Treason

Existing at the core of this mess where the investigation of
celestial and terrestrial phenomena is now in total disrepute is the
original late 17th century distortions which attempted to force
planetary orbital dynamics to look like the behavior of terrestrial
objects by exploiting the calendar based convenience of Ra/Dec.It is
the lack of astronomers and the authority they carry that presents the
greatest problem at the moment as the interpretative qualities which
put physical considerations into context of conclusions are completely
absent ,this is not just a recent problem but one that may always
exist -

"The same thing has struck me even more forcibly than you. I have
heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not so much
to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be
withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of
the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me that
some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In
their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of
their having received it from some person who has their entire
confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever
to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed
idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no
matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant
acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward
against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with
disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them ill "
Galileo

Trying to make pollution studies look like global climate is much the
same as what Newton did with planetary motions and objects at a local
human level,the former being a symptom of the latter approach which
has temporarily destroyed the methods and insights of astronomy and
investigative approaches.

The treason is not among those who subscribe to empiricism,it is those
who know exactly what went wrong in the late 17th century when the
great astronomical heritage came under an assault from those who are
comfortable distorting data to suit their conclusions.

Yes, Global Warming is real, but Oriel doesn't dispute that. Just that
since we don't know what causes the seasons, we're not qualified to
judge if it is anthropogenic or not.

Given that he says that

"the original late 17th century distortions which attempted to force
planetary orbital dynamics to look like the behavior of terrestrial
objects by exploiting the calendar based convenience of Ra/Dec."

is at the root of the problem, it is clear that he opposes the insight
Newton is said to have derived from the fall of an apple. Rather than
having the heavens work by the force of gravity plus the conservation
of momentum, as far as he is concerned, the heavens are a completely
separate heavenly realm with their own independent set of laws; to be
understood by analogy ("structural astronomy") and creative insight -
under the discipline of sound authority.

Not where anyone can do anything they want, because if they're wrong
they'll be shot down by the facts: that's the anarchy Newton and
Flamsteed created.

In other words, he is at war with science itself. I don't think you
can do much with that.

John Savard

Only lunatics argue with lunatics.


"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
Yes, Global Warming is real, but Oriel doesn't dispute that. Just that
since we don't know what causes the seasons, we're not qualified to
judge if it is anthropogenic or not.

Given that he says that

"the original late 17th century distortions which attempted to force
planetary orbital dynamics to look like the behavior of terrestrial
objects by exploiting the calendar based convenience of Ra/Dec."

is at the root of the problem, it is clear that he opposes the insight
Newton is said to have derived from the fall of an apple. Rather than
having the heavens work by the force of gravity plus the conservation
of momentum, as far as he is concerned, the heavens are a completely
separate heavenly realm with their own independent set of laws; to be
understood by analogy ("structural astronomy") and creative insight -
under the discipline of sound authority.

Not where anyone can do anything they want, because if they're wrong
they'll be shot down by the facts: that's the anarchy Newton and
Flamsteed created.

In other words, he is at war with science itself. I don't think you
can do much with that.

John Savard

On Nov 26, 12:07 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
Existing at the core of this mess where the investigation of
celestial and terrestrial phenomena is now in total disrepute is the
original late 17th century distortions which attempted to force
planetary orbital dynamics to look like the behavior of terrestrial
objects by exploiting the calendar based convenience of Ra/Dec.It is
the lack of astronomers and the authority they carry that presents the
greatest problem at the moment as the interpretative qualities which
put physical considerations into context of conclusions are completely
absent ,this is not just a recent problem but one that may always
exist -

"The same thing has struck me even more forcibly than you. I have
heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not so much
to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be
withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of
the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me that
some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In
their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of
their having received it from some person who has their entire
confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever
to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed
idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no
matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant
acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward
against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with
disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them ill "
Galileo

Trying to make pollution studies look like global climate is much the
same as what Newton did with planetary motions and objects at a local
human level,the former being a symptom of the latter approach which
has temporarily destroyed the methods and insights of astronomy and
investigative approaches.

The treason is not among those who subscribe to empiricism,it is those
who know exactly what went wrong in the late 17th century when the
great astronomical heritage came under an assault from those who are
comfortable distorting data to suit their conclusions.

1. Global Warming is happening.

2. Normally we should be cooling and we are not because of
an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. The CO2 humans
are dumping into the atmosphere, cannot be denied. The warming
from CO2 is driving more moisture into the atmosphere. Higher
night time dew points... less nighttime cooling.

Pretty obvious in Iowa. The increase moisture results in
o cooler Summer Highs
o Warmer Summer Lows
o increased rainfall
o increased flooding (economic disaster
$20 billion in the Cedar Rapids, IA area)
o greater water run-off

You would prefer a drought?

On Nov 26, 4:45*am, wrote:

You would prefer a drought?

The increased rainfall just happens to be one consequence of a change
in climate. Whether it provides a net benefit or net harm to Iowa -
just as Canada might benefit from easier access to some Arctic
resources - is irrelevant. Instead, what is important is the *total*
impact of the change in climate, which will be negative in many ways,
from invasive species in the southern U.S. to famine in southeast
Asia.

John Savard

Only lunatics argue with lunatics.



oriel36 wrote:
Existing at the core of this mess where the investigation of
celestial and terrestrial phenomena is now in total disrepute is the
original late 17th century distortions which attempted to force
planetary orbital dynamics to look like the behavior of terrestrial
objects by exploiting the calendar based convenience of Ra/Dec.It is
the lack of astronomers and the authority they carry that presents the
greatest problem at the moment as the interpretative qualities which
put physical considerations into context of conclusions are completely
absent ,this is not just a recent problem but one that may always
exist -
"The same thing has struck me even more forcibly than you. I have
heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not so much
to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be
withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of
the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me that
some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In
their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of
their having received it from some person who has their entire
confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever
to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed
idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no
matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant
acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward
against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with
disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them ill "
Galileo
Trying to make pollution studies look like global climate is much the
same as what Newton did with planetary motions and objects at a local
human level,the former being a symptom of the latter approach which
has temporarily destroyed the methods and insights of astronomy and
investigative approaches.
The treason is not among those who subscribe to empiricism,it is those
who know exactly what went wrong in the late 17th century when the
great astronomical heritage came under an assault from those who are
comfortable distorting data to suit their conclusions.
1. Global Warming is happening.

2. Normally we should be cooling and we are not because of
an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. The CO2 humans
are dumping into the atmosphere, cannot be denied. The warming
from CO2 is driving more moisture into the atmosphere. Higher
night time dew points... less nighttime cooling.

Pretty obvious in Iowa. The increase moisture results in
o cooler Summer Highs
o Warmer Summer Lows
o increased rainfall
o increased flooding (economic disaster
$20 billion in the Cedar Rapids, IA area)
o greater water run-off

You would prefer a drought?

My preferences are unimportant.

On Nov 26, 11:32 am, Quadibloc wrote:
On Nov 26, 4:45 am, wrote:

You would prefer a drought?

The increased rainfall just happens to be one consequence of a change
in climate. Whether it provides a net benefit or net harm to Iowa -
just as Canada might benefit from easier access to some Arctic
resources - is irrelevant. Instead, what is important is the *total*
impact of the change in climate, which will be negative in many ways,
from invasive species in the southern U.S. to famine in southeast
Asia.

The worst invasive species are usually brought in by ships and planes,
from great distances, not so much from migrations of species from
adjacent areas.

I'm not sure why Wormley is trying to use the floods in Cedar Rapids
to make his point. After all, the city is called Cedar _Rapids_ from
which we can infer that it was built on a river. Rivers have been
known to be the site of floods since ancient times. If the long-term
monetary benefit of having the city on the river exceeds that of $20
billion in damages then what's the problem? (That amount of damage
would work out to about $3 million per acre that was flooded, ie
pricey real estate.)

On Nov 27, 10:17 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
wrote:

I'm not sure why Wormley is trying to use the floods in Cedar Rapids
to make his point. After all, the city is called Cedar _Rapids_ from
which we can infer that it was built on a river. Rivers have been
known to be the site of floods since ancient times. If the long-term
monetary benefit of having the city on the river exceeds that of $20
billion in damages then what's the problem? (That amount of damage
would work out to about $3 million per acre that was flooded, ie
pricey real estate.)

I agree that Cities, Businesses and homes should not be built on
flood planes. It does happen.

Background--the levee system was meant to handle 500 year event
floods and one would expect a flood of that magnitude to go over
a foot or two. The 2008 flood breached the levee system by almost
11 feet.

Twenty Billion Dollars in flood damage--not fun for the local,
state or nation.

The impact of global climate change in the form of increased
rainfall, increased rate of rainfall and increased big rainfall
events is a concern.

Here's some data from Iowa State University
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/facult...entations.html

More from University of Iowa
http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/fac...directory/cee/...

I wonder how many flood victims in Cedar Rapids drive around in
SUVs?

Maybe Iowa should ramp up its production of biofuel (without Federal
help.) The use of fossil fuels and the transmission of electricity
into the state could then be gradually reduced to zero over a period
of a few years. Then we will all see if the state can really meet its
own energy needs via biofuel (along with whatever hydro, nuclear, wind
and solar it might be able to keep running without support by fossil
fuel.)

If it can't do that and wants to resume fossil fuel use, then no more
compliants about global warming should be heard from anyone living or
working in the state.

On Nov 27, 10:06*am, wrote:

If it can't do that and wants to resume fossil fuel use, then no more
compliants about global warming should be heard from anyone living or
working in the state.

That's silly.

Just because *most* people in the state aren't likely to change their
lifestyles voluntarily to do something about global warming, that
doesn't mean that the enlightened few shouldn't continue to complain
even more loudly and clearly. Until someone listens. Hopefully in time
to avert global disaster.

With nuclear power as one of the energy sources, there is _no
question_ that we can meet our energy needs without use of fossil
fuels. Except for the fossil fuels we'll use while we're building all
those nuclear power plants. That's fine - this _is_ a selfish
strategy. Get one's own nuclear power plants built *now*, while one
can still use fossil fuels for the trucks going to the construction
site - so that when the world wakes up, and fossil fuels are banned,
at least *your* area will be sitting pretty with abundant nuclear
power while everyone else is suffering on what little energy they can
get from wind and solar. (Well, _some_ other lucky people already have
hydroelectricity.)

Given that current warming has already started methane release, and
the oceans are becoming acidic from absorbing too much carbon dioxide,
we probably can't avert the climate catastrophe, so we should *at
least* secure our energy supplies while we still can.

If I'm pessimistic, and switching to nuclear does help prevent
disaster, all the better.

John Savard

On Nov 27, 8:05 pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Nov 27, 10:06 am, wrote:

If it can't do that and wants to resume fossil fuel use, then no more
compliants about global warming should be heard from anyone living or
working in the state.

That's silly.

Not silly at all, because you quoted me out of context. IF an
experiment such as I suggested were to be run, AND they were not able
to maintain their lifestyle THEN they have no grounds to expect others
to follow the same strategy.


Just because *most* people in the state aren't likely to change their
lifestyles voluntarily to do something about global warming, that
doesn't mean that the enlightened few shouldn't continue to complain
even more loudly and clearly.

The "enlightened few" are not so "enlightened" as they would have
others believe. While the state-wide experiment I had suggested will
happen until we actually run out of fossil fuels, it is certainly
possible for someone on a farm or "enlightened" citizens of a small
town to try to support themselves without direct or indirect reliance
on fossil fuels.

Until someone listens. Hopefully in time
to avert global disaster.

With nuclear power as one of the energy sources, there is _no
question_ that we can meet

some of

our energy needs without use of fossil
fuels. Except for the fossil fuels we'll use while we're building all
those nuclear power plants.

Then you need to maintain the plants, and the power line networks,
mine new sources of uranium, etc. No machine lasts forever, so you
will need to replace the plants or large components of them,
eventually.

That's fine - this _is_ a selfish
strategy. Get one's own nuclear power plants built *now*, while one
can still use fossil fuels for the trucks going to the construction
site - so that when the world wakes up, and fossil fuels are banned,

Oh, yeah, that'll happen. We will run low on fossil fuels though,
eventually.

at least *your* area will be sitting pretty with abundant nuclear
power

Until your power plants succumb to the ravages of time...then what?

while everyone else is suffering on what little energy they can
get from wind and solar. (Well, _some_ other lucky people already have
hydroelectricity.)

Well, not exactly. It is nice to imagine that your large local
hydroelectric plant serves only your immediate area, but it doesn't.

Given that current warming has already started methane release, and
the oceans are becoming acidic from absorbing too much carbon dioxide,
we probably can't avert the climate catastrophe, so we should *at
least* secure our energy supplies while we still can.

And figure out how to maintain them without a fossil fuel
infrastructure. Good luck.

If I'm pessimistic, and switching to nuclear does help prevent
disaster, all the better.