Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change
Options
Comments
-
But how are individual farmers being targeted? Its the complete opposite in practice, massive government subsidies to keep non-viable commercial operations going. What percentage of farms in Ireland would be able to keep going without massive subsidies from the government and Europe? Is that what you mean by them being targeted and persecuted?Farmers are being targeted for methane more so than carbon.
That said they also get demonised for their carbon emissions.
Articales relating to Irish farmers:
They're telling us the herd needs to be reduced by 50%'
Varadkar’s praise for less meat in diet ‘demonised’ farmers
Why are beef farmers so angry
Farmers anger over 'propaganda' as schoolchildren told to eat less meat and dairy0 -
Yup, and it's you who needs to think...
Clearly it would surprise you to know people plant trees as well? And that given I'm sixtyish it might be thirty years ago we planted trees? And that when trees are planted they tend to be planted too densely (to allow for losses that didn't happen) so need thining?
I 'look forward' to your next fatuous reply with interest.
I admire what you do, but ultimately you are having very little impact.
You must also remember that you are posting to web forum, which is supported by local telecoms network, which connects you to a data centers, which in turn connects to national telecom grids, that then connects globally. The power for these networks is feed largely by fossil fuels and nuclear power, then consider the process of obtaining and making silica for the fiber networks, the copper mines for cat cabling, the petroleum based plastics, the rare minerals for components, the diesel back up generators.
This is the issue with the AGW theorists, they evaluate carbon at production and not at consumption. Lets label Coca Cola bottles and their contents with their carbon footprint and not the content of sugar.
Lets put a carbon cost on 1GB of data.
Let people decide what they wanna consume. The bull**** of calling out big oil is just a distraction form the issue. Our whole economical model is based on energy. Electric cars rely on fossil fuels for their production, agriculture relies on fossil fuels. Any company or organisation who calls out Big Oil is paying lip service to the populist opinion, they couldn't survive without fossil fuels.
Assuming AGW is correct, the policies and culture that is propagated is plagued with the same level of corruption as every other human en-devour.
To say otherwise is pure ignorance to human nature.
Edit: posidonia, you are tying to make a difference to something you believe in, it's admirable. Keep up the good work!0 -
Forget the politicians and the activists,
Can you give me a single example of even one reputable scientific body that hasn't been 'corrupted by leftists' and shares your view on climate change?
Yes, me. But you'll never have the means to understand that this is true.
Are you not aware that on past occasions, "reputable scientific bodies" endorsed scientific theories and concepts that were eventually abandoned, proved to be false, superseded by better scientific theories?
So what makes you think the current scientific consensus on climate change will never be overturned? You can't really know that. Neither can I. But it is certainly logically possible that they could just be plain wrong and not have the intellectual capacity to determine that.
Scientists are not infallible. In particular, meteorologists are not infallible.
This is the wrong career choice (climate science) for anyone who wants to be proven infallible. I would go into something like organic chemistry where you have some chance of being the only people to know anything about the subject. The problem for the experts in climate science is that to some extent, any person of reasonable age and intelligence is a qualified expert, they have lived through a lot of weather. And don't you find it rather ironic that most of the people lecturing us "old hands" about climate change can only say that they remember the weather since about 2005? I remember the weather since 1955.
And I have a very extensive memory of weather events from before that, based on study of the data sets.
It's a resource that the international community decided to trash because they don't like my faith or my intellectual independence. Shame on them, I hope history remembers even if the modern age sees no harm. And I suspect I am one of dozens of similar examples. Other "old hands" are probably a bit wiser than me and keep their contrarian views a bit more hidden away. Fear of public ridicule can be a strong disincentive to exercising free speech for many, but it has never deterred me. I couldn't care less if some jackass is laughing at me, what else would I expect a jackass to be doing?0 -
-
But how are individual farmers being targeted? Its the complete opposite in practice, massive government subsidies to keep non-viable commercial operations going. What percentage of farms in Ireland would be able to keep going without massive subsidies from the government and Europe? Is that what you mean by them being targeted and persecuted?
I didn't say individuals were being targeted, it's difficult to quantify that individuals are targeted. Policies target a group made up of individuals, some suffer more than others. You can't play down the impact on an individual farmer because the policies were pushed on many farmers.
That's today's market, we want protein in every meal, we want it cheap and we want it all year round. The standard of living doesn't allow for certain producers to be viable in Ireland.massive government subsidies to keep non-viable commercial operations going
The rain forests in Brazil are not being cut down to supply the Brazilian market, cheap labour and mass production with less scrutiny on workers rights or animal welfare. Western countries what t cheap and available, we don't really care how it gets here.0 -
Advertisement
-
Anyway, the structure of that question I answered was quite evidently ridiculous.
I posted this new theory about climate change on the internet a month ago. How would any "reputable scientific body" know about it even by today? What process could I possibly have followed in the past month to get it endorsed by that reputable scientific body when the poster knows from my introduction that I am a dissident and blacklisted researcher?
The fact that nobody endorses my research (and we haven't in this thread gone into the wider question of that research) is not any kind of logical proof that the research is invalid or worthless. But I gave up trying to publish a long time ago, you can't break through the rigour of an academic culture that insists that you follow everyone else's work whether full of obvious errors or otherwise, in order to make incremental changes in a publication that says that tweedledum is also tweedledee on alternate (non-sidereal) Tuesdays.
If God wants the work more widely known, then He will act in His own time. I have told family members that 2700 AD might be quite a promising time for my research. There might be another renaissance by about then and a surge of free thinking. Ya never know.0 -
You're a reputable scientific body?
It was meant to be ironic, but I can hold that opinion if I choose. I wouldn't expect it to be widely shared. In weather forum culture though I have a better reputation than I have in the official scientific community of climate science. That is because weather forum patrons are more results-oriented than reputation-oriented. I don't claim to be the most credible or most popular person in the weather forum sub-culture either, here on Boards maybe fairly well received, over on Net-weather, a mixture of good and bad reviews, on American Weather Forum, a bit of a quieter time in general but I've had my run-ins with the same crowd. One thing they love to do is complain about your graphics, if they have no better argument they will say "that's not a publication standard graphic." The barriers are infinite in number. You get tired of it.
Anyway, I am what I am, and here's what I am sort of a thing. I do make forecasts daily that are used and appreciated by large numbers of people. You can't tell from views, likes and such exactly how many and I would make no claims, but I think it's true to say that more people in Ireland receive a forecast from me than everyone else who ever posted in this thread, on a daily basis.
So I suppose they are all being taken in? I never came to anyone's house and forced them to read my forecast. So it's difficult when you are faced with this schizoid situation of ordinary people saying you're doing a good job, and official meteorology saying you are human scum and should consider ending your existence. I have learned to live with it, not taking the positive too seriously, and largely ignoring the negative.
In the final analysis, it's what God thinks of you that is important. Everything else will fade away and be of no worth at all in the long run. But I do value the friendship of those who have stood with me from time to time. Good on them.0 -
Water vapor is not a driver, it is a feedback. It cannot drive climate change because the amount of heat in the air dictates it’s capacity to hold water vaporWater Vapour.
Water Vapour accounts for approx 60% of the heat trapped in our atmosphere.
Here is a depressing read: https://www.3plearning.com/blog/deforestation-impacts-earths-water-cycle/
Large forests encourage rainfall and these trees soak up the excess. With deforestation, this excess gets released back into the water cycle causing increased rainfall in temperate regions, lower rainfall in the former tropics (they become desert) and increased water vapour makes it into the polar regions greatly increasing warmth there.
Interestingly, our "old foe" C02 is great for encouraging, wait for it... plant growth.
As we warm the world, water vapor will be a positive feedback, plus clouds will play some role through trapping heat at night and reflecting some light during the day0 -
I suggest that governments should be borrowing money to invest in new infrastructure and any carbon taxes raised should be revenue neutral and offset by grants and even direct stipends to tax payers.What would you propose?
They tried increasing 'carbon' taxes in Chile and France, and this is the result:
A movement that is only going to get stronger. They were told to eat cake once before, and that did not end too well.
.. for those saying it.
It is much more expensive to do nothing and suffer the losses than it is to borrow to invest in infrastructure and technologies that will reduce the impact of climate change and allow us to live well in a less environmentally destructive economy0 -
There is no blacklist, there is only research that does not meet the standards required to pass peer reviewM.T. Cranium wrote: »Anyway, the structure of that question I answered was quite evidently ridiculous.
I posted this new theory about climate change on the internet a month ago. How would any "reputable scientific body" know about it even by today? What process could I possibly have followed in the past month to get it endorsed by that reputable scientific body when the poster knows from my introduction that I am a dissident and blacklisted researcher?
Posting theories on the internet to be scrutinized by idiots (myself included) posting anonymously is not the right way to do science.
Do you have some of the rejection letters from journals kept anywhere safe? They should explain the reason why your research was not published or did not pass peer review. It might be a good idea to heed that advice rather than presuming that God is just playing the long game and will get around to revealing your Genius in the centuries to comeThe fact that nobody endorses my research (and we haven't in this thread gone into the wider question of that research) is not any kind of logical proof that the research is invalid or worthless. But I gave up trying to publish a long time ago, you can't break through the rigour of an academic culture that insists that you follow everyone else's work whether full of obvious errors or otherwise, in order to make incremental changes in a publication that says that tweedledum is also tweedledee on alternate (non-sidereal) Tuesdays.
If God wants the work more widely known, then He will act in His own time. I have told family members that 2700 AD might be quite a promising time for my research. There might be another renaissance by about then and a surge of free thinking. Ya never know.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
But the claim is that they're being targeted, wheres the persecution?I didn't say individuals were being targeted, it's difficult to quantify that individuals are targeted. Policies target a group made up of individuals, some suffer more than others. You can't play down the impact on an individual farmer because the policies were pushed on many farmers.
That's today's market, we want protein in every meal, we want it cheap and we want it all year round. The standard of living doesn't allow for certain producers to be viable in Ireland.
The rain forests in Brazil are not being cut down to supply the Brazilian market, cheap labour and mass production with less scrutiny on workers rights or animal welfare. Western countries what t cheap and available, we don't really care how it gets here.0 -
Genuine Scientific consensus are almost never overturned, theories tend to get improved and expandedM.T. Cranium wrote: »Yes, me. But you'll never have the means to understand that this is true.
Are you not aware that on past occasions, "reputable scientific bodies" endorsed scientific theories and concepts that were eventually abandoned, proved to be false, superseded by better scientific theories?
So what makes you think the current scientific consensus on climate change will never be overturned? You can't really know that. Neither can I. But it is certainly logically possible that they could just be plain wrong and not have the intellectual capacity to determine that.
Scientists are not infallible. In particular, meteorologists are not infallible.
This is the wrong career choice (climate science) for anyone who wants to be proven infallible. I would go into something like organic chemistry where you have some chance of being the only people to know anything about the subject. The problem for the experts in climate science is that to some extent, any person of reasonable age and intelligence is a qualified expert, they have lived through a lot of weather. And don't you find it rather ironic that most of the people lecturing us "old hands" about climate change can only say that they remember the weather since about 2005? I remember the weather since 1955.
And I have a very extensive memory of weather events from before that, based on study of the data sets.
It's a resource that the international community decided to trash because they don't like my faith or my intellectual independence. Shame on them, I hope history remembers even if the modern age sees no harm. And I suspect I am one of dozens of similar examples. Other "old hands" are probably a bit wiser than me and keep their contrarian views a bit more hidden away. Fear of public ridicule can be a strong disincentive to exercising free speech for many, but it has never deterred me. I couldn't care less if some jackass is laughing at me, what else would I expect a jackass to be doing?
No scientist worth his degree is afraid of ridicule if he has the data and evidence to support his position. Some scientists are ridiculed because they repeatedly make statements that are incompatible with known established facts, or if they make claims that they cannot support with data or even coherent well defined theory, and others have zero credibility because they have thrown it away through reckless or even dishonest research methodology0 -
-
Genuine Scientific consensus are almost never overturned, theories tend to get improved and expanded
Your statements tend to be ambiguous, likely done to allow wiggle room in your response.
Maybe just look at 2 examples, geocentrism and aether. They were genuine at the time before relativity was understood.
Does your comment include all of these?
Spontaneous generation
Transmutation of species
Vitalism
Maternal impression
Preformationism
Recapitulation theory
Telegony
Out of Asia theory of human origin
Scientific racism
Mendelian genetics
Germ line theory,
Caloric theory
Classical elements
Phlogiston theory
Vitalism
Emission theory of vision
Aristotelian physics
Ptolemy's law of refraction
Luminiferous aether
Caloric theory
Emitter theory
Balance of nature
Progression of atomic theory
John Dalton's model of the atom
Plum pudding model of the atom
Rutherford model of the atom
Bohr model with quantized orbits
Ptolemaic system
Heliocentric universe
Copernican system
Newtonian gravity
Steady state theory,
Flat Earth theory.
Terra Australis
Hollow Earth theory
The Open Polar Sea, an ice
Rain follows the plow
Island of California
Inland sea of Australia
Climatic determinism
Topographic determinism
Moral geography
Cultural Acclimatization
Drainage divides as always being made up by hills and mountains.
Abiogenic petroleum origin
Catastrophism was largely replaced by uniformitarianism and neocatastrophism
Cryptoexplosion craters, now discarded in favour of impact craters and ordinary volcanism.
Flood geology replaced by modern geology and stratigraphy
Neptunism replaced by plutonism and volcanism
Granitization a discredited alternative to a magmatic origin of granites
Monoglaciation
Oscillation theory of land
The following were superseded by plate tectonics:
Elevation crater theory
Expanding Earth theory (superseded by subduction)
Contracting Earth
Geosyncline theory
Haarman's Oscillation theory
Various lost landmasses including Lemuria
Psychomotor patterning
Theory of the four bodily humours
Heroic medicine
Miasma theory of disease
Phrenology
Homeopathy
Eclectic medicine
Physiognomy
Tooth worm0 -
'Tooth worm'?
Sounds like a nasty dose.New Moon
0 -
A lot of the things on that list are a very long way from scientific theories. A very long way, and even further from having anything close to a scientific consensus supporting themYour statements tend to be ambiguous, likely done to allow wiggle room in your response.
Maybe just look at 2 examples, geocentrism and aether. They were genuine at the time before relativity was understood.
Does your comment include all of these?
Spontaneous generation
Transmutation of species
Vitalism
Maternal impression
Preformationism
Recapitulation theory
Telegony
Out of Asia theory of human origin
Scientific racism
Mendelian genetics
Germ line theory,
Caloric theory
Classical elements
Phlogiston theory
Vitalism
Emission theory of vision
Aristotelian physics
Ptolemy's law of refraction
Luminiferous aether
Caloric theory
Emitter theory
Balance of nature
Progression of atomic theory
John Dalton's model of the atom
Plum pudding model of the atom
Rutherford model of the atom
Bohr model with quantized orbits
Ptolemaic system
Heliocentric universe
Copernican system
Newtonian gravity
Steady state theory,
Flat Earth theory.
Terra Australis
Hollow Earth theory
The Open Polar Sea, an ice
Rain follows the plow
Island of California
Inland sea of Australia
Climatic determinism
Topographic determinism
Moral geography
Cultural Acclimatization
Drainage divides as always being made up by hills and mountains.
Abiogenic petroleum origin
Catastrophism was largely replaced by uniformitarianism and neocatastrophism
Cryptoexplosion craters, now discarded in favour of impact craters and ordinary volcanism.
Flood geology replaced by modern geology and stratigraphy
Neptunism replaced by plutonism and volcanism
Granitization a discredited alternative to a magmatic origin of granites
Monoglaciation
Oscillation theory of land
The following were superseded by plate tectonics:
Elevation crater theory
Expanding Earth theory (superseded by subduction)
Contracting Earth
Geosyncline theory
Haarman's Oscillation theory
Various lost landmasses including Lemuria
Psychomotor patterning
Theory of the four bodily humours
Heroic medicine
Miasma theory of disease
Phrenology
Homeopathy
Eclectic medicine
Physiognomy
Tooth worm
Geocentrism was a prescientific idea, it was not formulated based on scientific principles
Aether was also never a scientific consensus, rather it was a stopgap used as a placeholder for gaps in our understanding of space time
Also Newtons physics was never overturned. Newton’s equations are as true today as they were back then, they just don’t apply on the quantum level0 -
Pretty weak targeting when they're just stating a simple fact, should they be encouraged to not reduce their CO2 emissions in one of the simplest ways possible? The billions in subsidies are nice compensation, I wouldn't mind being targeted by the government like that myself.The claim that their livelihood is contributing enough CO2 to warrant our education system advising kids to eat less meat and dairy.0 -
A lot of the things on that list are a very long way from scientific theories. A very long way, and even further from having anything close to a scientific consensus supporting them
Geocentrism was a prescientific idea, it was not formulated based on scientific principles
Prescientific is totally disingenuous to the scientists who paved the way for modern science. It was based on mathematics and observations of the stars, using the tools and knowledge of the times.
What scientific principles of the time did they not satisfy?
Aether was excepted by 97% of scientist until the early 20th century, their were skeptics who challenged the theory . It wasn't a stop gap, it was was a theory that was taken as truth. It's equivocal to the Big Bang Theory, which today is taken as truth but as of yet unproven.Aether was also never a scientific consensus, rather it was a stopgap used as a placeholder for gaps in our understanding of space time
Also Newtons physics was never overturned. Newton’s equations are as true today as they were back then, they just don’t apply on the quantum level
The newton physics we use in modern science would be unrecognizable to Newton himself. His Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica was out of date before he finished it. You should have read some of what Oriel32 was saying.
If your caveat is the use of scientific method, then say that in your post. Be specific in your responses.0 -
Pretty weak targeting when they're just stating a simple fact, should they be encouraged to not reduce their CO2 emissions in one of the simplest ways possible? The billions in subsidies are nice compensation, I wouldn't mind being targeted by the government like that myself.
If they were serious they would tell the kids to eat seasonal local fruits and veg.
All of these could be locally produced. Doing so will increase the price of those goods to the consumer. The issue is we want it cheap, and we want it all year round.Ireland imported 72,000 tonnes of potatoes, 47,000 tonnes of onions, 29,000 tonnes of tomatoes, 23,000 tonnes of cabbage and 15,000 tonnes of lettuce in 2017
https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-ti/irelandstradeingoods2017/food2017/
We export the beef and dairy and import the fruit and veg.
Like I said before, the alarmists target the carbon producer and not the carbon consumers. Green taxes target the mid to lower classes.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not sure what that has to do with encouraging people to cut down on their carbon emissions by eating less meat being a bad thing or some form of persecution, do you get upset when you see people being encouraged to cut down on fossil fuel use aswell? This nitpicking is boring anyway, asking people to change their ways to combat climate change is pointless when there are no alternative options being provided, industry and government need to provide the solutions.0
-
Prescientific is totally disingenuous to the scientists who paved the way for modern science. It was based on mathematics and observations of the stars, using the tools and knowledge of the times.
What scientific principles of the time did they not satisfy?
Aether was excepted by 97% of scientist until the early 20th century, their were skeptics who challenged the theory . It wasn't a stop gap, it was was a theory that was taken as truth. It's equivocal to the Big Bang Theory, which today is taken as truth but as of yet unproven.
The newton physics we use in modern science would be unrecognizable to Newton himself. His Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica was out of date before he finished it. You should have read some of what Oriel32 was saying.
If your caveat is the use of scientific method, then say that in your post. Be specific in your responses.
You do not have a clue what you are talking about. Aether was a hypothesis that was never ever proven to exist. It was used as a placeholder because scientists and prescientific philosophers did not know how light could travel as a wave through the vacuum of space and it was accepted for as long as it fit into the equations of known science. It was never properly demonstrated and when scientists eventually gave it a scientific definition, experiments designed to show that it was real failed and eventually it became usurped by Einstein’s relatively and the discovery of quantum mechanics.
With the discovery of quantum physics and the fact that light acts both as a particle and a wave then Aether was no longer needed.
It is analogous to ‘dark matter’ or ‘dark energy’ in modern physics. Most scientists will use the term and agree that it Points to a gap in our understanding but there is no consensus on what it is or what properties it has. It’s just a placeholder for now
Newton’s equations that he wrote himself are still able to predict the motions of the planets and the force of gravity at the macro level. He has not been debunked or overturned, the science has improved but his physics are still valid today
Science is iterative. It constantly revises itself to correct small errors and improve models and equations for greater precision. If I measure an inject on a scale that said it weighs 3 grams. That is an accurate measurement to the limits of the scales. If I use a more precise scale that says the item weighs 2.9675435 grams, the first measurement is not invalidated, the 2nd measurement is just a more precise description of the same thing
And you had the balls to put things like Homeopathy on a list of things that used to have a ‘scientific consensus’ that had been disproven. Lol
I’d be embarrassed to post such a list on a science forum
I suggest you find out what science actually is0 -
The AGW brigade who came in here never had any sincere intentions to discuss or debate, just to lay down their version of the law. They have obviously tried to shift the goalposts back to the standard debate they might have had in the past with other people who are skeptics and don't believe in warming at all. There is nobody active in this discussion taking that position so it has degenerated into a farce of people talking past each other.
I don't appreciate the condescending remarks from people who don't know anything about the complexities of blacklisting, but for somebody in another country (than my own) to baldly state "there is no blacklisting" is the equivalent of somebody in Argentina possibly saying around 1955 that there are no gulags (in Argentina perhaps).
You don't know anything about Canada or what goes on here, so be quiet and listen (is that still taught in school?) and maybe you'll find out something you didn't know before today.
Also I would appreciate it if people would just quote directly rather than adding insinuations, such as "God revealing my genius" which is not what I said or meant. All knowledge comes from God in fact, and anyone who claims that their knowledge is personal to them is denying the actual source of their knowledge. This is partly why I distrust a lot of modern social science and climate science, because it is practiced by atheists who deny the existence of God and who would call "intelligent design" a quack or crank theory, now I am too busy to get involved in that debate but all I can say is the general concept seems almost self evident that a creative intelligence exists in our universe and what we see around us didn't just form out of some void with no direction or oversight. I'm sure that alone makes me unwelcome in the "scientific community" and all I can hope is that you are equally unwelcome in the Kingdom because I sure don't want to be spending eternity laughing at your discomfort at being proven wrong on a daily basis. Wait, maybe that would be fun.0 -
There was a lot of creative fiction in some of the dismissals of examples of failed or abandoned sciences, good luck to anyone trying to sell some of those fictions. Newton had only an approximation of the actual situation and we can't just say that conditions closer to light speed are some minor exception, what is more true is that we live a day to day existence where flaws in Newtonian physics are irrelevant and can be safely ignored. But once you get moving at any speed that is closer to c, Newton goes from being approximately right to largely wrong and eventually totally wrong.
That does not diminish the importance of his discovery or work. It is just an honest reporting of the facts, however, that a better theory supplanted his theory. So if it can happen to him, what chance is there for a bunch of over-egged social scientists who are really in it for the political agenda that they wish to impose? I would say slim to none.0 -
M.T. Cranium wrote: »The AGW brigade who came in here never had any sincere intentions to discuss or debate, just to lay down their version of the law.
What do 'sincere intentions to discuss or debate' look like? From you and from me?0 -
Your statements tend to be ambiguous, likely done to allow wiggle room in your response.
Maybe just look at 2 examples, geocentrism and aether. They were genuine at the time before relativity was understood.
Does your comment include all of these?
Spontaneous generation
Transmutation of species
Vitalism
....
Nothing would delight me more than that AGW be shown to be wrong!
I can say the same about the anthropocene mass extinction, deforestation, various pollution, over population, under population, soil loss, over fishing etc etc etc.
If all these were wrong it would be a delight!0 -
Aether was excepted by 97% of scientist until the early 20th century, their were skeptics who challenged the theory . It wasn't a stop gap, it was was a theory that was taken as truth. It's equivocal to the Big Bang Theory, which today is taken as truth but as of yet unproven.
The lengths people will go to protect the empirical doctrine by inventing history remains the most troubling element. For most of you don't know that history and evenso, when shown what the empirical subculture actually believed, people go into defensive spasms .
Newton opinion on aether was conditioned by his absolute/relative, space and motion which never required it thereby causing problems for those in the mid 19th century as they went to research how the Sun illuminated the Earth*-
"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and weaken
them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such
matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected." Newton,
Optics 1704
* Mill's logic -
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/23240/23240-h/23240-h.htm
It is always unpleasant to encounter people who can manufacture history or just conjure up things when it is necessary to neutralise an insight so the early 20th people did to Newton what Newton did to the original heliocentric astronomers and indeed contributors can do presently when technical an historical details are brought up.
Relativity is Newton's absolute/relative time, space and motion filtered through the agenda of Victorian mathematicians hence contributors here are lost when seeing what Sir Isaac was actually trying to do with time,space and motion.
With the moderators on a hair trigger, I stand little chance with this type of forensics but it pervades the entire 'scientific method' community in all areas of astronomical and terrestrial science research. The worst position to be in is to be victim of bluffers who themselves were victim of the late 17th century bluffer but people actually choose to inflict this type of self-harm on themselves.0 -
M.T. Cranium wrote: »
I still can't believe that the person you're quoting continues to make crazy statements about sidereal day being the basis of actual forecasting and data collection. This has never been a practice anywhere in meteorology. I would be willing to bet that nine out of ten operational meteorologists would not be able to tell you what a sidereal day was. The knowledge of astronomy within meteorological circles is down to the random chance of individual interest. Anyway, I am glad to see the first signs of adult supervision in the thread.
They conjured up a solar vs sidereal day to drive a wedge between cause and effect where one rotation is the same as one day/night cycle or if people prefer, one weekday. The anchor for this cycle is the stationary Sun and noon as the planet turns once each day.
They did this because it suited the clockwork modelers to link stellar circumpolar motion directly to the rotation of the planet without any physical considerations -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI
It give these people the ability to predict astronomical events using the 24 hour clock within the calendar framework but at the price of losing cause and effect between the motions of the planet and Earth sciences.
The sidereal day has the same validity as a bad hair day and represents the convictions of people who give themselves luxuries they never had.
I see you are emboldened by the moderator but this is turning into a community desperate to preserve its 'scientific method' subculture and that I understand, after all, if it didn't exist there would be no 'climate change' and a dull pessimism dumped on the people of the planet.0 -
M.T. Cranium wrote: »The AGW brigade who came in here never had any sincere intentions to discuss or debate, just to lay down their version of the law. They have obviously tried to shift the goalposts back to the standard debate they might have had in the past with other people who are skeptics and don't believe in warming at all. There is nobody active in this discussion taking that position so it has degenerated into a farce of people talking past each other.
I don't appreciate the condescending remarks from people who don't know anything about the complexities of blacklisting, but for somebody in another country (than my own) to baldly state "there is no blacklisting" is the equivalent of somebody in Argentina possibly saying around 1955 that there are no gulags (in Argentina perhaps).
You don't know anything about Canada or what goes on here, so be quiet and listen (is that still taught in school?) and maybe you'll find out something you didn't know before today.
Also I would appreciate it if people would just quote directly rather than adding insinuations, such as "God revealing my genius" which is not what I said or meant. All knowledge comes from God in fact, and anyone who claims that their knowledge is personal to them is denying the actual source of their knowledge. This is partly why I distrust a lot of modern social science and climate science, because it is practiced by atheists who deny the existence of God and who would call "intelligent design" a quack or crank theory, now I am too busy to get involved in that debate but all I can say is the general concept seems almost self evident that a creative intelligence exists in our universe and what we see around us didn't just form out of some void with no direction or oversight. I'm sure that alone makes me unwelcome in the "scientific community" and all I can hope is that you are equally unwelcome in the Kingdom because I sure don't want to be spending eternity laughing at your discomfort at being proven wrong on a daily basis. Wait, maybe that would be fun.
Do you have any evidence of this so called blacklist?
When you google blacklist scientific journals you see lists of predatory journals that scientists are urged to avoid rather than journals collaborating to prevent scientists from getting published. There are hundreds of reputable journals, including double blinded peer review where your identity is kept secret from the reviewers who are assessing the papers.
Your claim that they have all blacklisted you is ludicrous and it looks like you’re just making excuses because your research did not pass peer review
Also your talk about god is completely off topic in a science forum?0 -
Advertisement
-
M.T. Cranium wrote: ». But once you get moving at any speed that is closer to c, Newton goes from being approximately right to largely wrong and eventually totally wrong.
That does not diminish the importance of his discovery or work. It is just an honest reporting of the facts, however, that a better theory supplanted his theory.
It helped that he instructed his followers that he could never be found wrong but only improved on and that is a type of power over a subculture that only tyrants could admire -
Rule IV
"In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phænomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phænomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions." Newton
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/newton-principia-rules-reasoning.pdf
Talk about orchestrating things from beyond the grave !!!, and his followers found a way to obey his instructions like you are doing right now.
The self-inflicted trap is passed from one generation to the next which is why anything inspirational looks painful to those desperate to maintain their late 17th century doctrines. This is why moderation is not really moderation but just a self protecting and self-promoting scheme of Royal Society England and their Irish followers.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement