torsdag 31 januari 2013

Why Modern Physicists Don't Question CO2 Alarmism

Physics can be viewed as the science of its instruments, with each instrument more or less intimately tied to the phenomen being recorded by the instrument, or the other way around. Each new particle accelerator is supposed to discover new particles, by instruments designed to discover new particles, like CMB discovered by very sensitive CMB-cameras or the Higgs discovered by the Large Higgs Collider LHC.

In classical physics there was a sharp distinction between the observer and the observed, but with the development of quantum mechanics the observer and the observed were put into the same boat, with now the observer deciding over the observed "collapse of the wave function".

In this new physics the idea of an objective reality independent of observation was given up, which opened to free invention of new phenomena made real by observation by suitable instruments.

This may explain why DLR as the scientific basis of CO2 alarmism,  which could never pass the needles eye of classical physics, was accepted by modern physicists and physics societies as it was so clearly demonstrated by DLR-meters.

Modern physicists thus allowed climate science and CO2 alarmism to grow without questioning the physics, without understanding that a cuckoo chick was put into the nest of science ready to kick out real physics. Maybe today this insight is slowly emerging...

3 kommentarer:

  1. Yes, it may be emerging. At least, I had the same idea just a few days ago, of using the cuckoo bird as a metaphor for the problem. And though I wasn't thinking specifically in terms of the deleterious effect of quantum mechanics at the time (the first and greatest error--and the first denial of objective reality--was Darwinian evolution, and the banishment of the idea of design of the natural world, even though specific examples of really obvious design abound in nature), I agree that the most fundamental idea in physics--that of an objective, not subjective, reality--has been too easily given up by too many "physicists" (in quotation marks, because I do not feel they are my fellows in physics, but third-rate logicians). And I would caution that I see no sign of reality emerging among the mass of physicists--certainly not among those in the public climate debates, where "models" are given the status of experiments, and their results touted as facts. My research allows me to say that it all boils down to dogmas (i.e., unquestioned assertions about reality) having become ascendant over honest, and hard, reasoning. I don't even like the placing of mathematical equations above strictly physical insight--mathematical physics is but the offspring of logical(i.e., logically coherent) physics.

  2. We basically agree, but logically coherent physics is physics which can be expressed in mathematical terms. But not all mathematics is physics. What is important is that the basic postulates have a physical meaning. This was however violated by Einstein to be physics created from ad hoc mathematical postulates, like constancy of the speed of light in special relativity, which is physics/reality imposed by mathematics when it should instead be mathematics imposed by physics/reality.

  3. Ah, I wish Lubos Motl dared to question. He know accepts the idea that the GHE doesn't contradict any laws of thermodynamics.