[geocentrism] Re: Climate change

JA
Pleased to have been able to give you a break! |[:-) ... I'll intersperse in 
teal.

Paul, 
Not a problem. Having a few days between posts is a nice break. I'll 
Intersperse with Blue
Peer review of unproven, unprovable supposition by supporters of the same 
worldview are meaningless to truth seeking. So much science has nothing to do 
with testable-repeatable stuff but with interpreting things so they fitt the 
world-view. And that boils it down to faith. How then would you organise so as 
to discover truth? For that matter, how would you recognise truth? Pointing out 
the trouble with something is always easier than giving a solution. I 
personally think that the discovery of absolute truth, on a large scale, by 
lots of people, is next to impossible and will not happen till after the end of 
the world. But for recognizing truth, you must use the only tools available to 
you: 1) gods word 2) logic 3) observation 4) experience. And if you don't 
accept #1, then you still have the other 3. You know, this sounds very much 
like you are beginning to understand why I keep saying that there is no such 
thing as certainty.
When a fact is taken and interpreted according to a world-view and then the 
interpretation is presented as fact, you are not engaged in "scientific 
practice" you are engaged in "trust in what other people say with no evidence". 
The problem is, that if your world-views match, than it would be extremley hard 
to recognize the difference. I'm sorry -- I can't get the gyst of what you are 
saying here.
When someone makes a point you already agree with, it is difficult to recognise 
the interpretation from fact. If you examine the "facts" in your arsenal, you 
may find they are interpretations. Quite so. Objectivity is very difficult to 
achieve and perfect objectivity impossible.
[1] This is where I want to hear the evidence that makes it "undeniable" that 
mans activity is additive and [2] the additive amount equals massive trouble 
that requires action. [3] You are still dismissing the possiblity that the sun 
is solely responsible for any meaningfull change in global temperatures. I've 
broken this into three parts. First. If you create two boxes from plywood, one 
metre in all directions, paint them black and put them in the sun with 
temperature sensing probes inserted, then after some time you will note that 
the temperature will have risen equally in each box, more or less stabilising 
after some time. Later in the day as the Sun passes the zenith and sinks toward 
the horizon, the indicated temperatures will be found to fall, also equally. If 
tomorrow you repeat the experiment but with a lighted candle in one box, you 
will note that the temperatures will again track, but the one with the candle 
in it will be marginally higher. Make the box a little
 bigger and the margin will be even less. Put some holes in the box for a 
little heat loss and the margin should get smaller still. Make the box 
increasingly large and/or the holes more frequent and eventually the margin 
will be unmeasurable. (I'm going to assume here you meant '...boxes...'.)Yes -- 
but that is just a failure of instrumentation. The margin will still exist. If 
the heat sources were truely additive, wouldn't the earth eventually heat-up to 
the same temp as rays from the sun and possibly higher if the earth produces 
heat of its own? No, absolutely not. This is because the heat loss, and there 
will always be loss, increases with rising temperature thus for fixed inputs, a 
balance will always be achieved. This is a good example of negative feedback.
Second. This is not certain. I have not claimed that it is. But I have claimed 
that it is prudent to consider the possibility that it is. I still so claim. 
There is a difference between considering something and acting on something. I 
would say that you advocate the position that it is true. At this point I 
believe it prudent to act as if it were true. Some of the possibilities I have 
seen suggest that there are some possitive feedback mechanisms which would 
produce -- at a certain temperature -- an accelerating temperature rise until a 
new balance is achieved. This new balance temperature could be higher than life 
could sustain, with the exceptions perhaps being those heat loving organisms 
which live in sulphurous hot springs. Given a choice between the human species 
-- and our companion temperate loving species -- becoming extinct, I prefer the 
ignominy of being shown to be wrong rather than the impossibility of being 
shown to be wrong.
Third. Yes -- because, as explained above, you could only claim this to be so 
if you took Man and his activities out of the equasion. I note however your use 
of 'meaningful'. My comment ignores this. Yes, "meaningful" would make a 
difference.

From an earlier post From Paul Deema Sat Jun 16 23:11:59 2007-- (you in red).
You could start with facts - but be ready to be challenged on whether you've 
actually given a fact or simply an interpretation based on a worldview. A body, 
wholly or partially immersed in a fluid experiences an up thrust equal to the 
weight of the fluid displaced. Testable in any suburban kitchen. When rolling 
down an incline at a given angle, all spheres will out accelerate all disks 
which will out accelerate all hoops. A bit harder but you should be able to 
test this in your garage. A syphon will transfer liquids from one vessel to 
another only while the height of the surface in the source vessel remains 
greater than the height of the surface in the destination vessel. Testable in 
any suburban laundry. And here's a beauty! We've all seen the experiment where 
a lighted candle placed in a bowl of water is covered by an inverted 
cylindrical glass jar whose rim is pushed down below the surface of the water. 
What happens initially is that the water in the jar is pushed down
 below the level of the surface in the bowl but that presently the candle 
extinguishes and shortly after, the water rises in the jar about 20% of the 
height and we are told that this demonstrates that the oxygen content of the 
air is about 20% by volume since it was used up by the combustion. Well this is 
wrong. I have done an experiment which shows that this is wrong. Further I have 
deduced why the explanation is wrong. To this date (30 years have elapsed) I 
have not received a summons to answer charges of scientific heresy. I look 
forward to your comments on these four examples.
I gave you four examples. I'm still looking forward to your comments. I'll try 
to comment on your examples in the next day or two. No hurry -- I have other 
pressing matters at this time anyway. You might also give a thought to my 
several responses concerning indoctrination in that same post).
Paul D 

 
Paul D

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

Other related posts: