[geocentrism] Re: Climate change
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 07:58:34 +1000
Paul said to Ja. And I would appreciate your not ascribing my actions to
'faith' -- it smacks of religious indoctrination. I have 'confidence' in the
sources I quote.
If you really understood , Paul , confidence in the sources is what faith is,
not to be confused with Blind faith, and I hope Blind confidence.
Contrary to popular belief, the priest, who dedicates his life , his whole life
in every sense of the word, to the church, is chosen , not from the peasant,
but from the highly educated, requiring a level higher than a Ph D , in
philosophy, theology and science, to be fluent in at least 3 to 5 languages
plus Latin. The entry level is much higher than that required for University
today.
Through history many many thousands of them gave their entire lives to serving
the community, in poverty, one of the vows they chose to take. And pre empting
the obvious objection, this is true despite that not many saints come from the
Popes, and it is written that the floor of Hell is covered in the bones of
bishops..
Whether it be religious faith or scientific confidence, for me in both cases ,
I depend upon reasoned research and verification. I could never support
anything religious on Blind faith, as I did once support things scientific on
Blind confidence.
If the science particularly the math is beyond my knowledge, today I check with
other qualified scientists, and then check/verify his reply. Rest assured I
have yet to have any text, that is beyond my comprehension or ability to learn,
when I have the imperative to learn it. I can quickly detect an erroneous
assertion. Such is my basic training, which all were given prior to the 50's,
whatever their specialisation. It means an Electrician is comfortable reading
biology, or medicine or whatever.
You have heard me say here often, don't give me the mathmatical equation, give
me the physical reality.
I merely ask the same reasoned response from you, yet you always/mostly avoid
the science, and revert to blind sometimes ad hominum remarks, which fail to
contribute any support for your position.. e.g things smack (ing) of
religious indoctrination.
I thought you could do better.
end first part .
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:48 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Climate change
JA
I really must take issue with most of the points in your post From j a Mon
Jun 4 22:24:03 2007.
1) Reguardless of any definition - Concensus as used by the warming crowd is
something like "All of the properly edjucated and degreed professionals who
work in the approved fields agree except for a few misguided individuals".
OK -- paraphrased to reflect your particular prejudices, but pretty close.
First it's not true,
Do you know this or are you just being influenced by others? If you know --
what is your reasoning? If you just believe it's true -- why not say so?
second it's wrong to put your faith in these kinds of statements.
Why? It seems to me you put your faith in statements by others, as evidenced
by little or no reasoning. And I would appreciate your not ascribing my actions
to 'faith' -- it smacks of religious indoctrination. I have 'confidence' in the
sources I quote.
I suppose it's to much to ask for you to recognise the type of conspiracy
behind this statement
Ah! conspiracy. Nobody does anything except they see profit from it. Just
where -- and I've posed this question a number of times without getting a
straight forward answer on those rare occasions that I got any answer -- is the
profit, in this instance, from preaching global warming?
where the only peolple whos opinion counts are people who have been trained
what the opinion should be
What is your justification for this assumption? Do you have a degree which
included opinion training? Do you know any 'degreed' person who has told you
about opinion training? Have you seen reports from people you don't know who
have reported opinion training? Or is it just that ' ... everyone knows ... '?
and in fact thier job and/or grand money is dependant upon sharing that
opinion.
I agree that it's difficult the buck the majority -- just look at the
problems encountered by all those 'unconventional' priests, pastors and
prelates. But this is as it should be. If you want to rock the boat, you must
be able to convince the majority that you are right. If this were not not so
then every organisation in the world would be rendered powerless as they strive
to implement the opinion gleaned from this afternoon's poll which modified
yesterday's poll which overturned last week's poll ... Or they could proceed
unilaterally on the assumption that they are right, disregarding all advice to
the contrary. Of course there is the other way -- you don't take polls, or seek
advice you just stride into the town centre with a band of enforcers, make your
pronouncement, shoot a few of the objectors and entrench your position. It'll
take longer, but sooner or later another group who just knows you are wrong and
that the people long for deliverance will similarly stride into town with a
bigger group of enforcers and the process escalates, pretty much as is
happening in several Arab countries even as we speak.
No -- the answer lies in reasoned debate among learned folk who reach
consensus and convince the elected (hopefully) government of the correctness of
their position who are entrusted with the task of legislating the future
direction of the society. If a mistake is made, and many would, with some
justification, contend that we have a recent glaring example before us at this
time, there is always another election just ahead (or if you use the latter
method -- a revolution a bit further down the track).
No system is perfect, but the one we have works rather better than so many
alternative models. It really gets interesting of course when we start having
arguments about changing the system but that is a bit beyond the scope of this
lesson. |[:-)
2) Increased sun activity causing increasing temps on other planet can be
easily looked up and has been reported many places - I cannot believe you
haven't heard about it.
I have heard about it.
If true, does it not lend credibility to the idea that global warming sould
be caused by it,
Here you repeat a mistake which I pointed out yesterday. It is not the Sun OR
CO2.
The Earth has several sources of energy of which I am aware though I cannot
quantify them -- I lack the qualifications necessary. The largest I believe is
the incident solar flux -- sunlight, about 1kW/m2 of a disk of the Earth's
diameter. I recall reading that if this were removed, then over time, the
average temperature would fall to ~-40 deg C. Next we have natural radioactive
decay. There are a number of these decay sequences but I am even less able to
quantify these. Then we have friction from tidal forces resulting from
Earth/Moon interaction. Again no quantification, but if you care to look, you
can find support for the idea that this force is responsible for the
extraordinary volcanism on Io orbiting Jupiter so the effect is real. Who knows
though, even here you may find a dissenting view you could champion. Lastly we
have the actions of Man.
My point in all this is that the Earth's temperature is determined by many
factors, not just a choice between incident solar flux and the percentage of
CO2 in the atmosphere. To get an answer you must do the sums and that is what
the consensus of climate scientists claims to have done. At this time I have
confidence that they are, if not correct, then at least espousing a course of
action of which a prudent man should take heed.
indeed perhaps all of the cycles of heating and cooling in the past are the
result of the suns changing output?
I have no doubt that the Sun has changed its output and that it has had an
effect on the Earth's temperature over a great period of time. The trap into
which one should take care not to fall is the assumption that it is the only
factor or even that it is the only factor worth considering.
Oops! its late, I gotta stop,
Hope your sleep was not interrupted by impressions of being slowly baked.
Paul D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in
Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: 4/06/2007 6:43
PM
Other related posts:
