Top NASA Professor Calls Global Warming Nonsense
brought to my attention by producer JBW:
“This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, its not up to me to prove it does not exist, its up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory. Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming.”
“This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, its not up to me to prove it does not exist, its up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory. Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming.”
That whole teapot thing was thrown at me when discussion the existence of God. Unlike man made global warming, the "God" argument (never seems to be a discussion) is one that no one alive will ever win.
And no one will be able to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that God exists, but I do agree with your later argument that the odds of something this amazingly complicated could have evolved make the inverse of Avogadro's number look like a big number.
I've got class now, an all day test in another class tomorrow, and two tests and a 15-hour day on Wed.
Undoubtedly evolution is part of the plan, but I don't think that was the whole plan. Expect an answer on Thursday. Sorry for the delay.
I do appreciate Chapter 1 in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Fascinating. I also really appreciate Clarke's Childhood's End. Staggeringly compelling.
I am willing to suspend judgement on both theories at present. Plenty of things yet to learn and neither theory requires an immediate answer, imo.
<http://www.fredoneverything.net/BotFly.s...>
1. selection mechanism 2. offspring of any species is not a clone of the parent (sexual reproduction, random genetic variations/mutations, epigenetics) 3. reproduction
All of these are obvious and observable and you benefit from this knowledge and to deny it is to say gravity doesn't exist.
Where I take issue is the Origin of the species. The odds of even 1 minuscule step in the "evolutionary" scheme is astronomical. Combine all of the necessary steps and the prospect of randomly making life is inconceivable odd-wise. I won't even go into the placement of the planet or the type of sun or the miraculous meteorite theory that brought with it the seeds of life. The odds are much better for intelligent design or God placing us here.
But alas, we won't know until we're beyond this phase of existence.
I'm reading a book on Hinduism now for research...fascinating stuff.
If you know everything about how things came to be in the universe, then you can instruct me on ignorance.
You don't. I said nothing about ignoring anything. You drew conclusions from something I made no mention of and made no assertion about.
Since you ignored what I typed above, i will not explain it further.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AO...
As stated earlier "What I know about the theory of evolution is that the fossil evidence partially supports it. It does not completely explain how humans have come to be as they are, much less all other parts of the universe." Intelligent design is one theory that may explain this more completely, or not.
I made no statement whatsoever against the theory of evolution except that I reserved judgement. Read your own post and see if you think it was a calm rational response to my comment, or if it could be taken as hostile (as I read it to be.)
What I know about the theory of evolution is that the fossil evidence partially supports it. It does not completely explain how humans have come to be as they are, much less all other parts of the universe.
Having a theory of evolution that is partially supported by the fossil record does nothing to preclude intelligent design.
You are confident of the complete truth of the theory of evolution. Based on evidence, the theory is not adequate, imo. Perhaps someday it could be, or maybe not.Therefore I reserve judgement.
I have no vested interest in either theory being true or false. I don't care enough to continue a discussion with you.
If you wish to report me to the teacher, by all means do so.
I am sure you have a lot more "pull" than I do.
Then the teacher can block my posts and censor my opinions.
The intelligent design concept of "specified complexity" was developed in the 1990s by mathematician, philosopher, and THEOLOGIAN William A. Dembski.[4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent...
so, we have a theologian who first postulated the hypothesis of intelligent design. Theologians do not generally acknowledge "some higher form of intelligence" rather God. again with the ad hominem attack. Your experience with our administrators on this site has been one of "teacher" vs unruly student? really? I did say "flag" and I meant "hide" which is a producer post privilege. I am sorry for the confusion on that. This site is about discussing ideas within reason and logic. Prepare to support your assertions. I have to do it on this site, why don't you? I began a post about man made global warming. We are now discussing intelligent design. Most producers would say start your own thread. I said immediately, have the conversation. but I did not call you names, nor did I intentionally insult you. Rather I questioned your assertions, expecting lively debate. Instead you sort of called me ignorant, and yes, a slut. well done
The whole if a tree fell in the forest thing. It kind of smacks with justifiable arrogance. :)
So, prior to radar and spacecraft, if there were a mutation where one person were to have sight and "see" said teapot, all others would have to have "faith" in order believe that person, am I getting that correct?
second part, yes that would be the qualifier but people would have to believe him/her (and not everyone would - human nature).
Are you saying that the only things that you accept as valid are those that you have personally verified? I doubt that. So, you have "faith" that those that did "see" whatever it is, are telling you the truth.
I don't want to get into that argument again, but the analogy applies.
No, but the corn would because it has ears.
You are probably correct with your statement regarding God, "...is one that no one alive will ever win."
However I must disagree with the other part of your statement, " (never seems to be a discussion)." In my experience I too have found many people calling themselves Christians who don't seem to be clear on the concept. In my opinion, any serious Christian will be happy to "discuss" God and Christianity. I have also witnessed many atheists who tend to attack Christians and Christianity and the existence of a God and therefore set up a situation where discussion on the subject tends to be difficult. That of course should not prohibit true Christians from discussing the subject rather than argue about it.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.comk
The burden of proof is always on the believer; e.g. It is appropriate not to believe in a god without proof.
For those who want to find proof, it abounds. For those who want a personal manifestation to scare them into changing their ways - or simply just so that can experience something spectacular - they are asking for the equivalent of a spiritual atom bomb to get dropped on their heads. Personally, I advise that there are much easier and less dramatic ways to answer the question, but they do involve replacing open antipathy and skepticism with a real openness and scientific pursuit of the truth.
The reality is that man-made global warming is a hoax pushed on us by people who want to profit from the government regulations they are pushing. Want proof? Look no further than the high priest himself: Al Gore. His net worth as Vice President was under a million dollars. After he became the face of anthropogenic global warming he became worth tens of millions of dollars.
To presume that mankind can predict the weather - one of the most complex interactions in science - is an act of sheer hubris.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27...
Russell created a system of expression for symbolic logic, and is perhaps famous for a paradox:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27...
Russell's view of logic was not the same as Rand's. My own attempts to cast Rand's logic into the framework of Russell's met with failure right at the outset. Still, he is worth readingfor his often provocative viewpoints. Among Objectivists Russell has been described as inconsistent in his philosophy, but perhaps it's only because he lived long enough to change his mind several times. I heard one Objectivist wit remark (borrowing from Heraclitus who said that all is change, and that you cannot step into the same river twice), "You cannot step into the same Russell twice."
As for global warming, I try to ask the proponents of the theory to explain Mars, where CO2 is presumably at a higher concentration in the skimpy Martian atmosphere.
The global warming "science" is actually a religion, as it is to be believed in the face of contrary evidence. It is "settled" and anyone who disagrees is a heretic.
Industry, especially heavy industry, produces alot of CO2. Thermal Power Stations do so as well, so it´s not only transportation and fossil fuels. Even buildings contribute to the effect of global warming through the consumption of energy at unrational levels, radiation by reflection and lack of green in cities, and of course the massacre of forests. Some have taken measures against these issues. California, Spain, Germany, Australia, and other countries and regions have switched to "greener" sources of energy such as solar power, wind power and nuclear power. Architects have gone as far as creating certificates and prizes for "greening" buildings.
Nevertheless, some things still remain the same. Deforestation ceases to stop or be controlled fully, fossil fuels continue to be abused despite the obvious and many countries such as China continue to consume Thermal Energy using open air coal burners and such. Meanwhile, the storm keeps building up.
2) CO2 emissions have continued to increase over the past 20 years, yet warming has not. Thus, the causal effect (at least at the range of current levels) is clearly not established. There may be some causal effect from very low levels upwards, which then asymptotically level off, or there may also be an effect at very high levels (higher than can sustain mammalian life), but not in the range we're at now (and although it wasn't measured in the 19th century it is hypothesized that the CO2 in the atmosphere was much higher due to the types of uses of fossil fuels at the time, yet no global warming was observed then).
3) What you call "green" power sources really aren't so, as they consume much more fossil fuels to create the power generation apparatus than they ever produce.
4) These "green" power sources must be augmented with fossil fuel power plants since none of them are a reliable source of substantial power generation - the wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine. Operating these fossil fuel plants at lower than optimum capacity is highly inefficient and doing this for long periods of time can cause rapid deterioration of the power generating capacity.
5) Nuclear is more highly regulated than even fossil fuels. When's the last time you heard of a nuclear power plant being authorized to be built? The last one to come on-line was in 1996.
6) Your "scientific proof" has been debunked. Nobody has been able to recreate the "hockey stick" curve independently, AND those "scientists" were caught via e-mails in having fabricated the data.
You're mistaken about solar. The solar panels have a very short useful life. They begin degrading in efficiency almost immediately. They use precious metals and mercury.
As for CO2, how do you explain the past 20 years?
Nuclear Plants are in vogue again, and there are new technologies that produce "batteries" of low powered, naturally cooled systems that are alot safer than those major domes. You can look into to it. The fact that the US doesn´t want to use Nuclear Energy is beyond me, but the crisis is about the world and not just one part of the woods.
Have you ever stopped to wonder why the railway system in the US is so primitive? Being there incredible electric powered train systems in europe, Japan and other countries; why doesn´t the US allow trains to become a major means of transportation? The problem, appart from being cultural (my car, my time, my sofa with wheels) is also quite political and financial, since all those "puppeteers" that really run the show (Obama, George W., Bill and the rest are all puppets) well, the real masters of the game have already invested alot of money on fossil fuel based industries such as the automobile, the extraction of raw oil and, yes, the grand federal reserve. Weapons of mass destruction? Why doesn´t the US destroy their own, having the largest arsenal on earth the question still stands, doesn´t it?
Do some research and then argue with facts, not ancient history...
If you want to invest in solar, go ahead. But if you want to sell the electricity generated, you have to accept the market price set by the cheapest option which is coal. That price will cover the operating cost but will not be sufficient to justify the investment. There is a way out, get government to extract the difference from taxpayers and give it to you, what we call a subsidy. Everyone, except the solar investor (moocher), loses. without those subsidies there would next to no solar generation.
Trains. Electric trains are as you say, clean quiet and generally cheaper than coal or diesel. You will not find many coal powered steam trains today. Diesel has the great advantage of not requiring big investment in infrastructure such as overhead power lines and high voltage transmission lines. This is not an advantage in densely populated areas but is important for freight lines covering long distances in areas remote from electricity generation and power lines.
For passenger travel, I doubt you could find a single line in Europe, Japan or Australia that is not government subsidized.
Other points. The USA is not (yet) a centrally planned economy so saying the US "should" or "allow" does not apply.
Yes, solar panels deteriorate with age, I have seen the figure of 1% pa of capacity used.
Crisis: yes the globe is in crisis, it is political from the application of fallacies in economics, and trying to be altruistic inappropriately. There is no climate crisis, there is no energy crisis.
"Woods" I know you used this word in a different context but it is relevant to point out that politically driven and artificial high energy prices are causing deforestation as people chop trees for fuel, this is happening in Europe.
and they are in DEBT. big debt
http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/30/rfk-jr...
to provide some balance to the argument this is an article recently from a green tech site-obviously they are biased in favor:
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/13/cont...
the fields were yielding less. So less food production for more alternative fuel production. We still have people starving on the planet. No one thinks about opportunity costs!
Come to think of it, we could use solar energy for electricity and the production of drinking water, all at the same time. Just imagine, using the reflected radiation for separating salt from sea water and then, after the steam activates the generators, it´s condensed and used as drinking water (after, let´s say, five or six cycles). Dunno, creativity is key in science, otherwise it´s just math...
which proof? we have spent a great deal of time on this post showing the mis information and out right lies in these reports. You can deny it, but it's reality. While I agree it's important to move into more efficient power producers-so far solar and wind have not proven out. Regulations keep new nuclear facilities from being built and of course, the goal would be to get China out of 2nd world status on manufacturing. The only way for them to increase their level of technology is to strengthen their patent system and create wealth. Deforestation happens where govts own the forests. Private owners are careful with their resources.
In essentials it has been dis-proven.
That if warming is not everywhere, then it is not "global"? Don't get defensive.
Note that warming and cooling have existed, but not GW as a warming trend over time. GW has a broader meaning in today's political climate; in that context: no evidence, BOP is on the environmentalists.
The hypothesis - as presented by environmentalists - does not merely say that there is warming and cooling. Further, what warming we have had has not been truly global.
We have just gone through this with pre-Clovis settlement of the New World, and have weathered this same storm with genetics/environment, continental drift, and Lamarkism. Science must be free to doubt.
Jan
It may interest you that I was compelled, some 40 years ago (or more) to get rid of an Expanding Universe. I believe I did, with the help of Ayn Rand.
Jim Wright
We have seen it before but it is so good that it is worth a second round.
For the record, there is a sentence which I am sure is a misquote
(credit to poster on the Yorkshire newspaper forum):
"There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years."
It should say:
There is no reproducible scientific evidence that CO2 has caused any significant increase of temperature in the last 100 years.
That is, there has been a measured increase in CO2, but it does not correlate with measured temperature.
Ok to now return to religion and epistemology.
Actually there appears to be a lot of problems with the "science" associated with determining CO2 levels. See http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/ and http://www.fakeclimate.com/arquivos/Inte... and http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/35-....
The problem with having a rational discussion about AGW is that AGW prophets think it is acceptable to lie about the data. This makes a rational discussion almost impossible.
Measuring and modeling how much CO2 is in the atmosphere
Yes it is quite a difficult and uncertain exercise even doing it now with modern instruments. Quantifying amounts in the past is subject to vast uncertainty.
On top of that there is misuse of data as your first ref shows.
Yet there is evidence that CO2 is a temperature indicator, it seems to lag (not lead) temperature by 800 years. Temperatures go up, 800 years later there is an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, this matches what is known about the oceans releasing CO2 as temperatures increase.
This is consistent with your second and third refs.
So, if CO2 is increasing now, were global temperatures higher 800 years ago?
Yes! the medieval warm period when the Vikings colonized Greenland.
(Do not expect to see this in the notorious 'hockey stick').
There are several natural processes whereby CO2 leaves the atmosphere. How long does it (on average) stay?
Several studies have come up with answers of between 2 and 20 years. The IPCC says- 100 years. Using a shorter residence time, the climate models would not predict the fast warming that they say is caused by human CO2 emissions.
What physical evidence -observations, measurements- was used by the IPCC for the 100 year figure? None.
It may be his An Inconvenient Truth.
There is a graph showing CO2 concentration and temperature going back thousands of years. With a bit of imagination you could say they go up and down together. The periods are on average about 10,000 years. The commentary draws attention to this and says - so CO2 drives temperature. But, if you look closely it can be seen that temperature movements are a bit ahead, by on average 800 years. So CO2 follows temperature.
( Well, you could say that temperature follows CO2 by about 9,200 years. )
When you see the jaggedness of the graph lines, and realize the lack of precision of the numbers, there can be no justification for any kind of action.
800-year discussion on:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/carbon-...
Actually, Solitude, maybe you should cast off that bliss and seek out some serious discomfort among people who know something you do not.