And you thought global warming theory was B.S? This is even moreridiculous. Controlling gravity

On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 10:26:38 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 09:13:17 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

So you admit that you're not qualified to have an opinion and you have
no answer to my question so you resort to personal attack.

There was no personal attack.

Of course there was! You said my position on AGW implied that I was
a science-denier, a vaccination safety denier and GMO safety denier.
That IS personal attack, and it is also dead wrong.

What I admit is that since I'm not a working climate scientist, I'm not
qualified to have an opinion that differs from the consensus,
particularly (as in this case) when the consensus is so overwhelming.

That's what it means to be a critical thinker.

Following the crowd is NOT being a critical thinker. BTW, is this you?

http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Chris-Peterson/9112123

On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 5:13:19 PM UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:


So you admit that you're not qualified to have an opinion and you have
no answer to my question so you resort to personal attack. Don't you
even understand that such an attitude is one reason why your opinions
are baloney? I see LOTS of that kind of behavior by science-deniers
in the relativity group.


You mean the wound-up screaming heads of a relativity newsgroup caught up a wordplay created in the late 17th century. I discovered many years ago that for all the hype and propaganda about the difficulty of understanding relativity/Einstein that the proponents had a curious ability to ignore that Newton was dithering around with a timekeeping facility known as the Equation of Time rather than their idea that he was 'defining time'.

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions...The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Principia

What happens is that people have been subjected to a blizzard of theoretical voodoo for many generations and can in no way make sense of something simple like the Equation of Time and its relevance to planetary dynamics and subsequently terrestrial sciences.

I have never been curious as to what happens to a mind confronted with Newton's expression of a timekeeping facility which was once central to the creation of the 24 hour system in tandem with the Lat/Long system.

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 09:36:47 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

There was no personal attack.

Of course there was! You said my position on AGW implied that I was
a science-denier, a vaccination safety denier and GMO safety denier.

That is a simple statement of fact.

On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 2:34:28 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 09:36:47 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

There was no personal attack.

Of course there was! You said my position on AGW implied that I was
a science-denier, a vaccination safety denier and GMO safety denier.

That is a simple statement of fact.

The only thing this proves is that you are a dishonest, bigoted generator
of unscientific stereotyping who can never be wrong in his own mind.

On second thought, you could not possibly be the Dr. Chris L. Peterson of
the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. He would at least have to
treat people with kindness and respect, which quality you severely lack.

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 18:57:42 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 2:34:28 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 09:36:47 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

There was no personal attack.

Of course there was! You said my position on AGW implied that I was
a science-denier, a vaccination safety denier and GMO safety denier.

That is a simple statement of fact.

The only thing this proves is that you are a dishonest, bigoted generator
of unscientific stereotyping who can never be wrong in his own mind.

On second thought, you could not possibly be the Dr. Chris L. Peterson of
the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. He would at least have to
treat people with kindness and respect, which quality you severely lack.

Why would I have to treat a fool with respect? Respect is earned.

Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 12:29:25 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 11:24:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

If
you insist on arguing that AGW isn't real, it isn't an ad hominem to
identify you as a pseudoscientist, or a conspiracy nut, or a science
denier. It's just a statement of fact.

NO, it's a matter of opinion, not fact. Learn the difference, peterson.

AGW is a matter of fact, not opinion.

This claim is a sign of a fanatic. Reason dictates that there is much
more that we don't know than what we do know. With a little humility you
would realize that there are no facts in science. Realize that when you
appeal to "facts" you are on sandy soil. And in AGW, there are
observations that support it and observations that don't.

There is no longer enough scientific doubt to merit discussion.

Of course there is! And that doubt should prohibit hasty actions, for by
doing so we risk unforeseen consequences. Note that I'm not rejecting
the possibility of AGW. I just haven't seen sufficient evidence to run
around and claim the sky is falling.

Anybody who suggests otherwise is properly assumed factually wrong,
and most likely falls into one of the above categories (or like you,
are simply mentally ill).

Lots of people have claimed to know what is best for humanity. Hitler,
Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hirohito, Mao Tse Tung come to mind. They were
all fanatics, like you. Fortunately, you don't have the power to do
what they did.

And would you kindly (try to) explain why the earth didn't turn into Venus
when the concentration of CO2 was 7000 ppm.


If you were standing on the Earth of the mid to late Cambrian you wouldn't
recognise it as Earth. The atmosphere was nothing like current conditions.
The oxygenation was not yet complete.You wouldn't be able to breathe easily
unaided. It was hot. There were few mountains on land and the oceans
covered 85% of the Earth's surface.
The Cambrian started with an ice age and temperature increased until the
Earth was becoming too hot for the ocean life to proliferate further. Then
over 3 million years the CO@ level and temperatures dropped rapidly in the
SPICE or Steptoean event. Falling sea levels exposed much greater areas of
continent to atmospheric erosion which locked up CO2 in silicate rocks and
provided greatly increased nutrients to the ocean. The increasing ocean
life accelerated the removal of CO2 and the accumulation of oxygen in the
atmosphere. The decay of the extra organic matter in the sea removed oxygen
from the ocean and reduced further decay allowing the sequestered carbon to
sink to the ocean depths and eventually be incorporated in sedimentary
rock.
The evidence from isotope measurements supports this strongly.
Add to this the fact that the solar "constant" was 4% less than now and
Earth is much farther from the sun than Venus and you have your answer.
The runaway greenhouse effect was aborted because temperatures had not
risen high enough before the SPICE event reduced CO2 and the temperature
fell.
After the Cambrian the tectonic changes which led to the formation of the
Appalachian mountains further reduced atmospheric CO2 and led eventually to
another ice age.

This is all supported by

Mike Collins wrote:
Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 12:29:25 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 11:24:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

If
you insist on arguing that AGW isn't real, it isn't an ad hominem to
identify you as a pseudoscientist, or a conspiracy nut, or a science
denier. It's just a statement of fact.

NO, it's a matter of opinion, not fact. Learn the difference, peterson.

AGW is a matter of fact, not opinion.

This claim is a sign of a fanatic. Reason dictates that there is much
more that we don't know than what we do know. With a little humility you
would realize that there are no facts in science. Realize that when you
appeal to "facts" you are on sandy soil. And in AGW, there are
observations that support it and observations that don't.

There is no longer enough scientific doubt to merit discussion.

Of course there is! And that doubt should prohibit hasty actions, for by
doing so we risk unforeseen consequences. Note that I'm not rejecting
the possibility of AGW. I just haven't seen sufficient evidence to run
around and claim the sky is falling.

Anybody who suggests otherwise is properly assumed factually wrong,
and most likely falls into one of the above categories (or like you,
are simply mentally ill).

Lots of people have claimed to know what is best for humanity. Hitler,
Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hirohito, Mao Tse Tung come to mind. They were
all fanatics, like you. Fortunately, you don't have the power to do
what they did.

And would you kindly (try to) explain why the earth didn't turn into Venus
when the concentration of CO2 was 7000 ppm.


If you were standing on the Earth of the mid to late Cambrian you wouldn't
recognise it as Earth. The atmosphere was nothing like current conditions.
The oxygenation was not yet complete.You wouldn't be able to breathe easily
unaided. It was hot. There were few mountains on land and the oceans
covered 85% of the Earth's surface.
The Cambrian started with an ice age and temperature increased until the
Earth was becoming too hot for the ocean life to proliferate further. Then
over 3 million years the CO@ level and temperatures dropped rapidly in the
SPICE or Steptoean event. Falling sea levels exposed much greater areas of
continent to atmospheric erosion which locked up CO2 in silicate rocks and
provided greatly increased nutrients to the ocean. The increasing ocean
life accelerated the removal of CO2 and the accumulation of oxygen in the
atmosphere. The decay of the extra organic matter in the sea removed oxygen
from the ocean and reduced further decay allowing the sequestered carbon to
sink to the ocean depths and eventually be incorporated in sedimentary
rock.
The evidence from isotope measurements supports this strongly.
Add to this the fact that the solar "constant" was 4% less than now and
Earth is much farther from the sun than Venus and you have your answer.
The runaway greenhouse effect was aborted because temperatures had not
risen high enough before the SPICE event reduced CO2 and the temperature
fell.
After the Cambrian the tectonic changes which led to the formation of the
Appalachian mountains further reduced atmospheric CO2 and led eventually to
another ice age.

This is all supported by




To finish this it's supported by isotope measurements of carbon, sulphur
and phosphorus in the rocks.

I am reading the usual assertion filled spiel of empiricists which combines Venus,the Earth and plate tectonics to arrive at a conclusion. In this era there is no real difference between one empiricist and another unless the citation mill for those who get paid to call themselves professional researchers can be called a difference.

First and foremost, the major planetary difference between our planet and Venus ,apart from life, is the rotational dynamics which in turn effect the geological evolution of the planet and its shape.

Because academics are entirely vacuous when it comes to the Earth's rotational dynamics and its influences on crustal evolution/motion along with the planetary spherical deviation they can in no way use Venus as a comparison planet which has an orbital surface rotation as a function of its orbital motion around the Sun but no appreciable daily surface rotation as both its lack of spherical deviation and only volcanic activity indicates.

The problem with empiricism is not just that there are no innovators or that the citation mill is nothing other that a stodgy high end welfare scheme, it is that it lacks the high intensity and high volume motion of infrmation to create a workable narrative that is always changing.

On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 10:20:13 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Why would I have to treat a fool with respect?

"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree,
it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." -- Albert Einstein

Respect is earned.

Thus you have none.

On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 3:07:18 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Mike Collins wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote:

And would you kindly (try to) explain why the earth didn't turn into
Venus when the concentration of CO2 was 7000 ppm.

If you were standing on the Earth of the mid to late Cambrian you wouldn't
recognise it as Earth. The atmosphere was nothing like current conditions.
The oxygenation was not yet complete.You wouldn't be able to breathe easily
unaided. It was hot. There were few mountains on land and the oceans
covered 85% of the Earth's surface.
The Cambrian started with an ice age and temperature increased until the
Earth was becoming too hot for the ocean life to proliferate further. Then
over 3 million years the CO@ level and temperatures dropped rapidly in the
SPICE or Steptoean event. Falling sea levels exposed much greater areas of
continent to atmospheric erosion which locked up CO2 in silicate rocks and
provided greatly increased nutrients to the ocean. The increasing ocean
life accelerated the removal of CO2 and the accumulation of oxygen in the
atmosphere. The decay of the extra organic matter in the sea removed oxygen
from the ocean and reduced further decay allowing the sequestered carbon to
sink to the ocean depths and eventually be incorporated in sedimentary
rock.
The evidence from isotope measurements supports this strongly.
Add to this the fact that the solar "constant" was 4% less than now and
Earth is much farther from the sun than Venus and you have your answer.
The runaway greenhouse effect was aborted because temperatures had not
risen high enough before the SPICE event reduced CO2 and the temperature
fell.
After the Cambrian the tectonic changes which led to the formation of the
Appalachian mountains further reduced atmospheric CO2 and led eventually to
another ice age.

This is all supported by

To finish this it's supported by isotope measurements of carbon, sulphur
and phosphorus in the rocks.

Thank you, Mike, for your civil and informative review of that period.
As you say, it was hot: average global temperatures were about 22°C as
opposed to present values around 12°C and ice caps were essentially non-
existent. This image of CO2 levels and temperature has more detail
than some others, but I have no confidence in the accuracy:

http://worldview3.50webs.com/6temp.chart.n.co2.jpg

The glaciation in the late Ordovician (probably caused by volcanic activity)
still had ten times the CO2 we have today. Your point that the sun is 4%
warmer now than it was then argues for my mirrors-in-space solution and
against reducing CO2 :-)