[geocentrism] Re: Climate change
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 17:57:08 +0000 (GMT)
JA
I'll intersperse in teal.
----- Original Message ----
From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 5 June, 2007 7:12:04 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Climate change
in red. and for convenience - man made global warming will be MMGW.
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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? Your
point is meaningless. (My point is that "First it's not true" is a bald
assertion) Everything you or I write is from our own opinion, I don't need to
qualify everything I say with "this is just my opinion here". (Perhaps not but
it would help if you were to differentiate). We are all influnced by the people
around us, the things we read, etc...., So what? (Well you criticise me for
quoting others). Good grief, either disagree with my statement or don't, but
leave the nitpicking out (i'll try to do the same). (My questions would be
recognised by most as a criticism).
second it's wrong to put your faith in these kinds of statements.
Why? Because the fault in the system is so evident. (But again you assert with
no attempt to substantiate). It seems to me you put your faith in statements by
others,all people put their faith in things, you are no exception (I accept as
probable those statements which, in the light of my current state of knowledge,
have the ring of truth to them; and I reject as improbable those statements
which, in the light of my current state of knowledge, have the ring of untruth
to them). as evidenced by little or no reasoning. Thats funny, you have yet to
show any reasoning except your reasoning about how others know more than you
and you accept it because of some high degree of probability you find in it. (I
suggest that "...a high degree of probability in..." is a fairly compelling
position. I think you need to read my statements with a little more attention.
Perhaps my arguments are a bit too long and you get bored) And I would
appreciate your not ascribing my actions to 'faith'
-- it smacks of religious indoctrination. I have 'confidence' in the sources I
quote. Then your religious indoctrination is complete to include your revulsion
of things religious - which all beliefs are, even scientific ones - no wonder
you are unable to question what you believe in. (Can you point to anything in
which you believe that you question? But to your points -- Wrong on three
counts. 1 I do not have revulsion of things religious. 2 My OCD defines
religion (in part) as " Human recognition of superhuman controlling power and
especially of a personal God entitled to obedience, effect of such recognition
on conduct and mental attitude". I do not see science meeting this definition.
3 I stand ready to to dump any science derived view when presented with
credible evidence. I doubt that you reciprocate) You have your priests and your
faith in them, you just don't use those terms. You are no different than the
mud-hut native who goes to his witch-doctor for
help or advice. You have absolute faith in what you "know" to be true, because
you were raised to believe it, (Again wrong. My views are self motivated --
neither of my parents had any particular sophistication in any scientific
discipline, or culture. My father's idea of literature (or other things one can
learn from reading) was the sports section of the plebian press; my mother's
endeavours were principally associated with a narrow range of hand crafts. I
was encouraged by my State School System teachers but still my principle
learning experience was self motivated extracurricular reading and reasoning. I
had a religious upbringing but I questioned that position and found it
wanting). your edjucation supported it and the people you respect believe it
to! (Just a query - can you state that you do NOT meet these criteria?)
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? I don't know if I accept your
assumption of a profit motive for a conspiracy to exist. That being said - Gore
has certainly made a profit, moneywise and in politics, just like others.
Environmentalists probably would expect to see less pollution, if changes were
forced on people, so thats a less-pollution profit. Liberals usually like
government control over things and its also a cause one could ride to power, so
thats a control or power profit. Communists and Dictators the world over would
like to see the free-er societies knocked down a few pegs, so that would be a
power profit. People who keep hearing about the "scientific consensus" have a
"we don't want to look stupid" profit to make.
Finding profit for people in MMGW is easy. (OK -- some pretty good points
there. I'm not convinced however that it's enough. Contrary to a prominent
popular opinion, I believe that politicians -- of all persuasions, even those
with whom I dissagree most -- entered this arena because they thought they
could make a difference for the better, that their endeavours, if successful,
would benefit their society. So you see, if I do not ascribe ulterior motives
to this group, can you not see that it is unlikely that I would ascribe such
motives to others. For instance, the actions of the pressure group within the
Dover School Board in attempting to introduce religion by the back door into
school science class rooms I do not class as conspiracy. They were doing what
they just knew was their obligation, while I see it as a less than honest
attempt to circumvent the law which needed to be resisted but I do not see it
as a conspiacy, at least not in the wider sense).
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 ... '?
Yup. It's the everyone knows. (This would be in the same category as "Iron
ships won't float - iron is heavier than water"; " Heavier than air aircraft? -
Are you mad?"; "Rockets won't work in empty space - there is nothing to push
against! What an idiot!" Whole books have been published on this subject - in
fact I'm waiting for such a volume to arrive in the mail at this time). Are you
going to say that someone going for an meterological degree would not be
trained that co2 is a greenhouse gas that is the cause of MMGW? (That is not
opinion training -- that is education in the results of observation and the
current evaluation of the likely outcome. Opinion training means
being indoctrinated in what opinion to express without regard to the facts --
not at all the same thing).
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. true, but how does one rock the boat
in societies that are not free? (Just as you would in societies that are free
except that the cost to you may well be higher as alluded to in my earlier
comments which follow. There are many examples in history). For the matter, how
does one rock the boat if the responce is always "we have a scientific
consensus that does not agree with you"? (The act of rocking the boat does not
guarantee success. To achieve success, you have to demonstrate evidence which
an increasing proportion of the people will accept. Even then, you may have
problems. Two shining examples. First, Gregor J Mendel who first worked out the
principles of inheritance (not money but genes). He was an
Augustinian priest (a cloistered order I think - in any event he worked in
isolation) who when he died, had his papers burned by his abbot because the
abbot feared that this "knowledge", if widely available, would be a threat to
the church. Today his work is recognised and respected because it has utility
ie it works. Second, the disastrous effect of doctrinal domination of science,
in this case the Soviet Union and its "Soviet theory of Genetics" (as though
ideology could influence truth ie, what is). The man the Soviets chose to back
was named Lysenko. After of 50 years(?) of failure to demonstrate the truth of
his claims, with the Soviet Union falling further and further behind in this
matter and the matters upon which this false view of genetics bore, the Soviet
Union had to reverse its position. If you do nothing else at my suggestion,
please go here
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0033-5770%28199012%2965%3A4%3C447%3ADYISG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage
and read just the first of 10 pages (you have to pay for the other nine). I
think this speaks more eloquently to my position than I can ever hope to
emulate. There are of course many other sources you could consult to verify or
dismiss my thinking on this matter though I think you'll look very hard to find
many of the latter). 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. |[:-) Yes, lets not go there. I am talking to you and you alone, or are
you saying there is no way I or anybody else can change your mind unless your
scientific concensus changes course and tells you to? (Yes - and I am talking
to you alone. But - I will only change my mind on anything if you (or others)
offer statements, evidence, experimental results which carry the ring of truth
and are supported by either my ability to verify and/or similar evidence from
other sources which I respect. To do less is to blow in the wind and to be
untrue to oneself).
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. Actually, this is your mistake, if you are mistaken about co2's
contribution. ( JA (wish you had a name) I did not mean it is neither Sun nor
CO2 - I meant it is not a binary choice between the two, it can be a
combination. Further, either increased irradiance or increased retention or
both will result in higher temperatures. And retention is affected by CO2
concentration).
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. All of these things you have mentioned as heat sources
are minor, compared to the sun (I suspect you are correct but I don't know this
and I don't think you do either. Consider - from ~ 14 deg C down to -40 deg C
is a drop of 54 deg C but from here to 0 deg K is a further whopping 233 deg C)
and I would think they would tend to be rather constant sources. (I suspect you
are correct). Therefore they can be ignored when looking
for a cause of warming. (To a first order of approximation you are probably
correct but again if retention increases, this has the effect of multiplying
the effect of all sources.) 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. how
dismissive! (Sorry - that was a bit glib). 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. Your witch doctor thinks you
should sleep with a chicken foot inserted in your lower backside tonight to
remove the demons of constipation - you being the most prudent man of the
village hurridly agrees. (JA I was warming to your contribution up to this
point. Your acknowledgement that this was unhelpful would be welcome).
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. We should also not
fall into the trap of assuming that a clear cut possiblity is untrue because we
think we already know the answer. (Of course - but I think I have shown more
flexibility here than have you).
Oops! its late, I gotta stop,
Hope your sleep was not interrupted by impressions of being slowly baked. I
hope the chicken foot worked. (No idea - hypothesis not tested as deemed
improbable).
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.
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
_________________________________________________________________________________
How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in
Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/aunz/lifestyle/answers/y7ans-babp_reg.html
Other related posts:
