New Aussie skeptic movement

This is a shout out for people to have a look at:

click to visit website

Some background:

From http://www.galileomovement.com.au/who_we_are.php

We care about freedom, security, the environment, humanity and our future.

The Galileo Movement’s co-founders are retirees Case Smit and John Smeed. Their business backgrounds are in science and engineering – science’s real-world application. Their experience is in environmental protection and ensuring air quality.

At first they simply accepted politicians’ claims of global warming blamed on human production of carbon dioxide (CO2). When things didn’t add up, they each separately investigated. Stunned, they discovered what many people are now discovering: climate claims by some scientists and politicians contradict observed facts.

Case Smit John Smeed

Case Smit (left) and John Smeed

Supported by their wives and risking their personal finances they underwrote and organised an Australian tour by Lord Monckton – famous for explaining the scientific data, the statistics and the UN bureaucracy’s political fabrication of global warming alarm.

Overwhelmed by enormous public response, John and Case discovered that people feel confused. In their gut many Australians sense that climate change is natural and that climate has always been changing. People want to discover understanding and clarity for themselves.

Through their voluntary effort, Case and John freed many people previously afraid to speak out publicly.

Mixing with everyday Aussies during the tour they became frustrated: despite the tour’s huge success, it got little media reporting. The key to ending corruption of science and politicised misappropriation of public funds is to reach out to people directly by enabling people to discover climate reality themselves. People are then free to protect Australia, workers, families, jobs and industry against politicised misrepresentation of science. Voters will have the power to influence politicians of all parties to vote against any carbon dioxide taxing or ‘trading’.

This site explains Case’s and John’s apolitical public campaign. It gives visitors reassurance and ease on climate. It’s a rallying point to a mainstream media voice for the growing majority of Australians wanting to reclaim their lives from media spin and politicians’ control.

It provides clear, easy choices. It shows how we can each confidently express our care by taking simple effective action – to stop all carbon dioxide taxes and ‘trading’ schemes and protect our security, freedom, environment and future.

Co-founders:

The Galileo Movement is the initiative of two retirees – Case Smit and John Smeed – strongly supported by their wives Corrie and Suzanne.

Case Smit:

Case was founder and owner of Environmental Health Services (Aust) Pty Ltd, an organisation that monitored and advised on the effects of their environment on people’s health. Science degree, BSc (chemistry & metallurgy), Certified Industrial Hygienist, Chartered (Environmental) Professional; He’s a grandad.

John Smeed:

John is a retired, national engineering excellence award winning professional engineer – www.johnsmeed.com.au. He founded and built a successful Sydney based Australia-wide operational, design-construct air conditioning company with 140 staff including 14 professional engineers. He maintains control of an environmentally excellent Australian combustion technology company and still undertakes occasional international engineering consulting briefs for unusually challenging air-conditioning projects.

Case and John both live on the waterfront in Noosa and are both concerned about the horrifying economic and social implications of the proposed legislation for taxing and ‘trading’ carbon dioxide. The huge impact on their children’s and grandchildren’s future stimulates their dedication to exposing and ending the Government’s dangerous campaign.

Both remain passionate about protecting the environment and the use of objective science based on real-world evidence. They see the Galileo Movement as a vehicle for people to contribute to the progress of the last five hundred years by confronting the falsehoods of Post Normal Science and promoting support for Real World Science to make people’s lives safer, easier, more comfortable, healthier, wealthier and freer.

Founders’ backgrounds on global warming:

John and Case initially accepted claims of global warming due to human activity. As appliers of science in the real world, they quickly became aware of inconsistencies in the political claims and spin. They each did their independent research to separately discover that political claims contradicted real-world science.

They are incensed by activists and academics misrepresenting science to falsely claim global warming is harmful and caused by humans. They are concerned by academics and activists hiding behind the appeal to authority, yet mostly unwilling to debate the facts in public.

Why Galileo?

Galileo Galilei (1564 to 1642) is a ‘father of science‘. An Italian physicist, mathematician, astronomer and philosopher, he played a vital role in the Scientific Revolution. He stood up publicly and almost lost his life to ensure objective science replaced superstition, ideology, ignorance and state control. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo

The ‘settled science‘ and frightened consensus of his peers was that the sun orbited Earth. Galileo proved them wrong. He then stood up to the entrenched, dogmatic religious and state beliefs suppressing the truth.

Thanks to Galileo and his early peers, objective science was born and replaced central control and intimidation. We enjoy freedom and many material blessings that make our life easier, safer, longer, more secure, more peaceful, wealthier and happier.

Taking his name, we honour his integrity and courage in championing freedom and protecting science. He replaced religious doctrine with solid observable data. His outspoken defence of truth is a rallying cry to all people valuing freedom and objective understanding of the world. His spirit guides us to ensure that we and future generations continue making the world a better place to live – by protecting the environment and making honest decisions based on factual scientific evidence.

Galileo had the courage to stand apart from the mob of philosophers and scientific explorers who bowed to bullying from religious and Government authority. He was enslaved that we could be free. His greatest gift is beyond his science, it is our freedom. Although he suffered, ironically the world has come around to him.

That is now threatened as ideology seeks to replace science and control seeks to replace freedom.

Project Leader

They invited Malcolm Roberts to be Project Leader. An engineer by training, his managerial and leadership experience included statutory responsibility for thousands of people’s lives based on his knowledge and real-world experience of atmospheric gases, including carbon dioxide. As a leader and then adviser in industry, he has dirtied his hands leading the cleaning of environmental legacies and setting new standards in environmental protection.

For almost four (4) years Malcolm has researched the science and politics of global warming. He speaks out passionately and strongly after discovering fraudulent misrepresentations of the science by advocates claiming humans are guilty of causing global warming.

His publicly available Personal Declaration of Interests is available on his web site

During their careers, John, Case and Malcolm have often seen people being rewarded for pleasing their boss, even to the detriment of their employer. This fundamental flaw in statism is driving climate alarm. In Government, it threatens freedom. Galileo stood up to statism. That’s cherished and admired by The Galileo Movement.

Administrative Support and Liaison

All the above positions are currently filled by unpaid volunteers.

The company will pay for clerical assistance and secretarial support on an hourly basis.

Lenore-Maree is an independent freelance bookkeeper and office manager engaged hourly.

Wives and associates helped define the Galileo Movement’s Purpose, Aims, Philosophy and Principles.

Purpose and Aims of the Galileo Movement:

by exposing misrepresentations

pushing a ‘price on carbon dioxide’

The Galileo Movement seeks to protect Australians and our future in five areas:

Protect freedom – personal choice and national sovereignty;

Protect the environment;

Protect science and restore scientific integrity;

Protect our economic security;

Protect people’s emotional healthby ending Government and activists’ constant destructive bombardment of fear and guilt on our kids and communities.

Addressing the real threat:

We address those five areas in four ways:

Exposing UN IPCC misrepresentation of science, climate and Nature;

Presenting real-world science and advocating for scientific evidence as the basis of policy;

Revealing economic damage from needless additional taxation burdening people already reeling under high and rising costs of living;

Revealing environmental damageof bureaucratic control taxing and ‘trading’ carbon dioxide.

Philosophy and Principles:

We see human freedom as essential for the benefit and progress of humankind and for protection of the environment. Freedom is the key to responsibility and sustainability.

With Earth’s large human population, environmental sustainability is essential for modern civilisation while civilisation is essential for sustainability. Instead of choosing either civilization or sustainability the reality is each needs and depends on the other.

Guiding Principles:

Governance and management of the Galileo Movement is guided by these principles:

Freedom: protect freedom and let people be free. Challenge the increasing imposition of Government control on people’s lives;

Honesty: rely on factual data, ensure decisions are based on facts;

Fact based science: protect and use science, a key to human progress, objective and fair decisions and freedom;

Respect for people: give people opportunity to speak up. Engage people so they want to be involved and are committed. Such people become owners. Give people a voice and provide a forum. It has been made politically incorrect, unfashionable and fearful to publicly state disagreement with the hypothesis that humans cause global warming. Convert that to an opportunity to take pride in speaking out. It’s OK to tell the truth. To factually express dissenting views is admired and valued;

Environment: protect the environment. Separate political claims of global warming from the environment as two (2) separate issues;

Non-political: The Galileo Movement is non-partisan. We want to appeal to all political parties;

Life enjoyment:Life is for living and enjoying

Intimidation through fear and guilt has been the weapon spreading climate alarm. People have a right to be free from that unfounded fear and guilt. Hundreds of millions of the world’s poor have a right to environmentally responsible prosperity.

Developed nations have earned the conditions for people to have easier lives in harmony with the natural environment. The developed world’s progression to liberal democracy has provided the privilege of opportunity for full life enjoyment.

The push to restrict human production of carbon dioxide is deadly with negative life-changing implications. Our campaign is serious. We aim to replace the fear and guilt heaped on us by reconnecting with life’s inherent joy. We can have some fun.

Independent advisers:

The Galileo Movement has available expert advice from Australian and international specialists across all diverse fields of global warming including meteorology and climate science, palaeoclimate, physical sciences (physics, chemistry), life sciences (biology), social science (economics), formal science (mathematics, statistics), communication, law.

These experts include eminent professors, PhD’s, scientists and people with diverse life experience including: Professor Tim Ball, Warwick Hughes, Professor Fred Singer, Professor Dick Lindzen, Professor Bill Kininmonth, Professor Bob Carter, Professor Ian Plimer, David Archibald, Professor Peter Ridd, Professor Garth Paltridge, Dr Vincent Gray, Dr Jennifer Marohasy, Jo Nova, Des Moore, John Nicol, David Flint, Andrew Bolt, John McLean, David Evans and Viscount Monckton.

This group includes diverse opinions to promote healthy debate producing greater scrutiny and rigour. The Galileo Movement does not claim that any of these advisers or our many other advisers endorse all opinions or actions of The Galileo Movement or this web site. Nor is The Galileo Movement bound to follow the advice of all those who provide advice.

Malcolm Roberts has often invited evidence and data from advocates of human causes of global warming.

Patron:

The Galileo Movement’s patron is Australia’s own Alan Jones. Alan has a long history of speaking out for the downtrodden and for protecting freedom. His innate expertise straddles the fields of politics, sport and the media. His wealth of experience complements the basic science that is the Galileo Movement’s core.

Media Advisers:

Paid services as needed provided by Jackson Wells, Sydney.

Expected Life and Strategy:

Short-term: inform citizens through the internet and affiliated organisations.

Medium-term strategy: raise funding to inform citizens by influencing and purchasing media time.

The ultimate aim is to use pressure from voters and non-voters to persuade our politicians of all parties that restricting Australia’s production of carbon dioxide is futile, wasteful and dangerous.

Expected life-span: The intent is to terminate the Galileo Movement when the push to price carbon dioxide is destroyed. That’s anticipated to be by the next federal election.

Funding: The Galileo Movement Ltd is a non-profit company limited by guarantee (ACN: 149 463 687). Its two (2) directors are its co-founders: John Smeed and Case Smit.

It will invite memberships and donations to be used to inform Australians about climate and the danger and futility of taxing and ‘trading’ carbon dioxide.

The Galileo Movement will have expenses associated with web site, publicity, buying advice and contacts from professional media consultants and managing records and interacting with members.

As a non-profit organisation its intention is to devote all money raised to informing citizens.

Any surplus funds at the termination of The Galileo Movement will be donated to the Royal Flying Doctor Service to provide support to those in need of real climate research.

Accountants:

Houston and Company, Sydney.

Where possible and except where donors request anonymity, all donations will be identified with donors names for the purpose of maintain records and auditing.

Affiliations:

The Galileo Movement is building affiliations with climate, scientific and associated organisations. These affiliations provide links to people concerned about misrepresentation of science by the Government, Government agencies and some academic institutes dependent on Government grant funding.

Privacy policy:

Unless we obtain people’s permission to do otherwise and subject to compliance with valid court or legal orders, we will keep people’s personal information confidential. Please clickto see our detailed policy.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the many people worldwide from diverse backgrounds who worked tirelessly and mostly without any compensation to keep Galileo’s pioneering spirit alive as science was assaulted. Thank you for your work in protecting science, protecting the natural environment, protecting our economic security and protecting the human spirit from alarmists’ constant bombarding of fear and guilt. Most of all, thank you for protecting freedom.

We acknowledge scientists, many retired who sprang into life to protect science and Nature. As the UN and extremists cloaked in green tarnished ‘science’, your total dedication to restoring scientific integrity has rekindled many people’s faith in science and reliance on objective real-world observation. Much appreciated.

http://www.galileomovement.com.au

Advertisements

73 thoughts on “New Aussie skeptic movement

  1. I know this was posted before. But:
    “Carbon warming too minor to be worth worrying about
    By David Evans
    The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.”
    David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The comments above were made to the Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, on March 23.
    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/

  2. After a quick look their website looks to be good. Comprehensive section on “the corruption”. I imagine this will become a well used resource not only by Australians.

  3. The best of luck to them, let’s hope they can stay ahead of the Inquisition
    I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei of Florence, being 70 years old… swear that I have always believed, believe now and, with God’s help, will in the future believe all that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church doth hold, preach and teach. But since, after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the Universe and immovable, and that the Earth is not the center of the same and that it moves. That I was neither to hold, defend, nor teach in any manner whatsoever, either orally or in writing, the said false doctrine. After having received a notification that the said doctrine is contrary to Holy Writ, I wrote and published a book in which I treat this condemned doctrine and bring forward very persuasive arguments in its favor without answering them. I have been judged vehemently suspected of heresy, that is of having held and believed that the Sun is at the center of the Universe and immovable, and that the Earth is not at the center and that it moves. Therefore, wishing to remove from the minds of your Eminences and all faithful Christians this vehement suspicion reasonably conceived against me, I abjure with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith these errors and heresies. I curse and detest them as well as any other error, heresy or sect contrary to the Holy Catholic Church. And I swear that for the future I shall neither say nor assert orally or in writing such things as may bring upon me similar suspicions. And if I know any heretic, or one suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place in which I may be.” – Galileo Galilei (recanting his scientific beliefs before the Inquistion,1633)

  4. I agree with John in NZ – it looks like a well thought out site. Their “The Science & Futility” page has some good links for basic facts, which they talk you through pretty well. I’m sure a link to them will appear soon on the RH side of this page.
    Good luck to them.

  5. This is fantastic…for Aussies.
    Please, please consider making this a worldwide movement as the rest of the industrialised world has the same problem but nobody organised to fight it. This looks very profesional and potentially could become the anti-Greenpeace. I would suggest making it worldwide and closing it down when all AGW policies are rescinded (and maybe AGW ‘scientists’ jailed, perhaps?)

  6. There is some question about whether warming is even still occurring. If it is, the extent has been exaggerated.
    But the thing that really must be communicated is: warming and CO2 are both beneficial for the biosphere. The alarmism is therefore EVIL.
    If you want to save the planet, save it from the bio-killing paradigms.

  7. From “Maxwell Dworkin” on May 16, 2011 at 11:49 am:

    At risk of bearing witness to fratricide, I look forward to this new movement debating this old one :
    http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/

    Oh my! First you unabashedly smear Willis Eschenbach, a man of such great intellect and knowledge that you could not hope to successfully debate him on the scientific facts, but now you invoke a “the Earth really is the center of the universe” “geocentric” group as a rival for a new climate skeptics group!
    What happened, referencing the Flat Earth Society was too obvious?
    Oh well, at least you adopted for your nom de plume the name of a computer science and electrical engineering building at Harvard. That puts you one (tiny) step above the usual drive-by trolls. ☺

  8. Maxwell Dworkin – wow – great link. That’s right up there with the earth will end on the 21st : http://www.familyradio.com
    This new project and website looks very well thought out. I love how comprehensive their links are. Looks like a good approach.
    And Max, if you were serious, they are not denying it warms. They are just pointing out there is nothing extraordinary about it.
    The term climate change skeptic is hilarious. I don’t know any of those.

  9. Great idea! If they are looking for a motto they could adopt the motto of the Church of Scotland.
    Una Est Veritas et Praevalebit.
    ( There is one truth, and it shall prevail.)

  10. Will the Galileo Movement recruit his Eminence Cardinal Pell to serve as their confessor?
    Here for the benefit of Kakada, is Willis’s entire scientific opus:
    Brief Communications Arising
    Nature 430, (15 July 2004) | doi:10.1038/nature02689; Published online 14 July 2004
    Ecology: Climate-change effect on Lake Tanganyika?
    Willis W. Eschenbach1
    Top of page
    Arising from: C. M. O’Reilly, S. R. Alin, P. -D. Plisnier, A. S. Cohen & B. A. McKee Nature 424, 766–768 (2003); O’Reilly et al. reply
    In their analysis of Lake Tanganyika’s ecosystem1, O’Reilly et al. claim that climate change, in the form of rising temperatures and falling winds, is causing a decline in the lake’s productivity. However, their own data show that air temperatures were either steady or dropped slightly between 1952 and 1978, rising only slightly between 1980 and 1992, and that wind speeds have increased by 35% since 1985. These climate changes therefore have no correlation with either lake temperature or productivity, so it cannot be inferred from their data that climate change is the cause of the productivity decline.
    That’s all folks- at 1 publication each, retired California TV weathermen and carpenters turned accountants in Melanesia seem to have reached equilibrium at around 1 peer reviewed word per thousand of unadulterated bloggerel.
    REPLY: Well if you don’t like the fact, note that there are plenty of bloggerels who haven’t even bothered to run the peer review gauntlet. There are bloggers without scruples that don’t put their name to their words, attacking from shadows, and there are commenters that create false names for the purposes of snark. Where do you fit in with all of that? You seem to have no scruples, having blogged under the following names here:
    “Maxwell Dworkin”
    “You distort we deride”
    “Dacron Mather”
    “Russell Seitz”
    So, sir, don’t lecture about integrity. You know nothing of it. But now having violated the site policy of WUWT for the last time (changing handles and emails), you are most certainly permanently banned from commenting further here. Go blow bubbles in the ocean. – Anthony

  11. Congratulations. Australia is attempting to crawl out from under a rock.
    Next: UK and US.

  12. Stunned, they discovered what many people are now discovering: climate claims by some scientists and politicians contradict observed facts.

    Some of the “observed facts” can be found here.
    Some of the “climate claims” can be found here.
    You can’t fool all of the people all of the time. :O)

  13. I think this is a fantastic campaign to the people of Australia; however I think it’s high time the record on Galileo is put straight for the readers here.
    In a fact just like the lies and distortion about carbon dioxide and global warming are put out to the press and media, so are the lies and distortion about the Galileo affair and the church as having been anti science in this regards.
    The first thing to point out and one issue that it’s completely left out in almost all of these debates, is who was Copernicus ? This is the guy all physics book quote and often refer to the Copernican motion system. Somehow the BIG detail is being left out here is that history records Copernicus as a devout Christian (in fact catholic priest). It is beyond dishonest to leave this detail out in any debate.
    So exactly how does a devout Christian throw out all their religious views out the window and go off and study a science system of motion that goes against his devout Christian beliefs? This makes absolutely no sense at all. In fact it only makes sense if you realize that the church never had a Geo centricity, or the idea that the earth is the center of the universe as an official teaching. The church does not and as noted there are approximately 1500 years of perhaps one of the most meticulously documented institutions here. No one can find ONE official doctrine that Christians are to believe the earth is a center of the universe. This teaching does NOT exist for the universal church.
    It’s also significantly important to note that pope Pope Clement VII on seeing an presentation of the Copernican system gave a valuable gift to the presenter. Again the MAIN point here is the Pope was open to differing views on the Earth being the center of the universe. Once AGAIN was this pope like Copernicus all of a sudden throwing out all his teachings and faith out the window?
    So all these folks are going against the teaching of the church makes NO SENSE!
    And even better is the statement by Cardinal Bellamy, who was the head of the inquiry against Galileo. He stated the following:
    I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not
    revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be
    necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of
    Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have
    misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.
    So he saying he is open to different views. However, he is ALSO staying that Galileo’s science and math doesn’t add up and you don’t have proof of your position. In other words he’s rejecting him on scientific grounds! In other words he simply stating to Galileo your proof doesn’t cut the mustard, and I’m not going to accept until you do have proof. That is what good scientists do!
    And as noted, stating in public that church doctrines are up for debate is instant grounds for excommunication!
    Now it’s possible the readers here are actually standing here and asking the church to have accepted a ridiculous teaching such as the sun being immovable! In other words if the church accepted Galileo’s teaching, then we could all point out what a silly position to hold and the church would still be criticized for accepting bad math and bad science!
    Furthermore the idea that the sun is the center of the universe is also another ridiculous statement. Once again are the people standing here saying the church should have accepted this teaching?
    Even worse is Galileo’s math could not explain the change of speed of the planet’s going around in orbit. Simply put the mathematics Galileo’s put forward and offered did not and could not support his claim about the planets going around in circles. The church found those errors in that math. In fact as I pointed out children in grade school today know the difference between a circle and ellipse. In other words Galileo failed the inquiry on SCIENTIFIC grounds!.
    The institution thus upheld good scientific process and CLEARLY stated they would accept such proof when such proof existed.
    In that time frame the church was dealing with dissenters and reformations against the church. In fact, what was occurring was groups of people were going around to high level church officials and said look how the church is willing to accept Galileo’s teaching. Therefore the church is in heresy, and therefore you should defect and join our protestant movement or church.
    In other words it was the church’s willingness to accept different positions on this matter that was a reason why they were receiving criticism from protestant sects and other breakaway groups!
    As I pointed out, most educated people that timeframe did believe in Geo centricity, and did think that scripture supported this point of view. However it was not a doctrine or official teaching of the church. As I quoted the pope’s and Copernicus and others, they clearly had differing views on this matter. And I can assure any of the readers here, that any church official taking a position that goes against doctrinal teachings of the church is grounds for instant excommunication if not much worse!
    The general and wide held view of Geo centricity was really something that most educated people held, and this came from Aristotle and Plato etc, and was not a church doctrine at all.
    As noted the REAL pressure to the church was coming from these protestant reformists, and other groups that were criticizing the church for allowing Galileo!
    I should point out that placing books on ban lists is only an act of discipline on the church’s part, and banning of book is not a position of doctrine of what’s inside the book being held true or false . They’re simply trying to contain the damage from these people that were criticizing and causing defections in the church for its willingness to accept Galileo’s teaching.
    So in closing, you people here are being duped by the liberal press in that the church was anti science in this regards. In fact the church upheld GOOD scientific process and scrutiny (unless the readers here actually do think that planets go around in circles, and believe ridiculous ideas like the sun being the center of the universe).
    In fact would not be just a simple matter to quote the doctrinal position of the church on this matter? After all they had a copy of Galileo’s manuscript sitting there, all they had to do was quote the church doctrine this matter, and he would be branded of heresy and excommunicated right on the spot. At the end of the day they did not have any doctrine of which to convict him, and they were actually throwing him under the bus so to speak.
    So their best short and best result of the conviction:
    “vehemently suspected of heresy”
    Read that again! (Suspect of heresy, NOT convicted of!). So in other words he’s a suspicious guy! Now that doesn’t sound very convincing, so I better say he is REALLY suspicious. A group of law students reading that charge would laugh their faces off! So someone is suspicious of a crime ! We better make it sound better, and state that he is vehemently suspicious. At the end of the day he simply was branded a suspicious guy and was NOT convinced of heresy, but suspicious of!
    This also explains why such a light sentence was given. House arrest amounts to a slap on the wrist. So friends and family can come and go as they please. You can drop by for a beer and have a party. Family members can come and go as they please for thanksgiving Turkey and dinner and fun. Pretty much do they want. Hardly a sentence of some huge criminal.
    At the end of the day the position of the popular press into the readers here is simply position of one of being duped by the propaganda of the leftists and anti Christian press.

  14. “Steve from Rockwood says:
    May 16, 2011 at 2:43 pm
    Congratulations. Australia is attempting to crawl out from under a rock.
    Next: UK and US.”
    Also NZ. We’re being hit hard here with the cost of living thanks to the Govts ETS Scam ontop of a GST increase.

  15. it will be good for australia but they need donations as we are up against the australian GOVT and the water mellon heads

  16. Protect people’s emotional healthby ending Government and activists’ constant destructive bombardment of fear and guilt on our kids and communities.
    Oh my gods!
    Right-wing nutter and god-fearing radio shock jock Alan Jones is the patron of a ‘new Aussie skeptic movement’ that aims to “protect people’s emotional health by ending Government and activists’ constant destructive bombardment of fear and guilt on our kids and communities”. ‘Galileo Movement’, no less!
    Hilarious!
    This is a joke, right? Why hasn’t this been tagged as satire?

  17. I support the concept, as we are up against a religious fervour that is not soundly based in science, defended by dogmatic attitudes, rather than scientific discovery free of the toxicity of dogmatic adherence to outdated belief systems.
    Ignore the attempt to divide and distract by attempting to settle on a religious or anti-religious side issue by those that see opportunities to protect their dogmatic position.
    Apart from the concept that reflects the nature of the debate, the science is the debate, and it is on that very science that our opponents know their own weakness. Why else would they avoid open face to face scientific debate in Australia?
    We are sick of spin, lies, abusive putdowns and avoidance of open genuine public debate on the issues of taxing carbon dioxide AND the very corruption of academic freedom by those who seek to run an ideological agenda of social change under the guise and cover of “alarming climate change”.
    Bring on the public debate, you know, the one that warmista claim we could not possibly understand the science they so studiously avoid explaining !!

  18. I heartily recommend the site; we skeptics need media coverage and there is little of that on Australia’s publicly funded ABC

  19. @Super Turtle – “Even worse is Galileo’s math could not explain the change of speed of the planet’s going around in orbit. Simply put the mathematics Galileo’s put forward and offered”
    ====
    You are evidently misrepresenting Galileo, for his argument includes not a single equation.
    Galileo was persecuted and forced to retract because:
    (1) he violated his agreement with his friend the Pope (papa) by representing the Copernican theory as superior to a geocentric model that required so many redundant epicycles.
    (2) Galieo presented the Pope as a simpleton, thinly-veiled in the character “Simplicio”
    (3) Galileo published his equation-free argument in Italian so that it could be read and understood by the average person, rather than in Latin for scrutiny only by the elite.
    You should read Dialogues before criticizing it.

  20. I thought it all sounded very noble, particularly the non-political bit. Then I saw who the patron was and some of the advisers, sorry they’ve lost me.

  21. So, sir, don’t lecture about integrity
    Integrity: the alignment of what you think, with what you say, with what you do.
    Why have integrity: It allows you to be whole within yourself and to have trust present in your relationships.
    To live without integrity results in being lost and alone.

  22. dlb says:
    May 16, 2011 at 9:32 pm
    I thought it all sounded very noble, particularly the non-political bit. Then I saw who the patron was and some of the advisers, sorry they’ve lost me.
    Yeah It’s funny, they sure no how to manage a political division in Oz, they make both sides stink.

  23. I’m a huge admirer of these men, sacrificing their time, money and reputations for this most excellent cause. The politicisation of science, its instrumentalising by the state is an horrendous corruption by culture warriors.
    In the spirit of constructive criticism I’d like to affirm the worry ‘Super Turtle’ has about the guiding narrative of this new organisation.
    There seems still some confusion about the Galileo affair even though the standard myth has been thoroughly debunked by professional historians.
    1) Galileo got in trouble because he insisted the Church change the way it read scripture.
    2) Bellarmine insisted in turn that the empirical evidence was not wholly in so he ought to be patient.
    3) Galileo’s model turned out to be false
    4) A heliocentric model of the solar system was no big news afterall Copernicus demonstrated it decades before and won plaudits for it from the Pope.
    5) The Church was Galileo’s greatest patron and supporter against all kinds of enemies, but he treated his friend abysmally. He wasn’t pugnacious he was selfish and arrogant with no thought for the political and social ramifications his fame and close association with the Church could cause by his behaviour.
    The new organisation ‘The Galileo Movement’ by perpetuating the secularist science v dogma myth in its historical blurb undermines its stated aims – i.e. where empirical claims are presented sufficient proof must be proffered before the machinery of our institutions are re-ordered.
    It was Galileo who was making doctrinal i.e. religious claims and was proven wrong.
    ‘The Galileo Movement’ wants to destroy the received and unexamined wisdom that passes for ‘climate change science’ it probably ought not have ideologically motivated historical distortions i.e. received and unexamined wisdom as the movement’s guiding narrative. This distortion was politically motivated in its origins and continues so to this day.
    As a keen supporter of this movement and willing labourer for it – I wonder if it could amend its historical blurb and excise the bits that don’t serve its stated aims. Simply affirming Galileo’s commitment to observation and measurement against the politicisation of science, in his case the Aristotelian physical science (not Aristotle’s metaphysics) stakeholders.
    Any google search of ‘galileo myth’ or similar will help.
    Best wishes to Case and John in their endeavors for Australia.

  24. Paul R
    In Australia we recognise that those that, think they are the elite in this country, will ignore our lone individual voices of protest, so we need to add our voices to the few in the media here, game enough to speak up and express what many ordinary Australians think is a huge scam to extract even more money from ordinary people.
    We live with the variability and extremes of the Australian Climate, just as our fathers and grandfathers did and we are proud of what has been achieved, so weather is something we understand and have an intense interest.
    We also don’t want to see this country dragged into an economic backwater because some “scientists” have sold their souls to perpetuate a false agenda.
    The “trick” here is not to hide anything, (unlike post modern “science”) but to demonstrate our combined support to all Australians.
    We all have the right and responsibility to vote. And ordinary Australians have the right to see and hear this issue properly debated and the science discussed. If it takes this groundswell to be heard in the media and the “halls of power” then so be it!
    Its what is good for Australia and good for the the world. Not just good for elitists and their fellow travelers, so not and never has been about where one sits in relation to a “political division” “ideology” or “whatever”.
    We all have to vote eventually on the issue, so best to be well informed and make each vote count.
    If both or any sides of politics stinks, that is their issue to change their climate (stink!) not monkey with ours or drown us with purile propaganda!!

  25. Seems to be a mixed reception. Like everything – give it a chance and follow what they are saying so that a better review can be done later. It sounds to me that they are going in the right direction and bringing the real debate out to the masses. I hope they are fair in their quest so that the meesage most of us believe in is heard.
    First Oz – then the world?

  26. Super Turtle (is that your real name?) says : “House arrest amounts to a slap on the wrist.
    Try telling Aung San Suu Kyi that.

  27. Some of the comments are truly offensive in light of the situation of women, men and children in areas where the greatest impact of carbon prices are proposed. And the lives of Australian constituents are not a political division. They are real lives.
    In PNG, likely the Pacific and definitely Australia as model for a hybrid carbon economy was put forth for Indigenous people. That is the Indigenous people that can not speak or read or write english. And rely on a intermediatory. Let alone any established moral or economic principles to life as a woman, man or child.
    The comments are also offensive to the many that stood up and were assaulted, raped and died for speaking out on the situation in these regional and remote communities.
    This new ‘carbon’ model, based on some of the most gross practices and published results in science known, pseudo-scientific practices that have lasted and informed national policies since the late 1970s, proposed this scheme. Their previous economic models can be observed, replicated across central and northern Australia and PNG. The outcomes speak for themselves. The human beings, real PEOPLE, who did not survive to speak for themselves lived the models of these academics and others.
    This latest model is a trade in human beings. No less no more.
    The university department that proposed model economy is Centre for Aboriginal Economic Development, Australian National University. It will be extremely difficult to find the original proposal, dated 2004/2005.

  28. Very best wishes to this new enterprise and I hope that it eventually goes global. God knows, we in the UK need all the help we can get.
    I’ve long regarded Galileo as a powerful symbol in the fight against the AGW religion. He reached his conclusions on the basis of observation and not on the basis of religious or scientific dogma (now it seems that scientists at our local religious establishment, otherwise known as the Met Office, are openly stating that the outputs of climate models are more important than observations).
    I was amused to see an AGW scientist invoke Galileo as support for his religion. That’s quite ironic, as one claimed ‘proof ‘ is the scientific consensus. It probably didn’t occur to him that the most obvious thing about Galileo is that he went against the consensus – and was of course proven to be absolutely right. In other words, this was yet another case where the consensus turned out to be completely wrong. In his time Galileo was a sceptic, just as many of us are today.
    *************************************
    Today’s printed Daily Telegraph has an excellent piece by Andrew Turnbull, entitled ‘The inconvenient truth is that they’re wrong’. Lord Turnbull occupied several very senior posts in previous UK governments. I think most people here would agree with his analysis of climate change science and policy. It’s also good to see because the Daily Telegraph (unlike the Sunday Telegraph) is normally uncompromisingly pro-AGW, with coverage of climate change that is normally biased and one-sided.
    The Telegraph again had Chris Huhne on the front page (he is the UK’s Energy Secretary who is busily destroying our future prosperity). Some of the evidence seems damning. It is certainly possible that he will end up behind bars. The sad thing is that whoever replaces him will probably continue with these ruinous policies that are based on flawed and possibly fraudulent science.
    Chris

  29. Appeal to members of both parties? Good luck with Labourites. You can probably keep your shoes on when you count up how many supporters from that lot you get.
    A relevant resource for TGP, mentioned but not linked on the currently-in-hiatus T&N-3 page, http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/4/985/pdf (1 MB PDF). One of numerous “money quotes”:

    Models produce scenarios, not forecasts [3], and
    neither prove nor disprove scientific hypotheses nor show what will happen in the future. The only way to do this is by comparison of particular scientific hypotheses with real world data other than past temperature data, which the models have usually been modified to emulate. The particular climate models used by the UN IPCC appear to be even more questionable than many since they do not even do a good job of hindsight [4], let alone foresight.

  30. wonderful news!
    aus needs as many dissenting, truthful climate related sites and sources as we can provide.
    as mentioned the mainstream ignores it and the ABC is so pro agw it breaks their own codes of conduct.

  31. Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies
    Three-Dimensional Model
    Hansen et al, 1988
    Here are the scenario definitions
    Scenario A assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely; the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially. Scenario B has decreasing trace gas growth rates, such that the annual increase of the greenhouse climate forcing remains approximately constant at the present level. Scenario C drastically reduces trace gas growth between 1990 and 2000 such that the greenhouse climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000.
    Here is the comparison of forecasts with observation.
    http://bit.ly/iyscaK
    I let you judge the forecast yourself.

  32. dlb says:
    May 16, 2011 at 9:32 pm
    I thought it all sounded very noble, particularly the non-political bit. Then I saw who the patron was and some of the advisers, sorry they’ve lost me.
    Maybe you missed the part where they say they don’t endorse all of the views of the advisers and patrons, nor do they expect the patrons and advisers to endorse all of their views.
    To get something going you need massive exposure. Alan Jones provides that. No matter what you think of him, he has a lot of ears to talk to. They were hardly going to try and recruit Tim Flannery, were they?
    Personally I find Alan Jones irritating. But that’s just me and it doesn’t rebut any of his arguments.
    You can either try and call people names or you can answer the arguments put forth. One is easy, the other takes effort. Which one will you choose?
    Still, the political left in Australia has a standard response to any thing they don’t like – they laugh at it and make derisory comments. Funny thing is, though, that strategy has been failing for the best part of 20 years. The only success the Labor party had was when they put up someone who did a stand-up job of imitating a conservative PM but promised to be warm and fuzzy with it. Since then, the old pattern has re-emerged with familiar results. You won’t be laughing when all traces of carbon pricing have been erased from Australian political debate forever. Neither will the people who fought against it. They’ll just be relieved to get their lives back, being tired from arguing against useful idiots, socialists and rent-seekers for what seems forever.

  33. Dlb:
    I can’t be certain, but I would be willing to bet my last dollar that Alan Jones helps more people in every way , ,in a month —in personal time, charity work, assistance for ordinary people being monstered by overbearing bureaucracy—moral support etc etc —than you or many of the rest of us would do in a lifetime.
    It’s de rigueur among Lefties and the latte crowd in Australia —and especially the self-styled , self-important intellectuals who think they own ‘our’ ABC—-to sneer at and smear Alan Jones—and in the process it’s their own lack of integrity that they expose.
    They are the ones who proclaim their own great and abiding ‘compassion’, yet they have absolutely no compunction in trying to destroy the lives of others—and Alan Jones is a frequent target.
    What most of them can’t forgive Alan Jones for, is that he treats common sense-speaking ordinary people with great respect, and holds politicians of all parties to account—but especially the Labor politicians who manage to trash Australia every time they get their hands on the levers of our country.
    This time they threaten to use the convenient issue of climate change to hand our sovereignty over to the dysfunctional UN and other global busybodies—– and while almost 100% of the Australian media desperately tries to maintain a shutdown of information on the issue, lest Australians find out the truth, Alan Jones and a handful of others, including Ray Hadley, Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman, Tim Blair , Terry McCrann are doing all they can to honour democracy by providing us with the alternative information as antidote to the propaganda—-or telling us where to find it.
    The Left want a suppression of information—it’s the only way they can survive—not just on this, but on other vital issues, because they don’t really believe in democracy—-and Alan Jones et al want the information widely available, because they know that , given all the information, Australians almost always back decisions that are good for Australia.
    An informed population is toxic to the Left—hence your hostility to Alan Jones .

  34. //START TWISTED HUMOR MODE//
    Galileo is WRONG!!! The Scientific consensus proves that the Earth is the center of the Universe. Galileo is nothing more than a crack-pot that represents an obscure and incorrect view. We believe that he’s taking research money on the side from Lew C. Fur. With this type of monetary bias, you can’t trust his research.
    Galileo’s ideas are based on another crack-pot, Nicolaus Copernicus; who’s ideas are so bent out of shape, he died once his manuscript was published.
    The Consensus has spoken, the debate is over, only a blind fool will believe that the sun is the center of our solar system. It’s time to silence these “Earth Centered” Deniers!!!!!

  35. I always thought that the US was the best last hope of mankind. I’m wrong. It’s Australia. Just go for it.

  36. Super Turtle, you left out the three months of Hail Marys that were part of the sentence. Of course they were said for him by his daughter.
    The lionisation of Galileo is very wearing for historians. He believed, contra Fr de Grassi & Tycho Brahe, that comets were an atmospheric phenomenon, not bodies between the moon and sun. That the tides were caused by the oceans sloshing about, in turn caused by the earth’s rotation. It was the pope’s incredulity of this idea that Galileo ridiculed in the book that led to the heresy trial. He put the pope’s words in the mouth of the character Simplicius. Galileo’s refutation of Aristotle’s theory of gravity was known a thousand years before and could be found in a book that had been published a hundred years before Galileo.
    The only way to turn Galileo into a perfect scientific hero was to ignore the facts and rewrite history. Now why does that sound familiar in this place?
    Has anybody here actually read Copernicus’ De revolutionibus orbium coelestium? It is riddled with mathematical inconsistencies. While he corrected Ptolemy’s equant that required the moon to appear twice as large at some times than at others, this was at the expense of a large increase in the number of epicycles needed to maintain uniform, circular motion. The Copernicus model was far more complicated than Ptolemy’s for no increase in accuracy!
    Copernicus isn’t even particularly original. Both Pythagorus and Aristarchus maintained that the sun was the centre of the Universe. Quoting from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
    “…Copernicus used devices that had been developed by the Maragha astronomers Nasir al-Din Tusi (1201-1274), Muayyad al-Din al-Urdi (d. 1266), Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi (1236-1311), and Ibn al-Shatir (1304–1375).[4] In addition, Ragep, 2005, has shown that a theory for the inner planets presented by Regiomontanus that enabled Copernicus to convert the planets to eccentric models had been developed by the fifteenth-century, Samarqand-trained astronomer Ali Qushji (1403–1474). The problem is, as Goddu (476–86) has pointed out, we have no proof of their transmission from east to west. Nevertheless, it is highly unlikely that so many similar techniques were invented independently in the west.”
    “Copernicus received encouragement to publish his book from his close friend, the bishop of Chelmo Tiedemann Giese (1480–1550), and from the cardinal of Capua Nicholas Schönberg (1472–1537)” which seems to conflict with the concept of church opposition to his ideas.

  37. Mike Jonas said @ May 17, 2011 at 1:47 am
    “Super Turtle (is that your real name?) says : “House arrest amounts to a slap on the wrist.”
    Try telling Aung San Suu Kyi that.”
    Not comparable. A decade before the trial, Galileo had complained loudly and bitterly about being required to travel to Rome as it aggravated his arthritis. His house arrest did not disallow anything other than travel.

  38. >>You are evidently misrepresenting Galileo, for his argument includes not a single equation.
    Ah, let me correct this. Galileo’s claim of planets going around in circles was rejected since the church’s scientists and the church’s mathematicians and the church astronomers looking at this issue of Galileo’s claim in fact used math and science to FIND his claim doesn’t add up.
    Galileo did not need to write down a formula to state the planets go around in perfect circles but that implies the mathematics of what he was stating. Or did you fail basic math and science and geometry to not realize what the formula for circle is?
    My second point is that the church did not reject Galileo on the basis of doctoral teaching. You cannot find that doctrine and as noted, he was only suspicious of something which is a pretty funny statement in terms of a person supposedly being in direct contradiction of doctrines of the church. As noted no such doctrine exists. You can be my guest if you want to go and find that church doctrine, but it doesn’t exist. Again the point here is this public claim that Galileo was somehow persecuted for going against church doctrine is completely groundless when there is no such doctrine
    So my point being is the church’s mathematics and science was used to disprove the ridiculous statement of planets going around in circles. No matter how you slice and dice this Galileo’s claim is WRONG and it’s a laughable position for you to stand here and state that the church now should have accepted incorrect math and wrong science based on this claim of planets going around in circles!
    Remember the church had codified and created with great scientific precision and great mathematics and great observation of data the Gregorian calendar. In fact not only did they do a good job, but they did a spectacular job and quite much nailed it. In fact the lack of drift in that calendar is so good that we continue to use it today in this computer age! And this work by the church was completed before Galileo was even 20 years old, so they were rather good at this issue.
    So they had a lot of quality information at their hands and they simply rejected Galileo’s implied mathematical concepts that planets go around in circles. As noted if you read Cardinal Bellamy statement which is pretty much the horses mouth and final word on this issue (as he was the head of the inquiry against Galileo) stated as I quoted they were open to changing their view of scriptures interpretation on this matter if the data and information shows otherwise but Galileo’s claim does NOT ADD UP. As I pointed out, the church can not has not and never has changed its position on a doctrine so this would be a huge risk statement by the Cardinal unless he had flexiblity on this issue.
    My point is based on the issue of science and mathematics and research and technology they rejected this theory and claim. This is how the scientific process and scientific research moves forward. Galileo put forward a theory, and was checked against the observation of data and mathematics and was disproved! As I said pretty funny to stand here and claim that the church with somehow against science yet they were using the best research instruments and mathematics and science is of the day!
    I suppose in a way just like we realize that the term greenhouse effect is an incorrect scientific term to describe gases trapping energy in the atmosphere (greenhouses work by stopping convection), it certainly not a bad idea to call this the Galileo movement since just like Galileo or global warming, the issue was always practically being misrepresented to disprove something. Things did not add up.

  39. Super Turtle – you say “My point is based on the issue of science and mathematics and research and technology they rejected this theory and claim. This is how the scientific process and scientific research moves forward. Galileo put forward a theory, and was checked against the observation of data and mathematics and was disproved! As I said pretty funny to stand here and claim that the church with somehow against science yet they were using the best research instruments and mathematics and science is of the day!
    Of all the wacky arguments put forward on this website, this surely goes close to the worst. To concentrate entirely on whether the church disproved that the Earth’s orbit is a circle is to miss all the main points. Galileo was not the first to promote the idea that the Earth orbited the Sun, but in his book “Dialogues…” he unwisely poked fun at the church. Since the church claimed that heliocentrism was “false and contrary to Scripture”, and had previously persuaded Galileo not to support it, they had a legal case on which to prosecute him (in a legal system, that is, in which they decided what the law was and could effectively be both prosecutor and judge). Obviously, the church also denied that the Earth rotated on its axis.
    Galileo is recognised as the “father of science” (Stephen Hawking : “Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science.”), not because his scientific analysis was perfect (he actually got a lot of things wrong), but because he promoted scientific method and the free interchange of ideas. He was also prepared to “change his views in accordance with observation” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_galilei) – now that is something sadly missing in today’s climate “science”.

  40. Mike Jonas said @ May 17, 2011 at 5:32 pm
    “Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science.”), not because his scientific analysis was perfect (he actually got a lot of things wrong), but because he promoted scientific method and the free interchange of ideas. He was also prepared to “change his views in accordance with observation”
    Unfortunately, this misrepresents what actuall happened at the time:
    Cardinal Bellarmine (occasionally Bellarmino, Consultor to the Holy Office, Master of Controversial Questions, mastermind behind the Gunpowder Plot etc).
    “First, I say it seems to me that your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves with speaking hypothetically and not absolutely, as I have always understood that Copernicus spoke. For to say that the assumption that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still saves all the celestial appearances better than do eccentrics and epicycles is to speak with excellent good sense and to run no risk whatever. Such a manner of speaking suffices for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the center of the universe and only rotates on its axis without traveling from east to west, and that the Earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves very swiftly around the Sun, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our holy faith by contradicting the Scriptures…”
    This part of Bellarmine’s letter clearly shows that it was admissible, not only to expound the Copernican system, but also to say that the Copernican system is superior to the Ptolemaic system, as a mathematical hypothesis. However, it would be heretical to claim that the Copernican system is absolutely true since that would contradict the Scriptures. IOW it was OK to use the system to create a calendar for example, but not OK to use it to cast the Bible in a bad light.
    “Third, I say that, if there were a real proof that the Sun is at the center of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than to declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me. To demonstrate that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the center and the earth in the heavens is not the same thing as to demonstrate that in fact the sun is the center and the earth is in the heavens. I believe that first demonstration may exist, but I have grave doubts about the second; and in case of doubt one may not abandon the Holy Scriptures as expounded by the holy Fathers.”
    IOW, the new cosmology needed to be demonstrated as true before it could be accepted as true. No such demonstration had been forthcoming hence he has “grave doubts” that such proof exists. Bellarmine clearly understood that there was no physical proof that the earth moved about the Sun. As an educated man he was probably aware that no stellar parallax had been observed which was taken by most astronomers of the time as a disproof of Copernicus’ hypothesis. The important point here is that Bellarmine put the burden of proof back upon those who were advocating the Copernican system.
    Now it seems to me that a modern Galileo would most likely be a climate “scientist” claiming persecution because sceptics like Bellarmine want proof. Not exactly the kind of symbolic hero the CAGW sceptics need! Far from promoting scientific method and the free interchange of ideas he stole other people’s ideas and claimed them as his own (the telescope), rubbished Kepler’s ideas about planetary motion without reading Kepler’s book that Kepler had sent him and contradicted his own excellent work on mechanics in the book that resulted in his trial.

  41. There already some great follow up here (the internet great at knocking down CAGW and it also great at hasing out this Galieo issue).
    To concentrate entirely on whether the church disproved that the Earth’s orbit is a circle is to miss all the main points

    No in fact it’s very much the WHOLE point because the widespread claim was that the church was against science when in fact they were rejecting Galileo’s theory based on the scientific process. As I pointed out they were upholding good science by rejecting that idea. Unless you are going to stand here and think that they should accepted this idea of planets going around in circles when grade school children know better today? In fact if the Church had accepted Galileo’s teaching the end result would be widespread holding back of science by an Institution that few would want to challenge (kind of like NASA’s position on CAGW today – few want to challenge it).
    Simply put this idea of perfect circles was silly and for the Church to have endorsed such a view would have held science back many years.
    I mean essentially this means you are taking a position that it is OK for the church or some authority today (such as NASA) to accept incorrect science be this in regards to global warming, or that of how planets go around in orbit. In fact this whole issue pretty much hits the WHOLE nail on the head.
    The MAIN problem today is that we have these so called big institutions of authority accepting and promoting incorrect science. I am not sure of the cruel irony here that both NASA and the Vatican Science advisers seem to be taking the SAME position in regards to CAGW! However this just shows you how bad things are at NASA and same for the church! And worse is they ask us to ACCEPT this view based on their supposed authority without the actual scientific Proof to back that position up!
    So yes this issue is very much important in the context of this debate since we talking about lack of proof for a position (that Galileo did not have). And by the way some advisers to the Vatican today do not create or define church doctrine no more on AGW then did some court proceedings against Galileo did back then.

    >the church claimed that heliocentrism was “false and contrary to Scripture”

    Not quite how this works or reads. The charge NEVER uses the word helicentrisum. Many books on Galileo make such above claim but all we know is he is a suspicious guy and “suspect of” something contrary to scripture. Perhaps the contrary part is about the sun being the center of the Universe as we know this is an ANOTHER incorrect position that Galileo held?
    Of course the text does “to wit” and does go on to mention scripture. However this changes nothing since such positions were simply held by the general science community during that time period. Most educated people included those people in the church and they simply assumed that scripture and this view were much in agreement. However such a claim by these people or even by a particular judge in a court case of discipline against Galileo is not a public church decree on the church official teaching and position of doctrine on this matter.
    Stating that the wide spread view of everyone that beer is great or the Earth is the center of the universe is does NOT make this an official position of the church in regards to beer or the earth. And this would not be so because some monk came up and invented beer and then in a court proceeding stated that beer is good and is supported by scripture and thus is to become or is an offical teaching of the chruch.
    If above were not the case then how and why can I have quoted several people from Copernicus to Pope to cardinals that were open to debate on this issue? As I said challenging any church doctrine is grounds for instant heresy and excommunication. Church doctrine is NEVER changed or challenged and yet we see flexibility in this matter.

    Galileo is recognised as the “father of science” (Stephen Hawking)

    And Hawking is a joke and is considered WORSE than Al Gore among those studying cosmology. This is the old game of making Heroes such as giving Gore the noble prize or an academy award. Of course they like Hawking because he speaks out for Galileo! And just like Gore, Hawking knows what to say to get the support of the liberal press.
    It seems the more pumping up and prizes they’d give to these clowns to dupe people, then the more garbage they spew out based on that given authority, and this applies oh so perfect to Hawking and Gore.
    Super Turtle.

  42. Galileo’s recantation included : “But whereas — after an injunction had been judicially intimated to me by this Holy Office, to the effect that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture —
    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/recantation.html
    Super Turtle – “Hawking is a joke and is considered WORSE than Al Gore among those studying cosmology
    It appears that you don’t hold Stephen Hawking in high regard. But you don’t have to take Hawking’s word for it, there is evidence aplenty. As Stanford University (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/galileo/) points out, when Galileo was born “there was no such thing as ‘science’, yet by the time he died science was well on its way to becoming a discipline and its concepts and method a whole philosophical system”.

  43. Wow. This site and comments are an endless learning experience. I had no idea about the real Galileo story. Thank you
    Martin Snigg says:
    May 17, 2011 at 12:32 am
    Pompous Git says:
    May 17, 2011 at 8:17 pm

  44. Mike Jonas said @ May 17, 2011 at 11:52 pm
    “when Galileo was born “there was no such thing as ‘science’” quoting the usually meticulously accurate SEP.
    However, this statement is utter nonsense. Just confining ourselves to the period 1300 to 1500:
    Thomas Bradwardine and the Oxford Calculators at Merton College, Oxford, distinguished kinematics from dynamics, emphasised kinematics, and investigated instantaneous velocity. The Calculators formulated the mean speed theorem: a body moving with constant velocity travels distance and time equal to an accelerated body whose velocity is half the final speed of the accelerated body. They also demonstrated this theorem, the underpinning of “The Law of Falling Bodies” — long before Galileo is credited with this.
    Nicole Oresme showed that Aristotle’s reasoning against the movement of the earth were not valid and adduced the argument of simplicity for the theory that the earth moves, and not the heavens.
    Nicholas of Cusa suggested in some of his scientific writings that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and that each star is itself a distant sun.
    I could go on, but defer to James Hannam who wrote the book I never seemed to get around to writing:
    http://jameshannam.com/

  45. Truth, brc et.al,
    I equally disdain rightwing shock jocks and latte lefties. If they want broader appeal I think they should find apolitical advisors. Unfortunately the AGW debate is going nowhere when it keeps being reduced to left- right politics. Most Ausies aren’t interested in politics, or science for that matter. Perhaps they should have a sportsman as patron (irony). Having said that I sincerely hope they (Galileo) can do some good.

  46. Pompous Git – You are welcome to argue otherwise, but “The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: “a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
    So I would suggest that there is some support for SEP’s view.

  47. Super Turtle, Pompous Git and Martin Brigg:
    1) “First, I say it seems to me that your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves with speaking hypothetically and not absolutely, as I have always understood that Copernicus spoke.” – Letter from Bellarmine to Father Foscarini, 1615 (quoted above without context by PompusGit)
    Bellarmine continued…
    “Second, I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense speed and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the centre of the universe, and motionless. Consider, then in your prudence, whether the Church can support that the Scriptures should be interpreted in a manner contrary to that of the holy Fathers and of all modern commentators, both Latin and Greek….”
    Cardinal Bellarmine during the trial of Galileo (1615):
    To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.
    2) re: not absolutely.
    “To this end I have taken the Copernican side in the discourse, proceeding as with a pure mathematical hypothesis and striving by every article to represent it as superior to supposing the earth motionlessnot, indeed absolutely, but as against the arguments of some professed Peripatetics. These men indeed deserve not even that name, for they do not walk about; they are content to adore the shadows, philosophizing not with due circumspection but merely from having memorized a few ill-understood principles.”
    – Galileo, paragraph 3 of Dialogues
    3) The earth does in fact orbit the sun. Even the Catholic church, in 1992, conceded that Galileo was correct:
    http://www.math.neu.edu/~bridger/U201/GlobeVaticanGalileo.pdf
    4) “A heliocentric model of the solar system was no big news afterall Copernicus demonstrated it decades before and won plaudits for it from the Pope.” (Martin Snigg)
    In 1616 the Church nevertheless denounced Copernican theory as “foolish and absurd philosophically and formally heretical inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the doctrines of the holy scripture..” De Revolutionibus was added to the Index of Prohibited Books.
    5) “The Church was Galileo’s greatest patron…” (Martin Snigg)
    Cosimo de Medici, Duke of Florence, was Galileo’s greatest patron.
    6) “House arrest amounts to a slap on the wrist.” (Turtle)
    Compared to being burnt alive for witchcraft, yes.

  48. Mike Jonas said @ May 18, 2011 at 5:37 am
    “Pompous Git – You are welcome to argue otherwise, but “The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: “a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.””
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
    So I would suggest that there is some support for SEP’s view.”
    The OED also says of the word scientific “The ultimate source of the word is to be sought in Aristotelian expressions like that in Post. Anal. I. ii. (71b), where it is said that unless certain essential conditions are fulfilled, a syllogism will not be demonstrative “for it will not produce knowledge’.
    Mind you, I’m not much in favour of argument from authority, Oxford English Dictionaries and Wikipedias are useful, but far from the last word.
    The wikipedia you quote also says of Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount Saint Alban, (22 January 1561 – 9 April 1626) “His works established and popularized inductive methodologies for scientific inquiry, often called the Baconian method, or simply the scientific method.”
    Galileo is most famous for his debunking Aristotle’s notion that heavier bodies fall faster than light bodies. John Philoponus (490AD–570AD) had already done this as well as coming up with the theory of impetus. Is it the case that what Galileo did was scientific and what John Philoponus did was not?
    Galileo was an odd choice of hero for The Enlightenment Philosophes to choose. In his day, he was as famous for his sermons as his other work and was pious almost to a fault. His only rival for the role was Sir Isaac Newton who was even more pious–he wrote more than a million words on esoteric theology. Newton also wrote that he stood on the shoulders of giants, not an original claim, but one that Galileo would never admit.
    The important take-home message here is one that you seem to not want to admit: Galileo (a Platonist) was not in conflict with the church, he was in conflict with his rival academics (Aristotelians). When he insulted the pope, papal protection had to be removed.
    You really should read the source material rather than Wikipedia…

  49. Khwarizmi said @ May 18, 2011 at 6:00 am
    ““House arrest amounts to a slap on the wrist.” (Turtle)
    Compared to being burnt alive for witchcraft, yes.”
    In order to be burnt as a witch, you had to have entered a pact with Satan. Galileo was notorious for his piety. Unless you have evidence otherwise…

  50. Khwarizmi said @ May 18, 2011 at 6:00 am
    “Cardinal Bellarmine during the trial of Galileo (1615)”
    What evidence do you have that Galileo was tried in 1615? I thought the trial was in 1633.

  51. Pompous Git – Like I said, you are welcome to argue otherwise. I rarely quote Wikipedia, but in this case the underlying source (OED) was paywalled.
    Often, the kudos for an idea does not go to the first to have it. Often, an idea develops rather than coming in a single Eureka moment. The idea of evolution, for example, was around at least 50 years before Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, yet Darwin gets the credit because he covered the topic so thoroughly he gave the church virtually nowhere to hide. Similarly wrt Galileo, because he incorporated an explicit scientific process in what he promulgated – and maybe just as importantly, by writing in Italian, he spoke directly to the general population.

  52. @pompous git – “In order to be burnt as a witch, you had to have entered a pact with Satan. …
    “…When he insulted the pope, papal protection had to be removed.”
    =========
    Yes – when he insulted the Mafia, “Mafia protection” had to be removed.
    I rest my case.

  53. “First, I say it seems to me that your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves with speaking hypothetically and not absolutely, as I have always understood that Copernicus spoke.” – Letter from Bellarmine to Father Foscarini, 1615 (quoted above without context by PompusGit)

    The above is a great quote since it states clearly that we do not have proof of this theory, and therefore it’s wise to speak of this as only in the context of hypothetically. Once again the scientists on global warming could take a real chapter from the above statement, since they also do not have proof of their position, but only models and hypothesis .
    I will not rehash the quote I posted again in regards to Cardinal Bellamy CLEARLY stated that they’re willing to reconsider their position on this issue of scriptures if the proof comes to light that states otherwise. Galileo was not the one that had this proof, and Cardinal Bellamy stated as such.
    And again I point out clearly that the church is never willing to do this on a matter of doctrine (those positions are not up for debate, and yet this one clearly was).

    De Revolutionibus was added to the Index of Prohibited Books.

    Again the above is misunderstood time and time again. The act of putting something on a ban list does not mean what’s contained in the book is true, or false or is a statement of church doctrine. This is an act of discipline no more different than saying you’re not supposed to eat tomatoes on Tuesday. Because an act of discipline says you’re not supposed to eat tomatoes on Tuesday, that does not make that an official teaching of doctrine by the church (There’s no doctrine or theological teaching about eating tomatoes on a particular day of the week ).
    We thus see rampant and widespread papers that quote and assume because a papal bull put a book on a restricted reading list, then what is inside of the book is therefore a Decree by the church that what is inside of the book is a statement of the church position on doctrine due to what is in that book. This is not the case and this ONLY a discipline issue like the tomato issue.
    In other words this issue of doctrine is simply an assumption made by the authors who quote such bans. No one will find an actual doctrine of the church to quote in this regards since as I stated such does not exist.
    Clergy and people had widespread views of a earth centric system, and this was not from church teaching on this matter (came from Greeks and before). From Cardinal Bellamy to previous popes and even the devout Christian Copernicus were clearly not afraid of looking at different views on this matter and were open to these ideas (they had flexibility on this matter, But a person of deep faith would not go against doctrines of the church, and they did not).
    Another interesting question that comes up here; is why was a pope sitting around receiving presentations on science presentations about a motion system when they supposed to be anti science? And after hearing and seeing the presentation about Copernicus new system, the Pope gave a gift to the presenter? Just about every university in all of Europe which is the basis of most of our western science and technology comes from universities founded by Christian charters. These people loved science and could not get enough of this new way of thinking, kind of much like people here on WUWT. This also explains the rise of science in the western culture.
    As some pointed out, in 1615, was not a trail date against Galileo.
    I should also point out the fact that Cardinal Bellamy or anybody can make statements about how a person is some scoundrel to not accept the scriptures on this matter (and no question he did that). However, this does not make this an official teaching of the church. That trial was not setting or stating the official church teaching on this matter. This is an extremely important distinction, and one that amounts to dishonesty among the popular press in regards to church doctrine on this issue. This was a issue of discipline against Galileo, not doctrine for public consumption.
    The above also explains why Galileo was not convicted of heresy, but only being convicted of being “suspicious of”. How can Galileo only be charged as being suspicious of something that supposedly against a clear doctrine and teaching of the church? The answer to this riddle is simple. As much as they were throwing Galileo under the bus (that they did), they simply did not have any church doctrine or official church position available to actually charge a person with something, so they can only say he was suspicious of something and not guilty of.

    Bellarmine continued…
    “Second, I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers.

    The above again is a matter of discipline Again that certainly goes on to say there’s widespread agreement of interpretation on this issue. However, the final issue here is that the church did not have an official doctrine and interpretation of the scriptures on this matter of Helio vs. Geo centricity by the holy fathers anyway.
    As for the church apology in 1992? Well that apology is to much counter and stop information such as what I posted here. The worst thing that could happen to the liberal and socialist establishment is the connection between Christian west and that of them being scientifically sound.
    The reason why this connection must be kept separate is because too many people would see that the Christian west is responsible for the rise of science, and these people being anti Christian thus do not want any credit being given to the church or Christian west.
    This whole issue of the Christian west and the anti science lie is really very much part of a larger battle against the west today. Today we see from Greece to Spain and virtually every single western country today, we see no investment, no jobs, no industry, no manufacturing, and just ridiculous oil exploration policies.
    The result is international organizations and companies are sucking billions out of the western societies today. The global warming movement was not an accident, and it’s always been an anti west and anti industrial policy.
    The main reason why the west is hated is because we tend to be more conservative in our values and want to oppose much of what these International monsters are doing to us.
    As an result, just look at where all the jobs and money and Manufacturing is being moved to today. Why is it a strange coincidence that the very same global warming movement is also occurring in the same nation’s in which all the money and manufacturing is being removed from? And why are all of those nations that of the Christian west also?
    At the end of the day this means that the whole global warming garbage is really part of a larger anti west, and therefore anti Christian movement that’s being waged against us.
    You folks did not think this battle was going to be limited only to propaganda in regards to global warming, did you? It is a simple matter to just look at where all the jobs and money and manufacturing is being funneled to right now? (out of the west).
    You’ll notice that none of the money and jobs is going to any of the western societies. And where do you see global warming being pushed today?
    Super Turtle

  54. Mike Jonas said @ May 18, 2011 at 2:48 pm
    “Pompous Git – Like I said, you are welcome to argue otherwise. I rarely quote Wikipedia, but in this case the underlying source (OED) was paywalled.
    Often, the kudos for an idea does not go to the first to have it. Often, an idea develops rather than coming in a single Eureka moment. The idea of evolution, for example, was around at least 50 years before Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, yet Darwin gets the credit because he covered the topic so thoroughly he gave the church virtually nowhere to hide. Similarly wrt Galileo, because he incorporated an explicit scientific process in what he promulgated – and maybe just as importantly, by writing in Italian, he spoke directly to the general population.”
    Nothing to argue with there. The OED is quoted accurately; I have it on dead trees and CD. It’s twenty of my favourite books 🙂 That said, it is not a good source for the history of science (aka natural philosophy until the 19thC). It was also composed in the era when the beat-up on the conflict between the church and science reached fever pitch as it were. There was a lot of rewriting of history that is still endlessly regurgitated by those who cannot be bothered to read the primary sources.
    I’ve linked my moniker to my now defunct website if you want to continue the conversation, or have me email the OED section on science to you.

  55. These people are not skeptics, they are true believers in the culture created in the image of scientism which is the cultural paradigm or ideology that now dominates the entire world – quite literally Weber’s famous Iron Cage.
    Scientism being the religion of the the anti-Spiritual left-brain.
    Put in another way this now world dominant “religion” is about power and control, and is the now-time manifestation of the drive to total power and control at the root of the entire Western “cultural” project.
    The origins and historical developments of this power and control drive are described by Lewis Mumford in his book The Pentagon of Power: The Myth of the Machine. Mumford called this Myth the Invisible Mega-Machine, which is a way of referring to the invisible archetypal pattern which now patterns every minute fraction of Western “culture” in particular. Which is also quite literally a “culture” of death.
    These two very stark images are featured in the book. They effectively sum up the world-view which the “skeptics” promote
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel14.html
    The recent Avatar film summed up the situation in very stark terms. I would call it the necessary parable of our times.
    Basically it was about the anti-“culture” of death versus the culture of life.
    Having already “created” a dying planet (just like we have), the unconscious technocratic barbarian invaders were compelled by the inexorable unconscious “logic” of their “culture” to invade virgin territories (just like we always have).
    What was interesting about the film was how all of those on the right side of the culture wars, including (especially) those that presume to be religious, all came out very loudly in support of the technocratic barbarian invaders and their “culture” of death.

Comments are closed.