Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

On 26/05/2018 09:29, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 19:54:54 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 7:00:55 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:44:35 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel

There was no evidence for the Higgs particle before it was
found.* There
was only a theory that said it ought to exist.

Nonsense. There was a great deal of evidence, which is why so
much was
invested in the search. Again, you demonstrate profound ignorance
of
science.

No, sir!* There was NO evidence until it was actually detected.* You
are making a really bad show here, old boy.

There was a theory that made specific predictions about the mass range
and properties of the Higg's boson in theoretical papers written back in
1964 long before it was discovered experimentally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_P...reaking_papers

https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_pri...ggs-facts.html

That most fundamental particles have a non-zero rest mass is
circumstantial evidence for the Higg's field.

There were strong theoretical implications that the Higgs boson ought to
exist. They knew what they were looking for. Your phrase "NO evidence"
implies also the lack of these theoretical implications.

More fundamentally that most particles have mass requires the Higgs
boson or some other similar mechanism with an equivalent result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sat, 26 May 2018 04:31:52 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 1:11:30 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Fri, 4 May 2018 05:15:00 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I see our civilization progressing to the point where goods are
virtually free because automatic machines will make them, and
machines
will service the machines,

People have expected that for some 150 years now but it still
hasn't
happened...

150 years is an instant in the life of a civilization.

No human civilization has yer endured more than some 5000 years. 150
years is some 3% of that, which is definitely more than an instant.
Or are you claiming that no human civilization has endured more than
some 30 instants?

freeing people to do "something else." But what should
that "something else" be? Jesus and the Apostles had
"something
else": preaching the gospel. Should I preach the gospel at
you? :-)

You already do,

Actually, I don't. Reminding you of an alternative life style is
NOT
preaching.

Reminding once is not preaching. But repeatedly reminding is
preaching, in particular if you claim it is a superior lifestyle...

however you don't live as you preach.

I'm not preaching. You seem to have a rather thin skin.

Nice excuse to avoid having to live as you preach...


And when this hypocrisy is pointed out at you, you just shrug and
say
"I'm not perfect"...

Is that an excuse for you to ignore His teachings? There is no
shame in
being imperfect. The REAL shame is in not trying to improve
oneself.

Christianity is not required to improve yourself. Christianity may
even turn you into a much worse person. Remember the crusades? Or the
colonization in Africa and Asia? Or the total or partial extinction
of the original population of the Americas? All done with the purpose
of converting "pagan" people to Christianity, and all in the name of
Christ. Those who did this were convinced they were dooäing Good
Things and that they would go to Heaven as a reward.


Wow! And all that just because I have asked for a little less
over-
confidence, a little more caution about unintended consequences
and
a little more evidence for GW, particularly AGW.

What's next? Will you ask for more evidence that the Earth is
not
flat?

Straw-man argument.

"straw man  caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack"


https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/0...n-kit-carl-sag
an/

This, of course, indicates REAL hypocrisy.

Scientifically the question about AGW is settled.

Science is NEVER "settled." Science is about building models of
the world
around us and testing them against experimental evidence. NO model
is
perfect, and when a model fails to predict what actually happens,
one
should try to find out why.

Are you claiming that the question of whether the Earth is flat or
not has not been settled yet?


"2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable
proponent=
s
of all points of view.


"3. Arguments from authority carry little weight  authori=
ties have made
mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps
a bette=
r
way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at
most, there
are experts.


"4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If theres something to be expla=
ined,
think of all the different ways in which it could be explained."


Read the scientific literature if you want to educate yourself.

I have probably read more about GW than you have.

In your fantasy perhaps. I've known about GW and AGW since 1970 -
yes, to atmospheric scientists it was a concern already back then. I
have been a colleague to the late Bert Bolin who was among those who
founded the IPCC. Now, what are your credentials?


What remains is ideology, politics - and, unfortunately, denial
and fake
news.

I see a LOT of that from the AGW advocates.


There were strong theoretical implications that the Higgs boson
ought
to exist. They knew what they were looking for. Your phrase "NO
evidence" implies also the lack of these theoretical implications.

Your definition of "evidence" is different from mine. To me,
"evidence"
is actual measurement.

You limit your evidence to experimental evidence. But at some point
the very first experiment must be made. How do you decide on which
experiment to perform? Pure guesswork is of course one way, but
that's no good when the experiment costs very much, as it did in the
case of detecting the Higgs boson. Then it is much better to base
your decision on predictions by theories based on other experiments.
Even an uncertain prediction is much better than blind guessworks.
You don't want to call these predictions evidence - why not?

There is "theoretical evidence" against GW and I
have cited such.

Then could you please explain how the amount of CO2, a known
greenhouse gas, could increase so much *without** the Earth getting
warmer? And then why would it be so on Earth but not on Venus?

But I don't count that as REAL evidence, it just means
that the science is not as "settled" as the AGW advocates zealously
claim.

According to you, science is never settled - not even the question of
whether the Earth is flat or not...

Perhaps you misunderstand the word settled. That a scientific
question has been settled does not mean that the conclusion cannot be
modified even in small details - we're not dealing with Holy
Scriptures which should be followed to the letter as in Christianity.
It doesn't even mean that the major parts cannot be changed, only
that it is very or extremely unlikely that this would happen - like
e.g. the settled question that the Earth is not flat. And such a
major change should be made only if and when convincing evidence
appears, but not before that. Such evidence should also include a
feasible explanation why the earlier evidence should not be trusted.
Merely presenting a study which contradicts established conclusions
is not enough - that study might be erroneous. Such things has
happened many times in the history of science. Remember cold fusion?
Or the claim that vaccines cause autism?

If you want to be a good Christian trying to improve yourself, please
also try to learn to be more scientifically literate. Scientific
illiteracy is no virtue.

Yes, now I am preaching too. But, as opposed to you, I try to live as
I preach, instead of just saying "I am not perfect".


Calling people flat-earthers, science-deniers, etc., accomplishes
little
besides polarization. I really don't understand what you're trying
to
accomplish by re-opening this multi-pronged dialog with no new
information.

Calling people zealots accomplishes little besides polarization....

Your turn...

On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 2:48:20 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Sat, 26 May 2018 04:31:52 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 1:11:30 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Fri, 4 May 2018 05:15:00 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I see our civilization progressing to the point where goods are
virtually free because automatic machines will make them, and
machines will service the machines,

People have expected that for some 150 years now but it still
hasn't happened...

150 years is an instant in the life of a civilization.

No human civilization has yer endured more than some 5000 years. 150
years is some 3% of that, which is definitely more than an instant.
Or are you claiming that no human civilization has endured more than
some 30 instants?

Claiming that my vision hasn't happened because it hasn't happened in
the last 150 years is surely short-sighted and ignores the rate of
advancement of technology. All you have to do to expose this fallacious
assertion is to consider what a Tesla factory looks like today with
robotic assembly and compare that to what a carriage "factory" looked
like 150 years ago. But I was thinking ahead dozens of "instants" not
backward.

freeing people to do "something else." But what should
that "something else" be? Jesus and the Apostles had
"something else": preaching the gospel. Should I preach the
gospel at you? :-)

You already do,

Actually, I don't. Reminding you of an alternative life style is
NOT preaching.

Reminding once is not preaching. But repeatedly reminding is
preaching, in particular if you claim it is a superior lifestyle...

Responding to questions (and yes, verbal attacks) is not preaching.
You do indeed have a thin skin and, perhaps a guilty conscience? :-)

however you don't live as you preach.

I'm not preaching. You seem to have a rather thin skin.

Nice excuse to avoid having to live as you preach...

We all have excuses:

And when this hypocrisy is pointed out at you, you just shrug and
say "I'm not perfect"...

Is that an excuse for you to ignore His teachings? There is no
shame in being imperfect. The REAL shame is in not trying to
improve oneself.

Christianity is not required to improve yourself.

That is patently false:

" 5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and
to virtue knowledge;

6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience
godliness;

7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity."

-- Peter II

Christianity may even turn you into a much worse person. Remember the
crusades? Or the colonization in Africa and Asia? Or the total or partial
extinction of the original population of the Americas? All done with the
purpose of converting "pagan" people to Christianity, and all in the name of
Christ. Those who did this were convinced they were dooäing Good
Things and that they would go to Heaven as a reward.

All of that was done with corrupted Christianity. True Christianity
disappeared by the fourth century AD except in the lives of a few humble
people.

Wow! And all that just because I have asked for a little less
over-confidence, a little more caution about unintended consequences
and a little more evidence for GW, particularly AGW.

What's next? Will you ask for more evidence that the Earth is not
flat?

Straw-man argument.

"straw man caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack"

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/0...it-carl-sagan/

This, of course, indicates REAL hypocrisy.

Scientifically the question about AGW is settled.

Science is NEVER "settled." Science is about building models of the
world around us and testing them against experimental evidence. NO
model is perfect, and when a model fails to predict what actually
happens, one should try to find out why.

Are you claiming that the question of whether the Earth is flat or
not has not been settled yet?

More straw-man deceitfulness.

"2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable
proponents of all points of view.

"3. Arguments from authority carry little weight, authorities have
made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future.
Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no
authorities; at most, there are experts.

"4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there s something to be explained,
think of all the different ways in which it could be explained."

Read the scientific literature if you want to educate yourself.

I have probably read more about GW than you have.

In your fantasy perhaps. I've known about GW and AGW since 1970 -
yes, to atmospheric scientists it was a concern already back then. I
have been a colleague to the late Bert Bolin who was among those who
founded the IPCC. Now, what are your credentials?

But you still haven't looked carefully at the climate models?

What remains is ideology, politics - and, unfortunately, denial
and fake news.

I see a LOT of that from the AGW advocates.

There were strong theoretical implications that the Higgs boson
ought to exist. They knew what they were looking for. Your phrase
"NO evidence" implies also the lack of these theoretical implications..

Your definition of "evidence" is different from mine. To me,
"evidence" is actual measurement.

You limit your evidence to experimental evidence. But at some point
the very first experiment must be made. How do you decide on which
experiment to perform? Pure guesswork is of course one way, but
that's no good when the experiment costs very much, as it did in the
case of detecting the Higgs boson. Then it is much better to base
your decision on predictions by theories based on other experiments.
Even an uncertain prediction is much better than blind guessworks.
You don't want to call these predictions evidence - why not?

Predictions are fine, but actual experimental evidence is the sine qua non
of science.

There is "theoretical evidence" against GW and I have cited such.

Then could you please explain how the amount of CO2, a known
greenhouse gas, could increase so much *without** the Earth getting
warmer? And then why would it be so on Earth but not on Venus?

Venus is NOT in the habitable zone. Didn't you get the memo?

And could you please explain why climate models treat the most important
greenhouse gas improperly?

But I don't count that as REAL evidence, it just means that the
science is not as "settled" as the AGW advocates zealously claim.

According to you, science is never settled - not even the question of
whether the Earth is flat or not...

And regurgitated straw-man. When are you going to ascend to a higher
level?

Perhaps you misunderstand the word settled. That a scientific
question has been settled does not mean that the conclusion cannot be
modified even in small details

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/settled

"to appoint, fix, or resolve definitely and conclusively"

THIS is the implied definition when you and other AGW advocates use it.

- we're not dealing with Holy Scriptures which should be followed to the
letter as in Christianity.

Even if the translators made a mistake? :-)

It doesn't even mean that the major parts cannot be changed, only
that it is very or extremely unlikely that this would happen - like
e.g. the settled question that the Earth is not flat. And such a
major change should be made only if and when convincing evidence
appears, but not before that. Such evidence should also include a
feasible explanation why the earlier evidence should not be trusted.
Merely presenting a study which contradicts established conclusions
is not enough - that study might be erroneous. Such things has
happened many times in the history of science. Remember cold fusion?
Or the claim that vaccines cause autism?

If you want to be a good Christian trying to improve yourself, please
also try to learn to be more scientifically literate. Scientific
illiteracy is no virtue.

Yes, now I am preaching too. But, as opposed to you, I try to live as
I preach, instead of just saying "I am not perfect".

Even when you preach falsehoods :-)

And you imply that I don't try, so you make another false assertion.

Calling people flat-earthers, science-deniers, etc., accomplishes
little besides polarization. I really don't understand what you're
trying to accomplish by re-opening this multi-pronged dialog with
no new information.

Calling people zealots accomplishes little besides polarization....

Your turn...

You have exhibited real zeal here, so that's just another straw man.
And as for zealot: "a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in
pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals."

And that is definitely you :-)

On Sun, 27 May 2018 10:48:15 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

No human civilization has yer endured more than some 5000 years. 150
years is some 3% of that, which is definitely more than an instant.

That's more like civilization itself. Most major civilizations only
existed a few hundred years. Plenty of important ones were only
dominant for something on the order of 150 years. (Taking
"civilization" to mean any single cohesive culture.) What about the
U.S.? Well, it began to be powerful on the world scene around the mid
1800s. It's currently in decline, unlikely to survive in its current
form. It could easily be a fairly typical 200 to 250 year civilization
when viewed by future historians.

The empirical cult is still dominant since 1689 so the voodoo and bluffing that its followers never understood still imposes a blackness on astronomy and surrounding research subjects through the classrooms of schools and universities.





"I see the Four-fold Man, The Humanity in deadly sleep
And its fallen Emanation, the Spectre and its cruel Shadow.
I see the Past, Present and Future existing all at once
Before me. O Divine Spirit, sustain me on thy wings,
That I may awake Albion from his long and cold repose;
For Bacon and Newton, sheath'd in dismal steel, their terrors hang
Like iron scourges over Albion: reasonings like vast serpents
Infold around my limbs, bruising my minute articulations.

I turn my eyes to the schools and universities of Europe
And there behold the Loom of Locke, whose Woof rages dire,
Wash'd by the Water-wheels of Newton: black the cloth
In heavy wreaths folds over every nation: cruel works
Of many Wheels I view, wheel without wheel, with cogs tyrannic
Moving by compulsion each other, not as those in Eden, which,
Wheel within wheel, in freedom revolve in harmony and peace."
William Blake

On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:25:47 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2018 10:48:15 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

No human civilization has yer endured more than some 5000 years.
150
years is some 3% of that, which is definitely more than an
instant.

That's more like civilization itself. Most major civilizations only
existed a few hundred years. Plenty of important ones were only
dominant for something on the order of 150 years. (Taking
"civilization" to mean any single cohesive culture.) What about the
U.S.? Well, it began to be powerful on the world scene around the
mid
1800s. It's currently in decline, unlikely to survive in its current
form. It could easily be a fairly typical 200 to 250 year
civilization
when viewed by future historians.

Very true. Europe is a bit older but may meet the same fate - after
all, most Americans are descendants from emigrated Europeans. Europe
is really several mutually competing civilisations which of course
adds to the instability of Europe.

On Sun, 27 May 2018 05:23:50 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 2:48:20 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Sat, 26 May 2018 04:31:52 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 1:11:30 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Fri, 4 May 2018 05:15:00 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I see our civilization progressing to the point where goods
are
virtually free because automatic machines will make them,
and
machines will service the machines,

People have expected that for some 150 years now but it still
hasn't happened...

150 years is an instant in the life of a civilization.

No human civilization has yer endured more than some 5000 years.
150
years is some 3% of that, which is definitely more than an
instant.
Or are you claiming that no human civilization has endured more
than
some 30 instants?

Claiming that my vision hasn't happened because it hasn't happened
in
the last 150 years is surely short-sighted and ignores the rate of
advancement of technology.

Are you claiming that your vision already has happened? If so, where
and when do you think it happen?

All you have to do to expose this fallacious
assertion is to consider what a Tesla factory looks like today with
robotic assembly and compare that to what a carriage "factory"
looked
like 150 years ago. But I was thinking ahead dozens of "instants"
not
backward.

freeing people to do "something else." But what should
that "something else" be? Jesus and the Apostles had
"something else": preaching the gospel. Should I preach the
gospel at you? :-)

You already do,

Actually, I don't. Reminding you of an alternative life style
is
NOT preaching.

Reminding once is not preaching. But repeatedly reminding is
preaching, in particular if you claim it is a superior
lifestyle...

Responding to questions (and yes, verbal attacks) is not preaching.
You do indeed have a thin skin and, perhaps a guilty conscience? :-)

Only in your fantasy...

however you don't live as you preach.

I'm not preaching. You seem to have a rather thin skin.

Nice excuse to avoid having to live as you preach...

We all have excuses:

However, some excuses are more valid than others. And one should not
demand more from others than what one demands from oneself.


And when this hypocrisy is pointed out at you, you just shrug
and
say "I'm not perfect"...

Is that an excuse for you to ignore His teachings? There is no
shame in being imperfect. The REAL shame is in not trying to
improve oneself.

Christianity is not required to improve yourself.

That is patently false:

That's disproved by history. The truly remarkable progress of science
which has happened during the last few centuries would not have been
possible if people had not gotten rid of the tyranny of religion.


" 5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith
virtue; and
to virtue knowledge;
6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to
patience
godliness;
7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness
charity."
-- Peter II


Christianity may even turn you into a much worse person. Remember
the
crusades? Or the colonization in Africa and Asia? Or the total or
partial
extinction of the original population of the Americas? All done
with the
purpose of converting "pagan" people to Christianity, and all in
the name=
of
Christ. Those who did this were convinced they were dooäing Good
Things and that they would go to Heaven as a reward.

All of that was done with corrupted Christianity. True Christianity
disappeared by the fourth century AD except in the lives of a few
humble
people.

Another "nice" excuse - anything evil performed by a discipline was
performed by a corrupted version of that discipline, not by its pure
version. Well, similar excuses could be used about anything evil.

Btw, why did the Christians of the 4'th century CE let themselves be
corrupted? And what would have happened if the early Christians had
refused to let themselves be currupted, I.e. had refused to let the
Roman emperor Constantine make Christianity the state religion? I'll
give you the answer to my second question above: then Christianity
would today be an extinct religion, much like what happened to
Gnostiscism. Perhaps then Islam would instead have become the world's
most dominant religion?

Wow! And all that just because I have asked for a little
less
over-confidence, a little more caution about unintended
consequence=
s
and a little more evidence for GW, particularly AGW.

What's next? Will you ask for more evidence that the Earth is
not
flat?

Straw-man argument.

"straw man caricaturing a position to make it easier to
attack"


https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/0...n-kit-carl-sag
an/

This, of course, indicates REAL hypocrisy.

Scientifically the question about AGW is settled.

Science is NEVER "settled." Science is about building models
of the
world around us and testing them against experimental evidence.
NO
model is perfect, and when a model fails to predict what
actually
happens, one should try to find out why.

Are you claiming that the question of whether the Earth is flat
or
not has not been settled yet?

More straw-man deceitfulness.

You refuse to draw the conclusion from your own claims? But then you
admit that there are at least SOME scientific questions that have
been settled. OK?


"2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by
knowledgeable
proponents of all points of view.

"3. Arguments from authority carry little weight, authorities
have
made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future.
Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no
authorities; at most, there are experts.

"4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there s something to be
explained=
,
think of all the different ways in which it could be
explained."

Read the scientific literature if you want to educate
yourself.

I have probably read more about GW than you have.

In your fantasy perhaps. I've known about GW and AGW since 1970 -
yes, to atmospheric scientists it was a concern already back
then. I
have been a colleague to the late Bert Bolin who was among those
who
founded the IPCC. Now, what are your credentials?
But you still haven't looked carefully at the climate models?
What remains is ideology, politics - and, unfortunately,
denial
and fake news.

I see a LOT of that from the AGW advocates.

There were strong theoretical implications that the Higgs
boson
ought to exist. They knew what they were looking for. Your
phrase
"NO evidence" implies also the lack of these theoretical
implications=
.

Your definition of "evidence" is different from mine. To me,
"evidence" is actual measurement.

You limit your evidence to experimental evidence. But at some
point
the very first experiment must be made. How do you decide on
which
experiment to perform? Pure guesswork is of course one way, but
that's no good when the experiment costs very much, as it did in
the
case of detecting the Higgs boson. Then it is much better to base
your decision on predictions by theories based on other
experiments.
Even an uncertain prediction is much better than blind
guessworks.
You don't want to call these predictions evidence - why not?

Predictions are fine, but actual experimental evidence is the sine
qua non
of science.

Of course. Nevertheless, predictions are better evidence than the
absence of predictions, even if experimental results are still better
evidence. But before you can get experimental results you must decide
on which experiments to make, in particular if the experiments are
complex and expensive. On which evidence should you base such a
decision?

There is "theoretical evidence" against GW and I have cited
such.

Then could you please explain how the amount of CO2, a known
greenhouse gas, could increase so much *without** the Earth
getting
warmer? And then why would it be so on Earth but not on Venus?

Venus is NOT in the habitable zone. Didn't you get the memo?

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Is Venus closer to the Sun than
Mercury?

BTW CO2 can, and does, work as a greenhouse gas also outside the
habitable zone.

And could you please explain why climate models treat the most
important
greenhouse gas improperly?

Which climate models do you refer to here? And which greenhouse gas
do you think is treated improperly and in what way? And how would you
want to change these climate models so that they would treat this
greenhouse gas in a way you think is more proper? Please be specific
in your answer. Yes, this requires you to understand how these
climate models work. You cannot critizise something you don't
understand.

But I don't count that as REAL evidence, it just means that the
science is not as "settled" as the AGW advocates zealously
claim.

According to you, science is never settled - not even the
question of
whether the Earth is flat or not...

And regurgitated straw-man. When are you going to ascend to a
higher
level?

When you admit that there are SOME scientific questions which have
been settled. And when you stop making these sweeping
generalizations. They are so easy to shoot down - one single
counterexample is enough...

Perhaps you misunderstand the word settled. That a scientific
question has been settled does not mean that the conclusion
cannot be
modified even in small details

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/settled

"to appoint, fix, or resolve definitely and conclusively"

THIS is the implied definition when you and other AGW advocates use
it.

And when you use it, which definition do you use? If you use the same
definition, do you really believe that the question about whether the
Earth is flat or not has not yet been settled?


- we're not dealing with Holy Scriptures which should be followed
to the
letter as in Christianity.

Even if the translators made a mistake? :-)

Depends on which religious zealot you're talking to...


It doesn't even mean that the major parts cannot be changed, only
that it is very or extremely unlikely that this would happen -
like
e.g. the settled question that the Earth is not flat. And such a
major change should be made only if and when convincing evidence
appears, but not before that. Such evidence should also include a
feasible explanation why the earlier evidence should not be
trusted.
Merely presenting a study which contradicts established
conclusions
is not enough - that study might be erroneous. Such things has
happened many times in the history of science. Remember cold
fusion?
Or the claim that vaccines cause autism?

If you want to be a good Christian trying to improve yourself,
please
also try to learn to be more scientifically literate. Scientific
illiteracy is no virtue.

Yes, now I am preaching too. But, as opposed to you, I try to
live as
I preach, instead of just saying "I am not perfect".

Even when you preach falsehoods :-).

Do you have proofs that GW is not AGW? If so, please present it. If
your arguments still hold after the usual scientific scruitinity, you
will very likely get a Nobel Prize for your findings. Good luck!

And you imply that I don't try, so you make another false assertion.

Well you did say "I am not perfect" instead of e.g. "I am trying.very
very hard"...

Calling people flat-earthers, science-deniers, etc.,
accomplishes
little besides polarization. I really don't understand what
you're
trying to accomplish by re-opening this multi-pronged dialog
with
no new information.

Calling people zealots accomplishes little besides
polarization....

Your turn...


You have exhibited real zeal here, so that's just another straw man.
And as for zealot: "a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in
pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals."

And that is definitely you :-)

I noticed your final smiley. But it is obvious that you think all
others must be like yourself. Surprise - they aren't! Well, some are
of course, but not all.

On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 7:40:32 PM UTC+1, Paul Schlyter wrote:

And when you use it, which definition do you use? If you use the same
definition, do you really believe that the question about whether the
Earth is flat or not has not yet been settled?



You are hapless individuals who hung your notions on the wrong star - in this case Polaris instead of the defining star for timekeeping which happens to be Sirius and not only its first annual appearance at dawn but that it skips an appearance by one day/rotation after 4 years.

The RA/Dec framework on which Sir Isaac hung his empirical agenda would get you lot out of the woods when it comes to predictions as it is based on the calendar framework but that is at odds with the 24 hour system and Lat/Long system which contains the facts of a round and rotating Earth -at the Equator for a 24,901 mile circumference that translates into 1037.5 mph.

It is not a question of being wrong, that in itself is fine, it is that none of you are the least bit interested in the old scheme which set in motion a type of pseudo-intellectual tyranny that has lasted longer than most political structures. You are, as it were, a curios bunch that have long since lost the ability to impress society in any meaningful way.

The global education market is a 6 Trillion dollar market, that is 6,000 Billion dollar which equates to the total GDP of Britain,France and Italy combined.

https://d99ngkg9mjpdb.cloudfront.net...ustry-2017.png


Any English speaking person doing a Google search on 'How long does it take the Earth to turn once ?' and they get the wrong answer -

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=How+long+does+i...to+rotate+once


If that isn't dismaying and the reason the answer is incorrect is so obvious, so straightforward that it even surpasses the 'flat Earth' notion in terms of vapidity. Don't know why people lack the pride and integrity to just deal with a scar on human astronomical history and terrestrial sciences known as astrophysics.

On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 12:40:32 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

however you don't live as you preach.

I'm not preaching. You seem to have a rather thin skin.

Nice excuse to avoid having to live as you preach...

We all have excuses:

However, some excuses are more valid than others. And one should not
demand more from others than what one demands from oneself.

I'm not "demanding" anything. I'm merely pointing out that there are
higher mountains to climb. Any "demands" you believe might be a result
of your guilty conscience?

But as for "not living up to my ideals":

"The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high
and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark."
--Michelangelo

Christianity is not required to improve yourself.

That is patently false:

That's disproved by history. The truly remarkable progress of science
which has happened during the last few centuries would not have been
possible if people had not gotten rid of the tyranny of religion.

True Christianity has not been practiced on a large scale since the time
of the Apostles (and not a very large scale then). What you describe is
the tyranny of fallen Man. The periods you describe are this:

"And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east,
they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find
it." -- Amos 8:12

THIS is what true Christianity is about:

" 5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and
to virtue knowledge;
6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience
godliness;
7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity."
-- Peter II

Christianity may even turn you into a much worse person. Remember the
crusades? Or the colonization in Africa and Asia? Or the total or
partial extinction of the original population of the Americas? All
done with the purpose of converting "pagan" people to Christianity,
and all in the name of Christ. Those who did this were convinced they
were dooäing Good Things and that they would go to Heaven as a reward.

All of that was done with corrupted Christianity. True Christianity
disappeared by the fourth century AD except in the lives of a few
humble people.

Another "nice" excuse - anything evil performed by a discipline was
performed by a corrupted version of that discipline, not by its pure
version. Well, similar excuses could be used about anything evil.

All you have to do is look at what the Apostles wrote and did and then
compare that with how people lived "Christianity" in the subsequent
centuries.

Btw, why did the Christians of the 4'th century CE let themselves be
corrupted?

It's what people do. True religion isn't "fancy" enough for them, so they
invent trappings and pomp. This was predicted:

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except
there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son
of perdition" -- II Thessalonians 2:3

And what would have happened if the early Christians had refused to let
themselves be currupted, I.e. had refused to let the Roman emperor
Constantine make Christianity the state religion? I'll give you the answer
to my second question above: then Christianity would today be an extinct
religion, much like what happened to Gnostiscism.

Since Christianity had fallen anyway, there's not much difference, is there..
Except, of course, that the way it DID happen allows us to have the Bible
today. In either case, God would have to restore the true Gospel once
again.

Perhaps then Islam would instead have become the world's most dominant
religion?

But it didn't happen. I believe God's hand has been at work for many
centuries preparing people for the Second Coming.

Are you claiming that the question of whether the Earth is flat or
not has not been settled yet?

More straw-man deceitfulness.

You refuse to draw the conclusion from your own claims? But then you
admit that there are at least SOME scientific questions that have
been settled. OK?

Sure, to my satisfaction.

Even an uncertain prediction is much better than blind guessworks.
You don't want to call these predictions evidence - why not?

Predictions are fine, but actual experimental evidence is the sine
qua non of science.

Of course. Nevertheless, predictions are better evidence than the
absence of predictions, even if experimental results are still better
evidence. But before you can get experimental results you must decide
on which experiments to make, in particular if the experiments are
complex and expensive. On which evidence should you base such a
decision?

Science is multi-pronged and scientists disagree on what should be
experimentally investigated. This is the way it should be. The problem
with "climate science" is that it has become way too monolithic.

There is "theoretical evidence" against GW and I have cited such.

Then could you please explain how the amount of CO2, a known
greenhouse gas, could increase so much *without** the Earth getting
warmer? And then why would it be so on Earth but not on Venus?

Venus is NOT in the habitable zone. Didn't you get the memo?

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Is Venus closer to the Sun than
Mercury?

Come now, the pressure on Venus is 92 earth atmospheres and is 96% CO2.

BTW CO2 can, and does, work as a greenhouse gas also outside the
habitable zone.

I'm not denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

And could you please explain why climate models treat the most
important greenhouse gas improperly?

Which climate models do you refer to here? And which greenhouse gas
do you think is treated improperly and in what way?

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...r_warming.html

"Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the
extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent
NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever
the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the
gas as a critical component of climate change."


And how would you want to change these climate models so that they would
treat this greenhouse gas in a way you think is more proper?

That's not my job. I'm just pointing out that YOUR beliefs are suspect.

Please be specific in your answer. Yes, this requires you to understand
how these climate models work. You cannot critizise something you don't
understand.

So why do you accept its results when YOU don't understand them. The
fact is that each of us chooses our own "experts" -- probably based
on our own biases. To me, you seem to be VERY biased on the subject.

But I don't count that as REAL evidence, it just means that the
science is not as "settled" as the AGW advocates zealously claim.

According to you, science is never settled - not even the question of
whether the Earth is flat or not...

And regurgitated straw-man. When are you going to ascend to a higher
level?

When you admit that there are SOME scientific questions which have
been settled. And when you stop making these sweeping
generalizations. They are so easy to shoot down - one single
counterexample is enough...

I don't recall making "sweeping generalizations" so you seem to be over-
reacting.

Perhaps you misunderstand the word settled. That a scientific
question has been settled does not mean that the conclusion
cannot be modified even in small details

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/settled

"to appoint, fix, or resolve definitely and conclusively"

THIS is the implied definition when you and other AGW advocates use
it.

And when you use it, which definition do you use? If you use the same
definition, do you really believe that the question about whether the
Earth is flat or not has not yet been settled?

It is to my satisfaction. OTOH, AGW is not.

Do you have proofs that GW is not AGW?

I have suspicions based upon experimental evidence.

If so, please present it.

I have.

If your arguments still hold after the usual scientific scruitinity, you
will very likely get a Nobel Prize for your findings. Good luck!

I don't give a hoot about that. I'm just a guy who believes that AGW effects
are overstated by the advocates. OTOH, YOU and your ilk seem to have a BIG
problem with anyone disagreeing with the party line. That's VERY disturbing.

And you imply that I don't try, so you make another false assertion.

Well you did say "I am not perfect" instead of e.g. "I am trying.very
very hard"...

You seem to always pick the less complimentary interpretation :-)

Calling people flat-earthers, science-deniers, etc., accomplishes
little besides polarization. I really don't understand what you're
trying to accomplish by re-opening this multi-pronged dialog with
no new information.

Calling people zealots accomplishes little besides polarization....

Your turn...


You have exhibited real zeal here, so that's just another straw man.
And as for zealot: "a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in
pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals."

And that is definitely you :-)

I noticed your final smiley. But it is obvious that you think all
others must be like yourself. Surprise - they aren't! Well, some are
of course, but not all.

And you think everyone must believe as you believe or you zealously
attack them. Pot, kettle, black.