Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CDarwin

Creationists and Global Warming Deniers

Recommended Posts

I wasn't able to find anything that he's published in a peer reviewed journal that has anything to do with global climate science.

 

No surprise. He isn't a climatologist. His and McKittricks paper here was about the methodology of Mann et al.

 

I rest my case, but wish to remind readers that you still haven’t supplied ANY additional peer-reviewed publications from him to support your statement.

 

 

I guess it's a good thing I didn't do that then. But if you think I did, how about you illustrate first that it is, in fact, a "clique."

 

I thought you said you had read the report? The statisticians called it that.

 

As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism

You still haven’t shown ANY other papers to have problems in methodology. You are still making blanket accusations with no evidence. For this reason, you aren’t to be taken seriously.

 

 

In my post on page 3 I linked to this paper concerning chemical analysis results for CO2 concentrations from 1812-2004. From 1812-1865, the record show CO2 concentrations at or well above todays levels.

The paper you linked from “climatepolice.com” says explicitly at the bottom, “This is an unofficial extract of E-G Beck's comprehensive draft paper and is for discussion not citing.” For this reason, I looked further into the work of Eli Beck, and found some interesting data.

 

 

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html

Beck’s paper is wrong, not only wrong, but a) the information Beck points to has been well known for a very long time b) the reasons for the earlier measurements being much higher than the current ones have been well known for at least 50 years and c) these problems were the original impetus for the Mauna Loa observatory (MLO) series. In other words, Beck is quite right about the measurement methods and quite wrong about their interpretation. Local knowledge can be very important.

 

Beck starts by noting that there have been a long series of measurements of the CO2 mixing ratio in air. He correctly points out that by 1900 various wet chemical methods were capable of measuring this to between 1 and 3% (3-6 ppm). He claims that:

 

Callendar( engineer), Keeling (chemist) and IPCC do not evaluate these chemical methods though being standard in analytical chemistry, discredited these techniques and data and rejected most as faulty and highly inaccurate because not helpful proving their hypothesis of fuel burning induced rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In using their concept of unpolluted background level they had examined about 10% of available literature and considered <1%>

 

But actually, Keeling was very familiar with the measurements, as can be seen in a letter he published in Science [This is in the JSTOR archive so it should be available to most (Science 102 (1978) 1109)], and a history of the MLO CO2 measurements (UPDATE: Link rot. Here is another link to the history) that he wrote ~1980.

Linked here http://www.af-info.or.jp/eng/honor/bppcl_e/e1993keeling.txt

 

 

Further, Beck is seriously overoptimistic about the accuracy and precision of the methods used before CD Keeling's introduction of the IR absorption method to quantify CO2 in the atmosphere. The best of the older methods in the 1950s could barely discern the seasonal cycle. Keeling's method, on the other hand did so easily with an accuracy of better than 1 ppm.

Finally Beck (together with many of his sources) is seriously mislead about what constitutes an isolated observation site for CO2 measurements. Keeling found that even in La Jolla, on the US West Coast, if the wind was blowing from LA there were problems. Essentially all of Beck's sources made measurements in Europe, including such rural and isolated areas as Vienna, Kopenhagen, Paris, Rostock, Dieppe, Bern, Hamburg, etc.

 

<…>

 

And if you measure in those rural spots that is what you get. You also observe a huge variabilty between measurements which is characteristic of situations where air pockets from urban areas are floating by. Because he is pushing this particular peanut up Warwick Hughes' hill, Beck misses probably the most important of CD Keeling's contributions. True, his spotting that CO2 mixing ratios could be much more accurately measured by IR absorption was major, but even more important was the long series of measurements he made during the 50s and 60s in California, the Western US, Hawaii and Antarctica which made absolutely clear that there were only a few places on earth where one could measure CO2 without local interferences. that also explains why most of the measuring stations in the current CO2 network are mid Pacific.

 

I am simply going to quote Keeling's Epilog which explains why Beck's analysis is wrong. For details, I refer the interested reader to the references at the end of Keeling's essay:

 

...... it seems paradoxical that truly reliable data were not obtained by investigators who deliberately sought undisturbed locations to obtain baseline CO2 data. As Bray (1959) noted, several nineteenth-century investigators, who claimed analytical analyses accurate to 1.0 ppm, made serious attempts to obtain data representative of locally undisturbed air. I conclude that these scientists, perhaps from an inadequate knowledge of meteorology and atmospheric motion, underestimated the difficulty in finding truly uncontaminated sites. When their analytical and sampling methods failed to give them the high reproducibility that they thought they had attained, they ascribed the scatter to the atmosphere itself and not to weaknesses in their methods.

 

In the first half of this century declining interest in atmospheric CO2 was kept alive by only a few investigators. The most notable was Kurt Buch of Finland, who concluded after many years of study that the CO2 concentration varied systematically with air mass. His claims (Keeling and Bacastow, 1977) that high arctic air had concentrations in the range of 150 to 230 ppm, north and middle Atlantic air, 310 to 345 ppm, and tropical air, 320 to 370 ppm, strongly influenced preparations for the IGY CO2 program, especially the Scandinavian program, which he initially supervised. When from inadequate chemical and sampling techniques the Scandinavian pre-lGY program produced CO2 concentrations in the same range as previous data, these new data were readily justified as resulting from different properties of the air masses passing over the sampling sites (Fonselius et al., 1956).

 

How long would the findings of the Scandinavian CO2 network have been accepted if new manometric and infrared studies had not been begun? The Scandinavian data continued to appear in the back pages of Tellus until after the infrared analyzer results for Mauna Loa and other locations had been presented at the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics meeting in Helsinki in 1960. But reform was on the way. Walter Bischof in 1959 had assumed responsibility for Swedish measurements. He soon became suspicious of their variability on the basis of discrepancies between ground-level and aircraft sampling (Bischof, 1960). Also, he had begun to use an infrared gas analyzer. With this abandonment of the traditional chemical method of analysis, the Swedish CO2 data ceased to include unreasonably low CO2 values. Then in 1960 Bischof turned to investigating suspiciously high values using aircraft to verify ground-level data. Probably within a year or two, considerably more accurate systematic data would have begun to appear from the Scandinavian program.

 

But it is far from certain that a Scandinavian site as reliable as MLO would have soon been established. The Scandinavian investigators lacked the funds to embark on an ambitious continuous sampling program at a remote station. Many years might have passed before data of the quality of the Mauna Loa record would have been forthcoming. Indeed, high costs almost caused MLO to close down in 1964 in spite of its obvious value as a CO2 sampling site. Disruptions under that threat of closure account for a serious gap in the CO2 record during the early part of 1964. Problems of cost also contributed to the decision to shut down the South Pole continuous analyzer program at the end of 1963. If these two remarkable sites had not already been established and yielded high-quality data before 1964, it is likely that the stimulus to start work at such remote sites would not have occurred for at least several more years because of financial impediments. Thus it was a fortunate circumstance that Wexler and Revelle in 1956 saw the value of using the IGY organization to check out the possibility of near constancy in atmospheric CO2 by inaugurating a precise sampling program. We all recognize now that such a program is essential if we are to document adequately the rise in atmospheric CO2.

 

 

 

 

BTW, I would really like you to read this work. Put bluntly, he claims that various physical laws are misapplied in the creation of GW models. Since his field is Physics, I would value your opinion as to whether he's full of it or not.

First, the paper was not published in a peer reviewed journal, so that should give you a hint. If you plan to claim that this is due to some vast conspiracy and “good ole boys club,” then you truly are grasping at straws.

 

 

Here is a link with a pretty good exposition of the faults in the work you cited.

 

http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/07/10/falsification-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-effects/

So, Gerlich and Tscheuschner couldn’t figure out where the magical values of 0.7 and 0.25 [1/4] came from, but they are just misleading their readers.

 

 

 

Perhaps you would care to look here. This page provides links to this work and also a link to this abstract concerning the placement of recording stations used by NOAA and others as a primary data source for surface temperature readings.

 

Sorry, but the articles linked within do not warrant his closing conclusion… by any means. I just read them, and fail to see how a comment such as the below is justified at all:

 

The new NOAA policy is a deliberate attempt to avoid presenting this information for scrutiny.

 

The references, IMO, don't warrant that conclusion, and I am inclined to agree with and accept the response Roger Pielke Sr received via email from NOAA which stated the following:

 

The policy is an attempt to protect volounteers from harrassment by the kind of conspiracy nuts that Surface Stations is likely to inspire.

 

Again, you have yet to prove the bias and conspiracy, and you continue in your attempts to sew the seeds of doubt using questionable sources and unsubstantiated claims. My frustration is growing. I’m not running out of logical arguments, I’m running out of patience. Then again, I've not often been accused of being a patient man.

 

 

I would also point you to this article by Syun-Ichi Akasofu from the International Arctic Research Center.

Well, my initial observation is how he began using an unfounded premise, specifically that it was only 1940 when the increase of CO2 began. He also states that the greenhouse effect CANNOT be measured quantitatively, only qualitatively, and I challenge that assertion as well, but let’s continue.

 

 

I invite you especially to consider Figure 12 on Page 11. The difference between the hindcasts and reality is striking. I may have no qualifications but Bad Forecasts/Hindcasts= Bad Models as far as I can tell.;)

Indeed. Did you happen to check the reference for that figure? Hansen (2006). It’s listed as a “Private Communication” with no other source data. We not only do not know from where the comparison graphs were taken, but we have no idea the context in which they were shared. I’d much rather find the context of the graph and the way it was used before I move along a line of argument suggesting that CO2 models are wrong, but that’s just me.

 

As has been told countless times before, global climate change is about a change in magnitude of the greenhouse effect, not that the greenhouse effect is the only thing that has an impact on global climate.

 

 

A point to ponder. If Increasing CO2= Increasing Temperature then why has the temperature leveled off despite the fact that CO2 concentrations are increasing?

U.S. Temperature as supplied by NASA;

200708_1.gif

Note the leveling off at the end of the graph. The fact it's at the end of the graph can be misleading, the point is that according to information supplied by NASA there has been no warming for 10 years.

Your image didn’t come out as you’d hoped. I presume you meant this one?

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html

200708_1_s.gif

 

 

I’m pondering why you are trying to oversimplify the relationship between CO2 and temperature, and why you are making the argument you are based on US temperature alone. Local variations do not account for global averages, and for someone who seems so vigilant when questioning the accuracy of study methods and data output, I’m concerned that you’ve made the same mistake you’ve been attacking so ferociously throughout this thread. Additionally, you've just presented a non-sequitur.

 

 

CO2 Concentrations as measured at Mauna Loa;

Note that the CO 2 concentrations increase during the same period.

Let me explain this. Short and sweet. There are natural variations. CO2 does impact climate. Local variations in climate do not accurately reflect global averages. The challenges skeptics have made of the data have nearly all failed or are based on faulty premises, and we as humans are impacting our climate.

 

 

I'm having trouble seeing a causal relationship here, but maybe I am retarded.;):D

And if you look above, you will see why natural selection is probably the most robust theory we’ve ever encountered. I have no struggle with a belief in God, but a belief in the tenets of creationism which have been proven wrong repeatedly seems to me a bit retarded, but a special kind. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, I would really like you to read this work. Put bluntly, he claims that various physical laws are misapplied in the creation of GW models. Since his field is Physics, I would value your opinion as to whether he's full of it or not.

 

 

Yeah, as far as I can tell it's crap. It starts out focusing on the thermal conductivity of CO2, which isn't the relvant quantity since conduction isn't the heat transfer mechanism that's important, but the radiation. Then there's the focus on blackbody, but FAIK climate models do not assume the atmosphere is a blackbody. And a lot of effort is focused on showing that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is not the same as a physical greenhouse, which is no surprise, since they aren't the same; it's an unfortunate label.

 

I stopped scanning it when it cited "The Great Global Warming Swindle" as a source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And if you look above, you will see why natural selection is probably the most robust theory we’ve ever encountered. I have no struggle with a belief in God, but a belief in the tenets of creationism which have been proven wrong repeatedly seems to me a bit retarded, but a special kind. :rolleyes:

Maybe the reason you dont see the difference between the certainty of global warming assertions(based on scant data and interpretation) and the certainty of natural selection(based on copious and uncontested data) is because you are in fact the retard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the reason you dont see the difference between the certainty of global warming assertions(based on scant data and interpretation) and the certainty of natural selection(based on copious and uncontested data) is because you are in fact the retard.

To be clear, this thread is not about certainty in data regarding global climate and evolution by natural selection. This thread is about the similarities, or lack thereof, between creationists and global warming deniers.

 

However, was your post supposed to somehow counter my point that creationists and global warming deniers are a special form of retarded, or was it meant to reinforce it? Frankly, it's really difficult to tell.

 

 

 

 

I stopped scanning it when it cited "The Great Global Warming Swindle" as a source.

 

For those so inclinded, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" has been shown to have quite a few problems, and demonstrated that it is itself a swindle.

 

Here is a pretty good job of showing why:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/globalwarmingswindle/

 

...and also here:

http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html

 

 

 

I particularly like this study published in Proceedings of The Royal Society in June 2007 which speaks specifically against the root of the claims being used by the GGW Swindle (emphasis mine):

 

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/h844264320314105/fulltext.html

There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection-attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be clear, this thread is not about certainty in data regarding global climate and evolution by natural selection. This thread is about the similarities, or lack thereof, between creationists and global warming deniers.

 

However, was your post supposed to somehow counter my point that creationists and global warming deniers are a special form of retarded, or was it meant to reinforce it? Frankly, it's really difficult to tell.

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmmm. I think my post was supposed to some how sum up how retarded pretenders to science (A.K.A AGW asserters) are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, as far as I can tell it's crap.

Thanks Swansont.

I stopped scanning it when it cited "The Great Global Warming Swindle" as a source.

I didn't get that far, if I had I wouldn't have mentioned it. From my POV citing "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is about as unbiased as citing "An Inconvenient Truth", both have serious axes to grind.

because you are in fact the retard.

ghstofmaxwll, there is no need to be insulting. I've debated inow before (although I'm thinking I'm doing rather badly this time.:D ) and respect his position and opinions. While he has used the term, I view it in the same context that Australians call each other "b*stards" and that no insult is intended or taken.

 

inow, I'll get back to you. I hadn't seen the rabatt site before and would like to have a good read. (Including his links)

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew before posting that that the lemmings "mass suicide" was a fake. That just makes it funnier IMO, since the lemmings are, in fact, not wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

inow, again my apologies.

 

I'm afraid I must withdraw from the current debate. I've just been promoted (Yay) but I've found my predecessors in the position used some form of controlled n-dimensional spacewarp as a filing system.

 

Due to this I can't give either you or the topic the time deserved. When I can, I'm still reading various papers, so perhaps another time?

 

For the record, I ceed this round to you, but reserve the right to call a rematch. Fair?:D

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wtf? How does that possibly make sense?

 

*sigh*

 

You know I had intended this thread to become a challenging discussion on the way the scientific community deals with these two movements that sit in opposition to it's consensus position, and perhaps on whether or not these movements contribute. I see people are just too defensive about these issues for that to be possible.

 

Fine, fine, everybody lay your spins back down and return to your homes. Dispassionate discussion is impossible.

 

Its funny how you along with the theists can only see people who dont believe as you, as ''belivers in the opposite''.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
inow, again my apologies.

 

I'm afraid I must withdraw from the current debate. I've just been promoted (Yay) but I've found my predecessors in the position used some form of controlled n-dimensional spacewarp as a filing system.

I see how it is. Using the old "I have to clean up my predecessors controlled n-dimensional spacewarp filing system" excuse. I've heard it before, and you're not getting off that easily. :rolleyes:

 

 

For the record, I ceed this round to you, but reserve the right to call a rematch. Fair?:D

Fair indeed. To be clear though, I am no expert in the field, it's just easier arguing from the side of the issue that's actually accurate. ;)

 

 

All the best. Have a good holiday weekend, and congratulations on the advancement at work. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Fair indeed. To be clear though, I am no expert in the field, it's just easier arguing from the side of the issue that's actually accurate. ;)

 

:D :D :D If that isnt blind faith, Im a dutchman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D :D :D If that isnt blind faith, Im a dutchman.

 

How do you enjoy wearing sabot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a false dicotomy, which grew out of lost knowledge of our true involutionary-evolutionary-epigenesis process. I suggest we keep open minds with active investigation of the limitations of our THEORIES, learning to let go of BELIEFS to make way for enlightenment. A couple of questions for science 'believers': 1) Where is memory stored? (a deeper look at this gives one pause before accepting that it is just around the corner before we find those neural locations for each memory - someplace - in 'there.') 2) Bells Thereom, Non-Locality and other quantum physics puzzles... where is it all leading to? 3) Consider the mechanistic to Einsteinian assumptions (mostly based on mathematical equations) by physicists leading to construction of theories that are often taken as 'facts' when they are a constellation of mathematical formulations constructed into dogmatic scientific paradigms; and then worshiped by devotees, supported by Corporate Education for Cubicles Inc. Hence the confusion when 'God plays dice with creation' which Einstein could not stomach (i.e. quantum physics). As for Creationists - I can understand the temptation to just mush religious belief into physical facts of the universe, but it really does not ultimately serve one well (if one wishes to evolve that is). Actually, as I think about it, one can indeed seek to 'disprove' evolution by not 'believing' in scientific data (evolution is not linear or 'gradual' however, as we now know) by deciding not to evolve. Perhaps then one believes that Jesus will come down and 'rapture' the 'true believers' to heaven before the Middle East nukes itself with largess grants of military welfare from the U.S.. Pardon the foray into politics here as I tend to associate Creationists with chickhawk warmonger politicians that seem to be supported by many of them. I am sure some Creationists are not that politically regressive. :embarass: I guess my point is we all are ignorant in the grand scheme of the cosmos, but at least we can try to grasp what information and wisdom is available, and make attempts to be open minded... it's what will save the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im open to the posibility that we may be altering the climate. Why are you not open to the posibility that this period of warming is natural fluctuation? The only answer I can think of is you guys are indoctrinated by media and political hype towards wholely uncertain principles of climate change of planets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im open to the posibility that we may be altering the climate. Why are you not open to the posibility that this period of warming is natural fluctuation? The only answer I can think of is you guys are indoctrinated by media and political hype towards wholely uncertain principles of climate change of planets.

 

This is both a strawman and an ad hominem. Nobody is arguing that natural fluctuations don't play a role, they are supporting their positions with data that the rate of change is increasing and is directly linked with human activity.

 

If you can truly think of no other answer than "you guys are indoctrinated by media and political hype towards wholey uncertain principles of climate change of planets," then I suggest you're not thinking enough. There are many reasons people believe that humans impact the environment and climate, the biggest being the data itself.

 

Show me where the data or our interpretations of it is wrong. If you cannot, then your claims aren't grounded in anything more than your own opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

This is a false dicotomy, which grew out of lost knowledge of our true involutionary-evolutionary-epigenesis process.

Hi Paradelver,

 

Welcome to SFN. So you are aware, this thread grew out of another discussion thread elsewhere when a remark was made that global warming deniers seem to use the same tactics as creationists arguing evolution. Hence, the current thread. :)

 

I guess my point is we all are ignorant in the grand scheme of the cosmos, but at least we can try to grasp what information and wisdom is available, and make attempts to be open minded...

 

No, not entirely. There are many things that we understand, and it's a gross misrepresentation to suggest that we are fully ignorant. Further, in science, it's not about open mindedness and equal time for all sides of a story. It's about making testable predictions and always improving and refining our knowledge, pruning away false ideas when they are proven so, and testing remaining ideas to ensure they apply where we think they do.

 

Much like natural selection, with global warming we have a theory which works, and data which supports that theory. If you can come up with a better theory which explains the data more accurately, has the same predictive ability, and is supported by observation, then you will see just how very open minded science, and those who practice it, are.

 

Additionally, in science, a theory is a very elegant concept, capable of so much description and assisting in wonderful degrees of understanding and predictions. Facts are rather boring, since they are singular and apply to so little, where a theory is a description of nature itself built by understanding and updated as new information is found. I'd rather have a theory about the formation of the universe and what caused it to reach it's current size than a fact which states that the universe is big. I'd rather know what causes the climate to change than a fact saying that it's increased in temperature by 0.6 degress. Do you see what I'm getting at?

 

You should watch the recent PBS special on NOVA regarding Intelligent Design which inspired many of my comments above about theories. We have a thread about it here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, not entirely. There are many things that we understand, and it's a gross misrepresentation to suggest that we are fully ignorant. Further, in science, it's not about open mindedness and equal time for all sides of a story. It's about making testable predictions and always improving and refining our knowledge, pruning away false ideas when they are proven so, and testing remaining ideas to ensure they apply where we think they do.

 

Much like natural selection, with global warming we have a theory which works, and data which supports that theory. If you can come up with a better theory which explains the data more accurately, has the same predictive ability, and is supported by observation, then you will see just how very open minded science, and those who practice it, are.

 

Additionally, in science, a theory is a very elegant concept, capable of so much description and assisting in wonderful degrees of understanding and predictions. Facts are rather boring, since they are singular and apply to so little, where a theory is a description of nature itself built by understanding and updated as new information is found. I'd rather have a theory about the formation of the universe and what caused it to reach it's current size than a fact which states that the universe is big. I'd rather know what causes the climate to change than a fact saying that it's increased in temperature by 0.6 degress. Do you see what I'm getting at?

 

You should watch the recent PBS special on NOVA regarding Intelligent Design which inspired many of my comments above about theories. We have a thread about it here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28993

============================================

Well, if you notice, the great scientists always followed a pattern of getting much opposition for their 'unorthodox' ideas, inventions and discoveries that 'jumped' a couple of circuits ahead of their more 'conventional' collegues. No, it's not just refining the known facts or reordering formulas to fit some data (which is what much 'science' consists of of late) that makes real science in my opinion, it is open minded investigation to discover what has not been understood or recognized or known before. I submit Gallileo, Nikoli Tesla, Royal Rife, and many others. See Erlene Chanye's 'Man Out of Time' as a good example. It is always so. There are those ahead of their time that will always meet opposion, then there is eventual acceptance and amnesia about the great struggle that it involved. See Thomas S. Kuhn : http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html . I say 'ignorant' in the more ultimate sense, knowing that in the future what we know now will be so much of a thimble in comparison. I submit that there are a plethora of 'facts' that are rolling in like the perverbial tides, but UNDERSTANDING is rather short as is wisdom, conscious integration and perspective. This will take time and perceptual shifts before we become more truely enlightened communities in the scientific fields. There are great deconstructionist / perceptual splits at the time being that are contributing to our race toward a cliff of destruction which we see in most every department of human activity - especially the pervasive environmental crises. Our view and paradigms have to be questioned and changed if we (humanity) are going to survive on the planet. Truly open minds are very rare.

~ Anyone can 'know,' but the point is to 'understand' [Einstein]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, if you notice, the great scientists always followed a pattern of getting much opposition for their 'unorthodox' ideas, inventions and discoveries that 'jumped' a couple of circuits ahead of their more 'conventional' collegues. No, it's not just refining the known facts or reordering formulas to fit some data (which is what much 'science' consists of of late) that makes real science in my opinion, it is open minded investigation to discover what has not been understood or recognized or known before. I submit Gallileo, Nikoli Tesla, Royal Rife, and many others. See Erlene Chanye's 'Man Out of Time' as a good example. It is always so. There are those ahead of their time that will always meet opposion, then there is eventual acceptance and amnesia about the great struggle that it involved. See Thomas S. Kuhn : http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html . I say 'ignorant' in the more ultimate sense, knowing that in the future what we know now will be so much of a thimble in comparison. I submit that there are a plethora of 'facts' that are rolling in like the perverbial tides, but UNDERSTANDING is rather short as is wisdom, conscious integration and perspective. This will take time and perceptual shifts before we become more truely enlightened communities in the scientific fields. There are great deconstructionist / perceptual splits at the time being that are contributing toward our race toward a cliff of destruction as most anyone can see. This has to be acknowledged and addressed if we (humanity) are going to survive on the planet. Truly open minds are very rare.

~ Anyone can 'know,' but the point is to 'understand' [Einstein]

 

I need to look over it again, and parse the block of text into paragraphs, but I'm pretty sure I agree with everything you just said, except I would not limit the need for enlightenment to science alone. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning climate change I find it most helpful to try to understand the systemic mechanisms of the earth and get a sense of the scales involves. How it sequesters CO2 (limestone deposition via micro-plankton etc) and ocean salinity (lagoon/ eestuary evaporation) etc... Humanity has injected some 10% of green house gases into an equilibrium system. Now what happens when a 10% change in chemicals is injected into an equilibrium system? It will adjust. Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis is just this. The earth behaves as a living organism and can be construed as such by the fine tolerances maintained, despite predicted greater fluctuations. This is something I think all scientists should look deeper into and ponder at great length before making superficial snap judgements as if they 'know' something. The best minds that have studied this in depth (I refer to Elizabet Sartoris for one) have concluded that we just don't know what will happen, but there will be a 'readjustments' required to accomodate the elements that have been shot into the atmosphere and dug up from depths in mining. For example, radioactive material, as Walter Russell (Tesla said he was 1000 years ahead of his time) proposed, are not understood at all, and have tremendous effects on the planet; I think probably much unknown. I know of a Dr. that found oxygen tanks placed near nuclear reactors were affected such that the oxygen would not ozonate. Before one states 'aww.. how could that be' I suggest one try it. Then there are pervasive and subtle effects of such strong nuclear radiation on the planet's surface we probably have not detected as yet on the human body... our science in my opinion to date, despite its relative 'advancement' is quite crude and crudely used, in addition to outright deception (see "Seeds of Deception" to observe the hidden dangers of genetically modified foods that are being repressed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is something I think all scientists should look deeper into and ponder at great length before making superficial snap judgements as if they 'know' something.

 

Can you show us specifically exactly which judgments to which scientists have snapped and demonstrate clearly how those judgments have been superficial? This is a rather extreme claim requiring some rather extreme supporting evidence.

 

 

 

our science in my opinion to date, despeite its relative 'advancement' is quite crude and crudely used, in addition to outright deception (see "Seeds of Deception" to observe the hidden dangers of genetically modified foods that are being repressed).

 

Wow...we went from global climate change to genetically modified foods in just two posts. I guess I don't agree with you nearly as much as I thought I did above. Please do tell of the hidden dangers. Enlighten the rest of us who are so clearly deceived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I need to look over it again, and parse the block of text into paragraphs, but I'm pretty sure I agree with everything you just said, except I would not limit the need for enlightenment to science alone. :)

 

 

Certainly not. Science the primary apsect of a '5th' meme level of consciousness however, as Ken Wilber has it worked out (from a 50,000 person cross-cultural database of study), if you ever heard of him, but it is the dominant current level of consciousness of the industrialized nations - which is a dangerous level if you do not then move to the next level of some understanding of the interconnectedness of life on this planet. Of course there are many not even very aware of scientific facts enough to be intelligent with their assesments.

 

Can you show us specifically exactly which judgments to which scientists have snapped and demonstrate clearly how those judgments have been superficial? This is a rather extreme claim requiring some rather extreme supporting evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

Wow...we went from global climate change to genetically modified foods in just two posts. I guess I don't agree with you nearly as much as I thought I did above. Please do tell of the hidden dangers. Enlighten the rest of us who are so clearly deceived.

 

Well I suppose the rats that died after the 90 day 'given' window of experimentation (all of them) with tomatoes and also potatoes that were GM might then indicate a certain 'deception' on the part of industry (i.e. Monsanto - who is in process of terrorizing farmers with threats of lawsuits because of Monsanto's seeds drifting onto THEIR plots). I am drawing broad correlations, as, as expected I met with resistance. Exactly my point about 'science' gaining some perspective and operating on more cylinders. For some good information try http://www.earthsave.org . And here, I thought you might be open minded. Ah well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I suppose the rats that died after the 90 day 'given' window of experimentation (all of them) with tomatoes and also potatoes that were GM might then indicate a certain 'deception' on the part of industry (i.e. Monsanto - who is in process of terrorizing farmers with threats of lawsuits because of Monsanto's seeds drifting onto THEIR plots). I am drawing broad correlations, as, as expected I met with resistance. Exactly my point about 'science' gaining some perspective and operating on more cylinders. For some good information try http://www.earthsave.org . And here, I thought you might be open minded. Ah well...

 

I still see no proof, just speculation which is unfounded, then on top of that a bunch of ad hominem and strawman arguments. Also, it has nothing to do with this thread (although your conspiracy theories do sound somewhat like the claims shared by a denialist).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you show us specifically exactly which judgments to which scientists have snapped and demonstrate clearly how those judgments have been superficial? This is a rather extreme claim requiring some rather extreme supporting evidence.

 

 

 

Scientists regularly make snap judgments, as evidenced by the apparent verified (2,000-3,000 papers) that might just be replicating cold fusion. But, never underestimate the skewness that comes from big funding from vested interests that are not interested in the truth. The food comments related to Monsanto and the meat and dairy industries. To find out how valid 'conventional' research is, and how 'open' to all the potential options, just tally up the number of lobbyists that funnel our tax dollars to their special interest treasure chests. Buckminster Fuller called it the G.R.U.N.C.H of giants (Gross Universal Cash Heist).

 

I still see no proof, just speculation which is unfounded, then on top of that a bunch of ad hominem and strawman arguments. Also, it has nothing to do with this thread (although your conspiracy theories do sound somewhat like the claims shared by a denialist).

 

 

See? snap judgements. You comment on a book with evidence you have never read. Exactly my point. Read "Seeds of Deception" and visit http://www.earthsave.org , or don't bother to comment, eh?

 

Ok, concerning the Gaia hypothesis, I mentioned the work of James Lovelock. Concerning scientistst that met resistance I mentioned several. Concerning food safety I mentioned documented information on the dangers of GM that is being repressed. Concerning Monsanto I mentioned legal actions on-going. What specifics do you not see in my comments? Denialist? About what? Me thinks there is a denialist, and it may not be me. I'm done here for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.