The science is settled!

The earth is NOT moving, ya dumb Ahole!

A scientist attacked for his doubts about AGW thinks of an earlier example.

The book by Nicholas Copernicus of Torun was printed not long ago and published in recent days. In it he tries to revive the teaching of certain Pythagoreans concerning the Earth’s motion, a teaching which had died out in times long past.

Nobody accepts it now except Copernicus. [Copernicus is] an expert in mathematics and astronomy, but he is very deficient in physics. … Hence, since Copernicus does not understand physics … it is not surprising if he is mistaken in this opinion and accepts the false as true, through ignorance of those sciences … it is stupid to contradict a belief accepted by everyone over a very long time for extremely strong reasons, unless the naysayer uses more powerful and incontrovertible proofs, and completely rebuts the opposed reasoning.

Copernicus does not do this at all. For he does not undermine the proofs, establishing necessary conclusions, advanced by Aristotle the philosopher and Ptolemy the astronomer.Aristotle absolutely destroyed the arguments of the Pythagoreans. Yet this is not adduced by Copernicus in his ignorance of it.

Almost all the hypotheses of this author Copernicus contain something false, and very many absurdities follow from them. … For by a foolish effort [Copernicus] tries to revive the contrived Pythagorean belief, long since deservedly buried, since it explicitly contradicts human reason.


Filed under Uncategorized

11 responses to “The science is settled!

  1. Island Surveyor

    The last time I checked, three squared plus four squared still equaled five squared. So I think Pythagoras got that part right.

    And the last time I downloaded my predictive ephemeris from the U S Naval Observatory (that’s where Biden lives, and where the rotation of the earth is calibrated to predict the sun’s apparent location in the sky, and thus to have tables to compute one’s longitude at sea) the tables and predictive equations still have the sun revolving around the earth. And those tables are amazingly accurate.

    So what’s your point? You might try a rebuttal of Gore’s Op-Ed article on a rational basis.

  2. But what young scientist would be wise to use Copernicus as his role model? His nutty ideas about the Earth going around the sun nearly derailed his scientific career! There’s no way he’d get his own lab at any good university nowadays, much less tenure.

    Jonah Lehrer wrote a scary article in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago about this very subject:

    In 1980, the largest share of grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) went to scientists in their late 30s. By 2006 the curve had been shifted sharply to the right, with the highest proportion of grants going to scientists in their late 40s. This shift came largely at the expense of America’s youngest scientists. In 1980, researchers between the ages of 31 and 33 received nearly 10% of all grants; by 2006 they accounted for approximately 1%.

  3. Inagua

    Island Surveyor makes a good point. The place of the earth in the solar system was a proveable either/or proposition. So were the the most recent Alarmist scares — population bomb; limits of growth; diminishing resources, Y2K, etc. All were proven wrong by subsequent events.

    But climate is not an either/or proposition. It is very complex, and the relative role of sun spots, water temperatures, man-made emissions, etc. is not clear. Moreover, accurate measurement of global mean temperature has only been possible since satellites.

    This debate will rage for a long time. For the moment all that can said for sure is that the hockey stick prediction didn’t happen and that Alarmist Phil Jones admitted that “there has been no statistically significant global warming for fifteen years.”

  4. Island Surveyor

    CO2 on Venus keeps things hot enough to melt lead on the surface of that planet.

    Sending up CO2 on earth from 250 to 500 ppm by burning coal and oil for heat (get it) will shortly melt the rest of the ice off the mountains.

    Sea level rise is no hockey stick.

    January 2010 is our warmest January since measurements and record-keeping began.

    This all won’t seem so funny by summer.

  5. Arouet

    The debate will certainly rage. As a non-scientist with zero education or direct knowledge of the matter, I’ve already made my decision:

    On the one hand, you have an IPCC collaborative document over 2800 pages long with 18,000 biographical footnotes condensed into an executive summary that could not be shortened to less than 22 pages, with contributions from thousands of scientists all over the world who received no monetary compensation for their contributions, and which includes contradictory viewpoints.

    On the other hand, you have research compiled by fossil fuel companies, and snowstorms in Washington DC.

    One side wants to enslave the world. The other side wants to increase EPS and accompanying bonuses.

    My conclusion: climate change is a bunch of nonsense. It’s far more commensurate with my worldly experience that evil scientists want to rule the world, than that energy company CEO’s want to increase their net worth. Hence, Chevron’s views on this are gospel.

    Moreover, thank God for our American genius superhero Key Opinion Leaders like Palin, Beck and Inhofe. They will certainly prevail over the evil scientist KOLs in China, who are actually convincing that gullible tree-hugging hippie dippie nation to lead the 21st Century in global green energy technology. Screw that bridge to nowhere. I’m betting on the “drill baby drill” pony.

    Island Surveyor, go pound sand. On a beach. That one in Arizona you keep imagining.

  6. Cos Cobber

    Arouet, dont kid yourself, with regulation comes power, influence and new possibilities to profit. Young “green tech” start-ups and their financiers (some located here in town) have as much of a monetary interest to push the green agenda as oil and coal do to push back. They are fighting over the same engery dollars.

    Cap and trade, organics, fair trade, recycling and alt engery all have major profit potential. The profit potential is only increased if the fear science is pushed along as a plow to make way for the new regulatory order.

    I know some people who have been running down these avenues for a while now laying the ground work. When they make their billions in 20 years, they may be less likly to buy a hummer, but they are still going to pursue profit and their own self interst at similar capacity as the oil and coal barrons.

    Don’t get me wrong, I think a lot of what green tech has to offer is actually of value to society. My issue is that we need to be realistic about the cost to get there. Many of the proposed federal regulations will just be too costly. For instance, cap and trade will ultimately translate into a massive unprogressive tax. Furthermore, it will force all engery intensive business overseas resulting in no real change except a metal fabricator in Iowa losing his job to one in Mexico whose factory isnt under the same environmental regulations.

    I’d rather have peer presure and companies pushing their own green products upon us than state legislatures, judges and congress duking it out.

    Societal peer pressure has already hoisted a fair amount of change over 20 years. Lets keep pushing that.

  7. atticus

    Michael Crichton was the best and he suffered no fools like AlGore. He stated the global warming crowd was all politics, little science:

    Go to youtube for Crichton’s debates and Charlie Rose interviews. AlGore, the law school dropout, debates no one. “Shut up” he argues.

  8. atticus

    California Institute of Technology
    Pasadena, CA
    January 17, 2003

    An historical approach detailing how over the last thirty years scientists have begun to intermingle scientific and political claims.

  9. anony-moose

    Crichton’s credentials were merely that he was a reasonably smart fella – I gave him no further weight than any other reasonably smart fella, many of which did not agree with him on the issue of climate change.

    At the governmental / media level, politics rule the day when it comes to discussing climate change. It’s blowhards vs. blowhards out there. But our questions about climate and man’s relation to it will be answered not by blowhards, but by front line grunts – scientists.

    If anyone is interested in a less blowhardy source from the ardent supporters of man-made climate change, check out this site: . I certainly don’t mean to suggest that everything that comes out of their mouths is sacrosanct, but some may be interested in hearing that side of the debate from less…Al Gore-like figures.

  10. atticus

    You just proved that anyone can have an opinion.

    Crichton was a genius, not merely smart. Harvard Med grad, Salk Inst, #1 book, movie and tv show (ER) at the same time. Writer of computer books and director. There is and was no one in his class.

    A true Renaissance man, Crichton’s view will stand the test of time. He spent the last two years of his life refuting the merely smart et al.

    And he wasn’t getting money for it, like the warming alarmists.

  11. Island Surveyor

    And you thought it was cold? Look Again: