Climate of suspicion
in [Physics]
|
From: wsnell01 on 25 Jan 2010 10:11 On Jan 23, 12:55 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/22/10 11:50 PM, Claudius Denk wrote: > > > On Jan 22, 4:32 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Climate of suspicion > >> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html > > >> "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors > >> will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. > > > Unfortunately for the AGW alarmists the public is beginning to accept > > the facts. > > The public, very unfortunately, is rarely very informed about science. What "science" would that be, Sam?
From: Sam Wormley on 25 Jan 2010 14:14 On 1/25/10 9:11 AM, wsnell01(a)hotmail.com wrote: > On Jan 23, 12:55 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 1/22/10 11:50 PM, Claudius Denk wrote: >> >>> On Jan 22, 4:32 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Climate of suspicion >>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html >> >>>> "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors >>>> will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. >> >>> Unfortunately for the AGW alarmists the public is beginning to accept >>> the facts. >> >> The public, very unfortunately, is rarely very informed about science. > > > What "science" would that be, Sam? Here is an example: Despite its importance to economic growth, environmental protection, and global health and energy issues, scientific literacy is currently low among American adults. According to the national survey commissioned by the California Academy of Sciences: Only 53% of adults know how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun. Only 59% of adults know that the earliest humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time. Only 47% of adults can roughly approximate the percent of the Earth�s surface that is covered with water. Only 21% of adults answered all three questions correctly.
From: palsing on 25 Jan 2010 15:58 On Jan 25, 12:42 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > If that Iowa farmboy ever gets another brainwave in importing dummies > from the sci.physics forum by crossposting he should be censured and > that is as far as it goes. HE should be censured? What a jester you are. If this had been a moderated forum, YOU would have been banned years ago. If you refuse to recognize frames of reference, you are doomed to continue to be the laughingstock here... BTW, I, too, would like to know, 15 degrees per hour relative to what? After all, ALL angular measurements must be taken with respect to something...
From: Androcles on 26 Jan 2010 06:06 "oriel36" <kelleher.gerald(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:429f146f-54d8-4aec-bf12-97b90a42abb5(a)h34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... I actually need adults who can understand a very basic cause and effect - the length of twilight at different latitudes is dependent on different latitudinal speeds with the definite maximum speed at the equator being 1037.5 miles per hour and 800 miles per hour at 60 degree latitude thereby affirming a round and rotating Earth insofar as 1037.5 miles * 24 hours equates to a full 360 degree equatorial circumference. ======================================= Adults understand the Earth turns 361 degrees relative to the Sun each 24 hours and 360 degrees relative to the fixed stars in 23h 56m 4s. No adult needs Kellerher's juvenile idiocies or ranting against Newton and Flamsteed. The ball is on the train, the train goes round the Xmas tree. Adults understand. Dumbshit Kellerher does not.
From: palsing on 26 Jan 2010 22:24
On Jan 26, 3:16 pm, Mike Collins <acridiniumes...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > On 26 Jan, 16:17, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > "For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes > > stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are > > always seen direct, " Newton > > You keep posting this quote thinking it supports your misplaced views. > Anyone with a trace of a visual imagination can understand what Newton > is referring to. In what way is this Newton quote wrong? He can't answer because he doesn't actually understand Newton's words at all. If he DID suddenly understand them, it would completely un-do many, many of his other 'theories', which are all completely based on, well, pictures... just pictures. |