Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 6:52:01 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

"Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas,

So it is.

How much water vapor is in the atmosphere, and what controls that?

Answer: the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is determined by evaporation
from the world's oceans, which is determined by global temperatures.

So there's nothing we can do about water vapor, it's part of the *feedback loop*
for global warming.

What determines which way things go are the additional contributions to the
greenhouse effect that aren't strictly determined by the global temperature, but
which could add to it, or not, depending on something changeable.

While we can't control, oh, say, volcanoes... we certainly can control our own
fossil fuel consumption. That's a push on the system which water vapor helps to
amplify.

John Savard

I have seen the rise of pseudo-Christians in the newsgroups over the years, they could just as easy call themselves empiricists or atheists but then they wouldn't stand out which is the whole purpose of the exercise.

The pseudo-Christians jump between pre-Christian and Christian literature in support of their conclusions even when common sense would intervene, after all, the Bible in not one book nor is it a monolithic work - it is a combination of books from many different traditions that are often at variance with one another and that includes the Christian narratives.

Being beggars at the gates of astronomy, nobody here experiences the astronomical import of the description in the Book of Job even though it may not be a Hebrew work -

"Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?" Book of Job

The first annual appearance of the star Mazzaroth swells my heart with pride in humanity but not in this era where people lack the patience,discipline, dignity and integrity to put that observation on a timekeeping footing or even a modern context of planetary orbital dynamics which causes that star to appear in its season -

"On account of the delay in the first annual appearance of Mazzaroth by one day in the course of 4 years therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the New Year" Canopus Decree, 236 BC (Paraphrased to mesh with the Book of Job and orbital dynamics)

Not only the foundation of timekeeping but proof of the orbital motion of the Earth and the relationship between the planet's daily/annual cycles with terrestrial sciences is bound up in the observation.

In article ,
says...

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:

I think you'll be unable to find **any** ideology which hasn't deviated
from its original utopian goals when applied to a large number of people,
such as whole countries.

" 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.

I think you'll be unable to find **any** ideology which hasn't deviated
from its original utopian goals when applied to a large number of people,
such as whole countries.

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

So why try to aim for impossible goals instead of accepting mankind as it
is? Declaring most people as "sinners" because they don't follow the
impossible utopian goal of early Christianity to the letter and saying
they'll go to hell for that won't help anyone.

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.

The bible would still be here even if Christianity had gone extinct.
There are scriptures remaining from other extinct religions too, and I
don't see why Christianity gone extinct would differ from that.

Of course the bible would then be in a quite different form. After all,
the bible today was assembled from various scriptures by what you call
"corrupt Christians" - therefore you ought to discard the bible we have
today and instead search among the original scriptures instead, from a
time before when Christianity became "corrupted".

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

But it didn't happen.

It didn't happen because of what you call "corrupt Christianity"
prevented it from happening. Perhaps you should be a little more grateful
that Christianity "corrupted" itself enough to be accepted by a majority
and not just by a small group of zealots?

I believe God's hand has been at work for many centuries preparing
people for the Second Coming.

Already the twelve apostles of Jesus expected his "second coming" within
their lifetimes. It didn't happen. Around AD 1000, Christians all over
the world expected the "second coming". It didn't happen then either. The
story repeated itself at AD 2000 -- sorry, no "second coming" then
either.

The Jews, who didn't acknowledge Jesus as their Messiah are still waiting
for the "first coming" of their Messiah -- so far it hasn't happed.

And within shia islam the believers are waiting for the 12th imam who
mysteriously disappeared in AD 874. They believe he will some day return
to the Earth, accompanied by the 11 other imams **and** with Jesus
Christ, to bring peace to the Earth.

There are numerous varieties of eschatological religion...

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.

Then why did you earlier write:

### Science is NEVER "settled."

???

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.

That will happen with any science that becomes mature enough. If you try
to advocate the idea that the Earth is flat, you'll find a monolithic
resistance among scientists against that idea. Does that mean all
scientists are thoroughly corrupt? Flat-Earth advocates think so, and
interestingly when they argue for a Flat Earth, they use a logic similar
to yours when you argue against AGW.

Another area where science is monolithic is when e.g. predicting future
solar and lunar eclipses. You'll find little disagreement about where and
when these future events will occur. Do you think that's a flaw or a
virtue?

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.

WHich means the amount of CO2 does indeed matter...

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

I'm not denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Good!

Next question: are you denying that the amount of CO2 in the Earth's
atmosphere has risen significantly? If not, are you denying that this
increased CO2 is extremely likely due to human burning of fossil fuels?


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."

No-one denies that H2O is a greenhouse gas. But the amount of H2O in our
atmosphere will be quite dependent on the temperature of the atmosphe
the warmer it is, the more H2O vapor it can keep. The effect of this is
indeed tricky to forecast, but the most likely effect is that the H2O
vapor will make the global warming even larger.

Also, humans are not producing vast amounts of H2O which significantly
increases the amount of H2O in our atmosphere. If we cause an increase of
H2O in our atmosphere, it will be indirectly through the global warming
due to the increased CO2 -- the H2O will simply make this warming even
greater. By how much we don't know very well.

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.

Then it seems like the major problem here is a pedagogical problem: you
don't understand how the climate works and you dont seem particularly
interested in learning to understand it either. Then why do you feel such
an urge to point out what you think is "suspect"? Why not just leave it
to the experts instead? You're not interested in understanding it anyway.

Also -- do you feel compelled to point out aspects in other areas too you
find suspect, even though you don't understand these areas and are not
interested in understanding them? If so, why? If not, why bother with the
climate?

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.

Well, since I'm not a hardcore climate expert myself but merely have a
general understanding of how these models work, and of how science in
general works, I "bias" myself towards the "majority vote" among climate
researchers here, simply because they are very likely those who have the
best understanding of the problem. No, their understanding is not
perfect, and they know this. But nobody else have any better
understanding.

You bias yourself towards the small minority which objects against AGW
(many of whom has economical interests in their denial, mostly from the
oil industry). Why?

And why don't you similarly bias yourself towards another small minority,
those who claim that the Earth is flat?


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.

Then let me remind you - earlier yo wrote:

### Science is NEVER "settled."

SInce then you have edited this away, but it can be found in earlier
posts of this thread. Did you change your mind about this?

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.

Why are you dissatisfied with current ideas about AGW? You don't
understand the subject well, and you're not interested in learning to
understand it, so why do you bother with it at all?

Do you have proofs that GW is not AGW?

I have suspicions based upon experimental evidence.

**WHICH** experimental evidence?

If so, please present it.

I have.

Did you misplace it so you cannot find it anymore? If not, why not just
repost the link, or the text?

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.

Does that mean you're not completely rejecting the idea that we have a
global warming due to man made emissions of CO2 in our atmosphere? Good!

So your objection is merely how large this AGW will be. But when you
decide whether someone else's value for the AGW in the future at some
specific year is too large, too small, or whatever -- exactly on what do
you base such an opinion? You've admitted that you don't understand the
subject and you're not interested in learning to understand it either, so
how could you then possibly have **any** informed opinion about how large
a future AGW will be? The answer is of course that you cannot have any
informed opinion at all. Your opinion will be uninformed, and based
solely on psychological reasons, i.e. what you like or dislike. ANd your
"choice of experts" will be based on how much their predictions agrees or
disagrees with your psychologically biased opinion.

True, the prospect of a future with the global temperature being, say, 6
degrees warmer than today is indeed frightening. But denying that solely
because you don't want to be frightened would be like e.g. denying that
your house is burning just because you strongly dislike the idea of your
house burning -- yes, some people do indeed act like that during a fire
and then die because of that.

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 :-)

Doing so may appear unpolite, but it does indeed make the arguments
clearer. OK, so you are trying to become a better person? Good -- just
don't set your goal impossibly high so you can never reach it. Never
reaching your goal will just be frustrating.

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.

Nope. I merely responed to your zealous attacks. There are many others in
this newsgroup having different opinions than me. Actually I don't think
there's anyone here agreeing with me about everything. And that's as it
should be - people are different.

I feel sorry for many here who imagine sin is a moral issue as to whether one goes to heaven or hell after death rather than sin is just an expression of finding heaven on Earth either in their own lives or that of the Earth,solar system,galaxy and the Universe. To think that all the immeasurable components or motions from the largest to the smallest make individual life possible so sin is only trying to discover answers elsewhere in money,political power or even fanciful distortions of the universe and objects in it.

Everyone dies but not all live with a balance of head and heart.

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 7:35:46 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 6:52:01 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

"Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas,

So it is.

How much water vapor is in the atmosphere, and what controls that?

Answer: the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is determined by
evaporation from the world's oceans, which is determined by global
temperatures.

So there's nothing we can do about water vapor,

True.

it's part of the *feedback loop* for global warming.

Or global cooling. More water vapor in the air also means more potential
cloud cover, which can increase earth's albedo or decrease outgoing
radiation. A complicated issue. Now add the nucleation of clouds by
cosmic rays into the mix and it is VERY complicated. No wonder those who
construct the climate models choose to treat it in a secondhand manner.

What determines which way things go are the additional contributions to
the greenhouse effect that aren't strictly determined by the global
temperature, but which could add to it, or not, depending on something
changeable.

That's my point exactly: I hear the abysmally-stupid cries from the AGW
advocates that "the science is settled" when it is obvious to anyone with
a modicum of sense that it is not. And the further cries that demand
immediate action and anyone who disagrees must be silenced confirms that
"climate science" is an ideology, not science.

While we can't control, oh, say, volcanoes... we certainly can control
our own fossil fuel consumption. That's a push on the system which water
vapor helps to amplify.

John Savard

And I'm okay with that as long as reason holds sway rather than the knee-jerk
insanity and character assassinations bandied about by the zealots who see
phantasms lurking under their beds. I attended a lecture at the local
university a few years ago given by someone who presented climate information
contrary to the party line. I sat behind a man who was quite apoplectic
about what was being said. I was afraid he was going to have a heart attack!

I recall reading a psychological study with rodents. A bell would ring
and a short time later they would get a shock. But some of them had a
button they could touch which would prevent the looming shock. The ones
that had no button behaved normally and accepted the inevitable, but the
ones who had the button suffered serious anxiety symptoms and behaved
in abnormal manners. That's not a one-to-one relationship with AGW
advocates, but it might explain their animosity toward those who disagree
with them. They realize that they are personally powerless to do anything
substantial toward solving the "problem" but maybe they can beat down the
opposition with whatever tools they have, including personal slurs and
other vicious behavior.

Gary

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 11:30:16 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...
....

OK, so you are trying to become a better person? Good -- just don't
set your goal impossibly high so you can never reach it. Never
reaching your goal will just be frustrating.

If you don't stretch yourself, you WILL fall short. There is no shame
in doing the best you can, but there IS in failing to do your best.

"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

....

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.

Nope. I merely responed to your zealous attacks.

I don't recall making ANY "zealous attacks." I have merely pointed out
deficiencies in the "climate science" and criticized those who excoriate
dissenters.

"One of the truest signs of maturity is the ability to disagree with
someone while still remaining respectful." -- Dave Willis

“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am
persecuted whenever I am contradicted.� -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 11:30:16 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...
....

OK, so you are trying to become a better person? Good -- just don't
set your goal impossibly high so you can never reach it. Never
reaching your goal will just be frustrating.

If you don't stretch yourself, you WILL fall short. There is no shame
in doing the best you can, but there IS in failing to do your best.

If you don't even want to try to understand what you critizise, you're
certainly not doing the best you can, are you?

"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

....

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.

Nope. I merely responed to your zealous attacks.

I don't recall making ANY "zealous attacks." I have merely pointed out
deficiencies in the "climate science" and criticized those who excoriate
dissenters.

I understand. It's comfortable for you to "forget" them. That's probably
why you edited away almost all of our conversation here, just when the
discussion was zooming in on relevant details. So now I know who you are
-- someone who runs away whenever the discussion is perceived as too
uncomfortable.

Conclusion: you have zero credibility when you critizise what you don't
understand and what you even DON'T WANT TO TRY to understand. So why not
stay away from it and leave it to the experts? It's no shame to
acknowledge you're not an expert in everything.

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 7:35:46 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 6:52:01 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

"Water vapor is known to be Earth?s most abundant greenhouse gas,

So it is.

How much water vapor is in the atmosphere, and what controls that?

Answer: the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is determined by
evaporation from the world's oceans, which is determined by global
temperatures.

So there's nothing we can do about water vapor,

True.

it's part of the *feedback loop* for global warming.

Or global cooling. More water vapor in the air also means more potential
cloud cover, which can increase earth's albedo or decrease outgoing
radiation. A complicated issue. Now add the nucleation of clouds by
cosmic rays into the mix and it is VERY complicated. No wonder those who
construct the climate models choose to treat it in a secondhand manner.

The future cloud cover is indeed an uncertainty. But what is your
contribution to solve that problem here? As far as I can see, you're just
whining about things you don't understand and don't even WANT TO
understand.

One kind of organisations which deal a lot with unknowns and
uncertainties are the insurance companies -- or for that matter, anyone
deciding on whether to insure something or not. Do you have a house? If
not, let's suppose you did have a house. Would you get a fire insurance
for that house or not? If your house never burns - the most likely future
of your house - then paying for a fire insurance is of course a waste of
money. So then don't get any fire insurance -- but what if your house
would burn? Although unlikely, it is far far from impossible.

So what would you do? Get a fire insurance for your house or not?

The AGW problem can be viewed in a similar way: if we don't cut down our
CO2 production a lot, it could end in a catastrophy. Or it might end in
not a catastrophy but clearly considerably more uncomfortable living
conditions on Earth for us humans. Or - if we include your scenario of
global warming leading to so much more cloud cover that it became a
global cooling instead - it might perhaps even produce a new ice age.

Do you get the idea? By emitting more and more CO2 all the time we might
be introducing an instability in our atmosphere, and we don't know for
sure what the final result would be.

And this is about all of Earth and the entire human civilization, not
just about someone's house. Our best way to "insure" ourselves against
these potential future catastrophies is to strongly cut down our CO2
production. If we don't do that, the risk for a catastrophy two or so
generations into the future will be considerably larger than the risk of
your house burning in the future.

So if you do, or would, pay for a fire insurance of your house, why don't
you want to strongly cut down human CO2 production? If you say "we don't
know for sure there will be such a big catastrophy" then I say "you don't
know your house will burn, so why insure it?".


What determines which way things go are the additional contributions to
the greenhouse effect that aren't strictly determined by the global
temperature, but which could add to it, or not, depending on something
changeable.

That's my point exactly: I hear the abysmally-stupid cries from the AGW
advocates that "the science is settled" when it is obvious to anyone with
a modicum of sense that it is not. And the further cries that demand
immediate action and anyone who disagrees must be silenced confirms that
"climate science" is an ideology, not science.

Do you argue the same way against "insurance advocates" ???

While we can't control, oh, say, volcanoes... we certainly can control
our own fossil fuel consumption. That's a push on the system which water
vapor helps to amplify.

John Savard

And I'm okay with that as long as reason holds sway rather than the knee-jerk
insanity and character assassinations bandied about by the zealots who see
phantasms lurking under their beds. I attended a lecture at the local
university a few years ago given by someone who presented climate information
contrary to the party line. I sat behind a man who was quite apoplectic
about what was being said. I was afraid he was going to have a heart attack!

I recall reading a psychological study with rodents. A bell would ring
and a short time later they would get a shock. But some of them had a
button they could touch which would prevent the looming shock. The ones
that had no button behaved normally and accepted the inevitable, but the
ones who had the button suffered serious anxiety symptoms and behaved
in abnormal manners. That's not a one-to-one relationship with AGW
advocates, but it might explain their animosity toward those who disagree
with them. They realize that they are personally powerless to do anything
substantial toward solving the "problem" but maybe they can beat down the
opposition with whatever tools they have, including personal slurs and
other vicious behavior.

You are confusing two very different subjects he the science itself,
and the psychology of some people. So why not ignore the lunatics and
focus in the sane people instead? And of course also on the science --
but the latter requires you to understand the science, something you've
earler said you don't even want to try to do because "that's not your
job". But if you really mean that it's not your job, why not stay out of
it completely? The solution to the AGW problem is not helped at all by
the involvement of people who don't even want to understand it...

On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 18:41:10 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

The future cloud cover is indeed an uncertainty. But what is your
contribution to solve that problem here? As far as I can see, you're just
whining about things you don't understand and don't even WANT TO
understand.

Surely you've recognized by now that you're dealing with someone who
is pathologically incapable of accepting scientific fact. You might as
well argue with Gerald about the period of Earth's rotation.

On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 8:06:54 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Surely you've recognized by now that you're dealing with someone who
is pathologically incapable of accepting scientific fact. You might as
well argue with Gerald about the period of Earth's rotation.

You lads are having a ball with your own outlook on life and the Universe and all derived from an astronomer (Flamsteed) rather than a theorist (Sir Isaac), unfortunately the conclusion which equates a rotating celestial sphere with a rotating Earth (RA/Dec) is like building a pyramid on its apex.

The Earth has two distinct surface rotations to the Sun, one equable and one variable (in response to variable orbital speed) hence the variations in the passage of the Sun as it crosses the observer's meridian each day. By one of those exquisite and fortuitous things, the Equation of Time evens out the variable surface rotation to a constant thereby allowing daily rotation to remain anchored to noon. Just a short step to transferring the average 24 hour day to the Lat/Long system at a constant rotation rate of 15 degrees per hour and by logic turning a full 360 degrees in 24 hours.


Like all things of value it sits inside a more expansive view of life on Earth as without the larger motions every individual participates in from the planet's daily surface rotation, its orbital surface rotation as a function of the planet's orbital motion (responsible for the polar day/night cycle), the orbit of the Sun, the galactic orbit of the solar system around the galaxy or any greater motion then life would be impossible on Earth.

You do realize that you will be eventually identified as a distinct people within human history in future and certainly as a cautionary lesson. Considering all the speculative science out there and you poor folk chain yourselves to a clockwork solar system, that remains the surprising thing for me - rather than be creative and productive in a meaningful way, you choose to spend your lives chasing rainbows at the expense of genuine astronomy.