|
Dark-Ages-LL&L Monthly 0207
|
Benjamin Devey
|
Mar 01, 2007 12:05 PST
|
Learning Love and Life
Monthly Relationships Newsletter
No. 158, March 2007
----------
Learning Love and Life is a free e-mail newsletter sent monthly to
subscribers. If a copy was forwarded to you and you would like to
receive your own free subscription, you can subscribe online at:
http://LearningLove.com
----------
State of Fear
by Michael Crichton
In State of Fear, Crichton faces up to issues that are now entrenched in
a dogma matching the religiosity of the abortion debate. You can expect
the reviews to be hypercharged by political leanings. As a novel, State
of Fear reads well enough. It's a suspense story that presents the
problem that occurs when science becomes political. The distortion of
research would be a challenge for any dramatist, but Chrichton brings
the issues and data into a realm of discourse, making it possible to
consider issues and the flaws behind the agendas. I enjoyed reading
State of Fear and commend Chrichton for his critical thinking.
State of Fear
http://snipurl.com/StateFear
----------
Dark Age Science
Politics of Fear (Part 2)
© 2007 by Benjamin Devey
Al Gore is vindicated this week, now that he won an Oscar for his
shock-u-mentary, “An Incoherent Spoof.” Fans everywhere think he ought
to throw his hat into the election to regain the first election that was
stolen from him. Maybe we ought to just short-cut the process and vote
him as god. In the meantime, Gore consumes 20-times the average
household energy and leaves a carbon footprint the size of of several
polluting corporations combined, while he rants against every one else’s
mindless eco-terrorism.
Global warming is a new religion, with cult worshippers jumping on the
apocalyptic bandwagon as if the hysteria will save the world against the
dark plagues of ignorance. You aren’t allowed to question the agenda,
methods, or lack of scientific method. If you doubt the fantastic claims
of the doomsayers, you’re worse than a heretic. You’re an infidel.
So far, that’s nothing new.
What’s astonishing is that global warming is considered a science, yet
applying scientific query to the process is considered worse than
heresy. The conclusions and consensus of global warmers were
predetermined before anyone was allowed to question their foregone
conclusions: that man is destroying the planet, and global catastrophe
is unavoidable.
We’ve seen it before.
Remember when the Catholic Church dictated the shape of the heavens?
Even though it was never stated in the Bible, the ruling powers decided
that the earth must be the center of the universe. Ptolemy explained the
way the sun, moon, planets and stars revolved around the earth as a
mechanical system of integrated spheres that worked on gear-like
mechanisms.
Tycho Brahe meticulously observed the stars and planets to get the exact
mechanisms right. He recorded his observations, providing the most
comprehensive measurements of his times. The problem that he used a
flawed model didn’t bother him. He actually improved on the Ptolemic
system by working out that the sun orbited around the earth, while the
rest of the planets orbited the sun around the earth. If the
observations didn’t fit, Tycho fudged the figures to match—after all,
the model was perfect. If the numbers had to be fixed to fit the model,
Tycho reasoned, who was he to let accuracy get in the way of perfection?
Keppler was a long-time student of Tycho and pursued a lifetime
improving the model. But he realized Coppernicus might be right: The
earth is one of several planets orbiting the sun. By adopting the new
model of a helio-centric solar system, the observations more closely fit
reality.
However, Keppler wanted to leave his mark on the solar cosmos. He
thought the distance between the orbits of the planets ought to
correlate to the dimensions of the Platonic solids, nested in
particular order. Because the order of the universe had to reflect
heaven’s perfect symmetry, Keppler, like most of the astronomers of his
age, was more intent on making the numbers fit his projections than in
making accurate measurements.
Pseudo science is still in the Dark-Ages when it comes to weather
prediction. We cannot accurately model weather patterns that accurately
predict annual climate, much less build a reliable model that will hold
true in a decade. The model itself is a flawed “Hockey Stick”
projection, which will take any history of past random data and spike a
foot on the end. By the same model, the stock market will inevitably
turn bullish to the tune of turning anyone now invested into a
multi-billionaire by the end of the next decade.
What we’re seeing now with global warming prediction is intriguingly
identical to early astronomers who reversed scientific inquiry and
skeptical debunking of theory, to invent and sustain a theory that
didn’t measure up to their observations. And politicians are jumping
onto the new religion in desperate hopes that global warming will land
them in the advance crowd of new thinkers. With phenomenal alacrity,
they say the discussion is over, and anyone who doubts the science need
only believe the consensus of those who know.
Remember the two years leading up to Y2K, the end-of-the-world
catastrophe that impended doom on society as we knew it? It was the same
hysteria—identical. In fact, I wager, the same people who insist global
warming will create ecological disaster are THE SAME DOOMSAYERS who were
convinced Y2K would dramatically alter civilization.
For the record, when I first heard of Y2K, I thought it must be another
virus hoax to get people worked up over nothing. The more I heard, the
more I shook my head. Because I started researching Y2K, I started my
own newsletter in April 1999, figuring I had to create a forum for
addressing actual concerns amidst the tumult of opinions that were
mostly speculative and useless. I figured the kind of calamity
doomsayers were predicting would have to be statistically impossible. I
have the same gut feeling about global warming. Let time prove them or
me wrong.
The inconvenient truth about global warming predictions is they rely on
world panic-driven hysteria, rather than facts, to make them work. They
ignore solar cycles and natural, cyclical variables that do explain
naturally-occurring warming and cooling trends. They’re determined to
prove that human-caused effects are destroying the planet’s atmosphere,
when that has not been conclusively proven at all.
Solar flares seem to reoccur in 11-year cycles, corresponding with
fluctuations of magnetic poles, also correlating to flood-draught cycles
on earth. To take a ten-year view of temperature changes and project it
onto a next-decade disaster scenario would be as short-sighted as
annualizing weekly gains or losses in the stock market and predicting
extreme market conditions for 2010. Yet, that’s what doomsayers are
trying to convince us will happen to the world if we ignore global
warming.
If you ever hear someone say, you can’t argue with scientists from 151
countries who agree…you can bet what they’re really saying is: We don’t
want you to think for yourself. If there’s any possibility you might be
right, it could imply we’re not just wrong. We might be collectively a
bunch of misinformed alarmists at best, and deranged, psychopathic
antisocials at worst, who want you to panic because it somehow advances
their agenda.
Last newsletter, we discussed a larger picture of the polarity of public
opinion. I suspect the reason global warming is such a divisive issue
is because liberal politicians have adopted it, along with abortion, as
a plank of their platform. Once the position was taken, any criticism or
healthy debate on the issue means a rejection of their agenda. It’s a
very Borg-like mentality: Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated.
Individuality is anathema to The Collective.
It’s a precarious society that forbids free thinking. It’s dangerous
ground to imply as Henry David Thoreau said, “any man more right than
his neighbors constitutes a majority of one.” I, for one, refuse to
believe the end-of-the-world scenarios that play into abandoning
national sovereignty to a socialist world government. We can manage
national, social, and world issues without banning the right to reason.
Bless those you love,
Benjamin
----------
On the Net:
Michael Chrichton gives some rational thought to hotly-debated topics:
http://www.crichton-official.com/
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
http://snipurl.com/19hc9
Pathological Science
A discussion on Scientific Process
http://snipurl.com/PathoSci
----------
READERS' FORUM
Can we discuss the issues rationally, or is there an un-crossable divide
that separates people today? Does it frustrate you that we can’t have
these dialogues without it turning into all-out warfare?
Share your ideas with the Love Discussion group.
Post your responses (to the whole group) at:
http://www.topica.com/lists/LoveTopics
Your comments and thoughts are welcome. If you would like to be included
in the newsletter, please mention in your e-mail: "You can print my
submission in the Reader's Forum section." Also, please say whether or
not you want your first name mentioned and the state or country you're
writing from.
You can post online or send your comments or submissions to:
mailto:lear-@4u.net
----------
Thank you for sharing newsletters with your friends. The website has an
easy link for your friends to join for a free newsletter subscription.
The Learning Love and Life site can be found at:
http://LearningLove.com
Learning Love and Life is a secure e-mail list, used only for this
newsletter. The list server doesn't provide subscriber information to
any outside party, including me (the list manager). The list is not
shared for any other purpose. We thought you would like to know that
subscribers to "Learning Love and Life" share an exclusive community of
ideas and thoughts that you won't find anywhere else. We maintain our
commitment to share principles and to focus on issues that nurture love.
----------
Copyright (c) 2007 by Benjamin Devey. All rights reserved. Permission is
granted for use on web sites, in news groups or mailing lists as long as
this file is left intact.
|
|
 |
|
