CNN: Are asteroids caused by global warming?

On 2/9/2013 (yesterday, Saturday), while talking to Bill Nye, the
self-styled "science guy," CNN anchor Deb Feyerick asked if the asteroid
scheduled to pass by on 2/15 "is an example of, perhaps, global
warming?"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-b...global-warming

--
St. Paul, MN

Oven Feb 11, 12:56*am, Bert wrote:
On 2/9/2013 (yesterday, Saturday), while talking to Bill Nye, the
self-styled "science guy," CNN anchor Deb Feyerick asked if the asteroid
scheduled to pass by on 2/15 "is an example of, perhaps, global
warming?"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-b...ody-or-does-sh...

--
*St. Paul, MN

Why are you surprised ?.Global warming can explain floods and
droughts,heatwaves and snowstorms or just about any other
meteorological event merely because people have it in their heads that
mathematical modelers are trustworthy.This is not the first time this
has happened where so much is explained by so little as the prescient
Allan Poe noted -

"To explain: The Newtonian Gravity -- a law of Nature -- a law whose
existence as such no one out of Bedlam questions -- a law whose
admission as such enables us to account for nine-tenths of the
Universal phaenomena -- a law which, merely because it does so enable
us to account for these phaenomena, we are perfectly willing, without
reference to any other considerations, to admit, and cannot help
admitting, as a law -- a law, nevertheless, of which neither the
principle nor the modus operandi of the principle, has ever yet been
traced by the human analysis -- a law, in short, which, neither in its
detail nor in its generality, has been found susceptible of
explanation at all -- is at length seen to be at every point
thoroughly explicable, provided we only yield our assent to -- what?
To an hypothesis? Why if an hypothesis -- if the merest hypothesis --
if an hypothesis for whose assumption -- as in the case of that pure
hypothesis the Newtonian law itself -- no shadow of a priori reason
could be assigned -- if an hypothesis, even so absolute as all this
implies, would enable us to perceive a principle for the Newtonian law
-- would enable us to understand as satisfied, conditions so
miraculously -- so ineffably complex and seemingly irreconcileable as
those involved in the relations of which Gravity tells us, -- what
rational being Could so expose his fatuity as to call even this
absolute hypothesis an hypothesis any longer -- unless, indeed, he
were to persist in so calling it, with the understanding that he did
so, simply for the sake of consistency in words?" Poe

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/poe/eureka.html

Not even the empiricists in the late 19th century could make sense of
Newton's absolute/relative time,space and motion setup so they did the
next best thing,they pretended they did and cut a whole cloth out of
the fabric of a late 17th century story hence the shocker of 20th
century 'relativity'.I found it easy to see what Isaac was up to but
because it is so idiosyncratic and adrift of proper astronomer methods
and insights,in explaining what he was doing,contemporaries may assume
Newton has a valid point when he doesn't - it really is a
Frankenstein's monster of a creation built around a clockwork solar
system.


So,why shouldn't the news person ascribe significance to asteroids and
terrestrial effects where none exist,the vicious strain of empiricism
does it day in and day out as a matter of course.Maybe some day there
will be people of integrity who will realize that a huge restructuring
has to take place before some sort of normality will return,not a
weaseling about trying to make things fit together that do not but a
clean and clear approach to all observations,their interpretations and
conclusions.

Notice how carefully Oriel, over a period of some years, has avoided
explaining exactly where his views and the views of other members of
this group differ. He writes whole paragraphs - sometimes nultiple
paragraphs - hundreds of times a year but refuses to explain something
as basic as this.

He also refuses to answer any questions designed to identify what the
difference might be.


As an example - Oriel, if you look due south at midnight on July 1st
and again at midnight on January 1st of the next year will you see the
same stars in the same places.


Yes or no?

On Feb 11, 12:56*am, Bert wrote:
On 2/9/2013 (yesterday, Saturday), while talking to Bill Nye, the
self-styled "science guy," CNN anchor Deb Feyerick asked if the asteroid
scheduled to pass by on 2/15 "is an example of, perhaps, global
warming?"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-b...ody-or-does-sh...

--
St. Paul, MN

..