Eclipse of reason—why do people disbelieve scientists?

If you've been paying attention, you know that on Aug. 21, we're in for a special cosmic treat: the Great American Eclipse of 2017.

The moon's shadow will track a 4,000-kilometre course across the continental United States from coast to coast, beginning with Depoe Bay, Ore., and end after 93 minutes in McClellanville, S.C.. As a result, tens of millions of Americans will be treated to that rarest of natural wonders: a total eclipse of the sun.

Canada, unfortunately, won't experience a total eclipse, but the view will still be impressive: The sun will be 86 per cent eclipsed in Vancouver, 70 per cent in Toronto, and 58 per cent in Montreal. Canadians who want to experience totality from the comfort of home will need to wait until April 8, 2024 (Hamilton, Montreal and Fredericton), Aug. 23, 2044 (Edmonton and Calgary) or May 1, 2079 (Saint John and Moncton).

In the meantime, back here in 2017, everyone is focused on Aug. 21. Under the path of the eclipse, schools will be closed, traffic will be a nightmare, and hotel rooms at the Days Inn are on offer for $1,600 a night.

Absolute faith in eclipse predictions

What is remarkable among all this excitement and frenzy is the lack of "eclipse deniers." Nobody doubts or disputes the detailed scientific predictions of what will happen.

I will be watching the eclipse from Simpson County, Ky., where I expect I will be joined by thousands of others, all of us knowing in advance that totality for us will begin at 1:26:44 p.m., and will end 141 seconds later. It is inconceivable to any of us that the predictions will be wrong by even a single second.

Not one person will argue beforehand that the jury is still out on eclipses, that scientists have tampered with the data, that eclipses are faked by NASA, that exposing children to eclipses causes autism or even that eclipses are a Chinese hoax. Across the continent, there will be climate deniers, creationists, anti-vaxxers and flat-Earthers looking upwards through their eclipse glasses, all soaking up this wondrous moment along with everyone else.


This presents a puzzle: Why do people distrust or dispute so many aspects of science, but unanimously accept, without question, the ridiculously specific predictions on offer for every eclipse?

Why the selective denial of science?

One possible reason is that we've been right on eclipses every time before. But for most people, a is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Most people won't have experienced such predictions first hand, and will have to take it on trust that what's happened before for others will happen again for them.

Another explanation might be that, unlike the case for climate change or vaccinations, the science behind eclipses is simple and uncontroversial. While it's true that astronomers have been making reasonably accurate eclipse predictions for thousands of years, the required calculations are highly complex, extending far beyond the mathematics covered in high school or even in many university courses. Most people would find it difficult to reproduce or confirm any of these eclipse predictions for themselves.

The more likely answer is that eclipses are not a threat. There is nothing at stake. Eclipses do not endanger our way of life or our standard of living. Nobody fears that eclipses might have economic implications, could challenge our belief system or threaten our children. There are no anti-eclipse lobby groups trying to set the narrative, and there are thus no well-funded advertising campaigns or scientific studies that aim to raise doubts in our minds or to subtly shape our thinking.

Laws of science

Eclipses are agenda-free. The science—and the resulting extraordinary experience—are left to speak for themselves.

The problem is that we don't get to pick and choose what scientific facts or consensuses are controversial, and which are not. The same strict laws of science are everywhere.

So if you're comfortable putting down your non-refundable deposit for your eclipse hotel, if you let a steel tube flying at 30,000 feet carry you to a town under the path of totality, if on the morning of Aug. 21 you check the weather forecast hoping for clear skies, if you pay for breakfast with your credit card, and if that afternoon you snap a picture of the eclipse with your smartphone, then you have staked your bank balance, your August vacation and your very life on the fact that science is testable and reproducible, and that faulty theories can't withstand extended scrutiny and testing.

Total solar are a strange cosmic coincidence and a remarkable, awe-inspiring experience. But they are also a profound reminder that when the emotions, money and politics are stripped away, none of us, at our core, are science deniers.


Explore further

More than spectacle: Eclipses create science and so can you

Provided by The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.The Conversation

Citation: Eclipse of reason—why do people disbelieve scientists? (2017, August 14) retrieved 21 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2017-08-eclipse-reasonwhy-people-disbelieve-scientists.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
31 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 14, 2017
The fact is that people know that eclipse math has predicted the exact time/date of eclipses many times before. It is the prediction that comes true that proves the math works.

Aug 14, 2017
@adam, so the same math is reliable for eclipses but not for something politically controversial like climate change? Or, for an example that will resonate with many here, plasma physics?

Aug 14, 2017
Well for one Da I don't see any government backed trillion dollar plans to stop eclipses. After all it is the poor that suffer the most from an eclipse due to higher electric light bills.

Aug 14, 2017
@MR, eclipses aren't threatening. It's still the same math though. And you haven't addressed that. You tried to duck out. Either the math is right or it's not, and it works fine for eclipses (which are, as this very article points out, if you had actually read it instead of kneejerking because you don't have any answers to the specific point about math, a lot more complex than you appear to think, when it comes down to calculating the exact edge and timing of the totality path).

Aug 14, 2017
Da the math that predicts an eclipse is not subject to unknown variables as is the math and computer simulations that predict the extent of warming caused by man's meager contribution to Co2 levels. Thus there is a real need for discussion as far as AGW is concerned.

Aug 14, 2017
Actually, @MR, that's incorrect. The exact paths of the Moon and Earth are subject to many influences from the other planets, and these are simulated using substantially the same algorithms as climate change is. As is well known, the multi-body (that's any number greater than 2 bodies) problem is not subject to an exact solution; how do you think we do these eclipse calculations, anyway? It's the same math.

Note carefully that the Sun, Moon, and Earth are all involved in eclipse calculations; that means this problem is fundamentally not subject to an exact solution. This is a matter of fact, not conjecture. Simulation is therefore required.

So, once again, how is it you trust the eclipse calculations and not the climate calculations? It looks to all of us like you don't *want* to believe the climate calculations, and will clutch at any straw that you can trump up into an excuse for not believing the ones you don't want to.

Aug 14, 2017
"The exact paths of the Moon and Earth are subject to many influences from the other planets, and these are simulated using substantially the same algorithms as climate change is."

Da I did not know that hundreds of years ago the High Priests had access to super computers.

Aug 14, 2017
Perhaps you missed this recent article on this site: https://phys.org/...off.html

Looks like they might be off by up to a half mile.

Now, you were claiming that the exact path of totality has been available to some "High Priests" sometime or other? I think you are wrong. We can't do it now; are you claiming some unidentified "High Priests" in the past could do the calculations better than we can now today? Can we see some evidence for that? How about an explanation of how they calculated this, exactly?

You claim it you prove it. Good luck with that.

Aug 14, 2017
Here's a counter-claim: in fact, the ancients couldn't "predict" eclipses closer than a month, and were wrong half the time: https://image.gsf...846.html

Doesn't sound like they could do anything like what we can with our simulations. And in only two cases were they even aware of the necessary celestial mechanics, and even those who were weren't very accurate (+/- a month).

Looks like you're making stuff up, @MR.

Aug 14, 2017
So I will ask once again: if the math, and the simulations, work for eclipses, how come they're wrong for climate change? I expect you to keep dodging and making stuff up, because I knew from the beginning you didn't have a rational answer for this, @MR.

Aug 14, 2017
Reasons for not trusting "science" include the recommendation that parents hold off until later in exposing children to allergens, which led to the rate of peanut allergies skyrocketing 250 percent. Too, the cl;aim that cholesterol is necessarily dangerous, then the claim only "low density lipoproteins " are dangerous, now the claim that no cholesterol is dangerous. The failures to keep things like Nexium, Vioxx, Bextra, the bladder sling off the market. Not acknowledging that the infrastructure of Iraq cannot support the mass production of banned weapons systems claimed. The fraudulently designed "polls" touting Hillary Clinton. The discredited "body mass index". The lunatic "food pyramid" which replaced the "four food groups" and has now been replaced with a plate divided into four parts. They'll admit climate change, but not that it's caused by chemtrails. They're told what to say by those in positions of money and power. They're all liars.

Aug 14, 2017
So, @julian, you think climate is more like biology and medicine than celestial mechanics?

Are you serious? Because if you are, you know little about biology or celestial mechanics, either one. Your mention of the long-discredited "chemtrails" conspiracy BS just puts a point on it. Your conspiracy BS about science is just more of the same crap. Get over it.

Aug 14, 2017
Getting back to the subject, once again with no answer so far, I ask, why are there people who think the exact same equations and techniques that work for eclipses don't work for climate? What's wrong with them?

Aug 14, 2017
And here comes another bunch of conspiracy BS.

Of course they don't use the exact same equations; it's stupid to expect they would. Eclipses are matters only of gravity; for climate you have to use electromagnetic theory, thermodynamics, the dynamics of gases and liquids, the Navier-Stokes equations, and a great deal more. However, fundamentally, the math is the same and I'll point out that the multi-body problem exists in quantum mechanics for exactly the same reasons it does in celestial mechanics as strong evidence. Furthermore, PDEs and ODEs are how both types of predictions get made, and how simulations get written. The fundamental base is solid in both cases. Sorry you don't understand enough math to know why.

This is now turning into the argumentum ad ignorantium. "I don't understand it so it must be wrong." This is no better than the arguments from authority and conspiracy BS you guys started out with.
[contd]

Aug 14, 2017
[contd]
When you can demonstrate facility with the math involved, you will have the ability to check for yourself. Until then your argument is "@bullschott is too stupid to understand math so it must be wrong." And that's a pretty sorry excuse for an argument.

Let's see whether the #sciencedeniers can come up with an argument that doesn't contain a logical fallacy. It'll be our own little experiment. :D From what I've seen on this site for years on end, I'm going with "no" as my hypothesis (and note that it's testable).

Aug 14, 2017
And once more we come back to the basic question: if this math works for eclipses, how come it's wrong for climate? And yet again we have another attempt to dodge this question with a logical fallacy. This is all you have, and it's as sorry as it can be. It always has been. It's time to start actually thinking about what the consequences are of what you claim, and start admitting you screwed it up.

Aug 14, 2017
And now @bullschott is just lying. Getting it right half the time in predicting the month is a very, very long way from getting it right all the time for a minute. The obvious inability to comprehend the difference is a lack of mathematical capability that makes everything @bullschott says obviously ignorant. This is a difference of accuracy of 43,200 times as anyone with a calculator can confirm, and that's just the time difference. They couldn't even predict the path of totality; just plain flat didn't have any numbers. And I posted documentation to support that.

If you're just going to lie, @bullschott, I'll just go back to ignoring your foolish ranting.

Aug 14, 2017
The reason nobody doubts the predictions of eclipses is there is no money nor political advantage in it. "Carbon taxes" and make-work "unreliable" energy scams that profit Al Gore and his ilk. The UN "Green Climate Fund" to support perks of UN bureaucrats and crony supplicants like dictator Robert Mugabe. Salary and perks for Neil de Grasse Tyson. Big Pharma pushing their latest snake oil to fix toe nail fungus.

Aug 14, 2017
And yet another one with the conspiracy BS. And yet another one who can't explain why people believe the math over here, and deny it over there. We're seeing a pattern here: every single one of the #sciencedeniers tries to avoid discussing why if the math works for eclipses and they know it, they think it doesn't work for climate. All we've got is logical fallacies (and conspiracy BS is the argumentum ad hominem, the best known logical fallacy). It's always about some logical fallacy that everyone who is educated knows about, never about the simple facts. I think these individuals' posts speak for themselves here.

Aug 14, 2017
The reason nobody doubts the predictions of eclipses is there is no money nor political advantage in it. "Carbon taxes" and make-work "unreliable" energy scams that profit Al Gore and his ilk. The UN "Green Climate Fund" to support perks of UN bureaucrats and crony supplicants like dictator Robert Mugabe. Salary and perks for Neil de Grasse Tyson. Big Pharma pushing their latest snake oil to fix toe nail fungus.


Dumb argument. If 1000s of scientists were publishing research on climate change, and were doing it only for the money (as if), then who has got the most money to spend on dodgy science, supporting a particular viewpoint? Yep, the oil companies.
Really, a very silly argument.

Aug 14, 2017
Taking your argument further yet, @jonesdave, who has more money to spend on propaganda, and a better motivation for doing so?

Aug 14, 2017
You always know when an argument is worthless; when the proponents can only come up with brain dead conspiracy nonsense. See it all the time on here. And elsewhere. Sadly, it seems to be of plague proportions in certain countries.

Aug 14, 2017
Taking your argument further yet, @jonesdave, who has more money to spend on propaganda, and a better motivation for doing so?


Indeedy. Not to mention bribing politicians to support their propaganda.

UCLA (for example): "Hey senator, care to support our stance on AGW?"
Senator: "What's in it for me?"
UCLA: "How about an honorary degree?"

Exxon (for example): "Hey senator, care to support our stance on AGW?"
Senator: "What's in it for me?"
Exxon: "How about 50 grand?"
Senator: "Sure, I'll believe anything for 50 grand!"

Aug 14, 2017
Bye, @bullschott. There's no point in talking about math with you; I already provided all the proof you're capable of understanding. They're PDEs and ODEs, not something mysterious (except, apparently, to you). All methods of simulating DEs are mathematical theorems subject to rigorous mathematical proof. If that's not good enough for you then you don't even understand enough to ask the question, much less understand the answer. Arguing with you would therefore be a complete waste of time. In your lack of understanding you just make stuff up.

Still no answer so far. We now have arguments from authority, ignorance, and ad hominems, along with various conspiracy theories about mathematics and some grand conspiracy of thousands of scientists. #sciencedeniers are generally a waste of time.

Aug 14, 2017
I will make one more post: @bullschott, sorry you think DEs are "different" when they're used for climate and celestial mechanics. The methods for solving them on computers are the same. It's a shame you don't know enough math to know that, but it's not my problem, it's yours.

It doesn't matter what the overlying equations are; if they yield systems of DEs then you pick your algorithm, solve them, and post the results along with your method. That's how real science works. If you don't know why, it's because you don't understand the math, and since you don't want to, you never will. This remains totally pointless, as you will keep making the same ignorant argument over and over.

Aug 14, 2017
OH!!! Even better:


Getting back to the subject, once again with no answer so far, I ask, why are there people who think the exact same equations and techniques that work for eclipses don't work for climate? What's wrong with them?


The answer when asked directly:

Of course they don't use the exact same equations; it's stupid to expect they would

da schnied displays Cap'n Stoopid level of moron. And his response to being shown his level of moronism?
Bye

Good riddance!


Aug 14, 2017
So, just summing up, we have multiple arguments from authority, multiple arguments from ignorance, multiple ad hominem arguments, and a bunch of conspiracy BS. And not one single answer to why if the math and techniques work for eclipses, they don't work for climate. Just a lot of squirming and whining and outright lying.

The techniques for solving simultaneous differential equations on digital computers are well established and mathematically proven. They're available in commercial software packages, like MATLAB. Literally millions of scientists and engineers use them every day, and they seem to work fine for them. So one more time, please tell us why these work for eclipses and not for climate.

Here's a link with instructions: https://www.mathw...ons.html

Note that there's no special version for climate or eclipses.

Aug 14, 2017
One more time, @bullschott, just for the record: there are the instructions for using commercial mathematics packages. There is no mention of whether the DEs to be solved are for climate, eclipses, aircraft design, nuclear physics, or any other individual scientific discipline. They all use the same techniques, and they all use the same equations: systems of simultaneous equations. It's all there in black and white. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your lies, they are obvious lies, and they are obviously contradicted by the mere existence of such software.

I really don't know what else to say. And I think it's pretty obvious that you have nothing left but lies. The software says so. There is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

Aug 14, 2017
why not doubt eclipse calc ? umm , there are 4 /yr so its easy to refine the prediction , moral panics on the other hand may be pi cycles if you like Martin Armstrong, nudge nudge

Aug 14, 2017
And yet another reply that doesn't answer the essential question: it's the same math for eclipses and climate. You solve that math with the exact same software routine in the exact same software. How can you claim that the same math is valid one place and invalid another? It's like claiming 2+2=5 if you're doing climate science, but 2+2=4 if you're calculating an eclipse. It's silliness.

Aug 14, 2017
I'm not going to argue with someone who thinks there are "special" DEs for climate. It's silliness, and that's all there is to that.

Aug 14, 2017
@Da Schneib I'm with you on this one though to be fair I think there are other reasons why people argue about climate change. I think many a lay person gets 'climate change' mixed up with the more polemical 'global warming'. I mean, let's face it the climate is always changing and as you rightly say the DE's are used to image the change. Of course the difficulty is that when scientists divide areas up into cells results can be affected by what is actually in one cell and the next one to it. For example, the climate of a park in the middle of town will be affected differently to one similar but on the outskirts of town. My layman analogy is that it's a bit like GR where PDE's are used to calculate the rate of change of a rate of change.
Global warming on the other hand, is perhaps a specialized topic within climate change and that's when one group denies it's anthropogenic while another argues the opposite.
Ha, applying Catastrophe Theory to human emotions is not quite the same.

Aug 15, 2017
Da when scientists say there is going to be an eclipse people see one, partial or not, and are happy with science. On the other hand when people are told that it will never snow again and they have to shovel the latest 20 inches from their driveway they begin to have doubts about what they are being told. The same goes for dead polar bears and a north west passage.

Aug 15, 2017
The answer is actually fairly simple - very few people have invested in a delusion that is threatened by eclipse prediction. If they had, and the eclipse happened anyway, there would be delusional fools casting themselves off of cliffs.

There are plenty of dumb pharks investing in delusions that require climate change to be a hoax.

Today, successful peddlers of delusion depend on products that wouldn't be so easily proven wrong by something like an eclipse. However, once hooked an investor can become fully capable of the denial of patently obvious reality - Take the delusion of religion, for example

Aug 15, 2017
Very generally speaking...
People naturally reject any science that requires them to alter their own chosen lifestyle.
Only the self chosen environmentalists are predisposed to accept such science and enforce its findings on others.

Aug 15, 2017
"Eclipse of reason—why do people disbelieve scientists?"

RELIGION

The thing designed to convince people that they cannot trust their own senses and their own reason. And if they cant trust themselves why would they ever trust the people to whom evidence is more important than faith?

Scientists cant (yet) deliver eternal life, grant wishes, or absolve guilt. These bribes are hard to beat. Besides, why do we need more than one book? So much to carry-
Reasons for not trusting "science" include the recommendation that parents hold off until later in exposing children to allergens, which led to the rate of peanut allergies skyrocketing 250 percent
Ok I'll bite. How do priests, imams, and rabbis cure this one? Holy water? Kill a goat?

Aug 15, 2017
You are confused, the required equations cannot be the same because the actual physics is completely different. If the equations were the same, you could simply substitute variables and leave operators untouched


Schneibo's problem is that he wouldn't recognize a Partial or Ordinary Differential Equation if it smacked him up alongside his old silly head. You watch following this post of mine, he'll put up something that he'll challenge me to prove it isn't a Differential Equation.

Waiting Schneibo............Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Aug 15, 2017
@Benni the Burke,
You are confused, the required equations cannot be the same because the actual physics is completely different. If the equations were the same, you could simply substitute variables and leave operators untouched


Schneibo's problem is that he wouldn't recognize a Partial or Ordinary Differential Equation if it smacked him up alongside his old silly head. You watch following this post of mine, he'll put up something that he'll challenge me to prove it isn't a Differential Equation.

Waiting Schneibo............Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


And your problem, dear boy, is science; yes? Now, remind me, Einstein, what does visible light do when it penetrates the atmosphere and hits rock (for instance)? Care to have another go at it, SFB? Stop pretending that you understand science, you cretin, and go back to astrology, or EU, or homeopathy, or whatever crap you believe in, yes? You haven't got a clue, schoolboy. Go away.

Aug 15, 2017
"Eclipse of reason—why do people disbelieve scientists?"

RELIGION

The thing designed to convince people that they cannot trust their own senses and their own reason. And if they cant trust themselves why would they ever trust the people to whom evidence is more important than faith?

Scientists cant (yet) deliver eternal life, grant wishes, or absolve guilt. These bribes are hard to beat. Besides, why do we need more than one book? So much to carry-
Reasons for not trusting "science" include the recommendation that parents hold off until later in exposing children to allergens, which led to the rate of peanut allergies skyrocketing 250 percent
Ok I'll bite. How do priests, imams, and rabbis cure this one? Holy water? Kill a goat?


Looks like you've just put words on a string there. Care to elucidate? Basically, looks like sh*te.

Aug 15, 2017
Let's be honest; the people that come on here, the idiots, such as cantthink, Benni, Bscitt et al, have never done science. That is how they are capable of believing in absolute crap. Not surprising, eh? Ask them to do a little bit of science, and they run a bloody mile. Eh? Nobody (literally) who is at all scientifically literate, would spend any time with idiots like Thornhill & Talbott. Yes? You need to be seriously cretinised to believe those idiots. Eh?
However, it is a circular argument; if the idiots did understand science, then they wouldn't believe all this EU BS in the first place. Would they? In other words; a prerequisite for membership of the EU clan, is a total inability to comprehend even basic science. Correct? Yes, I think I am.

Aug 15, 2017
Let's be honest; the people that come on here, the idiots, such as cantthink, Benni, Bscitt et al, have never done science.


Hey, it's burkeboy, he's back going through the usual name calling rants albeit never having learned how to solve Differential Equations or studied Thermodynamics, but has greenhouse gases all figured out.

So burkeboy, how much time do we have left? I remember when Al Gore said it was ten years, that was like 15 years ago. Did you watch his sequel movie to get the new date? Yes you did, and you know you did or you couldn't be as smart as he is.

Aug 15, 2017
Looks from @jonesdave's post like @Lenni needs reminding again of who can't deal with DEs, or for that matter simple algebra.

Here it is again, @Lenni:
-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² ϕ = 0
Source: http://www.etsu.e...esis.pdf
And another reminder:
E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²
https://phys.org/...rgy.html
https://phys.org/...ole.html

Now stop lying.

Aug 16, 2017
@Da Schneib Don't let Ben 'get you going again he'll just laugh.

Aug 16, 2017
Looks like you've just put words on a string there. Care to elucidate? Basically, looks like sh*te
First you've got to tell me what 'words on a string' means, and what exactly in my post looks like shit to you, and why youre too timid to spell shit right.

Against your religion?

Aug 16, 2017
@Mimath I have this copied to a file and just bring it out every time I see he's lying. It takes about 30 seconds. ;)

He has no response because he doesn't even know how to read the DE part, and has no idea how to do the Special Relativity algebra part and has proven it repeatedly. This is easy stuff, because he's not very bright.

Aug 16, 2017
@Da Schneib point taken. Thanks for the explanation.

Aug 17, 2017
@Da Schneib Don't let Ben 'get you going again he'll just laugh.


-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² ϕ = 0


Both, I'm crying with laughter !!!!!!!!!

Aug 20, 2017
I think there are other reasons why people argue about climate change.
@Mimath
it's true, and there are many reasons

... some just can't fathom the science because it's too hard, so the focus on singular words, like "warming", while ignoring the science which shows how warming can cause localised cooling weather. the idiot mr166 demonstrates this with his comments like:
On the other hand when people are told that it will never snow again ...
but there is also delusion as noted by Zzzz

they have a vested interest in not believing the truth because [insert claim - conspiracy, etc]. you see this in people like cd (who is not only an anti-vaxxer, but also says the holocaust never happened)

there are special cases who also can't comprehend different types of evidence, while also not literate enough to follow the physics, be it fluid/gas dynamics, or why scam magnet snake oil cures don't cure all cancer (like bschitt)

and that's all without religions

Aug 20, 2017
People often cry with laughter when they are totally out of their league, a coping mechanism, it's natural.

Aug 20, 2017
@Captain Stumpy ' ...how warming can cause localised cooling weather...' yes this is true. Take the UK for example, any melting of the ice/glaciers etc. further north would mean cooler ocean water pouring into the north sea making the UK cooler. Of course, once all the ice melted warming would begin. I seem to remember reading somewhere that at the current rate of melt all arctic ice will be gone by the year 2050. I don't know accurate that figure is but it could mean that the next generation will have to change the colour of global maps. And I haven't mentioned the rise in sea level which would add to problems. According to what I read on Paleoclimatology, it seems that Earth was quite a bit warmer than it is today just after the dinosaur extinction then gradually declined to reach a low approx 20,000 years ago. Then seems to have increased and leveled off as we have today. So are we heading for another 'natural' temperature increase or is it anthropogenic contamination?

Aug 20, 2017
"This presents a puzzle: Why do people distrust or dispute so many aspects of science…"
This is a stupid question presented by Bryan Gaensler when the ancients could predict such solar events while the weatherman can't tell you with a great degree of accuracy what the weather will be next week.
"I am ashamed of what climate science has become today." The science "community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what 'science' has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed." — Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled "The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere" and he published a paper in August 2009 titled "Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field."

Aug 20, 2017
"The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community." The global warming establishment "has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC." — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.


"When later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of the twenty-first century as an embarrassing chapter in the history of science. They will wonder about our time and use it as a warning of how core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten, as the actual research topic of climate change turned into a political and social playground." Atte Korhola, a Professor of Environmental Change at the University of Helsinki:

Aug 20, 2017
"The problem is that we don't get to pick and choose what scientific facts or consensuses are controversial, and which are not. The same strict laws of science are everywhere."

"Those who call themselves 'Green planet advocates' should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore's personal behavior supports a green planet – his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet." — Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named "100 most influential people in the world, 2004″ by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him "the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer."


Aug 20, 2017
Please notice, Captain Stumpy, that these people are something that you are not, they are scientist.
"Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field." — Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia's CSIRO's (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

Aug 20, 2017
Now for why "the scientific method has been abandoned in this field."
"Warmists 'Want To Control Every Aspect Of Your Life': 'What you eat, what you drive, where you drive, what you believe, what you say, what you can own, how many children you can have…'
'how much you can travel, how much money you have, what your kids are taught, how big your house is, the temperature of your house, how your house is heated, how far you live from your work, what kind of light bulbs and other appliances you have ……… Global warmers make Lenin's Bolsheviks look like libertarians. In Soviet Russia, polar bears eat Bolsheviks'"
"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", Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels. http://www.unric....tionally

Aug 20, 2017
And the silliness goes on. Physics is physics; the equations used for thermodynamics are the same whether they're applied to astrophysics, condensed matter physics, or climate physics. The DEs that must be solved are the same because the equations are the same. There's nothing more or less to it. Pretending they're different is idiocy, and ignorance. This is the argumentum ad ignorantiam, the argument from foolishness. If all you've got is, "I'm an idiot and can't understand it so it must be wrong," it's obvious where the problem lies. Nothing more need be said.

Aug 20, 2017
I don't know accurate that figure is but
@mimath
let me know if you find the source (check your browser history)

it's important to note the error bars in the predictive models
So are we heading for another 'natural' temperature increase or is it anthropogenic contamination?
from what i've read, they've ruled out natural cycles (here is one study that may help you)
http://www.physic...2014.pdf

the problem isn't just the raising temp, but the rate of change: and the cause of that excessively fast rate is definitely anthropogenic

this is especially disconcerting as CO2 has a vicious feedback process with water vapor (Lacis et al 2010)

at least the general public has started listening more to the scientists and less to the f*cktard political rhetoric parrots like j doug above with her gish-gallop of stupidity, or turgent with same (too coincidental)

Aug 20, 2017
"Eclipses do not endanger our way of life or our standard of living. Nobody fears that eclipses might have economic implications, could challenge our belief system or threaten our children." This very true. To combat this unproven hypothesis about CO₂ driving the earth's climate means putting humanity back in time 100s of years when life was short and not easy.

"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations." Galileo Galilei
There has NEVER been a repeatable experiment that proves that the amount of CO₂ in today's atmosphere drives the climate.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H. L. Mencken
"The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it" — H L Mencken



Aug 20, 2017
@jd/swallows the denier political rhetoric TROLL liar
Please notice, Captain Stumpy, that these people are something that you are not
1- then why have absolutely none of them been able to produce the requisite refutation of the science that you (and they) claim is fake, false or in any way unreal?

2- i notice that you're still avoiding my studies: you still have yet to actually produce the requisite empirical evidence refuting the 30+ studies i presented to you

you have taken the time to share opinions, like above
you've shared political rhetoric
and also blatantly false claims (means you're a liar)

but you have never once been able to refute any study with another study that falsifies the first

that, more than anything else, proves you're a liar and spreading FUD

i asked for equivalent evidence for refute, you give me the opinion of a single scientist, your own opinion, and political rhetoric

IOW - you're a liar spreading your cult beliefs
not science

Aug 20, 2017
@jd/swallows the denier political rhetoric acolyte TROLL liar
unproven hypothesis about CO₂
here is About 194,000 results (0.11 sec) that prove you're a delusional liar posting your religious belief: https://scholar.g...vidence+

"Warmists 'Want To Control Every Aspect Of Your Life'
conspiracist ideation isn't proof that climate change isn't real

it is, however, proof that you're an idiot and willing to accept someone else delusional belief over reality (and i've already proven that to you, specifically, in one of your other multiple socks)

it's also the reason so many of you idiot conspiracy theorists, political hacks and religious morons can't comprehend science: http://journals.p....0075637

Aug 20, 2017
@jd/swallows the denier political rhetoric acolyte TROLL liar
— H L Mencken
one last point: Mencken was a great author, but had no clue as to the power of science

he stated
Angoff said: "Well, without mathematics there wouldn't be any engineering, no chemistry, no physics." Mencken responded: "That's true, but it's reasonable mathematics. Addition, subtraction, multiplication, fractions, division, that's what real mathematics is. The rest is baloney. Astrology. Religion. All of our sciences still suffer from their former attachment to religion, and that is why there is so much metaphysics and astrology, the two are the same, in science."
Angoff, Charles. H. L. Mencken: A Portrait from Memory. A. S. Barnes (New York, 1961), p. 141

that single comment proves he was willing to accept biology and evolution, but couldn't fathom the power of algebra, calculus or even geometry (let alone proven physics)

epic fail - quoting an untrained satirist for science

Aug 20, 2017
@J, I have no idea what a "repeatable experiment" means here. We are not talking about experiments; we are talking about data from brute reality. Your failure to understand the difference between experiment and observation is yet another way in which you do not understand the most basic processes of scientific research.

You don't know math, don't know physics, don't know science, and yet here you are arguing about all three. You are a fool. There's no way around it.

Aug 20, 2017
I have a challenge for you, Da Schneib, since you say you have studied this issue of anthropogenic global warming or, now since the warming has stopped for 19 years, climate change. You need to provide me with the experiment that shows that CO₂ does what some maintain as far as being the driver of the earth's climate. I do not need to be reminded of Tyndall's 1859 lab experiments that do not prove that humanity's CO₂ emissions are warming the planet. In the real world, other factors can influence and outweigh those lab findings and that is why these experiments must deal with the real world and not computer models that do not have the ability to factor in all the variables that effect the earth's climate. If you cannot provide a verifiable experiment regarding the present amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere and how it effects the climate and creates their anthropogenic global warming, then believing that it does so is akin to following a religion's teachings.

Aug 20, 2017
It is a fact that real scientist devise experiments to either prove or disprove their hypotheses and welcome people to try to disprove them so that they can move on. They sure do not say that the science is settled and the argument is over because there are REAL scientist out there doing REAL scientific work that are not blinded by some agenda that they support so that they can get more "research" money or money to fund a boondoggle renewable energy scheme that will never work.
Albert Einstein addressed the theory of quantum entanglement. In Dec. of 2011 this experiment was carried out: Quantum Entanglement Links 2 Diamonds
https://www.scien...glement/
Here is some other experiment that HAVE been conducted. Einstein was right, neutrino researchers admit June 8, 2012 by Harumi Ozawa
https://phys.org/...html#jCp

Aug 20, 2017
Many experiments in the world are currently investigating the factors that may affect the planet's climate but CLOUD is the only one that makes use of a particle accelerator.
http://cds.cern.c...77?ln=de
Henrik Svensmark, being a scientist, devised experiments of his own to test his theory and that demonstrates how science works. It is not about a group of self-serving charlatans proclaiming that "the debate is over" when they have no experiment that shows that CO2 drives the earth's climate or even provide the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing.
"Svensmark: Evidence continues to build that the Sun drives climate, not CO2″.
https://www.youtu...embedded
New Data Boosts Case for Higgs Boson Find
https://www.wsj.c...08689618

Aug 20, 2017
How close are we to finding dark matter?
http://www.bbc.co...24987749
It seems to me that if the experiments above could be devised and carried out, that one showing how carbon dioxide can cause the earth's climate to act as some seem to want people to believe it does should have been carried out long ago. If you believe that this trace gas, CO₂, drives the climate, then you are no different than a member of a faith based cult and yours believes a boogie man in the sky will ruin their lives with NO proof, at all.

I post this for your buddies on here to consider & I'm sure you think that they prove your point about CO₂: A science experiment to get you all fired up.
http://www.bbc.co...er.shtml
Albert Einstein had an answer for those continually trying to claim that there is a consensus for their flawed, unproven hypothesis regarding anthropogenic global warming: "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of the truth".

Aug 20, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 20, 2017
I don't know accurate that figure is but
@mimath
let me know if you find the source (check your browser history)it's important to note the error bars in the predictive models
So are we heading for another 'natural' temperature increase or is it anthropogenic contamination?
from what i've read, they've ruled out natural cycles (here is one study that may help you)
the problem isn't just the raising temp, but the rate of change: and the cause of that excessively fast rate is definitely anthropogenic...

Actually, I think what I wrote is pretty 'general', that is, not too controversial. The graph I was quoting from, I think comes from a Wiki site though I other websites on Paleoclimatology have the same/similar graph.
I don't think my personal thoughts are worth much but they aren't extreme either. (cont.)


Aug 20, 2017
(cont.) My basic assumption is that when you make a choice/do something there is always a price to pay. In the present thread this really means that you and I, everyone else can't have the things we want (computers, paper, holidays by aircraft etc etc) without consequence. In this case the environment can or does suffer that consequence. Let's take a very simple example. A forest is cleared to build houses/homes. That particular cell will have a change, albeit very small, in climate. The people that live there will do certain things that might add or subtract to the consequence. In that way this cell has suffered a anthropogenic consequence.
As I have mentioned before on other related threads, we appear to gotten ourselves into some kind of 'rut' and it will be difficult to get out of. I'm just the same as everyone else; I want food choice; free use of my car; switch on my a.c. in 32+ C temp; and so on. (cont.)

Aug 20, 2017
(cont.) I, personally, do try to save on things that are under my direct control but I don't kid myself that it is significant. Imagine what would happen if all airlines were shut down for a year, petrol/gasoline/gas was rationed for one year plus other commodities, The arguments that would arise from this (where would draw a line for 'essentials', loss of jobs, local corruption etc.) I've no doubt there would be riots everywhere not to mention probable increase in crime. Yet if we do nothing...? Is there some middle ground? Perhaps, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to say what that might be.
The first step though is recognizing that there is a problem anthropogenic or otherwise and as you know some admit there is and some deny. For me it seems clear; rising populations means a rise in the antropogenic impact but I am just one layman and not a very knowledgeable one at that!

Aug 20, 2017
Let's be honest; the people that come on here, the idiots, such as cantthink, Benni, Bscitt et al, have never done science. That is how they are capable of believing in absolute crap. Not surprising, eh? Ask them to do a little bit of science, and they run a bloody mile. Eh? Nobody (literally) who is at all scientifically literate, would spend any time with idiots like Thornhill & Talbott. Yes? You need to be seriously cretinised to believe those idiots. Eh?
However, it is a circular argument; if the idiots did understand science, then they wouldn't believe all this EU BS in the first place. Would they? In other words; a prerequisite for membership of the EU clan, is a total inability to comprehend even basic science. Correct? Yes, I think I am.


This is exactly right.

Aug 21, 2017
@J,
since the warming has stopped for 19 years


Direct lie. Evidence proving it:

https://climate.n...erature/

If you're just going to lie, I see little point in this. Challenge rejected as based upon lies. Sorry, you're a #climatecrank.

There's no point in arguing with someone who lies. They'll just make up another whopper every time they're proven wrong. It's a waste of time.

Aug 21, 2017
Eclipse of reason—why do people disbelieve scientists?

What's truly an eclipse of reason is that the plasma ignoramus deGrasse Tyson equates a relatively simple prediction of an eclipse to the immense complexity of the Earth's climate system with the endless variables and feedback systems. Yep, an absolute eclipse of reason indeed!
It's also amusing to see all the disciples of the Church of Sciencism try to justify the analogy. The faith of the acolytes is religious in every way, Tyson is little more than an evangelist for the Church of Sciencism. ROTFLMAO!

Aug 21, 2017
Why do some people keep quoting Prof. A. Einstein. I have the greatest respect for his achievements but...he was a human being. If you want some (apparent) quotes: '"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.",'Our task must be to free ourselves…by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty." ( Boston Vegetarian Society) Because he had achievements doesn't make him (or anyone else) an expert in everything. As a human being he made mistakes and there are those that, today, would argue with him much on such issues. Besides, why not let his memory rest in peace eh? If we have messed things up quoting 'the greats' is not going to help at all. We have to recognize the problem then find a treatment (or solution) then act. Anything short of that won't do!

Aug 21, 2017
@cantthink69, your racism is showing. It must be particularly difficult for you to deal with the fact that a black man like deGrasse Tyson is smarter than you will ever be. Suck on it and choke, racist POS.

The variables and feedback systems are not endless. They are well defined; what remains are details, which you are incompetent to judge as delimited by your constant whining, lying, and misrepresentation. The scientism is all on your part; you confound science with a belief system, and insist on ignoring evidence that contradicts your views. By doing so you make your dishonesty and inability to understand evidence and rational thought obvious to anyone paying attention and evaluating the real data. There is no faith; there is data, and there are lies, and you prefer lies.

Scientism is your lies, not the statements of the black man who makes it obvious you are a psychotic idiot. Sorry you are so prejudiced. Get over it.

Aug 21, 2017
Here's the deal: most black people are smarter than most #sciencedeniers. This must burn, and I hope it burns hard, deep, and permanently. Right now it appears to be obvious that there are far more of us who believe this than believe you. The mass demonstrations where many more who despise you show up than you do all over the country make it clear. I hope you are afraid, and I hope you understand that this is not a threat of violence; it is the threat to vote and make you irrelevant. You do not face black people; you face black people united with white people all of whom demand justice you cannot face. We will fight you everywhere all the time forever. You cannot win and you will not. You are morally corrupt and the longer this goes on the more people will know it. Justice grinds slowly but exceedingly fine. And the truth will out.

Aug 21, 2017
It's really this simple: people disbelieve scientists because they think scientists are as stupid, corrupt, and willing to sell out as they are. These are people who would sell out for anything, and are incapable of understanding people who would not sell out.

It's the inability of the corrupt to understand the incorruptible. This conflict is represented over and over again, and every time the corrupt win in the short term and are defeated in the long term. We will overcome. Stupid is not better. Stupid always loses. The truth will out.

Aug 21, 2017
There's no point in arguing with someone who lies. They'll just make up another whopper every time they're proven wrong. It's a waste of time.


Da Schneib: I know that unless your "facts" come from Wikipedia or Skeptical Science or the fake "science" that comes from NASA, you pay no attention to actual FACTS &, for some reason steeped in ignorance, feel you have the right to call people liars.
One of the regions that has contributed to GISS' "hottest ever year" is South America, particularly Brazil, Paraguay and the northern part of Argentina. In reality, much of this is fabricated, as they have no stations anywhere near much of this area, as NOAA show below."
http://data.giss....mp;ds=14
http://data.giss....amp;ds=1
https://notalotof...america/

Aug 21, 2017
Or this for Hansen's, and I assume your approach to science; alter it to make it show what you want.
"Hansen – The Climate Chiropractor
Need your climate adjusted? – call Dr. James Hansen at GISS. Below is a chronology of the destruction and politicization of the US and global temperature record."
https://stevengod...practor/
I present you with this:
This below sure doesn't mirror the lie that you are trying to spread about 2016 being the hottest year ever.
U.S. Historical Climatology Network - Monthly Data
You have chosen site 241044, BOZEMAN MONTANA SU, Montana
http://cdiac.ornl...ear=2014
You need to pull your head from the dark recesses of your rectum and look for the truth.




Aug 21, 2017
Da Schneib presents a look into the mind of an alarmist to see that nothing verging on the truth can enter that void. The accurate and unaltered by NASA & NOAA satellite record shows that what you and the NYT are saying is a total lie.

"Fig. 2. Tropical (30S to 30N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Again, after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming."
http://www.remss..../climate
"The graph above represents the latest update….."
http://www.drroys...ratures/

Aug 21, 2017
@cantthink69, your racism is showing. It must be particularly difficult for you to deal with the fact that a black man like deGrasse Tyson is smarter than you will ever be. Suck on it and choke, racist POS...Here's the deal: most black people are smarter than most #sciencedeniers. This must burn, and I hope it burns hard, deep, and permanently. Right now it appears to be obvious that there are far more of us who believe...It's the inability of the corrupt to understand the incorruptible...

It is remarkably clear this is a religious belief system and has been politicized. So much for the separation of Church and State. Challenge the evangelists and the acolytes respond with hate, lies, and false accusations. Just as any Jimmy Swaggert follower would do to protect his closely held beliefs.
He also believes he is correct due to democratic principles, as if somehow it is true because lots of people believe it. As I said, religious belief...

Aug 21, 2017
What Hansen, when he had a better idea of what honesty was and could even manage to tell the truth, said this below & I'd like Da Schneib's honest opinion of what Barack Hussein Obama tried to get the ignorant alarmist to believe were FACTS. "Oceans are rising. We have unusual droughts, wildlife is being affected. We have already reached a point of disasters. We now can only slow, if we react, and reverse in maybe decades."

Aug 21, 2017
But there's a big disconnect from facts here. In reality, there has been no increase in the strength or frequency of landfall hurricanes in the world's five main hurricane basins during the past 50-70 years; there has been no increase in the strength or frequency in tropical Atlantic hurricane development during the past 370 years; the U.S. is currently enjoying the longest period ever recorded without intense Category 3-5 hurricane landfall; there has been no trend since 1950 evidencing any increased frequency of strong (F3-F-5) U.S. tornadoes; there has been no increase in U.S. flood magnitudes over the past 85 years; and long-term sea level rise is not accelerating.

Aug 21, 2017
"Whither U.S. Climate?
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999
What's happening to our climate? Was the heat wave and drought in the Eastern United States in 1999 a sign of global warming?
Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s "Dust Bowl" that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath."
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/


Aug 21, 2017
antdrive85; Please give me your view of why & how it is that the true believing alarmist who offer up comments on this site, (Phys.org), feel that they MUST call anyone who has enough logic to not believe the crap that they eat up by the bucket full, names and question if they are racist, misogynist, xenophobic enemies of the small part of humanity that believe as they do. Captain Stumpy believes that he is offering up valid scientific info when he presents links to Phys.org & skeptical science that claim to have peer reviewed studies. He has his equally in the dark side kick who can't even offer up any links to anything, HeloMenelo, calling people names that he thinks his mentor, Captain Stumpy, will pat him on the head and praise his latest display of ignorance as being a great thing to behold. These poor misinformed folks also place much faith in what the IPCC lies about.

Aug 21, 2017
"Normally one is careful not to mis-speak to legislators. Pachauri hardly began before telling a whopper: "The IPCC … mobilises the best experts and scientists from all over the world and we carry out an assessment of climate change based on peer-reviewed literature, so everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we don't settle for anything less than that" (emphasis added).
Pachauri was wrong, 5587 times wrong, because that's the number of non-peer-reviewed or "grey-lit" citations in the IPCC's 2007 assessment report—30 per cent of all citations, as journalist Donna Laframboise discovered.[4]


Aug 21, 2017
The grey-lit included press releases from Greenpeace and Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), not to mention a "first version of a draft". The science team even used grey-lit in preference to unwelcome peer-reviewed findings. As George Filippo, a 2002–08 IPCC vice-chair of Group 1 (science), put it in a Climategate e-mail in 2000:


Aug 21, 2017
In late 2009, the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests issued a sixty-page discussion paper by glacier expert Vijay Raina, who had a track record of forty years of glacier fieldwork and research. He concluded that the glaciers were not retreating abnormally, neither through global warming nor anything else. On November 9, 2009, New Delhi Television brought Pachauri on to its evening news to defend the IPCC report.[38]
I feel rather uncomfortable about using not only unpublished but also unreviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions) … I feel that at this point there are very little rules [sic] and almost anything goes.[5] "
http://quadrant.o...achauri/


Aug 21, 2017
This is an interesting report to read when one is being confronted by the alarmist lying about all of the retreating glaciers.
The inclusion of erroneous and inconsistent material in the section dealing with Himalayan glaciers has highlighted some serious flaws in how the IPCC creates its highly influential assessment reports.
http://scienceand...gate.pdf

Himalayan Glaciers
A State-of-Art Review of Glacial Studies,
Glacial Retreat and Climate Change
And we don't forget the Raina report;
http://gbpihed.go...iers.pdf This is a good report on glaciers in the Indian Himalayan Mountains.

Aug 22, 2017
@jd/swallows the denier political rhetoric acolyte TROLL liar
@TurdTROLL the sock denier idiot
This is an interesting report to read
all those posts and neither of you can actually present a coherent refute of any of the science

in light of the gish-gallop of stupidity above that is not only irrelevant but distraction from the point, i feel there is only one way to refute - this is pretty much defining your entire tactic above, both of you: https://isotropic...cken.pdf

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more