June 1613

On Feb 21, 1:17*am, don findlay wrote:

I reckon. * What about you?

Too many people come along and claim that the "consensus position is
rubbish" when in fact it's their own arguments that are weak, and the
consensus position is just fine, but they don't have the wit to
understand it, for people generally to think that 'original thinkers'
are anything but a waste of time.

Now, I suppose there could be exceptions to this rule, and your case
could even be one of them. But since the conservation of matter is
well-established, and convection currents are well-understood, and
people even measure continental drift with laser beams and the like
these days, I would tend to think that by now even the grad students
would have started to notice if there was a big cover-up of a growing
Earth.

New ideas do get accepted in science. Look at dark matter, for
example. But they come from people who have their ducks in a row
first.

John Savard

On 2/22/09 2:14 AM, in article
,
"Quadibloc" wrote:

Too many people come along and claim that the "consensus position is
rubbish" when in fact it's their own arguments that are weak, and the
consensus position is just fine, but they don't have the wit to
understand it, for people generally to think that 'original thinkers'
are anything but a waste of time.

** The "consensus" is a fraud created by good
ole Algore when he declared the argument
over back in his first congressional term.

It had no science backing then or now.

Now, I suppose there could be exceptions to this rule, and your case
could even be one of them. But since the conservation of matter is
well-established, and convection currents are well-understood, and
people even measure continental drift with laser beams and the like
these days, I would tend to think that by now even the grad students
would have started to notice if there was a big cover-up of a growing
Earth.

** The "big cover-up", the fraud,
is the IPCC's '07 report

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:55:41 -0500, "
wrote:

** The "consensus" is a fraud created by good
ole Algore when he declared the argument
over back in his first congressional term.

It had no science backing then or now.

These statements are prima facie evidence that you lack the necessary
understanding of science to make them at all. You have no business
posting on any sci.* newsgroup.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On 2/22/09 12:04 PM, in article ,
"Chris L Peterson" wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:55:41 -0500, "
wrote:

** The "consensus" is a fraud created by good
ole Algore when he declared the argument
over back in his first congressional term.

It had no science backing then or now.

These statements are prima facie evidence that you lack the necessary
understanding of science to make them at all. You have no business
posting on any sci.* newsgroup.

** Well indeed sonny, it appears that you have
not learned in Caltech much about facts and
factoids.

My two sentences above are solidly factual.
You should get enrolled in your local kindergarten.

- -
** The evidence from Mars destroys the notion
that humans are responsible for warming
Earth. Mars has global warming, but without
a greenhouse and without the participation of
Martians.

Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 12:28:10 -0500, "
wrote:

My two sentences above are solidly factual.

I assume you also believe that the world is flat, that a god created
humans, and that Santa Claus brings toys to all the good little girls
and boys. Because these are all just as "solidly factual".
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Feb 21, 1:17 am, don findlay wrote:

I reckon. What about you?

Too many people come along and claim that the "consensus position is
rubbish" when in fact it's their own arguments that are weak, and the
consensus position is just fine, but they don't have the wit to
understand it, for people generally to think that 'original thinkers'
are anything but a waste of time.

Now, I suppose there could be exceptions to this rule, and your case
could even be one of them. But since the conservation of matter is
well-established, and convection currents are well-understood, and
people even measure continental drift with laser beams and the like
these days, I would tend to think that by now even the grad students
would have started to notice if there was a big cover-up of a growing
Earth.

New ideas do get accepted in science. Look at dark matter, for
example. But they come from people who have their ducks in a row
first.

John Savard

"People who have their ducks in a row"? Mmm, ... Some of them
actually role-play this 'rowing', hoping people will notice.... (A
Rowing Duck - Plate Tectonics style, ..arguing the case for convection
from a geo*physical* point of view:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonse...er.html#rubber
Note the geo*logical* component.)

Or maybe PT's "flat subduction" makes more sense?:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/flat.html
In this PT-model so-called 'convection' is *driven* by that flat slab
pulling the ridges apart and replacing the gap with intruded mantle.
Since the flat motion never returns the slab to the mantle, there is
inexorable pull-apart and commensurate gap-filling at the ridges,
causing mass depletion of the mantle. The resulting humungously
enlarging Earth becomes ever more hollow, and reverberates through the
solar system as the iron core rattles about like a pea in a whistle -
until the Earth runs out of mantle and flat subduction stops.

Likewise just about every point of Plate Tectonics fails in its
logic:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subcrux.html

"Measurements". Measurements really mean nothing as far as negating
expansion goes. The crust detaches on the Moho, and the lithosphere
detaches on the asthenosphere, The whole (geological) global
architecture of crustal deformation reflects spin. It's this crustal
detachment ('lag') effect due to spin that 'measurements' reflect, but
the importance of spin is ignored in PT because the consensus position
is convection. It would be a very brave career-er who would try to
argue a case for the Earth spinning. However on the positive side it
is one of these urban 'memes' that needs no proof for everyone to pick
it up, but only those who have not thought it through would do so,
because the other side of that coin is global expansion. A real Catch
22, that one.

As far as the vertical (expansion) component of measurement is
concerned the geological evidence for this is that it happens
periodically - as evidenced by the successive phases of uplift and
erosion - with a periodicity of quiescence very likely on a scale that
spans the entirety of human existence. Forget what's happened in the
last two decades. It's irrelevant. Besides, how long should we be
prepared to wait before being sure that any perceived possible
enlargement is not going to stop (given the quiescence just mentioned)
- or even reverse itself for some reason? I'd put my money on the
200-300myears of *geological* record any day, against any two or three
decades - or even a thousand years of *geophysical* 'measurements'.

Nope. There are satellites up there and we're getting a picture of
the Earth that's unprecedented. Time to put away the pots and pans
and convection of yesteryear and recognise that the Earth is, indeed,
spinning.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tck/dogli.html
...and that it relates to the geology in a big way.

Consensus science spells failure.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonse...html#consensus

On Feb 22, 10:04*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

These statements are prima facie evidence that you lack the necessary
understanding of science to make them at all. You have no business
posting on any sci.* newsgroup.

Worse than that, he thought I was talking about global warming and not
plate tectonics.

John Savard

On 2/22/09 12:42 PM, in article ,
"Chris L Peterson" wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 12:28:10 -0500, "
wrote:

My two sentences above are solidly factual.

I assume you also believe that the world is flat, that a god created
humans, and that Santa Claus brings toys to all the good little girls
and boys. Because these are all just as "solidly factual".

** ROFLMAO
Take your act to the improv.

marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20031208a.html

** The evidence from Mars destroys the notion
that humans are responsible for warming
Earth. Mars has global warming, but without
a greenhouse and without the participation of
Martians.

Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov

On 2/22/09 3:24 PM, in article
,
"Quadibloc" wrote:

On Feb 22, 10:04*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

These statements are prima facie evidence that you lack the necessary
understanding of science to make them at all. You have no business
posting on any sci.* newsgroup.

Worse than that, he thought I was talking about global warming and not
plate tectonics.

John Savard

** Perhaps you are a bit confused.

1- There is no global warming so only fools are
involved on that subject.

2- plate tectonics and submarine vulcanism are
playing steadily increasing roles in the
countdown to the next ice age.

3- I counted 5 earthquakes, last week, on the
West coast from CA to BC ranging from
quite mild to not so mild but no china broken

The evidence from Mars destroys the notion
that humans are responsible for warming
Earth. Mars has global warming, but without
a greenhouse and without the participation of
Martians.

Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov

marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20031208a.html

On Feb 23, 5:01*pm, "
wrote:

* * *The evidence from Mars destroys the notion
* * *that humans are responsible for warming
* * *Earth. Mars has global warming, but without
* * *a greenhouse and without the participation of
* * *Martians.

Huh? Mars has an atmosphere of nearly pure carbon dioxide, but a very
thin one. Whatever that atmosphere does on Mars, whether there's a
greenhouse effect there or not, the participation of Earthlings has
indeed changed the level of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere.
There's no controversy about that, even if some people feel that there
isn't enough carbon dioxide yet to make a significant difference in
the climate.

John Savard