After reading the newspaper clipping you linked to (and which you obviously just got from ClimateDepot), one can do two things:
- research the issue a bit and see how 1911 journalistic accuracy records compare to those of today;
- be a wishful thinker, just HOPE it to be true (particularly the 'electrified children' bit), continue not being a skeptic and just post the damn smear anyway!
By 1911 Arrhenius already had won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry (for his electrolytic theory of dissociation or on how chemical compounds can carry electric current) and his works on the relation between electricity and chemistry are well know (in the Real World, that is). Furthermore, Arrhenius was one of the pioneers of immunochemistry.
BTW, here's a 1912 article after the 'electricity experiments' were carried out. It's far less sensational than the one used by Morano and yourself: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/...
If you are talking about nutcases like Madd Maxx and Sagebrush, even if their conclusions were vindicated by a world which had run out of hydrocarbons but one in which people were freezing, rather than cooking, their reasoning would still be unscientific. Science is not decided by quoting politicians or posting videos of graphs taped to see-saws. And just because the Sun, or even the UV-visible-near IR absorbing properties of oxygen and nitrogen can effect the energy balance does not mean that we don't also need to know how any of these are trending.
Regarding your link about Svante Arrhenius, how well do students perform today when they have to do without electric lights?
Considering that, at the time, electric lights and other electrical things were relatively new, it seems reasonable for scientists to have been investigating the effects of those things on children. I assume that's what the article means by "electrified".
And, generally, it's not "So-and-so is a nutcase, so his ideas on AGW are dismissed", it's more... "So-and-so is a nutcase, so what he says on AGW should not be taken as conclusive; basically everyone else is saying this other thing, instead"--or, in other words, the views aren't being dismissed because nutcases hold them, the views are being dismissed because *only* nutcases hold them.
(edit for grammar fail)
i don't think so. He had a great deal of insight into the greenhouse effect, before it was even named so, as well as the relationship between CO2 and global warming.
The article you link to wasn't written by him or about him. It references a "suggestion" he made but doesn't clarify his suggestion nor does it say how his suggestion may have been altered So we don't know how important his suggestion was to the actual experiment. Sounds like an alternative shock therapy to me
The nut cases you refer to are those who think aliens are at the center of it all, conspiracy freaks (we have a few here) and a few that can't distinguish there **** from a hole in the ground
Svante wasn't a skeptic and it is a far cry to link an arbitrary very old story to think he was a skeptic or nutcase
Simple answer yes. However if they truely are a nutcase then being correct on almost any issue is as much chance as not.
Also, Svante is NOT a nutcase.
Ok, so I read the article. Perhpas he is a nutcase...
You are not doing anything to help your case, Ottawa Mike. :)
As far as making any determinations as to if Svante Arrhenius is a nut case or not, I can only tell you that not enough information is given to make that determination. Even the brief description of his experiment would not suffice to make a determination, of any sort. ... Does not compute. Insufficient data. :)
He is an idiot savant, (Just making fun of his name)
When they first started making light bulbs and electrifying houses there was a lot of misinformation out there. Edison himself was guilty of trying to scare people. I never heard of the electricity being good for you. Well to continue my previous pun, there were a lot of "idiot savants" that invented things and came up with great ideas but sometimes they did not have full tool chest. Svant seems like he had a full chest with sharp tools but he was misguided on electricity.
Absolutely.
Doesn't change the properties of gases or the laws of thermodynamics.
Not much changes, it is mobile phone towers now bringing the same bogeyman up to date.
We often hear that skeptic so and so is a nutcase and then his views on AGW are summarily dismissed. Is Svante Arrhenius a nutcase?: http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=ROTWKG19111025.2.56&srpos=7&e=-------100--1----0arrhenius
Ha! Ha! Sounds like Dork's grandfather, Svante, had a screw loose too. Ha! Ha!
******: "By 1911 Arrhenius already had won the Nobel Prize" Al Gore won a Nobel Prize. Obama won a Nobel Prize. Just putting it in prospective. Ha! Ha!
