The global warmistas are anxious to transport western society back to 19th century technology (except for the "developing" world including heavy emitters such as China and India) by silencing the skeptics of man-caused climate change. They state that a "scientific "consensus" exists and the major cause of climate change is human technological activity. This "consensus" argument reminds ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ of the "consensus" existing several hundred years ago that the universe was geocentric and even threatening such "skeptics" as DaVinci, Copernicus and Galeleo with dire consequences. It will be interesting to observe the debates emerging over the recent discovery that contrary to Einstein, the speed of light (186,000 mi/sec) can be exceeded.The argument that gravity must travel faster than light goes like this. If its speed limit is that of light, there must be an appreciable delay in its action. By the time the Sun’s “pull” reaches us, the Earth will have “moved on” for another 8.3 minutes (the time of light travel). But by then the Sun’s pull on the Earth will not be in the same straight line as the Earth’s pull on the Sun. The effect of these misaligned forces “would be to double the Earth’s distance from the Sun in 1200 years.” Obviously, this is not happening. The stability of planetary orbits tells us that gravity must propagate much faster than light. Accepting this reasoning, Isaac Newton assumed that the force of gravity must be instantaneous.
Astronomical data support this conclusion. We know, for example, that the Earth accelerates toward a point 20 arc-seconds in front of the visible Sun—that is, toward the true, instantaneous direction of the Sun. Its light comes to us from one direction, its “pull” from a slightly different direction. This implies different propagation speeds for light and gravity.
Wouldn't it be ironic if we reverted to the horse and buggy technology of the 19th century only to learn that the climate on the planet (as well as Mars, where warming is also occurring) is overwhelmingly influenced by the sun's cyclical activity? In other words: "I sacrificed my favorite goat (the technological ability to adapt to natural forces) to the warmista gods only to learn that it was all a scam by the witch doctors (politicians) to increase their power". Two U.S. Senators (Snowe (R) Maine Rockefeller (D) W. Virginia) have issued veiled threats to at least one of those who support the skeptics financially.
hat tip: Kim DuToit
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
12 comments:
Why do you find Tom Bethel credible? How about This guy?
stringy69
Bethel is referencing
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Speed_of_Gravity.htm
and
http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html
The climate change scenarios constructed by the global warmistas utilize computer models usually with worst case input and should be viewed as hypotheses. Those wishing to enforce political decisions on such a flimsy basis will and should be challenged.
Mooney, by the way is guilty of the very "crimes" for which he indicts Bethel.
stringy69
Hope the weather clears up. The drive from Mc'ville to CR can be a bummer.
Pogo
I've never found the weather to be a bother. Only inconsiderate drivers, especially the ones with radar, guns, and badges ;)
By the way Pogo, care to weigh in on the topic at hand, or are you just here for socializing?
Jeff,
Glad to see you recognize their main purpose, (revenuers). We may make a libertarian of you yet.
Just socializing. I act as Leonidas' monitor ;o) We need to keep him honest.
Pogo
Someone who honestly believes what is wrong is the opposite of helpful. Maybe you can do more than keep him honest. Perhaps you can aid in trying to reveal what is correct?
Pogo seems to be unavailable presently.
correct: adj, conforming to standards; proper
You are right. If one honestly believes that the supreme ruler of the universe orders him to kill all those who who do not agree that an ancient text is to be the final arbiter in all things temporal and heavenly, he will consequently be seen as unhelpful by those he intends to kill. Additionally, if one honestly believes that the enactment of draconian regulations on economic activity for western society only will have a substantially favorable impact on climate change (and those who believe such are legion) that person will be seen as the opposite of helpful by those who have not been convinced or have observed errors in the data supporting the view.
The first point we agree upon. The second, I'm undecided. Is it Easter Island or Y2K, or something in between? Neither not being convinced nor finding errors in the data do not mean it's not correct. I haven't read enough of anything I believed to be credible to have confidence in any viewpoint. I do wholeheartedly believe we should reduce pollution, and can do so and still have growing prosperity. How can you be so sure you're not defending a Earth is flat theory? You sure seem to base your belief on whomever supports a viewpoint that protects your "favorite goat" rather than on the strength and credibility of the person and the argument.
I'm not sure what "crimes" you think Mooney is guilty of, but I sure do agree with this statement he made: "Bethell isn't really interested in what science shows, but rather in compiling scientific-sounding arguments to bolster a political conclusion." Is Bethel is the best you have to offer?
Nope.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf
Tell me which is the greatest problem with climate change that can be solved by regulatory action and I will post on it as my next subject.
Mooney vs Bethell:
Chris Mooney is Washington correspondent for Seed Magazine and author of The Republican War on Science from Basic Books.
Mooney was born in Mesa, Arizona, and grew up in New Orleans, Louisiana; he graduated from Yale University with a B.A. in English in 1999. Before becoming a freelancer, [i.e. political/journalistic hack] he worked for two years at The American Prospect as a writing fellow, then staff writer, then online editor (where he helped to create the popular leftist blog Tapped).
Mooney has contributed to a variety of left wing publications in recent years, including Mother Jones and The American Prospect.
Besides contributing to magazines and newspapers, every month Mooney writes an online column for Skeptical Inquirer magazine, where he serves as a contributing editor. Mooney is also a senior correspondent for the American Prospect magazine which was founded in 1990 as an authoritative magazine of leftist ideas,
Tom Bethell is the Washington correspondent of The [conservative[ American Spectator. He was born and raised in England, attended Downside School, a Benedictine foundation, and graduated from Oxford University in 1962. He is a columnist for Beliefnet http://www.beliefnet.com/author/author_29.html a religiously oriented site.
Each month for 20 years, he has written an article for The American Spectator. A collection of his journalism was published under the title "The Electric Windmill" (1988). His most recent book, "The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages" (1998), recently came out in paperback.
Neither one of these guys are scientists. They are writing science opinions and will be accepted/rejected on the basis of the readers' persuasion.
Post a Comment