On 10/11/15 23:20, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 09/11/2015 22:24, Tim Streater wrote:
See, the thing about, say, Newton's theory of gravity, is that it
allows one to calculate things like eclipses, and it'd then be pretty
obvious that Newton was wrong if the eclipse didn't happen. And guess
what. That's never happened, which is why it's called Newton's *theory*
of gravity instead of Newton's handwaving ideas about gravity. And what
makes it proper science is that Newton could be proved wrong *tomorrow*
if some eclipse or other showed up at the wrong time or place. That
distinguishes it from dogma or faith.

Point of information. IIRC one of the proofs for relativity was that
Newton's laws got the orbit of Mercury wrong. Not a lot, but it was
measurable.

Certainly. And that was the point. Newton's theory was dislodged.

However: it is still good enough for navigating all over the solar
system. The precession of the orbit of mercury is measured in
arc-seconds per century, and Newton's theory also predicts the effect.
However, he predicted about 6000 and Einstein about 6040. The
difference was very small, but measurable, and it persisted even after
all other gravitational effects were taken into account, such as the
other planets (principally Jupiter).

Newton's theory is actually a subset of Einstein's, so it's not so much
wrong as incomplete.


Which is pretty much where climate change theories are. Of course CO2
makes a minuscule difference. The problem was to make it account for
everything, instead of accepting that a lot else was going on besides,
and that CO2 was a very very minor player, theory had to introduce
positive feedback, and that positive feedback is what gave all the scary
predictions.

NO warmista ever talks about the positive dfeedback, only about the
basics science which *cannot account for the warming by itself*.

As I have said many times before, at that point there were two equally
likely options - that something else was going on to add to warming, or
that something else was going on to multiply the effects of CO2.

Why did they choose amplification instead of addition? Well lets just
say that withiout amplification they couldn't get CO2 to be a legal
pollutant, get it under US legislation, take control of global energy
markets and make obscene portofits out of green energy scams. And of
course gas...

Follow the money.

Without feedback amplification, CO2 induced global warming is completely
insiginificant at te levels of CO2 we have or are ever likely to have,
and the actual climate would be seen to be domianted by water based
negative feedback.

That doesn't get politicians elected, act as a sop to Green idiots, or
make any rent seeking profits for anyone..


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.