published Monday, October 3rd, 2011

'Closed' scientific debate on global warming?

Environmental activists have made the shaky claim for several years now that the debate is "closed" on whether man's burning of fossil fuels is disastrously heating up our planet.

They say there is no debate at all. What's more, they predict catastrophe if man does not radically reduce the use of fossil fuels -- although the resulting loss of energy production would seriously harm both humans and the world's economies.

But it's interesting to note that scientists are now questioning a view that has much stronger -- and much longer -- support than global warming theory.

The Associated Press reports that "One of the very pillars of physics and Einstein's theory of relativity -- that nothing can go faster than the speed of light -- was rocked ... by new findings from one of the world's foremost laboratories. European researchers said they clocked a ... subatomic particle called a neutrino going faster than the 186,282 miles per second that has long been considered the cosmic speed limit."

In other words, a fundamental, long-held belief about physics may prove to be wrong. So we have to wonder: Is it really sensible to declare that the debate over far less certain global warming theory is "closed"?

24
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
nucanuck said...

Well, the only real risk in ignoring the impact of fossil fuel carbon generation would be a mass extinction, including humans. So what will it be, your oil or your planet?

October 3, 2011 at 12:22 a.m.
rolando said...

There is no risk at all from humankind's pitifully small carbon output, Chicken Little. Zero. Nada. Nil. It does not compute.

As the report says, the debate is is not over...it hasn't even begun.

The argument supporting "global warming caused by man" is so corrupt it is reduced to renaming itself as "climate change" to obscure the fact it is based on deception.

That's not planetary risk you hear coming down the line...it is laughter at the arrogance of the End-Of-The-Worlders.

The Chicken Littlers wish to bury and ignore those e-mails from England showing the corruption and grant-money grubbing of so-called "scientists"...their only supporting "evidence" is to falsify the evidence.

October 3, 2011 at 6:58 a.m.
JustOneWoman said...

Rolando, It is easy to take that position when the information you rely on comes from others. Do your own homework. And follow the money. Let's see...why would a scientists lie and stake his reputation? Why would a corporate greedy company lie to protect it's money? And they will spend lots of money to make sure the information "cannot be trusted". Just in case you missed it, the scientists email debacle was resolved in favor of the scientists. I bet they didn't show that on fox. It is not one single man doing the damage. It is things like power plants, coal plants, etc, that belong to people like the Koch Brothers. They have enough money and leverage to make people like you think whatever they want you to think. Will the world come to an end? Probably not, but when the ice age last moved south, I am sure there were those that thought it was.

October 3, 2011 at 9:24 a.m.
nucanuck said...

You must be right rolando, it's just an evil conspiracy that you and a few million Americans have been able to uncover while the ignorant rest of the world joust with windmills.

October 3, 2011 at 10:34 a.m.

nucanuck, you make the giggle.

Sure man. We'll give up oil and coal when they are surpassd by the efficiencies and economies of wind, solar, geothermal, etc.. Until then, burn baby burn.

Hey, whatever happend to the ozone thingy scare of the 1980s?

October 3, 2011 at 10:40 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Just because mankind is capable of critical thinking doesn't guarantee a successful application.

October 3, 2011 at 10:58 a.m.
nucanuck said...

L4F,

Can't fool you...you've got it all figured out.

October 3, 2011 at 11:42 a.m.

Your all right and your all wrong. Every aspect of our day to day lives is susceptible to manipulation. The theory on global warming is a sound theory. The problem for me is the exact impact and speculation on how much time we have. Obviously the world economy is locked into fossil fuels. I think the new enviromental trends of eco-vehicles, recycling etc.. are great ideas and they would turn our society from a disposable society into a re-usable society which would benefit everyone including the planet. Unfortunately as mentioned earlier i cannot afford an electric vehicle at this point. every aspect of the global warming scenario leads to being more enviromentaly friendly. how can we claim that science has faltered? Common sense would tell you that there are two sides global warming chanters and the other side big business (who are the one's that do not want fossil fuels to cease)obviously big business has the money, desire and capability to discredit the science of global warming. For all of the "it's a hoax folks" out there guess what? As a world we cannot stop the machine. the system is broken. regardless of the science. All we'll discover is we lose! What is the motivation for the global warming chanters? Is it just a trend and if so who benefits?

October 3, 2011 at 11:42 a.m.
nucanuck said...

At one level we can know that seven billion people are pushing earth's capacities far beyond sustainablity, but then at another level we are powerless to self-correct.

I suppose we will continue to take what we will and leave the aftermath for the future.

October 3, 2011 at 12:15 p.m.
EaTn said...

Many of you are like me and are at the age that whether global warming exists or not does not significantly effect us one way or another. And if air pollution should cut a few days or weeks off our life span, it's not something we stay awake at night over. However, many of us have grandkids and would like for them to enjoy a healthy environment that we basically have enjoyed the better part of our lives. I for one am not willing to bet their future health like playing the roulette wheel in Vegas.

October 3, 2011 at 1:28 p.m.
nucanuck said...

EaTn said it well.

Some of us are willing to make adjustments to our lifestyle in the belief that responsible planetary stewardship is a unique human responsibility. To not see various forms human induced environmental degradation can only be attributed to a refusal to look.

October 3, 2011 at 1:38 p.m.
conservative said...

These "scientists" who published "their" findings won"t release for peer review the research and data they used to come up with "their" findings. If they were open and aboveboard they would welcome peer review. Follow the money.

October 3, 2011 at 1:53 p.m.
nucanuck said...

conservative...say what??

October 3, 2011 at 1:55 p.m.
una61 said...

Typical anti-science bigotry from the TFP. Unlike religious dogma, science has always been open-minded and debated. The purpose of the CERN accelerator is to advance the science of particle physics. The findings of the "faster-than-light" hypothesis IS being peer reviewed as I write.

October 3, 2011 at 2:05 p.m.
rolando said...

L4F -- You, BookiesGhost, and conservative replied much better than I could have. Thank you.

"Peer review" is vastly over-rated and oppressive toward pure research. So are government research grants. Especially government research grants. They give us the most disruptive, lied about, and anti-humanity proposals and theories possible... [Using lithium or NiCad batteries to replace gasoline because they are pollution-free, for instance.]

Now they are going to peer-review Einstein. Hilarious. Hawking is next, no doubt. I am sure each is [or would be] waiting with bated breath...

October 3, 2011 at 3:29 p.m.
rolando said...

Unlike religious dogma, science has always been open-minded and debated.

Good Lord, una, you apparently said that without choking. "Open-minded and debated". Yeah, right.

October 3, 2011 at 3:33 p.m.
ArnoldZiffel said...

It's madness!! What is it with the leftist chics on here and they're obsession with the Koch brothers???? Sandy, Mountainlaurel, Mntgrl and now JustOneWoman! You're all reading from the same script! "man made global warming" is a means to gain more control over people's lives! One freakin' volcano exploding in Iceland does more damage than anything we can do. Tell you what , you envirowackos, do yourselves in and you'll reduce the "carbon footprint". We emit carbon dioxide when we breath. Why not check out and save the planet? Give your lives like islamolunatics do for their cause?

October 3, 2011 at 4:05 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

[Using lithium or NiCad batteries to replace gasoline because they are pollution-free, for instance.]

What scientist or scientists claimed that batteries are pollution free? Source please?

October 3, 2011 at 4:31 p.m.
nucanuck said...

I'm not immune to believing in conspiracies with government involvement, but to try to pin that tale on climate science requires a suspension of cognition.

This isn't partisan science or American science or Chinese science, this is an amalgamation of superior minds wordwide, with little dissent except in the USA.

October 3, 2011 at 6:01 p.m.
una61 said...

Rolando, virtually every article of every professional main stream science journal is peer reviewed by contemporary scientists. If you want to see real debate, I suggest you attend a meeting of the Amer. Meteorological Society (I was once a member), Amer. Geophysical Union. Amer. Assoc. for the Adv. of Science, etc. These are real scientists debating real science and not a bunch of talking idiots on Fox News.

October 3, 2011 at 6:29 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.