I know myself to really put this global warming denier in his place. But unfortunately, I found myself in a very special and convincing lecture. Mr. Mikael. Tells about something he asked Nir Shabiv, the son, and he didn't answer. I want to say that Giora answered all the questions we were asked and I am surprised at how convincing he was.
Giora will simply show that throughout history the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide came as a consequence of heating and not as a source of heating. That's why I'm surprised that you call the conference "The threats to science and reason, etc."
Who is threatening?, a legitimate debate. And if you, my father, don't know how to ascend, and kill the various ones, it lowers the value of the site.
I must point out that *Kahel is much more careful in his responses.
And note, I still haven't made up my mind one way or the other! But, for some reason, defining such a conference as "threats to science" reminds us of forgetfulness from other times.
I am of course preparing to come to the conference, but, if I see bonfires being made outside, or a church choir inside, I will give up the pleasure, and return home.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Regarding claim 2, simple logic, the cause of the increase in carbon dioxide is not a mysterious factor that should be searched for and tried to deduce from the question of what affects what. The cause is known - burning of fuels by man.
sympathetic:
1. I did not say that Gyora Shabib should represent his son.
I said he did and even stated it.
Your claim is strange, as if I claimed that Gyora Shabiv should represent his son.
I think he really shouldn't have done that.
Giura Shabib also chose the method of internet discussion.
2 and 3. Nir Shabiv presents a systematic theory and this theory is in contradiction with certain observations.
I did not say anything else about his theory and as mentioned - I do not pretend to be able to do so.
I explained how I formulate my opinion for operative needs (as long as I don't decide to specialize in the subject).
In other words - I cannot establish a theoretical position based on physical data that I do not know and I therefore choose to base (again - for operational needs) on the consensus among the experts.
This is my personal choice and other people can decide that even though they do not understand the subject there is a point for them to express their position on the subject of the theory.
I think this is stupid behavior but you have the right to think otherwise.
4. I explained the difference between the state of Shechtman's theory and the state of the theory about warming. You repeat some things and ignore others.
In conclusion - your words are not justified and especially your basic attitude is not justified as if I am trying to experience my personal position on the subject while I repeat in almost every response that I (as well as you) have no possibility to form a personal opinion
Cursing and ranting are no substitute for reasoning.
Year:
If you leave the matter up for interpretation, then your last response is also sheer insolence.
As for Shabib's theories - there is no method here to determine anything about the validity of Shabib's words.
All in all, I presented data that allows the reader to form his own opinion.
Apparently these data led you to dismiss his claims and for that you complain.
And again - as mentioned - I did not intervene in support of this or that expert and all the things I said are quotes from experts.
Michael,
1. Science and scientific conduct is not carried out in questions on a website. This is not the stage for real science.
Your claim that Giora Shabib, being Nir Shabib's father, should represent him scientifically is also strange.
2. One of Shaviv's main claims is that the increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not the cause of global warming but a result of it. Have they disproved this claim?
3. Even if Nir Shabiv's theory was disproved, this does not invalidate his basic claim that
The movement of the solar system in the galaxy is the cause of a significant part of climate change. In Nir Shabiv's theory there is
Several assumptions and one is that cosmic radiation is a nucleation center for clouds. It is possible that cosmic radiation
affects the climate in a different but important way.
4. The debate about global warming is not a scientific debate, when a field receives a public response and this affects the funding of certain studies. The debate ceases to be purely scientific. Science advances by finding contradictions in theories and replacing them with better theories, so justified scientific claims and misconceptions about existing theories should not be dismissed outright. Again the example of Dan Shechtman, the assumption was that all crystals in nature are periodic and from a mathematical proof it was defined exactly what the allowed symmetries are for a periodic crystal, therefore they underestimated Dan Shechtman.
In conclusion, not every objection to an existing scientific theory is stupid and the status of all scientific theories is not the same. Regarding global warming, the climatic theories are a relatively young field that is not yet sufficiently established and needs complex computer simulations that are not clear because they contain all the necessary factors.
The response is awaiting approval.
Michael,
1. Science and scientific conduct is not carried out in questions on a website. This is not the stage for real science.
Your claim that Giora Shabib, being Nir Shabib's father, should represent him scientifically is also strange.
2. One of Shaviv's main claims is that the increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not the cause of global warming but a result of it. Have they disproved this claim?
3. Even if Nir Shabiv's theory was disproved, this does not invalidate his basic claim that
The movement of the solar system in the galaxy is the cause of a significant part of climate change. In Nir Shabiv's theory there is
Several assumptions and one is that cosmic radiation is a nucleation center for clouds. It is possible that cosmic radiation
affects the climate in a different but important way.
4. The debate about global warming is not a scientific debate, when a field receives a public response and this affects the funding of certain studies. The debate ceases to be purely scientific. Science advances by finding contradictions in theories and replacing them with better theories, so justified scientific claims and misconceptions about existing theories should not be dismissed outright. Again the example of Dan Shechtman, the assumption was that all crystals in nature are periodic and from a mathematical proof it was defined exactly what the allowed symmetries are for a periodic crystal, therefore they underestimated Dan Shechtman.
In conclusion, not every objection to an existing scientific theory is nonsense and the status of all scientific theories is not the same. Regarding global warming, the climatic theories are a relatively young field that is not yet sufficiently established and needs complex computer simulations that are not clear because they contain all the necessary factors.
Regarding the first line - option B for your interpretation.
Considers it important to make every effort to refine/focus on the substantive aspect of such a discussion.
If and as much as I have also sinned against this rule - definitely regret it.
The last 2 paragraphs of my response are a criticism of the method (as presented here) underlying the determination regarding the validity of Prof. Shabiv's position.
Year:
"Sad, personal - and largely misses the point."
Should I see this sentence as an apology or is it intended to describe your opinion of my response?
From the rest of the response, I tend to understand that it is an apology, but since it is not clear to me, I ask.
The rest of the response expresses exactly what I say again and again here - also in this discussion - that the participation of laymen in a debate between experts is a pointless act.
Sad, personal - and largely misses the point.
In my guilt, a random visitor in the knowledge, and even less so - in the comments area. In any case, it is far from being authoritative as far as the respondent is concerned.
The things referred in a targeted manner to the - factual - context discussed in the article, and to the comments on it.
There is a fundamental problem in the seeming management of a scientific polemic through mediators within a forum (the time constants, or the media tools involved in this - are not relevant).
The problem is doubly obvious - when the subject of the discussion is the defense (or attack) of the scientific method.
Year:
It seems to me that your claims towards me are sheer arrogance.
I have never pretended to represent science without knowing for sure the subject I am talking about and providing evidence for my claims in cases where this is required (arguments arising from logic do not need evidence - both because logic is in my area of expertise and also because it is usually not possible to find appropriate evidence).
The internet debate I was talking about is a debate for everything and Professor Shabib had months to answer the questions he was asked (he answered all the other questions in minutes).
The questions were asked when he was sitting in front of the computer specifically to answer the readers' questions, but nothing prevented him - in case he didn't know the answer at that moment - to also answer over time.
The questions weren't just asked and I didn't come up with them (I didn't have the necessary knowledge to formulate them at all) - they were asked by Professor Pinchas Alpert from Tel Aviv University and he knew in advance that Shabiv would fail them.
It seems that caution and intellectual modesty are necessary especially when coming to criticize others (especially when the refutation of the personal claims appears in the responses on which they are supposedly based).
The core of the scientist's work over the years, along with the implicit support for rational conduct, which submits itself to theoretical and experimental examination - deserves all praise.
In this spirit - ritualistic, symbolic and perhaps even factual - it seems that there is great value in discussing the various challenges that are newly placed before this world view.
The presentation of things in the article, and even more so, in some of the responses of - similarly - the supporters of the scientific method - suffers from a degree of logical inconsistency.
Opposition (for example) to the theory of evolution, or to the prevailing theory in weather contexts - in itself - is not evidence of irrationality.
The method of discussing these questions is the index.
A serious discussion of new experimental facts or reasoned theoretical claims which apparently do not agree with accepted Torah in one way or another - are the bread and butter of science.
Even the procedure - even if it is not faultless - has weight in this context. We would hold these discussions in the framework of publications in expert hostels exposed to peer review.
Science is not such a hostel.
Moreover, it seems that - with the exception of the parts that directly reflect such official publications - most of the discussions in science (above and below the heading "Reactions"), are mainly the discussions of laymen.
Some are science lovers, some others.
Some of them are familiar with the findings and insights of science, some less so.
I am not an expert in the field and it is possible that Prof. Nir Shabiv's misunderstandings regarding the identity and relative weight of the factors operating within the framework of weather phenomena - suffer from limited validity.
At the same time, it is difficult to identify where one of the respondents derives the degree of confidence to implicitly reflect the representative role of the scientific method at its best - on the one hand, and base this criticism on a short forum discussion with the scientist's father - on the other hand.
It seems that prudence and intellectual modesty are virtues worthy of everyone. Scientists as laymen (including all the authors of the articles and comments on the science website).
Shimon it's a waste of your time, this is a propaganda site here.
Shimon Gat:
There are some significant differences between what happened with Shechtman and what is happening with the climate:
1. The opinion that there are no crystals that are not periodic was not accepted as a result of any theory but only from the fact that they had not seen such crystals and could not imagine how they could be formed.
Schechtman saw them with his own eyes and therefore could hold his opinion for a long time.
The opinions about global warming are opinions about the interpretation of findings that are open to all eyes.
2. Behind the fight over the interpretation of the findings on the climate issue there are economic interests, and contrary to the claims of the conspirators - these interests are actually in favor of denying the accepted theory.
In the question of the crystals there was no involvement of interests.
3. As derived from the previous section - in the case of quasi-crystals there was only a debate between the experts, while in the matter of warming the debate also reaches the general public (and clearly the motive for it reaching the general public is the same interests). What I said is that the general public - if it makes sense, should leave the debate to the experts and adopt, for all practical needs, the accepted opinion.
After all, even if there are here and there examples of people (scientists and not your people) who went against the scientific consensus and were found to be right - still the vast majority of cases of people who go against the scientific consensus turn out to be mistakes of those who go against the consensus.
Therefore, the idea of adopting an opinion that is not accepted by the scientific community only because there were cases where this type of opinion was proven to be correct (and thus ignore the vast majority of the opposite cases) is an illusion.
4. None of the above has anything to do with the fact that I have already mentioned, which is that Nir and Giora Shebiv did not provide an answer to the question about facts that refute - unequivocally - their theory.
5. This links to another point and that is that there is an unholy alliance between all those who argue against man-made warming, even though each of them - if they even bother to present an alternative explanation - provides a different explanation than the others' explanations. In other words - their opinions are different and their whole group is designed to create a united front against the consensus because each of them alone fails to convince even their friends.
To Shimon Gat, you are confusing two things - the fact that the concentration of carbon dioxide is small - 400 parts per million does not mean that its doubling over the past 200 years has not changed anything, on the contrary, every small addition increases the greenhouse effect.
So far, global warming has stood up to all independent tests - both direct measurement of temperatures, and indirect such as sea level rise, both the shift of climate zones (we feel it here) and even one island that was forced to evacuate. On the contrary, all attempts to attack are through computer models.
The fact that the community ridiculed Dan Shechtman is because he used a tool they did not - an electron microscope, and therefore he had the right to claim what he claimed when all the others used X-rays. He simply grew a crystal until it was large enough to be examined with X-rays and proved his claim. The global warming deniers only have excuses (eat me, drink me, get budgets, make up data, etc.), just like the evolution deniers, they have no positive claims but only an attempt to negate the theory. You don't do science with that.
A little late, but better than never. Regarding what Michael Rothschild wrote on the topic of the greenhouse effect: "After all, there is a broad consensus among the experts", then it is worth remembering that the opposition to Dan Shechtman's discovery was also a topic for which there is "a broad consensus among the experts". By itself it does not prove anything. To this day, every claim of the greenhouse effect is based on computer models and not on evidence from the field. Please remember that climate change is a natural phenomenon of the atmosphere, and despite all the explanations that have been proposed to date, none have been empirically proven. Even if there is a warming of the climate, the link to (tiny!!!) changes in the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere requires proof. To compare those who present arguments as equal to those who go against evolution is not a fair act. So far their claims have not been refuted empirically - as they have not been proven. In the current state of knowledge, where the greenhouse effect model still needs unequivocal proof - there is no room for a mocking tone towards those who think otherwise.
jelly:
What is "considered"?
In whose eyes?
how do you know?
In general - science progresses by rejecting wrong theories and that is exactly what we are talking about here.
But a policy of budgeting or awarding prizes sees the war on anti-scientific approaches as an ideology. that's how it is.
When they come to award a prize or a certificate of appreciation, the considerations are: Did the newspaper or the science channel encourage youth to be interested in science? Does the scientific site encourage Israeli content (Israeli science)? Does the Science Channel contribute to the love of science among the youth in Israel? For example I will give you an example. Let's say you publish an article and interview Dan Shechtman in it and then ask him if he can answer the questions of the young readers (high school students). And he will answer some questions for them.
These, for example, are considerations for the promotion of science in Israel.
Just so you know if you want to win the prize or the budgets again... these are the considerations...
A war with anti-scientific approaches is considered an ideology and usually one does not receive awards and recognition certificates for it.
jelly:
What to do with the fact that fighting anti-scientific attitudes is part of the promotion of science?
The presentation of the anti-scientific approaches in Maromihan leads people to the conclusion that in order to understand what is happening one must study science and in order for the world to advance its knowledge the teaching of sciences and scientific research must be budgeted.
Abi, we gave you a certificate of appreciation at the Academy of Sciences because Gali writes here… 🙂 You messed up…….
The certificate of appreciation was given because the science website encourages interest in science, especially among teenagers.
It is true that the scientist has a philosophy which he expresses in many articles: he opposes anti-scientific theories, astrology, science deniers of all kinds, etc.
The Academy of Sciences gave the award for encouraging interest in science and promoting science in Israel.
The Academy of Sciences does not give awards for ideology (eradication of deniers, eradication of astrology, banishment of coffee readers, etc.). It gives awards for the promotion of education, promotion of a field in Israel and encouraging youth to engage in science in order to develop science and industry in Israel.
Prof. Yoav Yair is not a physicist, he is a geophysicist. I also studied geophysics. It differs from physics and is tangential to astrophysics in the field of planetary sciences. Climate change and global warming is exactly the specialty of a geophysicist.
Roy Cezana is really not an expert on evolution, but he deals so much with science and scientific explanation to the general public that he knows how to explain science well.
For a lecture on the strengthening of mysticism and the New Age, I would invite Prof. Oz Almog from the University of Haifa. He talks about this topic in a fascinating and good way.
Shimon Gat:
Without expressing a personal position on the subject of warming (unlike others, I think only those who know enough about the matter have the right to expect that their position will be of any interest to anyone) there is a broad consensus on the subject among the experts.
You can read a summary on the subject here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Specifically, regarding Nir Shabib - whom you mentioned as an expert without stating that his field of expertise is not climate science, you should be aware of the following:
On March 16, 2011, Professor Giora Shabib was hosted on the Galileo website.
He did this following the article he published in Galileo in which he described the theory of his son - Nir Shabiv, and explained why it is so successful.
Professor Giora Shabib is a world-renowned physicist, but that's it - he's a physicist and not a climate scientist.
I contacted Professor Pinchas Alpert from Tel Aviv University and asked him to join the discussion on the Galileo website.
He said it would be difficult to do so for technical reasons but gave me and the Galileo system a list of questions to present to Professor Giora Shabib.
The editor of the site did raise the questions and Gyura Shabiv tried to answer some of them.
The truth is that it was quite embarrassing because one of the questions describes findings that completely (but completely!) disprove the theory and Professor Shabib did not answer it until this writing.
Here is a link to that section of the discussion:
http://forums.ifeel.co.il/forum_posts.asp?TID=197629
There are experts who make claims that go against the consensus and I have not seen them being denounced in any way.
On the other hand - individuals in the general public who are not experts - who go against the vast majority of experts - demonstrate arrogance and stupidity.
It is necessary to distinguish between the denial of evolution, a subject on which there is agreement in the entire scientific community, which is vanity and bad spirit, and the debate about the greenhouse effect and the changes in the Earth's climate. The claims of those who oppose the theory of the greenhouse effect - and we mention Prof. Nir Shabiv of the Technion as one example - are based on serious claims, at least like those who claim the existence of this effect. Presenting these claims as nonsense is a very problematic move. In recent years, the issue of climate warming and the greenhouse effect has become a religion, woe betide anyone who thinks differently from its principles. Articles opposing this thesis have been repeatedly rejected by scientific commentators. Like any faith and religion, the very fact that the other is charged is already seen as a sin. This is the place to mention that the theory of the greenhouse effect is still far from unequivocal proof, unlike the evolutionary model. Therefore, the very presentation of the opposition to it, in line with the opposition to the theory of evolution, is unfair and far from being a scientific act. They once thought that the image described by Dan Shechtman was nonsense...
my father
Thanks for the challenge. At the university where I have been visiting for the past few years, such conferences are held once a year or even once every six months.
Mirom Golan:
Evolution was recognized for the discoveries in its field and for the logic in it.
The question is among whom was this recognition received and the answer is - among those who heard about the discoveries and understood the logic.
Naturally - everyone who accepts evolution is a person who... before that did not accept it.
This is especially true in the State of Israel where there is only religious education (at different levels) within which every child learns the story of creation as truth.
Most people do not learn about the theory of evolution in any educational setting!
Therefore, there is a point in these debates - whether for the benefit of the participants in them or for the benefit of the viewers who have not yet formed their minds.
And these debates bring to the public's attention - both the research discoveries in the field of evolution and the indisputable logic behind it.
Without the knowledge of these things, the state will be able to boast of ignorance on a biblical scale.
You are invited to help to hold events more often.
Only once every five years?
Where did we get to?!
Michael Rothschild,
Evolution won its recognition it won because of the scientific discoveries of the 20th century and up to the present day. Not because of "monkey trials" of sorts. Among those who do not believe in it - they still do not believe in it to this day. Where is the change?
Yehuda, I don't lose. This is exactly the reason why they chose the Academy of Sciences to give me a certificate of appreciation. You saw that I also bring up things on the fringes of the consensus, such as the story with the faster-than-light neutrino, but do so with all the necessary caution. Beyond that, science does not go backwards and usually the old Torah is included in the new Torah as was also done with Newton's theory by means of which to this day spacecraft are sent to the planets at the edge of the solar system, with a precision of a second.
my father
There is no debate about the thermometers, but how to explain what appears there.
Additionally
Allow me to point out that a scientific site loses a lot in that it only allows things in a condensed form to appear.
You must have championed Newton and fought Einstein and his theory of relativity
Your sun was still made of red-hot iron like it was flagged a hundred years ago
And besides, poor Darwin was on your site.
You must think about how to manage a scientific website so that even opinions different from the usual will have a foothold with you and the ability to rise. I agree that it is neither easy nor simple,
Otherwise, you are effectively an unscientific site. Perhaps more religious than scientific.
Please respond gently
Happy New Year, my father
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Again only a small difference between us and the church, the church did not have conclusive scientific proofs here you are arguing with thermometers.
The title "Common Nonsense" would have been more appropriate.
You are left behind.
In the Middle Ages, the Christian Church was also afraid of the threat of the deniers of the accepted concepts.
Did you go back!!!!!????
The time is written in the title, the place - of course Hamda, Pardes 7 Tel Aviv (behind Gan Ha'ir).
Admission is free
Can I get more details?
location? from hour to hour? cost? Did you book in advance?
Mirom Golan:
In the article it is not written that the purpose of the conference is to convince of warming or some scientific claim. It says that the goal is to "review the situation, and try to understand if it can be fixed."
Is it really unnecessary, in your opinion?
Do you think the situation does not require correction?
And regarding the possibility of correction - I think you will also admit that evolution is much more accepted today than it was in Darwin's time, or in other words - that the correction efforts have an effect. No Yes?
With the exception of the fourth topic, this sounds like an unnecessary discussion to me. For some reason there are people in the scientific community who experience an intellectual orgasm from coming back and bumping into irrational people time and time again, and all this as a substitute for purely scientific research.
Again we waste the time convincing the convinced, and those who are not convinced won't even be there.
I will invite whoever represents the consensus. Anti Consensus has enough other sites. These people are definitely experts, and if you don't remember then Prof. Yair was the coordinator of the Madex experiment that monitored lightning in the atmosphere, so he knows a thing or two about the atmosphere.
mozar.
The only one who is a specific expert on his subject is Mr. Tal Inbar.
Cesena and Diamant are not experts in the field at all
Prof. Yair is a physicist and the Dean of Development and Learning Technologies at the Open University
Why don't you invite Prof. Natan Faldor, an earth science expert from the Hebrew University, to talk about climate change?
Why don't you invite Dr. Yoav Ben Dov, doctor in the philosophy of science, to talk about the New Age?