Search This Blog

Saturday, April 30, 2011

Greenhouse gas and the concept of Real Science versus PC Science.

Politically correct science is almost always fatally flawed.   If you look back at the history of science, you will see that Aristotle's way of looking at the world which became the Ptolemaic method of scientific reasoning was terribly flawed.  It was Aristotle's scientific method of postulation rather than investigation that led to the Roman Catholic Church to agree with Greek geocentricism, for instance, and it was God-fearing scientists like Copernicus, Brahe and Kepler who put heliocentricism on the table and eventually doubting scientists had to agree with them.   The scientific establishment fought against the idea of the Sun being at the center of the Solar System equally as hard as the rulers of the Church.  Keep in mind that the Church was part of the governance system of the past in Europe.  So therefore traditional scientists, the government and the church establishment were all against Copernican heliocentricism and only yielded after many years and in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Today we see that traditional science has revised the scientific method to include naturalism and that academics and scientists and governments have all conspired to prop up Darwinism and continually repeat the mantra that "Evolution is an established fact" when it is actually a failed hypothesis.  One day we will see the name of Henry Morris revered as a pioneer who led the fight against Darwinism much as Copernicus is revered now as a key scientist who fought the establishment and eventually had geocentricism eliminated by revealing it to be completely wrong even if accepted by the ruling paradigm.   When that day comes, this blog will be only one tiny fragment of the movement to bring Darwinism to it's knees and see it beheaded and debunked but it will be a great day for both me and mankind.

Much like Darwinism, the concept of Anthropic Global Warming is yet another ridiculous and fraudulent concept that is exceedingly harmful to mankind and is also politically correct.  Scientist For Truth lays out the situation nicely below:


World Food Supplies and Carbon Emissions

We are constantly hearing reports that a new revolution in agriculture is necessary to feed the world. With hysterical propaganda the media are hectoring us that global warming/climate change is going to make matters worse and reduce crop yields. In the June issue of National Geographic there is a special report entitled The end of plenty: the global food crisis. The article pays homage to the eighteenth century cleric Thomas Malthus as though he were a prophet, such as in his saying that “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man”. That was absolute rot in his day, and it’s absolute rot now. There was a ‘power in the earth’ that he knew nothing about – fossil fuels – that supported the greatest increase in subsistence, population and living standards this world has ever known, and can continue to do so even when the fuels are exhausted (as we shall see below). This world is never going to run out of carbon, water, nitrogen, phosphorous, or any other substance needed to grow crops, and when we can no longer get at them easily by using fossil fuels there will be another ‘power in the earth’ called uranium, and from that plutonium, that will enable us to extract them and produce them in the forms we need from all the materials at our disposal.

But such deranged thinking as Malthus committed to writing has been embraced by the neo-Malthusians, who are intent on reducing the population of the world by two thirds by getting the developed world to buy into evil policies such as reduction in fossil fuel use, introducing wasteful carbon capture and storage, embracing hugely inefficient and silly ‘renewable’ energy schemes rather than cheaper modern nuclear power, and use of biofuels, which take land out of food production and massively increase food prices, all in the end causing poverty, starvation and death to those at the bottom of the ladder in the developing world.

But what if we could introduce a supply of nutrient into farming as a by-product of improved lifestyles that would cost nothing, was completely harmless to all life forms, would need no human labour to apply, and would be effective at improving crop yields on all foods crops in every part of the world? This nutrient would improve crop yields by 30-100%, would enable crops to grow in arid soils with poor nutrients and little water, would make crops resistant to frost and heat damage, would enable crops to grow in areas of high salination and high air pollution, would speed up and shorten the growing cycle, would require less light, would allow most of the world’s crops to out-compete native weeds, would reduce the need for pesticide and weedkiller, would reduce soil erosion, would improve nitrogen fixation, and would reduce food prices…would you be interested? Unlike so-called ‘organic farming’, which permanently poisons the soil with copper salts and makes agriculture extremely inefficient, and food more expensive, and so plays into the hands of the Malthusians, this nutrient has massive benefits across the range. This wonderful nutrient is called carbon dioxide, and an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has all these wonderful beneficial effects without a shadow of a doubt.

There is a conspiracy of silence on this. The weedkiller and pesticide manufacturers don’t want this known; neither do those who are doing genetic modification; there’s no money in this for them. The fervent believers in the new Eco-religion, whether they know it or not, are in the pocket of the Malthusians and doing their bidding, and certainly don’t want this inconvenient truth known. The very policies of trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (or, with carbon capture and storage, taking them out of the atmosphere completely so that they can never be of any use to anyone – a very wicked policy) are directed towards robbing the world of the very benefits it needs to feed more people and reduce food prices.

This truly is a conspiracy of gigantic and horrific proportions: the article in National Geographic has not a single word to say about the direct effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 on crop growth, robustness and resource requirements – that in an article about the future of global food crops, which are all made of carbon compounds photosynthesized from carbon atoms sequestered from atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, unlike the global warming hypotheses, which are scientific fraud and have been falsified, the positive benefits of increasing atmospheric CO2 can be – and have been – tested in laboratories and field trials for decades. Anyone can read the results of painstaking research in the literature, and any test centre can reproduce all the beneficial effects described in the previous paragraph, and within weeks and months can confirm the truth of them – this is real reproducible hard science. There are literally thousands of published papers detailing hard scientific results, going back decades. So important is this, and so completely are we being duped to adopt exactly the opposite policy on carbon dioxide to the great detriment of the world’s poorest, that we are dedicating several posts over the coming months to set out the actual scientific evidence for all to see. We will prove all of the points made in favour of CO2 above, and many more. The evidence is incontrovertible.

The agronomist Dr Sylvan Wittwer, Director Emeritus of the Agricultural Experiment Station at Michigan State University and Professor Emeritus of Horticulture, former Chairman of the Board on Agriculture of the National Research Council, consultant for all International Agricultural Research Centers, and all U.S. federal agencies relating to agriculture and environment, and author of more than 750 peer-reviewed studies, in his excellent book Food, Climate, and Carbon Dioxide: The Global Environment and World Food Production (CRC Press, 1995) summarizes the situation as follows:
As far as food and agricultural crops are concerned with variables thus far imposed, most growth responses to elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are favourable. They include increases in total dry weight, root growth, higher root/top ratios, leaf area, weight per unit area, leaf thickness, stem height, branching and seed, and fruit number and weight. Organ size may also increase along with root/top ratios…Important for agriculture is that there is an increase in the harvest index and the marketable product, and a shortening of the growing season with earlier maturity resulting in reductions in both water and pesticide requirement.
But Wittwer saw that, going back to the 1970s (when the neo-Malthusians hit upon the idea of scaring the world with global warming and pinning the cause on industrial development),
There has been, and still remains, a great reluctance on the part of many climatologists and ecologists, and especially environmentalists, to accept the concept that the rising level of CO2 could be more beneficial than harmful for plant growth, food production, and the overall biosphere (Rozema et al, 1993). Yet the scientific evidence is overwhelming.
Since scientists are supposed to deal with factual evidence, Wittwer thus could discern what he describes a ‘mystery’, and expresses surprise with a touch of irony about ‘an educated and enlightened generation’:
One of the remaining mysteries of modern science and technology, and presumably an educated and enlightened generation, is that in the majority of studies of global food security (FAO, 1981, 1984, 1986; Meadows et al., 1972; Crosson and Anderson, 1992) there is a failure to factor in any climate variables, even though climate is the most determinative factor in agricultural productivity (Oram, 1989
Since Witter wrote that there have been a whole raft of reports that have included aspects of climate – but only the hypothetical negative ones concocted by the climate alarmists of course, and with the neglect of all the positive aspects such as increased CO2, which are hard scientific facts, not discredited hypotheses. This makes it no longer merely a deficiency in the analysis, which is bad enough, but a premeditated unscientific and wholly irrational negative bias on the analysis bent on promoting the reduction of CO2 emissions because of their alleged effects on climate change (the convenient lie), but in realty because of their actual beneficial effects (the inconvenient truth). It is now too kind to describe this as a ‘mystery’.

Wittwer continues
Furthermore, seldom, if ever, in textbooks and other documentaries on agricultural food production, are the fertilizing effects of atmospheric CO2 acknowledged. This was true over 30 years ago (Norman, 1962). Now, after more than a century [of controlled experiments, and the evidence of the benefits over the whole twentieth century], and with the confirmation of thousands of scientific reports, CO2 gives the most remarkable response of all nutrients in plant bulk, is usually in short supply [note well!], and is nearly always limiting for photosynthesis [i.e. its shortage rather than other factors usually sets the limits on the rate of photosynthesis]. Moreover, in some of the latest reports and projections on world food production and security, the rising levels of atmospheric CO2 as a contributing plant growth factor do not receive mention (Crosson and Anderson, 1992; Edwards et al., 1990; Per Pinstrup-Andersen, 1994; World Food Council, 1992.)
Yes, there’s a conspiracy of silence, but this issue is going to receive more than a mention on this site.

~~~~~~

 

There were no factories during the time of the Medieval Warming Period, a time of plenty for humanity, when crops and animal farming took place in Greenland, when grapes grew in Britain, when the world food supply allowed for the growth and spread of humanity and civilization.  The cycle of warming and cooling that the Earth undergoes is caused primarily by Solar activity and the tiny fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is not enough to cause such changes but is nothing more than plant food.  Yes, all this "going green" nonsense is a result of paganism aka environmentalism that has no basis in scientific evidence and is in fact counter to what we know about the impact of CO2 on the planet.  More of it means plants grow faster and need less water.   We should be cheering for those who produce CO2, not taxing them or forcing them to quit doing it!

Malthus and Darwinism and Eugenics are historically linked.  Such hypotheses are used by those seeking to control others to form tyrannical forms of government.  You and I, if you live in the USA, are experiencing a recession right now because the EPA, an arm of the executive branch that makes determinations outside of legislative action, has stopped new drilling for oil, stopped a natural gas pipeline from the North to the mainland of the USA, has stopped atomic energy plants...has stopped businesses from seeking out and producing more energy, thus stopping job growth and bringing more Americans into poverty.   The Obama Administration is the overseer to the EPA.  Need I say more?  Your higher prices at the gas pump, the grocery store, the doctor and everywhere are being raised artificially by the actions of your own government!!!  One reason why?  Politically correct thought, which is anti-science and pagan in origin.  Cue Dr. Beisner:

The Competing World Views of Environmentalism and Christianity

E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D.
Founder and National Spokesman
The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation

Religion is the root of any culture, and environmentalism has become a full-fledged religion in its own right. It is the most comprehensive substitute in the world today for Christianity so far as world view, theology, ethics, politics, economics, and science are concerned, and you need to understand it in order to counter it effectively, from presuppositions to policies, from classroom to movie theater, from evening network news to Internet and local newspaper.

And because environmentalism—the word coming from French meaning “surroundings,” that is, “everything,” and so meaning literally “everythingism”—because environmentalism is inherently totalitarian, demanding to define and control every aspect of life, it aims to take control of our entire political and legal structure, and indeed has already advanced far in that direction over the last three decades. You, as an individual, have a tremendously important role to play in the church’s battle against this impostor, with its alternative world view, its substitute doctrines of God, creation, man, sin, and salvation, and its lethal mix of bogus science and Marxist economics that threaten to fulfill the radical environmentalists’ and deep ecologists’ dream of ending industrial society and forcing humanity back into a primitive lifestyle—in which, as Thomas Hobbes put it, life was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Read the Rest (pdf)

4 comments:

creeper said...

"Today we see that traditional science has revised the scientific method to include naturalism"

Once again you're confusing (or confused about) the terms.

The scientific method uses methodological naturalism. It always has, whether Christians or Muslims or Atheists or whathaveyou used the method.

As for metaphysical naturalism, that is not part of the scientific method, nor has it ever been part of the scientific method. Scientists today use pretty much the same method the way it was developed centuries ago. Metaphysical naturalism isn't part of the scientific method today.

You just don't like the results, not because they prove the non-existence of God (they don't), but because it clashes with your particular interpretation of the Bible.

"continually repeat the mantra that "Evolution is an established fact" when it is actually a failed hypothesis"

Again, you're confusing two different things. The theory of evolution is generally referred to as such, a theory. You can call it a "failed hypothesis" all you want, but it's telling that in your years of trying to disprove it, you've never done better than a pile of logical fallacies (say, arguments from incredulity, e.g. if it's complex it must be designed) and demonstrations of a complete misunderstanding of science (witness your memorable claim that evolution was disproven because bacteria didn't turn into something other than bacteria in a lab experiment).

You still haven't come up with the beef. So when you keep claiming that evolution is "a failed hypothesis" like a broken record, it's hardly persuasive.

The fact of evolution refers to something else altogether. The highly consistent appearance of fossils in the fossil record in a certain order, along with other supporting evidence, is solid proof that organisms did evolve over time. It indicates that evolution happened. There is no serious controversy about this part.

The "fact of evolution" refers to evolution having occurred, while the "theory of evolution" is an attempt to explain how it occurred.

Do you understand the distinction? Do you care?

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

No, creeper, I'm sure he doesn't.

Radar: "When that day comes, this blog will be only one tiny fragment of the movement to bring Darwinism to it's knees and see it beheaded and debunked but it will be a great day for both me and mankind."

And you said I had a high opinion of myself? Ye'd best be after gettin' some medical attention for that arm, for 'tis sure it'll be out of joint after pattin' yourself on the back so hard.

radar said...

Creeper, are you going to misrepresent the scientific method on every blogpost I write now?

Scientific investigation was birthed by Roger Bacon and restated clearly by Sir Francis Bacon. It does not include or exclude naturalism, in fact it does not address naturalism. Religion was not part of the language of scientific exploration. It went without saying that scientists believed in a Creator God. Once Pagans got ahold of science they began to take us back in time. If we don't stop them we will go from hugging trees to worshiping them. Or is it too late for you?

creeper said...

"Creeper, are you going to misrepresent the scientific method on every blogpost I write now?"

I didn't misrepresent the scientific method even once. I will, however, correct you on your insistent misrepresentation of all naturalism, whether methodological or metaphysical (they are two different things), as being metaphysical naturalism. They are two different things, and metaphysical naturalism is not being imposed on modern science. You're not getting the results you want, but there are most likely other reasons for that.

Modern scientists use methodological naturalism and have done so since the scientific revolution - whether they were Christians or not. And, more importantly, regardless of whether they were metaphysical naturalists or not.

"Scientific investigation was birthed by Roger Bacon and restated clearly by Sir Francis Bacon. It does not include or exclude naturalism,"

Look up methodological naturalism and explain how the scientific method does not include methodological naturalism.

" in fact it does not address naturalism. Religion was not part of the language of scientific exploration."

The fact that you directly segue to a discussion of religion makes it perfectly clear that what you have in mind when you say "naturalism" above is metaphysical naturalism. The scientific method doesn't include metaphysical naturalism, correct, but of course it includes methodological naturalism. That's why it's not very helpful when you simply say "naturalism", as it quickly leads to confusion (not least your own, as we can see here).

"It went without saying that scientists believed in a Creator God."

"By the late Middle Ages the search for natural causes had come to typify the work of Christian natural philosophers. Although characteristically leaving the door open for the possibility of direct divine intervention, they frequently expressed contempt for soft-minded contemporaries who invoked miracles rather than searching for natural explanations. The University of Paris cleric Jean Buridan (a. 1295-ca. 1358), described as "perhaps the most brilliant arts master of the Middle Ages," contrasted the philosopher’s search for "appropriate natural causes" with the common folk’s habit of attributing unusual astronomical phenomena to the supernatural. In the fourteenth century the natural philosopher Nicole Oresme (ca. 1320–82), who went on to become a Roman Catholic bishop, admonished that, in discussing various marvels of nature, "there is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly, more so than those effects whose causes we believe are well known to us."

"Ronald L. Numbers (2003). "Science without God: Natural Laws and Christian Beliefs." In: When Science and Christianity Meet, edited by David C. Lindberg, Ronald L. Numbers. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, p. 267.

You see, Radar, just because someone believes in God doesn't mean that they're willing to forsake methodological naturalism.

Your bigotry occasionally makes you brand some terms as evil or undesirable, sometimes blinding you to their provenance. Naturalism is not "the enemy" and started in the Christian camp, the same way, for example, that humanism started out as a Christian philosophy.

"Once Pagans got ahold of science they began to take us back in time. If we don't stop them we will go from hugging trees to worshiping them. Or is it too late for you?"

Now you're just veering off into incoherence. What does any of this have to do with Paganism? And how exactly do you think "Pagans got ahold of science"? How has the scientific method today been changed?

-- creeper