AmericanPapist Comments
To be fair, I think that the current negative PDO coupled with solar activity is making for a few cold winters. In other words, I think that trend line is a little more optimistic that things have abruptly ended than I would be. No sense in the skeptics heading for the same kind of alarmist hockey stick graphs as those of the man made emissions faith. That said, I suspect that the trend line will end up below the 0.0 point within the next few years and overall I expect time will pile irrefutable evidence on the side of the skeptics.
That's why the new terminology is "climate change" and not "global warming". Of course, by then it may be too late to roll back policies based on it. Read up on the precautionary principle. Too bad they cannot apply the same logic -- i.e. Pascals wager -- to belief in God and thus in policy decisions regarding that.
Great piece, Thomas. If there's one thing that climates do, it's change. If the earth's climate were remaining static, that would really be cause for alarm.
Hello papists, hello skeptics!
Are you aware about the personnel beliefs of Benedict XVIth on this subject?
Of course it's not a church doctrine...
I remember some 20 or 30 years ago, people were predicting an imminent ice age.
What I want to know is this: The environmental impact of alternative energy. For instance, surely massive wind farms do, or will when there's enough of them, slow down air currents, and that has got to affect weather patterns. Also, massive solar farms in desert areas will cool off the surface of the desert and increase moisture retention of the soil, destroying habitat of desert dwelling flora and fauna and possibly also affecting weather patterns.
The real problem in energy, enivro-nuts will eventually say, is what they've been saying all along, namely, that there are too many human beings consuming energy. The solution is obviously selective population reductions.
No wonder they're also so rabid about abortion, encouraging AIDS-spreading behaviors in the third world, and depriving developing countries of antibiotics while arming them to the teeth with contraceptives. It's the Clinton administration all over again.
And why do people think Obama is about change?
Also, the centrality of abortion to all the other issues is clear. Yet, it was a marginal issue in this campaign.
Vianney, people should exercise good stewardship of the planet. Debating the science of global warming does not give man a license to pollute or waste resources. There is a loose correllation between carbon output and pollution in general; reducing carbon is not a bad thing nor is balancing output by planting trees. It is good for man to live thus. But that is not quite the same thing as affirming the scientific claims of global warming believers, nor does it justify the censorship of contrary voices by the pro-environment, anti-man establishment.
I am fascinated by the recent decline in temperature, and remain open minded as to the main cause(s) of climate change. If it's fluctuating solar winds, great. If it's man, we should definitely know that and consider whether any response is warranted.
I would only point out that, as an engineer (finishing my Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering next Spring at the University of Minnesota), I would not be persuaded by the chart you posted. The raw data is the most important display of the truth, and the dark black line is a case of inappropriately influencing a conclusion from the raw data. Full disclosure is necessary in charts like this. What is the black line representing? It looks to be a moving average of some sort, but it curiously seems to respond more forcefully to the recent downturn in temperature, but didn't seem to respond at all to a similar decrease in temperature between 1990-1992. Why is this? Well, if it's a moving average, then it is simply incorrect to overlay it on top of recent years because we have no future data to include in the average. So the black line responds (inappropriately) forcefully to recent data.
I would also submit the question, who gets to decided on the most appropriate "moving average"? How do we know whether the most recent 100 data points should be included in each average, or how about 200 data points, or 1000? How "smooth" should the moving average be to make a useful conclusion from the data? What would the plot look like if we just fit a straight line to it? It would almost assuredly have an increasing slope, so does that mean man-made global warming is in fact real? As one can seen, it could be that both skeptics and global warming apologists can take away what they want from this plot.
Why not overlay solar emissions onto this plot and see if the trend lines up with the temperature data? Why not line up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as well and see what's there? There's no leading to the truth in this plot, or intelligent analysis.
Look at the same plot and delete, in your mind, the black line, and then ask yourself, "what conclusions can I make from this plot?" Given that a nearly identical decrease in temperature as in the past two years occurred in 1990-1992, and that after 1990-1992 temperatures increased markedly, I'm not sure we can take any comfort in the recent temperature decrease (at least we can't assume that temperatures are down for good). The overall trend from 1979 to today is "upward" and that's about all I (or I think any serious observer) can glean from this plot. The cause apparently is still up for debate.
Man-made global warming has always been questionable science, mostly an attempt to push ultra-liberal policies that want to kill off any deemed unworthy by the elites.
Unfortunately for us skeptics, Global Warming may in fact be real, despite this current drop in temperatures. The earth has varied in temperature significantly as far back as our samples go. Thus giving the believers plenty of ammo for years to come.
And for those who say it's changing faster than ever before, that's simply hogwash. We don't have small enough sample sizes for dates more than a hundred years ago to even begin to make that claim.
Bravo, TP!
Just one thing : it's not because some left wing activists criticize the consequences of human activities on the climate that we have to take an opposite view on the subject. Our way of life clearly need to be questionned... The "perpetual plot atmosphere" about everything is very fashionnable.
I don't think of CO2 as a villain, and I seriously doubt that humans are the source of climate highs and lows.
Thank God for global warming otherwise we'd still be in the Ice Age.
Brendan,
The chart is pretty clearly labeled. The black line is the "Global Trend" line while the ligher lines show "Lower Troposphere Anomalies". The black line does not appear to be an average of the lighter lines. Rather, it appears that the black line is the trend as calculated by Nasa's 8 weather satellites and their 300,000 daily temperature readings, while those same satellites record the outliers of the data and plot those as well.
Global Warming, or even Climate Change, is not man-made. The Earth's climate has been changing, both warming and cooling, long before Man made the scene. It's a bit like attributing the sunrise to the fact that you wake up every morning. Correlation does not equal cause.
How hard is it for you wingnuts to understand?
No one, NO ONE, nessuno, nemo etc. etc. denies that the climate varies of its own accord, and that, inter alia, solar activity has a large part to play in that variability. Once again so you cannot miss it: THAT THE CLIMATE VARIES OF ITS OWN ACCORD IS NOT A POINT OF CONTENTION. It's settled.
The issue is whether or not CO2 and other trace gasses put into the atmosphere by human activity has a forcing effect. Whether or not the sine wave of the natural variance is perturbed by the unnatural.
Is it really that difficult for you to grasp? Can you entertain something other than a binary proposition?
And please note: I am not claiming that it is 100%, all-over-go-home proven. But there is compelling evidence from some very reputable people and bodies that tilt the likelihood to the yes case. Most of you here reject it for philisophical and ideological reasons, which is a very stupid thing to do. And end up spouting fatuous idiocy like this:-
Man-made global warming has always been questionable science, mostly an attempt to push ultra-liberal policies that want to kill off any deemed unworthy by the elites.
Grow up, will you? Honestly, grow up.
You're "wingnuts" who need to "grow up"!
Now there's a mature, rational response!
(Hey, I'm convinced by his name-calling, aren't you?)
Carbon Based Life Form: In commentary after the Biden-Palin debate, Palin's comment was considered "controversial" because she did not attribute climate change totally to human activity but also to natural variation. At least on National Public Radio.
Can humans pollute? Yes. Can that affect the climate globally. Probably. But IS it affecting the climate?
I think the more rigid, ideological, philosophical reasoning in answering that last question occurs on the part of the enviro-nuts. If only they would all be as accommodating to the possibility of natural variations as you are. It's the fact that they're not, and that they're in power, that has us worried.
You're "wingnuts" who need to "grow up"!
Someone who spouts this type of juvenile nonsense is and does:-
Man-made global warming has always been questionable science, mostly an attempt to push ultra-liberal policies that want to kill off any deemed unworthy by the elites.
It's just pathetic. A patchwork quilt of conspiracy and addled logic to keep her ideologically warm at night.
If only they would all be as accommodating to the possibility of natural variations as you are. It's the fact that they're not, and that they're in power, that has us worried.
Please show me one - just one - individual who is "in power" and doesn't believe that the climate has an underlying natural variance.
Can you do that?
CBLF - welcome back. First of all, regardless of what these people believe, they act, legislate, and would have us act as if man made global warming is a reality, and only that a radical change in human activity will change it.
second of all, there's nothing ideological, etc. about my denial of man made global warming, im just not convinced by the science, and the arguments for MMGW are not as convincing as the arguments against it.
simple enough, really.
second of all, there's nothing ideological, etc. about my denial of man made global warming, im just not convinced by the science, and the arguments for MMGW are not as convincing as the arguments against it.
Nothing you have ever written has demonstrated that you have read or listened to enough about the subject to make an informed choice.
Case in point: your schoolgirl-giddy boosterism for the The Great Global Warming Swindle a while back. That you couldn't spot that this was polemicist junk immediately is a major tell.
You can intone away with as much sober gravitas as you imagine yourself to be mustering, but it's very easy to see through the bluster.
see, that's another thing that gets me, when you claim these two things together:
"the truth of MMGW is so obvious how can anyone not agree?"
-and-
"MMGW is so complex that no one except the experts can understand it. so just agree with them."
Obviously both can't be true. So...
Either a) explain the truths of MMGW in such a way that rules out its contrary or b) quit complaining that we won't sign onto arguments that haven't been proven to our satisfaction yet.
And let me be clear: im not asking to be let off the hook at all, I'm asking you to decide for which thing you are angry at us about and stick with it. Otherwise we're endlessly bumping between the two extremes.
How's that for some sober gravitas, sprinkled with a hint of bluster? Ge-ez.
when you claim these two things together:
It'd be good if you actually stuck to the text of what I said rather than badly paraphrasing it.
Here is an ACTUAL quote rather than your made-up one:-
The issue is whether or not CO2 and other trace gasses put into the atmosphere by human activity has a forcing effect. Whether or not the sine wave of the natural variance is perturbed by the unnatural.
As I went on further to say:-
there is compelling evidence from some very reputable people and bodies that tilt the likelihood to the yes case.
That DOES NOT reduce to your sophistry.
quit complaining that we won't sign onto arguments that haven't been proven to our satisfaction yet.
The thing is that it's patently obvious you haven't done enough background research to make an informed choice. Your cribbing from the obvious sources exposes you. Please note, and I really want you to concentrate here and not accuse me of saying something I am not saying, there is a matrix of possibilities. Here they are:-
1) Done enough research, think human activites have a forcing effect.
2) Not done enough research, think human activites have a forcing effect.
3) Done enough research, doesn't think human activites have a forcing effect.
4) Not done enough research, doesn't think human activites have a forcing effect.
You fit in category 4). You know it. It's so obvious that it would be silly denying it.
I AM NOT saying you must agree that there is a forcing effect. I am saying that you should move to either category 1) or 3).
Dear Carbon Based Life Form
When I said, "Man-made global warming has always been questionable science, mostly an attempt to push ultra-liberal policies that want to kill off any deemed unworthy by the elites." I was simply stating two well known facts.
1st - I have a degree in astrophysics. I feel it is safe to say that I know science and I know when someone is purposefully trying to hide behind bad science. Man-made global warming is bad science. If you would like I'll come up with a dissertation on the topic, but it will by default take up more room than a combox can offer.
2nd - It is a well known fact that those who scream loudest for global warming are also screaming loudest for abortion on demand, euthanasia, and other policies that are detrimental to the economic and social well being of our land.
Perhaps you could address those issues instead of your ad hominem attacks.
Alright, will admit last comment was posted mostly out of wounded pride, I guess I still can't stand being called an idiot. Will probably need to confess that.
If it is possible I would like to retract the last comment and rewrite it a little more charitably.
Thank you
Christina:
You need not apologize or retract anything.
"There are arguments for atheism, and they do not depend, and never did depend, upon science. They are arguable enough, as far as they go, upon a general survey of life; only it happens to be a superficial survey of life." - GK Chesterton
Superficial, indeed.
When I said, "Man-made global warming has always been questionable science, mostly an attempt to push ultra-liberal policies that want to kill off any deemed unworthy by the elites." I was simply stating two well known facts.
Bulldung. You were blathering out an opinion. An ill-founded one at that. Please give yourself a basic grounding in the difference between opinion and fact.
1st - I have a degree in astrophysics. I feel it is safe to say that I know science and I know when someone is purposefully trying to hide behind bad science. Man-made global warming is bad science.
OK.
QED.
The fellows of the Royal Society, for instance, ascribe to "bad science".
Please, go illuminate them. You "know science". Those dilettantes obviously don't.
It is a well known fact that those who scream loudest for global warming are also screaming loudest for abortion on demand, euthanasia, and other policies that are detrimental to the economic and social well being of our land.
Thanks for proving my case. Your ideology clearly makes it impossible for you to be objective.
OCD: The fellows of the Royal Society, for instance, ascribe to "bad science".
subscribe
It can also unearth or melt unknown dangerous germs or unfroze a live dangerours species which can take over the earth.
The fellows of the Royal Society, for instance, ascribe to "bad science".
Please, go illuminate them. You "know science". Those dilettantes obviously don't..
You mean like those Fellows who once promoted phlogiston theory?
The fellows of the Royal Society, for instance, ascribe to "bad science".
Fair enough, I do deserve that. The "fact" that global warming is bad science is based upon my definition of "that which I've found to be bad." It would have been wiser for me to point out that there has always been debate about this among scientists and the only thing I've seen to prove it's true are questionable charts based on models, which I find very difficult to trust unless fully documented (having worked with modeling before). As you said, none of this is fact, merely a hypothesis (informed opinion).
[as an aside - this graph isn't definitive. As Brendan pointed out, the trend line equation needs to be disclosed and a decision made from there. As it stands it's a bit odd how it reacts to the data and I think he's right about the running average.]
Thanks for proving my case. Your ideology clearly makes it impossible for you to be objective.
My point here was to show the connection between people who are definitive that man-made global warming is absolute truth and that abortion is morally good and an effective means to fix the earth. This is a documented fact (and I can produce plenty of references for this one).
I do not hold the opinion that every opinion held by abortion advocates is false. For example, they feel that getting a woman pregnant by rape is bad and the solution is abortion. While I don't agree on the solution, I agree on the evil of rape and that this problem exists.
In this case, since my ideology is Catholic, I'm taught that I should be a good steward of my environment. Given that it would seem that I would be more likely to accept man-made global warming, not less, by equating stewardship with effecting/controlling the environment. Yet I continue to hold the view that it's probably not true (yes probably, bad or weak science doesn't mean wrong, just far from definitive).
Have you considered how your ideology is effecting your reasoning?
Carbon Based Lifeform,
You doubt there is a conspiracy? Al Gore won a Nobel Prize for a pseudo-science documentary that he narrated (none of the findings were his and they have since been criticized harshly by scientists who do not have a stake in pretending like the earth is five years from imploding). How was that not a political statement that made a mockery out of a once well-respected award? No conspiracy, huh?
You stupid people! You should be honored that one of the Anointed is demeaning himself by electronically slumming with you riff-raff. And he's even willing to engage in name-calling, which, as smart people know, is the most effective way of convincing others that they are wrong and you are right, and that, if they had any brains at all, they would come over to your way of thinking. Sheesh!
Have you considered how your ideology is effecting your reasoning?
It's having an enormous effect. Because my ideology is to listen to and read material relevant to the issue. How the heterodoxy questions the orthodoxy. How the orthodoxy responds to the heterodoxy. And so on.
It means that when Peters the Lesser trots out stuff from dubious places like the National Post, it's easy to tell he's engaging in a bit of cribbing rather than demonstrating a good working knowledge of the issue. If he did have the latter, he wouldn't be getting so breathless about another tedious NP piece.
It's kind of like how people with more than a few dozen working synapses know that FoxNews is probably not something to rely on if you're trying to look informed.
Unfortunately, you and Mr. Gunter are severely misreading the data and whoever drew the line either didn't pass math in high school or is trying to pull one over on us. If line were truly the average temperature, it would probably probably run about flat at the end, not sharply down. As you can see by looking at the data, the temperature swings from year to year by several tenths of anomaly, so the fact that its near zero in the data doesn't mean it won't be .6 in three years. It doesn't make any sense to interpret the down leg of a cyclical pattern a cooling trend.
Dr. Ed Zeller of KU was an acquaintance of mine; few scientists knew as much as he about the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere. It was his professional opinion that the whole global warming thing was, in a word, hooey.
He once suggested to me that a majority of his colleague were similarly skeptical, but never raised much of a voice.
Hmmm...interesting that someone who claims to believe in the church that has spent centuries (or even millenia) fighting science (and has ALWAYS eventually lost the agruments) are the same people who now claim that "science" is on their side! It's the same sort of "critical thinking" that allows them to ignore facts and continue believing in magic like virgin births, resurection, and rapture.
MarkW--
The Catholic Church practically invented science; if you had a better grasp of history, you'd know this. It is the abuse of science-- and the twisting of the truth-- that we have a problem with.
Odd that you'd say that pursuing energy alternatives, for any reason, might be more than our economy can handle right now. Most rational people think that not pursuing energy alternatives might be more than our economy can handle. Or maybe you enjoy sending our national treasure overseas to fund anti-American madraasas and the spread of communism. If so, I think you may be on the wrong side of history on that stance.
John Francis Borra, you're almost right about the Catholic Church and science. They did play a huge role in science early on. Hanging as heretics anyone who dared say out loud that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe springs instantly to mind.
Jason, many alternative energies that seek to avoid carbon emission as their bottom line are huge wastes of financial resources. Ending foreign dependence on oil? You bet. Not using our own oil? Stupid.
The Catholic Church practically invented science
Rubbish.
As a hegemonic power and propagator of literacy, it most definitely had a very major role to play. But to claim that it "practically invented science" is ridiculous.
Science developed over millenia. There were many contributors - the "standing on the shoulders of giants" effect. Some vital steps along the way were, for instance, provided by the translation movement of Islamic scholars who sought out Greek texts by such early scientific notables as Galen. This aided greatly in transmission of early scientific thought to the West.
As far as the Renaissance and Enlightenment explosion of science goes, the Catholic Church can hardly lay claim to "practical invention". Once again, as a repository of the literate it was most definitely involved, but not to the point of exclusivity. Tycho and Kepler found succor at the court of Rudolf II. He was Catholic of course - all HREs were - but he was fairly off the reservation in some of his views. And you'd surely allow that the Principia Mathematica was a pretty important scientific work. You could hardly trace an unadulterated originating line from the Catholic Church to it.
In short: the CC played a most definite part in the development of science, but "practically invented" is hyperbole.
Jason, many alternative energies that seek to avoid carbon emission as their bottom line are huge wastes of financial resources.
Explain, please. With real world examples.
Demonstrate that you actually have a grasp of this topic.
I am flabbergasted. 90+% of scientists are convinced that Global Warming is REAL, Caused by human activity, a danger to us as a species, and can be influenced by human action to slow or stop it. This has been the case for more than 10 years now. And there are still ostriches?!?
Brendan was right in pointing out that that graph is EXTREMELY disingenuous and misleading. You can't tajke a rolling average and not cite it, especially when 90% of people don't know what a rolling average is! (I have a BA in Mathematics.)
I love that scientists are ignored, but faith is held above reproach. God gave us a brain, people. Please let us use it!
If climate change is all a bunch of baloney then thank goodness! All those scientists are wrong!
But I have some questions about this article and climate change in general that I'm hoping someone smarter than me could clarify.
Brendan brings up some good points about the data and the trend line. It looks like the line is artificially drawn to go down in the most recent years. Why don't we see the trend decreasing in 1983, 1988, 1992, and 1999 where the record shows a decrease? Because the overall trend is increasing? How is that different from today and why do 4 years of data supplant 30+ years of data?
Other questions about climate change:
- What's going on with the ice? Is it really melting at rates faster than we've seen in the past thousands/millions of years?
- Climates change naturally. If we are changing climate, then the rates of change should be really fast in comparison to natural rates. Has anyone looked at this?
- The increase of atmospheric CO2 is undebatable. What scientists and skeptics disagree on is whether this increase is causing climate change, right? What about ocean acidification? Doesn't that pose big problems to marine life? Is this topic debatable? The chemistry is clear, in which case, acidification is a result of fossil fuel emissions. How do we beat the scientists on this one?
- What am I supposed to think about all this talk of climate change? Should I continue on the business-as-usual course? If climate change is happening, then won't things be worse in the future if people don't act now. But if it ISN'T happening, will people be worse off in the future for doing something?
It's tough to weigh the proper course of action: on one hand, there's the extinction of species, increases in disease, increasing poverty etc etc and on the other, the health of the economy and my own personal wealth. The climate change alarmists keep telling me I can help the environment, invest in alternative energy, reduce dependence in fossil fuels, and still be financially OK. But the skeptics are telling me it'll cost too much. So who should I believe? Better yet, what should I do?
"Hanging as heretics anyone who dared say out loud that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe springs instantly to mind."
Perhaps you should open your mind, let out the bigotry you've absorbed and learn the historical facts. That should fix the faulty spring.
CBLF, are you saying that Drs. Christy and Douglass are not credentialed enough to make their claims? I mean, you've been appealing to authority. And from over here, it sure seems like you're appealing only to certain authorities. And I'm not accusing you but it sure seems like you're separating acceptable from unacceptable authorities by their stance on this issue.
As for the downtrend in the last few years of the graph, the fact is, we need to see data from the next few years to know exactly where the line is. The line "is" where it ought to be based on the data that are there; but it would be flatter through 2006-08 if 2009-10-11 are like 2001-0-03.
And no one needs degrees in math or science, nor must they appeal to brainiacs, to understand that.
In fact, if we are now in a period of reduced, earth-warming solar activity that has been responsible for temperature rises as Christy and Douglass claim, then we should see a firm downtrend in temperature averages in the next few years. But, if the warming is man-made, then the reduced solar activity would not result in adequately reduced temperatures. Then there would be an argument: "Based on the solar activity, temperatures should be like they were in the 1970s. But they've remained higher. Therefore, MMGW appears likely."
So it sure seems that the argument is premature. We'll know in a couple of years.
CBLF, are you saying that Drs. Christy and Douglass are not credentialed enough to make their claims?
Nope.
I am saying that it's patently obvious that our dear blogger is certainly not well read and listened enough on the issue to make his claims. He knows it, too. When pressed, he goes all silent. And he reveals his hand by cribbing from pretty junky sources. Like the National Post.
As for Christy and Douglass, they are tenured profs in their field, and obviously have credentials. However, they are hardly without their critics.
And from over here, it sure seems like you're appealing only to certain authorities.
There is an absolute groundswell of those authorities, as opposed to a tiny minority that has been totally blown out of all proportions by the blogosphere. That doesn't make the orthodox view automatically right, but there is much compelling argument in peer-reviewed journals to back up the case.
And this insane fiction that there is some conspiracy keeping the contrary voice out of the literature is unsupported bulldung. Douglass, Christy et al - much of the basis of the article that our impressionable blogger got so giddy about - have been published.
But if you're admonishing ME for selective boosterism, what words do you have to say for the cabal here!? All it takes is for one prof somewhere to make the right noises, and the pom-poms come out in seconds.
So it sure seems that the argument is premature.
That's your opinion. You're entitled to it. But once again, are you reminding your comrades of this, or is it only premature if it's the orthodox position?
We'll know in a couple of years.
Not necessarily. There's a line of thought that due to a quiescent sun, we may be in for a lull in temperatures that could last for many years. However, if the concentration of CO2 continues to grow apace, the next upswing could be vicious due to the feedback loop effect.
I went and got the origina data. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/publ...t/
tltglhmam_5.2
And graphed it. And created a linear trendline.
Result: It turns out, from December 1978, to today, the average global temperature trendline (linear, no rolling months)started at -0.1 degrees Celsius, and ends up at near +0.3 degrees C.
That would seem to be +0.4 degrees Celsius over 30 years.
Now, there is a lot more to this trend than what I just said. But this is just to illustrate that YES, having an advanced science degree IS important when studying SCIENCE, "Doc". You may not need a degree to understand certain things, but you DO need one to see that things that are 'obvious' in scientific eneavors are not always what they seem to be, and in fact, often contradict what looks to be the truth.
What you DO NEED is Many scientists doing A LOT of work and employing the Scientific Method rigorously to prove and disprove properly posed hypotheses. Because they know (in general) the pitfalls to avoid and the mistakes to look for.
The reason I am so snarky about this is, people with an agenda continually denigrate the years and years of work scientists have put in on these subjects and, after many thousands of them come to a conclusion independently, a few disagree, and people bring these to the fore and say, "Well, we just don't know yet." Does this ring a bell with any of you?
Are there any places where the opposite happens - many people believe one thing, and because a few disagree, they are reviled and discredited? And yet, this is exactly what the majority of climate scientists are NOT doing - they are just saying, "Look at the DATA."
Perhaps it would be better to let the majority rule, but also not denigrate the minority...and if they can prove their hypotheses, then they can have their chance? Isn't that one of the core belief sets of this country (USA) (forgive me if there are peple from other countries out there)?
Let's let science and lots of scientists do their work. And let's listen to them when almost all of them agree, and back up their conclusions with empirical observations that can be duplicated. Which they already have.
The Earth being the center of the Universe was never a doctrine, ergo no one who believed it was a heretic. So no one was hung or burned for it. Galileo was writing that the miracles of the sun, like when Joshua fought the Amirites, were impossible (How it is easier to stop the sun in the sky, but not the earth is beyond me).
Because he persisted in this after being confronted by his Patron (the Church) he was put under house arrest in the Palace of Milan, would that I suffer such a fate. He was later released and died a free man.
This is the common misunderstanding most people have of history because of the slanted records they read. Likewise, people have often called upon the Church to apologize over Darwin's Origin of Species. To my knowledge, it was never condemned.
Those that have always been against alternative renewable energy are why we are in this mess now.
If proper investment and development work had been done in the last half-century then we would have sustainable energy security now.
Instead all the short-sighted want to do is "drill more". Well guess what? Your United States oil production peaked in 1971! US oil has been in decline since then. The US cannot support itself with domestic oil, that has been the whole reason that foreign oil imports grew in the first place.
If the United States continues to ignore the need to develop alternative renewable energy sources then it will simply fall behind the rest of the world increasingly rapidly.
Commenting by HaloScan
