Posting:
Due to the current troll infestation we will be requiring you to sign in to leave a comment. Also, please note that we will be very nice in the regular posts, but we will not be gentle in the Sunday Blaspheme posts. You will be expected to back up any ideas with facts.
I am always happy to answer any questions I can:)
New Rule! Staff reserves the right to cuss you out and post your correspondence if you send us annoying emails.
Best!
Brett
8 comments:
Of course you can be thoroughly close minded when you offer a scientifically reasonable explanation and act as if that proves that is the way it happened. Jumping to conclusions is the problem, not allowing for the super natural.
Steve
Did you actually watch this? What's with the willful ignorance?
Brett
Booth Vader,
Thank-you for your e-mail earlier today. While I was planning to give Jess a much deserved reprieve from my comments, I feel it necessary to respond to your (quite correct) allegation that Prof James McCanney's work is "outside of mainstream per reviewed science."
Simply, the foundations of the science industry are its various axioms, axioms which must be maintained and protected irrespective of any findings proving contradictary. How this is accomplished is through,ultimately, government control of science itself. With your indulgence, I would like to refer to "Principia Meteorologia: The Physics of Sun-Earth Weather", where McCanney illustrates this process, through the issue of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emmissions:
"What I have learned about funding from government sources is that...where there are are funding sources, there are scientists who will say whatever it takes to get that funding. The research results will confirm the expectations of the funding agency because remember that next year there will be follow-up grants and the next year after that there is a bigger follow-up grant.
There was recently a large body of scientists who signed essentially a petition stating that 98% of all scientists in the field of climate research agree with the concept that we are sending ourselves into global warming. The other issue here is that the scientists who disagree have long since been pushed out of the field and simply have no voice. So is it any wonder that the majority of scientists who remain in are all in agreement. Because next year, guess what, their paycheck depends on the governments providing more funding for global warming "research". This is just "good business"."
Later Mccanney reveals the origins of the global warming hypothesis were a desperate attempt at rationalizing the extreme surface temperatures of Venus recorded by the Pioneer:
"What happened was something I had seen many times as I sat in scientific meetings with NASA scientists while data was coming in from space probes. One of the scientists would come up with an idea (I called this hip pocket theorizing) and this would then become the topic of a paper in a journal and eventually this would somehow become accepted fact, eventually propagated through the scientific journals until it became more accepted. As with all concepts that find their way into the so-called "respectable journals", it would be near impossible to go back and rout out their presence and the damage they do to the progress of science. Not only was Venus hot, and the data so incredibly unexpected, that it proved to be an immediate imbarrassment....but the greenhouse effect was heralded as the cause for the tremendously high temperature of Venus given its thick cloud of CO2 and other greenhouse gases...it was a clear cut case of the need for an immediate "solution" and a dire case of hip pocket theorizing...
Almost immediately it was pointed out that in an open environment such as a planet and its atmosphere, the greenhouse effect actually contradicted the second law of thermodynamics..."
Trust McC.
Andrew,
I believe you might be too open minded;)
You seem to cling to these fringe theorize and ignore the actual evidence. Here's a hint, if it's not published in a per-reviewed paper but it's in a book, it's most likely crazy talk, like the whole Hollow Earth theory. Global warming/greenhouse effect happens, as do ice ages, it happens over and over again. The new Global Warming idea is basically wether man is the cause. You have to remember that through most of the Earths history, there were no poles, that's the greenhouse effect.
I think this guy McC might be off his rocker a bit. If there was plasma/electricity all through the universe then we wouldn't need fuel once we left the Earth. We wouldn't need to generate electricity if it's all over the place, Tesla already figured out how to power devices without plugs, if power was free we wouldn't be paying for it.
There are reasons why 98% of scientist agree with global warming, that's were the evidence points. You're seeing a conspiracy were there is none.
Best,
Brett
Booth Vader,
thanks, B-Dog, for accusing me of being one of the lone gunmen....I always thought I was kind of better looking then Fox Mulder, but thats neither here nor there...
You are entirely correct that we do not need fuel once we leave the earth...and McCanney has already designed such a propulsion system on that basis...the reason we are paying for power is because Westinghouse tore down Tesla's tower and left him impoverished.
I could really push the Al Gore scam, but that episode of Friends is on where Chandler gets stuck in the elevator...and since you seem to cling to ad-hominem attacks rather then back up your opinions with reason and science, well....toodle-doo.
Andrew,
You are quoting books that have no evidence to back them, in science you need to have an experiment that's testable and REPEATABLE. These people have not done the work required to move these ideas forward, they come up with an idea, then they talk about it or they might even write a paper that is deemed false. So instead of trying to produce evidence they write a book and blame scientists for not listening to them. If they provide information and it's false, why should they be taken seriously? Is there any prof there is electricity in space? No, do you think NASA, who is desperate for funding, would pass up free fuel in space? No of course not. I'm dismissing these fringe guys because they have no evidence to back them up. Why should I go citing papers when you have shown me nothing specific, just some vague notions, that's not citing evidence in the first place.
I feel no need to waste my time looking up things I've already researched for un-specific ideas. You have Google, I'm sure others could explain this far better than I.
I'm not making ad hominem attacks, I'm attacking a known falsehood based on the idea, not because I don't like the person, I don't know them. I thought I was being rather nice. I have not stated what I actually think about the ideas, just giving you easy examples of there falsehood. But I do feel the need to ask, are you one of those ID guys that are trying to pass a course? Just curious.
Best,
Brett
Booth Vader, Queen Jess:
Yes sir! For my course I will prove the validity of global warming by doing this totally scientific procedure:
Hypotheis: Al Gore is the pimpin'
big daddy of daddy macks
Procedure:
1. Ok, gather materials.
2. Right,ok, I'm a calculate the
joule heating of the atmosphere
created by one gallon of
gasoline as it is burned TODAY
in a car.
3. Right,ok, I'm a hope that ALL of
this energy turns into heat and
is pumped directly into the
Atmosphere RIGHT NOW.
4. Ok,right, now I'm a calculate
the amount of CO2 created by
this burning and estimate the
definate greenhouse heating that
will definately occur 10 years
from now.
Conclusions: I have found, through
hot tub time travel, that the
immediate input of heat energy
is thousands of times less than
the definite greenhouse effect.
I have also found that the
earth says a big "forget you,
pal" to the 2nd Law of Thermo-
dynamics.
congradulations to me I pass cue
madonna's "With Honors" song Im going drinking with Joe Pesci.
You seem to be off to a bad start, since most modern cars aren't as bad as they used to be, plus cars are only part of the problem.
But before I even go any further, I have to ask, what do you think the 2nd law actually means?
Best,
Brett
Post a Comment