Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (29)
Generally speaking, there are two items of indisputable wisdom: your electricity bills are far, far higher than they should be and, far more important, take anything and everything John Hewson says with a giant truckload of salt. The news that the onetime opposition leader, the man who lost the “unloseable” election, is to be one of the star paraders at something called The March for Science serves as confirmation of both.
The march – marches, actually, as they are supposed to be held in all capital cities — will take place this Saturday is response to what organisers describe as “the need for stable investment in science, a commitment to higher levels of scientific literacy through education, open communication of scientific findings, and public policy to be guided by evidence.”
Translated, that amounts to something like this: ‘In the US, the Trump administration has announced its intention to flush the pipes of publicly funded alarmist nonsense, most particularly to do with climate change. Let us not see our well-connected mates suffer a similar fate here.’
Does that sound just a tad cynical? If so, consider the men and women of, er, science Mr Hewson will be joining at noon on Saturday in Sydney’s Martin Place for a stroll to Hyde Park: Some relevant biographic information is below each one.
-
Julie McCrossin (MC) – broadcaster, freelance journalist and facilitator.
The cancer memoirist, comedienne, look-at-me lesbian and former ABC compere set herself to thinking very deeply indeed and concluded that frakking for low-carbon gas will limit her opportunities to “walk in wild places.”
Do not laugh too loudly at that, as Ms McCrossin might conclude it is her saphism, rather than standard-issue luvvie silliness, which inspires such mirth and then perhaps file a complaint under Section 18C. She certainly doesn’t seem overly keen on free speech, having signed a group letter denouncing Bill Leak as a racist who needed to be investigated.
Well some free speech, anyway. When it comes to conservatives, she is proud as punch to pose with a portrait of Fred Nile’s severed head on a platter of vegetables.
-
Luke Briscoe – co-founder of Indigi Lab, an organisation established to provide education, training and opportunities for Indigenous communities in science, technology and innovation.
From a recent article on the Indiglab.com site, whose chief, Mr Briscoe, will be marching
“We want a future where Indigenous knowledge’s (sic) are the driving force behind science, technology and digital innovation as our science (sic) are 80,000 years old and built one (sic) sustainable practices and that knowledge is priceless but we need to reform the STEM education to be more reflective of our sciences and knowledge systems and also the community wants and needs.”
-
Dr Angela Maharaj – lecturer at the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre.
Dr Marharaj has co-authored some dauntingly serious papers to do with Pacific currents, but she also boasts of taking a special interest in making sure that schoolkids are inculcated with only the most correct thoughts about climate change. To this end she is a committee member of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanic Society’s outreach and education committee, which endorses some very curious programs and lesson plans for Australia’s tiddlers.
There’s the CSIRO’s Carbon Kids curriculum, for example, which was launched with no small fanfare some six years ago but now appears to have become the latest victim of climate extinction, as it is no longer findable on the CSIRO site.
Then there is Cool Australia, which appalled Quadrant’s Tony Thomas when he took a close look at what is being passed off as science in our schools. He wrote:
Much of the Cool material, such as lessons advocating recycling and energy-saving, is largely harmless, even beneficial. But material on hot-button political topics is designed to turn students into green activists and anti-conservative bigots…
… A whole course for Years 9-10, involving ten lessons, is devoted to the book “This Changes Everything”, an anti-capitalism, anti-fossil-fuel polemic by Canadian activist Naomi Klein. She advocates populist uprisings – “Blockadia” — against fossil-energy developments, and for gigantic dollar transfers to (mostly corrupt) Third World governments to repay the West’s (mythical) “climate debt”. She attacks even the major green groups such as WWF and Nature Conservancy as sell-outs to the fossil-fuel industry.
…One Cool Australia lesson about [Naomi] Klein’s book is titled, Climate Changes vs Capitalism.[4] It decries the impact on the environment of “our economic system’s push for continual growth” and the “quality of life for all people”. In an unintentionally revealing disclosure, Cool Australia’s Teacher Notes describe the supposed climate crisis as
“an opportunity for a new economic model that accounts for both people and the planet in a just and sustainable way… After all, it will be young people who will inherit the world we have created… and who will reinvent a different future.”
This echoes similar sentiments by Christana Figueres, when a top UN climate official: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”
Does Dr Maharaj really think “transforming the economic development model” is a great idea? If so, could she provide some details, most particularly how the means of production might be re-ordered under blackout conditions.
-
Dr Jonica Newby – science writer, broadcaster and former veterinarian.
The long-term live-in love goddess of the ABC’s Robyn “100 metres” Williams, Dr Newby also happens to have been, just coincidentally, an ABC employee (Funny, ain’t it, how so many national broadcaster staffers get horizontal with each other? If there is an argument for gay marriage the most cogent recommendation would be that it would see laid bare the extent of nepotism amongst both ABC heterosexuals and homosexuals).
Some years ago, undoubtedly distracted by the fate of polar bears or somesuch, Dr Newby found her swain no longer stoked that fire in her loins and wrote a searingly personal account of what it is like to share a bed with the Science Show presenter and feel nothing a’stir beneath the flannelette. There has been no follow-up account to suggest mattress testing is back in fashion at the Williams household, or indeed if other journalistic exercises have re-kindled the flames, the one below for example.
That memoir of amore-turned-arid is far from the only aspect of Dr Newby’s career worth noting, as Media Watch has done several times.
Most recently, MW reported on the ABC’s decision to axe Catalyst, on which Dr Newby formerly worked. No wonder she has spare time to march about Sydney’s CBD and impede traffic in support of money for science and the guaranteed funding of those who deal, as the marchers’ manifesto puts it, in the “open communication of scientific findings.”
Media Watch seems to think the end of Catalyst is a terrible thing. Formerly, though, it had not been quite so supportive. There was the 1997 report, for example, that exposed a commercial relationship between Dr Newby and the Uncle Ben’s pet food company which funded a four-part Science Show series on the benefits of keeping pets – pets which need to be fed pet food, one can reasonably surmise.
Another report, this one by Jo Nova, was no less critical, this time of Dr Newby’s personal experience of climate change’s ravages:
Dr Jonica Newby reckons things have changed since she bought her house. It’s simply unthinkable that the climate now is not exactly the same at her house as it was when she first moved in — way back in the historic year of… 2000. (Gosh, eh? I wonder why the BOM don’t publish a paper on it?) Now our national debate is reduced to presenters, not presenting evidence, but just telling us what they reckon. She has lived there for twelve long years after all, and in just another 18 years it’ll be a whole climate data point. Need I say more?
With this kind of mindless anecdotery, it’s fair to ask: is Catalyst still a science show?
-
Professor Simon Chapman – Emeritus Professor of Public Health, prominent anti-tobacco campaigner, University of Sydney
Science as championed by Professor Simon Chapman is a funny old thing. Take e-cigarettes, for instance, which Britain’s Royal College of Physicians (RCP) regard as far preferable to smoking for those unable to break the nicotine habit. A voluminous report on e-cigs concludes
However, in the interests of public health it is important to promote the use of e-cigarettes, NRT and other non-tobacco nicotine products as widely as possible as a substitute for smoking in the UK.
But there is science, apparently, and then there is science of the sort public advocates reject, seemingly when its findings are in conflict with their personal inclinations. This may be why Dr Chapman feels free to discount the RCP’s adamant recommendation.
Those interested in science marcher Chapman’s scientific acumen might care to read RMIT University’s Dr Sinclair Davidson, who takes a particular delight in puncturing Chapman’s defence of plain packaging and the legerdemain that presents a slight increase in sales as a magnificent reduction in consumption.
-
Eva Cox – writer, sociologist, prominent feminist, commentator.
While Dr Chapman is keen to save smokers from themselves, fellow marcher Eva Cox isn’t at all keen on saving late-term foetuses from abortionists. Indeed, one could almost conclude that, when it comes to pre-natal science, the feminist from Central Casting believes it is a smorgasbord where once can reject or add items to one’s platter of causes according to need and inclination.
Commenting on anti-porn feminist Melinda Tankard Reist, Ms Cox avowed
I’m not inclined to use people’s religious affiliations as a basis for judgement
But when then-Health Minister Tony Abbott expressed reservations about abortion in general and late-term abortions in particular, Ms Cox saw papist intolerance at work, as the Sydney Morning Herald reported
… the fact the issue had been raised said more about Mr Abbott, a staunch Catholic, and the rise of the Christian right in Australia than anything else.
“The trouble with Abbott is he thinks he can shove his particular moral viewpoint down the throats of everyone else,” Ms Cox said. “He is a fundamentalist, of sorts, who holds a minority view.”
And finally we come to the star of the show, Dr Hewson, of whom there is little need to say anything at all, given that the man never shuts up, not ever – especially when spruiking green energy in which he has a considerable financial interest.
One day, if those dams ever fill again, we would all be blessed were Hewson to imitate another lacklustre Liberal leader, Harold Holt, and go for a nice long swim.
Roger Franklin, the editor of Quadrant Online, recently received his quarterly electricity bill for the tiny, one-and-a-half-bedroom beachfront shack in which he resides. The total demanded: $484. He feels like sending the bill to Mr Hewson and his fellow promenaders, as it is their warmist enthusiasm for wind turbines and the like that has made that bill, and the next one, at least three times more expensive than they should be.
Will Jonica get the rubbish segments like on Catalyst?
Another march, another headline, another nonsense. Thank you, Roger, for the background information that ‘social media’ readers and other clowns are missing. Who started these marches, anyway? What good have they done? Feel Good Fests, more likely.
Maybe the climateers could use this from almost 50 years ago as their parade song: https://youtu.be/1se9xbRRZL8
Here we go again, with our reserve vintage smart-alecky clever dick dismissal of the remotest possibility that adding billions of little heat beads called CO2 molecules to every cubic metre of the atmosphere could possibly change the thermal properties of said atmosphere in any significant way.
Well of course, Earth has a sister planet, name of Venus (nb not surnamed Williams) whose atmosphere is much denser than ours, and consists almost entirely of CO2. It also has the hottest surface of any planet: around the melting point of lead, and hotter even than that of Mercury, closest planet to the Sun. That was what got Jim Hansen and his colleagues at NASA started on warning of anthropogenic global warming. But what would they know?
So it is fitting that at this juncture I introduce a major new scientific breakthrough: MACDOUGALL’S LAW OF NATURAL PERCEPTION. This states that the laws of nature are not immutable, but as fluid as honey, road tar, water or whatever liquid you might choose, according to the perceived needs of the major mining, coal burning and other economic players of any given historical period, particularly the present.
I might add that fossil carbon mining and combustion is not driven by a lust for gold, in stark contrast to the science of climatology, which is riddled with grant-seekers, rent-seekers and every seeker of every dodgy kind.
Here I stand.
I do not know how many molecules of the various atmospheric gases there are in a cubic metre of air but I do doubt there are billions of CO2 molecules in one cubic metre. For my argument let us assume there are one million molecules of atmospheric gases in a cubic metre of air. There would be 400 molecules of CO2 and 999,600 molecules of something else. Of those 400 molecules of CO2 384 molecules come from nature and 16 come from human emissions. Of those 16 human caused molecules Australians contribute one fifth of one molecule. In other words it would take five cubic metres of air to contain one molecule of CO2 caused by Australians. Now Ian do you begin to see how stupid your argument becomes?
Lawrie:
Thanks at least for your courtesy.
According to modern calculations, in one mole of any molecular substance (not to be confused with little furry burrowing animals or ladies of easy virtue) there are 6.022140857×10^23 molecules. Written out in the long form that is 602,214,085,700,000,000,000,000 molecules. As a ‘molar mass’ of CO2 is 44.0095 g/mol, this means that in that mass of CO2, which at standard temperature and pressure occupies 22.4 litres of space, there is that rather large number of molecules by everyday standards. Each molecule consists of a single carbon atom chemically bonded to two atoms of oxygen.
It follows that in one litre of CO2 under the same temperature and pressure conditions, we have
602,214,085,700,000,000,000,000/23 molecules. A volume of air containing the same number of molecules fills 22.4 litres at standard temperature and pressure, and has a mass of ~ 29 grams
Air is 0.046% by mass CO2. There are the same number of molecules in one mole of it, and so 0.046% of those will be of CO2. According to the NS article cited in my post below, “Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm.”
This can only be because the natural sinks for it cannot keep pace with its rate of generation, and the culprit is likely fossil fuel combustion. Hence the hostility of fossil fuel interests to climatology; well represented and spoken for on this site.
As for PT’s anonymous contribution:
I am only a humble, modest and completely amateur climatologist. But I understand that the serious climatologists use those models so despised and denigrated by the denialostriches simply because there is no sister planet available upon which controlled experiments can be performed. The only alternative possibility is to wait and see.
I read in this contribution from ‘PT’ or whatever his real name is, an influence from the thinking of ‘Jo Nova’, or (whatever her real name is). Venus is a different planet, with a different surface atmospheric pressure. But where that leads, I’m damned if I can see. And positive feedbacks, assumed or otherwise, are none the less real and credible. eg as summer sea ice diminishes, the albedo of the Earth changes in favour of more absorption of solar heat, and less reflection of it. Hence the Paris climate agreement.
And from ‘ianl’ or whatever his real name is:
Thermometer readings can be disputed, and ‘heat island effects’ etc invoked by contrarians (eg Ian Plimer) until the cows come home. But sea level is much harder for them to get stroppy about. From my preferred site, http://sealevel.colorado.edu/:
CU: 3.4 ± 0.4 mm/yr
AVISO: 3.4 ± 0.6 mm/yr
CSIRO: 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/yr
NASA GSFC: 3.4 ± 0.4 mm/yr
NOAA: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr (w/ GIA)
These readings are from satellite altimeters whose reference point is the geographic centre of the Earth: so no disputants invoking isostasy or ‘traditional tide guages’ need apply . (Though actually at CU they take these into account.) And they are to half-millimetre accuracy.
This slow but relentless AGW process has been fittingly called ‘The Long Thaw’ by David Archer, in his excellent book of that title.
And from ‘en passant’, ‘ein pyssant’ or whatever his real name is, we have yet another sneering epistle as composed from his “3-bedroom condo with 5 x air conditioners thumping away cooling the tropics and heating the world will remain at full-throttle, even though his last bill cost him <$100”: which BTW is by his own previous account on this site.
According to various posts he has made from time to time here at QO, ‘en pyssant’ (or whatever his real name is) is a 70+ years old Vietnam veteran who lives on a waterfront block at Ho Tram in Vietnam, “1.5m above the king tide high water mark.”
Let us all hope for his sake that the great god Poseidon makes sure that the West Antarctica Ice Sheet or the massive seaward half of Antarctica’s Totten Glacier does not let go all at once, raising the global sea level by several metres. That it will do so gradually over the course of the present century seems generally agreed amongst the despised climatologists and glaciologists; which could somewhat affect the resale value of ein pyssant’s dream block.
http://www.countercurrents.org/2017/01/27/antarctic-tipping-points-for-a-multi-metre-sea-level-rise/
So it looks quite probable that the antiscientific ein pyssant (or whatever his real name is) has put his money where his AGW ‘sceptic’ brain is.
Links in my next post.
More at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-composition-d_212.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/
Finally Ian MacBot, the infinitely repeating cultist troll says something truthful and verifiable with: “I am only a humble, modest and completely amateur climatologist”. No, you are not even that as you have the closed mind of a Dark Green jihadist fanatic. I have no objection to your completely forsaking hydrocarbon energy (which I am sure for the sake of the purity of your soul you have), so naturally, you are not using grid connected electricity to power your internet or your home? A diesel generator is a ‘no-no’, so you won’t have that either. No car, of course as that would be sinful and would send your soul to Venus. To counteract your breathing I have no doubt that every day you plant 10 x trees (natives, de rigeur).
Given that this is the sixth time you have repeated your ‘Titanic Sea-Level Rise’ mantra, isn’t the water lapping at your doorstep yet? No? Didn’t think so.
“… 70+ years old Vietnam veteran who lives on a waterfront block at Ho Tram in Vietnam, “1.5m above the king tide high water mark.”” I have no fear of being washed away as I took a photo on the same spot 56-years ago. No perceivable change, so I will go with the evidence: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ho+tram+beach&qpvt=ho+tram+beach&qpvt=ho+tram+beach&qpvt=ho+tram+beach&FORM=IGRE
What would change your mind that you are wrong and it is all a con? And when will you answer the two simple questions I asked you as it is always nice to know where we are going? 1. What is the ideal concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere & 2. what is the grail of the ideal average global temperature? There is a Nobel in it for you.
The bit that amused me was his reference to the thinking of “‘Jo Nova’, or (whatever her real name is)”. If he had the first lonely clue about Jo Nova’s thinking he’d know very well what her real name is. Gotta love the incessant obfuscation spiced heavily with ad hominem and, to cap it all reference to New Scientist, as if it were a credible authority. Next he’ll be giving us dessert from Skeptical Science.
Er Yes Ian. Atmospheric pressure on the surface of Venus is more than 90 times ours. It’s atmosphere is more than 95% CO2. On Earth it’s less than half of one tenth of one percent! It’s also been much higher in the past BTW!
The “alarmism” comes from assumed “positive feedbacks”. Mostly the notion that there will be more disassociated water vapour in the upper troposphere which will amplify the warming trend. This is the origin of the so-called “hotspot” which “informed” online advocates alternately claim is a “denialist invention” or something that “may” have been detected by weather balloons (odd that “proving” the existence of a “denialist lie” proves AGW don’t you think?). The models have failed to plot the temperature trends of the last 20 years. This has got to raise serious questions about their accuracy, and certainly the “tuning” (to meet ’80’s and 90’s temperature trends). True science would investigate the models at least as much as trying to show where the “heat” is “hiding”.
The MacBot is in his catastrophist groove again. He cannot tell us the ideal concentration of CO2, but he will fight to the death (preferably ours) to reduce the current level to a level he knows not what.
We are told by the scientist MacBot that it’s the dastardly magic gas CO2 wot dun it … Let’s have a look at and compare CO2 concentrations on Mars and Venus to prove his point:
Venus:- 96.5 % Carbon dioxide Temperature: 467C (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus). Proven without a shadow of a doubt – more CO2 hotter temperature. End of story – and 97% of trolls agree.
Mars:- 95.97.% Carbon dioxide Temperature: -55C (ranging through +20C to -153C (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars)
Umm, I see a problem here that no cultist can contemplate: CO2 concentration is NOT the cause of climate heat or cold.
Does that settle the argument? Of course not as stupidity, academic bias, rent-seeking, the elite intelligentsia and political belief systems are involved. Can you imagine the years of research it took me to find these numbers and the truth?
“I might add that fossil carbon mining and combustion is not driven by a lust for gold, in stark contrast to the science of climatology, which is riddled with grant-seekers, rent-seekers and every seeker of every dodgy kind.”
It’s comforting to note that they’re all cut from the same cloth and the morality of any society moves horizontally through ALL the classes and not just vertically through one.
”
– Ian MacDougall
– April 20, 2017 at 6:42 pm
Here we go again, with our reserve vintage smart-alecky clever dick dismissal of the remotest possibility that adding billions of little heat beads called CO2 molecules to every cubic metre of the atmosphere could possibly change the thermal properties of said atmosphere in any significant way.
Well of course, Earth has a sister planet, name of Venus (nb not surnamed Williams) whose atmosphere is much denser than ours, and consists almost entirely of CO2.”
Mars has a higher concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere than Venus and it is very cold. You are confusing CO2 heating with heat from atmospheric pressure: Venus’s atmosphere, outside of the giant planets, is the most dense in the Solar System.
“You are confusing CO2 heating with heat from atmospheric pressure: Venus’s atmosphere, outside of the giant planets, is the most dense in the Solar System.”
Well, Anthony; I’ll be the mug. How does atmospheric pressure (as distinct from pressure-volume work) generate heat? I know ‘Jo Nova’ (or whatever her real name is) thinks it does. But that is another matter.
Well, I for one would like to follow “the long-term live-in love goddess'” investigation into whether the whip hurts.
The atmosphere of Venus is composed of 97% CO2, 2% N2 and less than 1% combined of O2, H2O and CH4 (methane). That is, 97 parts in 100 of CO2.
The atmosphere of Earth currently contains 0.004% CO2. That is, 400 parts in 1,000,000 or 2,425 times less than Venus (970,000 parts in 1 million). There have been many periods on Earth with CO2 levels >= 0.01% without runaway greenhouse terrors; some of these periods occurred at the peak of glacial advances.
The resident trollster refuses to discuss temperatures, which is how heat changes are commonly measured. Instead satellite telemetry of minute sea level rises, unconfirmed by traditional tide gauges, is substituted and the heroic assumption is made that 400ppm of CO2 caused this oceanic expansion, yea back unto our ancestors over 6000 years ago. The Argo buoys do not confirm any deeper oceanic temperature rise; the Ksp of CO2 is higher in cool than warm water so oceans, if warming, actually outgass (this accounts for the mean 800 year lag between temperature and CO2 peaks as demonstrated by the ice cores). Warming on earth is water related and of very minor significance – 0.8C in 150 years. True damage has always been done by cooling cycles.
It is a reasonable conclusion that the trollster deserves the company listed in this article … and they his. If the State Govts ever decide to increase mineral royalties and share this with surface owners (imagine the schools, hospitals, roads etc lobbies going hysterical then) one could only hope that the trollster keeps his gate locked.
Roger,
Sorry about your electricity bill, but that’s what you deserve for voting in Green Pond Slime who closed Hazelwood and are determined that your sacrifice is worth it to save the planet. Good luck when the winter cold hits, but let me assure you that I will do my bit by ensuring my 3-bedroom condo with 5 x air conditioners thumping away cooling the tropics and heating the world will remain at full-throttle, even though my last bill cost me <$100. Oh, did I mention that was for the quarter January – March (but I confess that I was away part of the time producing high altitude CO2).
Let's hope the MacBot does indeed lock his gate and never uses hydrocarbon energy. As a dedicated Dark Green we need not even ask the source of his 'clean' electricity, nor on what fuel his transport runs. It is a given that such an honest eco-loon warrior would rather go without than condemn his soul to the fires of runaway global warming and the Great Flood cause by his use of dirty energy.
Oh, look, another flying pig whooshing by …
I generally take Prof Chapman’s views on public health issues with a grain of salt because he is not a medical doctor. He has a PhD in “Social Medicine” (whatever that is?). Nevertheless, I agree with his position on tobacco and nicotine based products. Dr Sinclair Davidson appears to be a doctor of Economics. These days newsworthy public health bodies are run by economists or retired politicians. It is so unfashionable to have a medical doctor in charge of public health – something might actually get done. These newsworthy bodies steer clear of that unmentionable issue – “drug abuse” which is wreaking havoc in society. Such people do not have to care for people with tobacco induced cancers or amputations where nicotine is implicated. Tobacco causes cancers from the smoke and the nicotine affects the vascular system. Nicotine based medical products were introduced to assist people to get off smoking and that meant both the smoke and the nicotine in tobacco. The dose of the nicotine product was gradually reduced so that in a relatively short time the patient stopped using the nicotine product all together so they were now free of the effects of smoke and nicotine. But the usual “slippery slope” has occurred and now these products are used as an alternative to tobacco for nicotine abuse. The damage to the vascular system over time has been quietly swept under the carpet. You have seen a similar thing with marihuana. It is now legal in Canada. Nothing like getting people addicted legally so the repeat sales never stop until the person dies from the side effects – better than selling widgets.
You are taking these bien pensants way too seriously.
I’ll be out chainsawing wood for my combustion heater tomorrow-in an effort to reduce my electricity bill. I live in a small house with two careful energy users.
Back to the future for all of us. We are surrounded by well meaning idiots, and a smattering of genuine evil doers.
Ah, the old Venusian Thermal trick! The Venusian runaway greenhouse effect was originally asserted to counter Immanual Velikovsky’s assertion that Venus was a young and therefore hot planet. Science at the time asserted it was similar to the Earth’s climate. Until the various space probes measured otherwise. Since it was a heresy to allow Velikovsky to be right in his interpretation, Sagan thus proposed the runaway greenhouse effect to explain the hot temperature. James Hansen did his pHd under Carl Sagan on the Venusian atmosphere.
And the raw satellite data confirmed Velikovsky’s interpretation as well but those results were dismissed as instrument failure.
Who would have thought a book published in 1950 triggered the present day CO2 madness.
As an aside Velikovsky started his research to refute Sigmund Freud’s assertion in Freud’s book, Moses and Monotheism, that Moses was not jewish. Freud and Velikovsky were both jewish. Already.
Lhissink
What was wrong with Velikovsky was his orbital mechanics. Venus was supposed by him to have been an external intruder that came flying through space towards the Solar System only to be captured into a solar orbit. But the only known examples of such phenomena are returning space probes like those of the NASA Apollo series, which required retro-rockets to exert precisely calculated force with precisely aimed and timed firings to achieve such a result.
Anyway, if it was all so harebrained and simple, don’t you think at least a few of the 197 AGW endorsing scientific organisations (and btw Australia’s just-retired Chief Scientist Ian Chubb) would have switched sides, and denounced the ‘fraud’ and ‘scam’ for what it ‘is’ by now?
For your learned consideration: https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
Ian,
Orbital mechanics?
Velikovsky’s sin was to question the omniscience of Newtonian gravity, and suggest electromagnetics could have had a role in cosmology; This view has now been accepted as correct and informs the scientific discipline of plasma physics and the plasma universe, as published by the IEEE,the largest group of scientists on earth.
Velikovsky never discussed orbital mechanics, nor did he propose Venus an external interloper into the solar system when he emphatically interpreted the data that suggested Venus was ejected by Jupiter.
Which suggests you are personally unfamiliar with his writings.
As a former editor of AIG News, I’m quite aware of the politics of the issue having survived many planned metaphysical decapitations by your your supporters and fellow travellers in the geology area.
But I am now retired and free to point to your ignorance.
And as well, to contemplate your own.
http://physics.info/orbital-mechanics-1/
Is it just me or has the propaganda flowing from the US climate catastrafarians in The US stopped?
Keith,
They are too busy scrambling for the lifeboats … Must be sea level rise
Drown you bastards drown
Moses was probably a follower of Akhenatum. The founder of the Egyptian monothesism. Belief in the Sun God Ra. The only God.
He was a heretic and erased from Egyptian records… as was the first monotheist religion. There was an exodus of these devotees from Egypt a little after his time. They were chased and an Egyptian army perished in the tides of the Nile delta. These people wandered the desert for 30 years until they reached Caanan and defeated the Canaanites.
That’s what the Egyptians records show. Oh we found out about Aku and his misses Nefrretti from the tomb of their son … Tut.
Moses was probably Egyptian
But no one can say for sure. The religion of the Hebrews was the 2nd monotheist religion and the first of the 3 great monotheist religions.