Climate science denialism - the remarkable inconsistency of

On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 12:46:06 -0700 (PDT), Gerald Kelleher
wrote:

There is only one time lapse footage of a rotating Earth as a whole and that is from 16 years ago -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceJOBFj3hKs

Maybe you missed this one, released just a few days ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFrP6QfbC2g

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 2:13:57 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 12:05:24 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:47:52 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 9:25:39 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Scientists are perhaps the best example of people actively trained to
think rationally, which is why we don't typically see them in the
class of people who deny truths about nature due to political biases.

But a contrary person might point out that this may only be true because global
warming _is_ a truth of nature, and white people being significantly more
intelligent than those of... more recent... African descent is _not_ a truth of
nature.

I take a "contrary person" as someone who maintains and expresses
ideas contrary to reason, and who will therefore be quite apparent to
any rational person.

That misses my meaning, which should have been apparent from context.

I was thinking of someone who argues for the sake of argument, or who delights
in puncturing the statements of others.

John Savard

That's known as trolling and those people are known as trolls. It does nothing to enlighten anyone or advance the discussion. Children do that, even though they may be of advanced age.

On 7/27/16 9:37 AM, Mark Storkamp wrote:
But when it comes right down to it, what I think about climate change,
or what you think about climate change, will have as much effect on the
temperature 100 years from now as your vote will have on choosing the
next president. You need to have one heck of an ego to think your
spitting in the ocean is going to change the tides.

together we are mighty...

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 9:03:00 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 12:46:06 -0700 (PDT), Gerald Kelleher
wrote:

There is only one time lapse footage of a rotating Earth as a whole and that is from 16 years ago -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceJOBFj3hKs

Maybe you missed this one, released just a few days ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFrP6QfbC2g

My goodness, the sight of Antarctica containing the surface polar point turning out of sight and across the fully illuminated face of the planet due to the single rotation as a function of the planet's orbital motion.

This is a gift I would have been waiting for and don't expect anyone else to love what can now be seen through a triumph of 21st century technology. I reserve dismay as somebody will eventually spot the cause for the seasons and the variations in the natural noon cycle with the two rotations observed but with the faster daily rotation all but swamping the orbital surface rotation.

One of the most beautiful achievements of NASA regardless.

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 10:10:04 PM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
I reserve dismay as somebody will eventually spot the cause for the seasons

This is the real reason I read Gerald's nonsense - I enjoy researching responses.

I was going to point out that it's a bit late to worry about priority, when Copernicus explained this long ago. So I went looking for what Copernicus said, and found that he did, but had some details wrong.

This also links up with why Gerald says Copernicus was originally right, and his explanation was later abandoned: Copernicus thought the Earth was on a spherical shell turning around the Sun, but if that were true, the Pole would always point towards or away from the Sun, instead of being fixed on Polaris. So Copernicus added a circular motion to the pole (the one Gerald still believes in) to explain it.

In fact there is no shell, and the pole simply points the same way all the time (which is the same result Copernicus got with the shell plus the extra rotation).

So yes, Copernicus explained the seasons in the modern way, but he also added two unnecessary (and cancelling) rotations to the model.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFrP6QfbC2g

Sometimes things really go right and this is just one of those occasions which require little or no comment, after all, it is the first time the motions of the Earth have been seen with such spectacular detail and over the period of an annual circuit.

It is the same for me as it should be for anyone else with the style and humility to know what they are looking at and putting false words in my mouth is inappropriate at this particular moment.The sight of Antarctica as it makes its way across the fully illuminated face is even more wonderful than I ever imagined and likewise the Northern surface points below the fully illuminated face.

Thanks for making me aware of the time lapse, it comes as a gift .

On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 13:10:25 -0700 (PDT), Razzmatazz wrote:

That's known as trolling and those people are known as trolls. It does nothing to enlighten anyone or advance the discussion. Children do that, even though they may be of advanced age.



A good number of "deniers"/skeptics need to be won over to achieve
change. Insulting them is like striking a thixotropic substance: the
harder/sharper you push it, the more the subtance will resists
flow/moving.

Bridle your impatience - keep it where no "denier" can see it. You'll
have more success that way.



--
Email address is a Spam trap.

Gerald Kelleher wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFrP6QfbC2g

Sometimes things really go right and this is just one of those occasions
which require little or no comment, after all, it is the first time the
motions of the Earth have been seen with such spectacular detail and over
the period of an annual circuit.

It is the same for me as it should be for anyone else with the style and
humility to know what they are looking at and putting false words in my
mouth is inappropriate at this particular moment.The sight of Antarctica
as it makes its way across the fully illuminated face is even more
wonderful than I ever imagined and likewise the Northern surface points
below the fully illuminated face.

Thanks for making me aware of the time lapse, it comes as a gift .



Let's see how NASA created this gift.They used Newtonian equations as
extended by Euler and Lagrange to calculate the position of the Sun/Earth
L1 point.Then they used Newtonian equations to launch the probe into the
correct orbit.This was achieved by using a rocket working on the Newtonian
principle of every action has an equal an opposite reaction. A triumph for
Newton.
Of course you are too much of a coward to discus this.

On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 12:25:58 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 13:10:25 -0700 (PDT), Razzmatazz wrote:

That's known as trolling and those people are known as trolls. It does nothing to enlighten anyone or advance the discussion. Children do that, even though they may be of advanced age.



A good number of "deniers"/skeptics need to be won over to achieve
change. Insulting them is like striking a thixotropic substance: the
harder/sharper you push it, the more the subtance will resists
flow/moving.

Bridle your impatience - keep it where no "denier" can see it. You'll
have more success that way.

I was not insulting deniers. I was responding to this statement:

" I was thinking of someone who argues for the sake of argument, or who delights in puncturing the statements of others."

That is a definition of a troll, someone who get's their jollies by getting a rise out of someone. They really don't care if what they say has any meaning, just so long as they can make the other person look bad.

This applies to any discussion, on any topic, the least of which is climate science. Sure there are skeptics of climate science, as well there are skeptics of tobacco being harmful. They have been sold a bill of goods by powerful interests who stand to lose a lot of money if we need to change the way we power our lifestyle.

I have faith that new methods will be found to provide us with energy in the future and I'm willing and eager to have my tax dollars be used for that purpose.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:25:52 -0400, Bill wrote:

A good number of "deniers"/skeptics need to be won over to achieve
change. Insulting them is like striking a thixotropic substance: the
harder/sharper you push it, the more the subtance will resists
flow/moving.

Don't call them skeptics. That's an insult to rational, critical
thinkers everywhere.

Actual science deniers cannot be reasoned with. Harnagel is a good
example of this- an otherwise intelligent, educated person who suffers
from what is arguably a mental illness that completely locks out
reason in certain scientific areas. (I'm serious about the mental
illness- science denialism is under discussion for inclusion in the
next release of the DSM.). Science deniers become more entrenched as
they are presented with more evidence against their views.

There are also people who deny aspects of science because it goes
against their dogmatic world views. Snell is a good example of this.
Such people are not technically science deniers (in the clinical
sense), but because they are extremely dogmatic, reasoning with them
can be nearly impossible. Some dogmatists eventually realize their
error and change their opinions, but it's sadly rare.