Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
I learned in school that King Canute (990 – 1035 AD) was the most stupid King in English history (Figure 1). He was so ignorant and arrogant he believed he could stop the tide. World leaders in Paris led by President Obama, who promised to stop sea level rise in his election campaign, are the modern day equivalent of Canute’s mentality.
Later historical research discovered documents that changed the entire story. People believed Canute was the greatest King and capable of doing anything. He obviously was a great King because he realized the limitations of his power and the need to lower people’s expectations. He staged an event to show there were things he could not control. He sat on his throne by the ocean and ordered the tide to stop rising. It is great leaders who know the limits of their power. It is necessary to remind others.
It was the historians of subsequent Kings who wrote the false Canute narrative. They did not want to compete with the people’s view of Canute, so they chose to get ahead by pushing him down rather than pulling themselves up.
The modern day Canute’s are not great leaders. They demonstrated their limitations in Paris where they planned to stop climate change. Figure 2 shows a symbol we can use to represent their stupidity. It shows the range of temperatures and climate variability over the last 420,000 years. Temperatures range is over 12°C, as the Earth swung naturally between very cold glacial periods and very warm interglacial periods. Three of the last four warm interglacial periods were warmer than today.
The temperature variations in Figure 2 are the result of thousands of variables all interacting to create the weather, of which climate is the average. To achieve their “stop climate change” objective the world leaders gathered in Paris must control all the variables.
Figure 2: Stop Climate Change.
Source: The author.
Stopping climate change means creating a “flat line” temperature record but that, like on a heart monitor, would mean the patient died.
They are like the original interpretation of Canute ignorant and arrogant enough to think they have that power. They did not look at the IPCC reports because if they did they would discover what Klaus-Eckart Puls found.
“One day I started checking the facts and data—first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements.”
They didn’t read what Puls wrote, especially his comment that
”Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.”
They believe that by turning the knob, like Canute held up his hand and ordered the tide to stop, they can stop climate change.
Which variables must they control to stop climate change? The answer is simple, all the ones deliberately ignored by the IPCC. The list is very long because the IPCC list was deliberately shortened by the definition given to them in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Article 1
“Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
The IPCC authors know the limitations of their work, but the politicians don’t know. By the time the IPCC Assessment Report 4 (AR4) was written, under pressure from skeptics about the limitations, they inserted a broader definition.
Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.
It was apolitical ploy. It did not and could not change anything because of the cumulative format of their Reports. To apply that definition requires scrapping the entire process and starting over. They wanted to be able to say they knew of the problem, so they put it as a footnote in the Summary For Policymakers (SPM) of AR4.
The long list of variables they must control is all those omitted by the IPCC. Their short list appears in the “Forcings” diagram from the 2001 IPCC TAR Report (Figure3).
The right-hand column labeled LOSU, which stands for Level Of Scientific Understanding, underscores the challenge they face. Seven of the nine are medium or low, and if you act without understanding, the chances of disaster are greater than not acting. For example, when global cooling was the consensus from 1940 to 1980 people demanded action. One proposal involved building a dam across the Bering Straits. The idea was to reduce cold-water flows to the North Pacific to create warmer water and raise temperatures in the middle and higher latitudes around the globe. What would that have done to temperatures in the warmer period from 1980 to 1998? If you want to play God, you need to know what you are doing.
Figure 3
The point of Canute’s exercise was to show there were things well beyond his control. The leaders in Paris and the IPCC scientists and bureaucrats who advise them don’t recognize the limitations.
This is not an argument for a religious answer or, necessarily, the need for a God. It is a result of the vacuum left when a belief system is removed. As G. K. Chesterton said
“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
There is a reason why books, like Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion or Christopher Hitchen’s God is Not Great, are part of today’s wider discussions. It began with science choosing to defeat Christianity using Charles Darwin. Although he was an atheist, he was, like Copernicus, a reactionary not a revolutionary and realized the implications of his ideas.
Before Darwin, western universities comprised two faculties, The Natural Sciences and The Humanities. Once science used Darwin’s theory to replace God as the Creator it left a void. It required an answer to the question of who created the Universe, but more important the question of who put humans here and made them so markedly different from all the other species. It was a question that Alfred Russel Wallace (Figure 4) posed to Darwin directly.
Figure 4
The academic world filled the void created by removing God as the answer by creating the Social Sciences. Many believe the name is an oxymoron while others think that applying science to humanity is dehumanizing. As mathematician and philosopher, A.N. Whitehead said,
“There is no more common error then to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain.”
Darwin also crossed the line into the social sciences when he took Thomas Malthus’s Essay on Population with him on the Beagle, declaring it the most influential material on his thinking. Darwin’s ideas captured the thinking of Herbert Spencer, who coined the phrase “Survival of the fittest.” In turn, Darwin was taken by the idea and included it in the 1872 Sixth edition of Origin of Species.
In western society people began to view science and technology as the source of solutions to all human problems. Science and technology were also credited with all major advances inhuman history. Parallel development of the new paradigm of environmentalism provided a new form of religion for young people looking for Chesterton’s “anything”.
In this political and social environment, 190 world leaders met in Paris to advance the belief that they can stop climate change. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon led them as the modern day Canute (Figure 5). He set the stage for his demands when in 2014 he said that
“…climate change has been one of his top priorities since taking the office in 2007. He noted that progress has been made but warned the time for decisive global action is now, else the world risks climate chaos.”
Figure 5: Ban Ki-moon in Paris holding up his hand and asking the tide to stop, but failing.
Source: The author
Consider the challenge they face with just one variable – the Sun. Astronomers define our Sun as a variable Yellow Dwarf Star that is approximately half way through its 10 billion-year cycle. It is the major source of energy in our climate system. It is so dominant that the IPCC ignore one other source, geothermal heat from the nuclear activity within the Earth as inconsequential. To stop almost all of the variability of temperature and climate change that are shown in the graph in Figure 2 they must stop changes in the Sun. This is a much greater challenge than stopping the tide for the modern ignorant and arrogant Canute’s.
Ban Ki-moon said,
We are also the last generation that can fight climate change.
Hopefully, future historians will report that his was the last generation that ignorantly and arrogantly believed they could stop climate change and sanity finally prevailed, but I won’t wait for the tide to come in.
Tim Ball writes:
“The modern day Canute’s are not great leaders. They demonstrated their limitations in Paris where they planned to stop climate change”
Al Gore would disagree – lol. (btw given CAGW sceptics have been criticised for being mostly older white males, check out Gore’s audience):
around 6 mins, after listing weather events he claims were caused by CAGW, Gore boasts how 150 heads of state at the start of COP21 made speeches, and there was not one single expression of denial.
VIDEO: 9 Dec: Greenbiz: Al Gore at WBCSD’s COP21 meeting
Al Gore, speaking to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development as it met in Paris, said the
almost daily occurrences of severe floods, droughts and fierce hurricanes across the globe are like “a
nature hike through the Book of Revelations.”…
http://www.greenbiz.com/video/al-gore-wbcsds-cop21-meeting
30 Nov: World Business Council for Sustainable Development: In memoriam: Maurice Strong
The history of the WBCSD is strongly linked to Maurice, to whom we are deeply indebted…
He had the foresight to invite business to provide its input to the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, under the
leadership of Stephan Schmidheiny, our founder…
Following the summit, Stephan Schmidheiny and his business partners concluded that to keep up the momentum that had been created, it was necessary to keep the cooperation alive. In 1995, the Council merged with the World Industry Council on the Environment and opened its secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland: and here the WBCSD was born.
We will remember Maurice at our upcoming Council Meeting in Paris this December.
http://www.wbcsd.org/in-memoriam-maurice-strong.aspx
“Gore boasts how 150 heads of state at the start of COP21 made speeches, and there was not one single expression of denial.”
===================================================================
Politicians taxing the very air people breath is no more surprising then a hobo on a hot dog.
So I went outside today and it was warm as the sun was shining brightly. However a cloud came by and blocked out the nice warm Rays of the sun. It got cool so I went back inside.
Good description of a change in insolation not a change in solar activity.
He’s a funky, spunky little monkey, that Bunky Moon!
We should take the hint embedded in his name and ‘ban’ Moon. that would be a good thing!
I think, since he is, ultimately, by promoting AGW promoting misery and poverty for the bulk of the world… we should mock him….
To celebrate the Christmas season, here is Ban Ki-Moon:
… “Comin’ to Town”
(youtube)
We call him “Binky, Bonky, Bunky, Ban Ki” in my household.
He’s a silly man. So he deserves a silly name.
‘Ban Ki Moon’ isn’t silly enough? ☺
You have a point.
But how about “Spanky Spoon”, as a compromise.
Legally binding after ratification, but with a one-year opt-out.
Only true for those who feel the need to believe in something.
A drunk man once yelled: “Why should I stop drinking? Everyone has vices!”
Sorry x-post. Meant for Jeff Alberts.
Or for those without Electric Monks. From Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency:
“The Electric Monk was a labour-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. Dishwashers washed tedious dishes for you, thus saving you the bother of washing them yourself, video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electric Monks believed things for you, thus saving you what was becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expected you to believe.”
It is an urban fantasy.
Weather is something seen on TV, complete with scary music and solemn voice overs.
There has to be an isolation from weather,to be free of planning your own activities as the weather permits, before one can sink into such self conceit.
The belief,stated or not, that man controls the climate, has no humility.
Seasonal storms remind most of us, how small we really are. But I sense the urban activist has found a way to ignore such reality.
The Cult of Calamitous Carbon demands it.
Normally I enjoy Tim Ball’s articles, but this one just meanders all over the place. And while I actually do feel the pushing of atheism in science is overdone this article just comes across as Atheist baiting.
Iowahawk Illumination
I came across this link because I had heard I could create charts just like Mann et al using his data and reconstruction methods. Mr Rhodes makes it easy to learn how to do and clearly shows the nonsense that was pulled. I felt the need after watching the Senate Inquisition this week.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/12/fables-of-the-reconstruction.html
The old, debunked, CNUT (Canute) canard again. You were sadly misled at school, Dr Ball. Cnut did the waves thing to demonstrate to his over-fawning courtiers that he was not omnipotent, and that their flattery was both insincere and recognised as such by himself. Such humility based on a realistic view of the World and one man’s place in it set an example to rulers which was largely ignored through History, and more so in present times. I sure most of Anthony’s faithful can nominate many of our present men and women affairs would do well to heed Cnut’s example.
Like some other poster up thread was advised to do, I suggest you go back and read the essay beyond the first paragraph.
men and women of affairs.
“Modern Day Versions of King Canute Find It Difficult To Replace God”
They aren’t really trying. All they have to do is send me the invitation.
Too late. The people who believe tv ads are real have signed their draft agreement against the wishes of the nations they represent. Does that make it illegal?
No and no, dr. Ball.
The widely disseminated anecdote about king Canute leaves out the crucial part: the king did his “stop-the-tide” schtick as a response to a particularly sleazy courtier who tried to flatter the king by claiming that he could stop the tide; Canute put the statement to the test.
And yes, modern physics does entirely without god the creator: read Stephen Hawking for the mathematical treatment of quantum fields: you can get “something” out of “nothing” – all the energy and matter in our Universe is balanced by dark energy.
miso
Who made it balance?
:facepalm: Who are all these ADHD posters incapable of reading more than a couple of lines?
People positively refuse to accept Darwin’s original proposal and cast the whole thing in a more acceptable mode . The original ideology is that relative distinctions between living human beings and especially skin color provided an evolutionary trajectory between humanity and apes. It means that while black skin and white skin people share the same street, some are more human/developed that others –
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” Darwin
In a piece of academic maneuvering far worse than morphing global warming into climate change, they removed black and aboriginal tribes with Neanderthals ( when the fossils were eiscovered ) hence Darwin’s notion became ‘acceptable’ for today’s audience .
True story.
Tim Ball.
The legend of King Canute. Canute was surrounded by sycophants, who believed that he had special powers. To demonstrate that he was mortal, he ordered his throne to be set up at the sea shore and the tide to stay out. The tide came in.
The moral of this story, kiddies, is that Canute demonstrated that Kings (or greens or politicians) do not have power over nature.
Tim Ball. Grow up and get an education.
Tim Ball has got an education. If yours were sufficient for you to be able to read, you would see that he is making Ithe same point as Canute.
Hector
Do you merely read the first paragraph of items before making up your mind? It took me less than 4 seconds to get to the point in Tim Balls piece that you make.
How about actually reading the entire article and then make a comment here based on what was actually written and not relying on your preconceived assumption and your attention span of apparently a second or two?
tonyb
tonyb
Do you normally open your posts with an unqualified fallacy? How about starting with “97% of (climate) scientists agree with…. blah blah…”, then expect people to take you seriously and read on. Some may, some may not.
Yes I only read the first paragraph. It is an unqualified statement of borrox.
Hector
I by no means agree with all of Tim’s posts and I much prefer his historical articles to his polemical ones. But I do have the courtesy of making up my mind AFTER reading the post and not before, or after a two second skim of the first paragraph.
We would all be appreciative if you just frankly admitted that an over hasty read made you make an over hasty judgement. We all do it, but defending your own failure to read just a few lines before the purpose of the article is revealed is surely not asking too much is it? If the ‘reveal’ had been during the last paragraph of a long article you might have cause for complaint. But it wasn’t
tonyb
This article came across as slanderous and self-praising, and I doubt it contributes to the debate in any non-degrading way. Also, bringing assumptions of belief, or lack thereof, into the debate degrades the debate as well (ass u me).
As a non-scientist I avidly read a majority of the articles and discussions on WUWT, and constantly find them to be interesting and educational. The majority of contributors add their own unique knowledge and contributions and, while many articles and commentators attract criticism and disagreement, in general the debate moves the overall level of knowledge and understanding along. We all – even laymen like me – benefit as a result.
I am always sad, therefore, when people like Mišo Alkalaj, Hector Pascal, and several others above demonstrate their failure to make a real attempt to engage with – let alone simply read – the headline articles.
In his second paragraph Dr Ball acknowledges that the traditional King Canute story is demonstrably wrong. What is the point of the criticism by Miso, Hector et al, if it’s not simply to play the “look at me” game and to put others down? By all means disagree with Dr Ball’s premise in the article, but at least have the grace to read what he has written first!!!
Because Tim Ball set out his stall in the first paragraph, Canute’s ignorance and arrogance compared with COP21. There are lots of people who get the parable wrong. I didn’t bother reading past the opening paragraph.
Here’s a hint if you wish to communicate. Don’t open with an un-qualified fallacy.
You only read a small part of the article and then decided you were qualified to criticize the entire piece ? Do you work with M. Mann by any chance ??
Pssst…It’s called a literary device. Look it up. I recognized it as soon as I saw it. Educate yourself.
Hector means “a blustering, domineering person; a bully“, synonyms being “torture, persecute; badger, & harass” (dictionary.com) Pascal is a unit of pressure or stress.
So don’t expect a “Hector Pascal” to engage constructively. 😉
I’m not bullying or blustering. In his opening paragraph, Tim Ball stated the fallacy of Canute without qualification. That’s a fact. I didn’t bother to read further: life’s too short to follow borrox on the innertubes.
If Tim Ball wishes to communicate, he should be a little more nuanced.
Oh boy thanks for the lolz Hector Pascal ! 🙂
Wow. Just wow.
All I can say is, I hope that “Hector Pascal” is not your real name. Poor ol’ Nick St0kes above used his and “Miso Akalaj” looks pretty genuine, too… (wince).
Wow.
Beoleopard
OR
The Witan’s Whail
Whan Cnut Cyng the Witan wold enfeoff
Of infangthief and outfangthief
onderlich were they enwraged
And wordwar waged
Sware Cnut great scot and lot
Swinge wold ich this illbegotten lot.
Wroth was Cnut and wrothword spake.
Well wold he win at wopantake.
Fain wold he brake frith and crackéd heads
And than they shold worshippe his redes.
Swingéd Cnut Cyng with swung sword
Howléd Witane hellé but hearkened his word
Murie sang Cnut Cyng
Outfangthief is Damgudthyng.
(From 1066 and all that, the only memorable history of England).
“Leo Smith
December 12, 2015 at 2:45 am
(From 1066 and all that, the only memorable history of England).”
Really? And you use modern English, not French, to post.
IMO he’s referring to the comedic book, “1066 and All That”.
Bloob. I take it that your education never got as far as showing you the difference between “slanderous” and “libelous”.
Ivor Ward. Actually, “libelous” is a completely new word for me, so thank you for introducing it to me. So this article / opinion piece is actually libelous and self-praising.
lsvalgaard December 11, 2015 at 9:49 pm
The link with Grand minima is flimsy at best. Some of the ‘evidence’ comes from cosmic rays, but their depositions is in part controlled by the climate. As for the coming cycle, it will not be any weaker than Cycle 24, so no Grand Minimum this time around.
Is that a prediction, Leif? Can we quote you on that?
http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/polarfield/
“As of Nov 2015, the south has exceeded the 2010 level, suggesting that Cycle 25 would be no weaker than 24.”
Another version of the King Canute legend was that he placed his throne very close to the high tide mark and when the tide came in he simply kept on commanding it to go back until the tide eventually went back out and then claimed victory.
This is why AGW believers are so relieved that there was a big El Nino this year. After nearly 19 years of no temperature increases at all, they can claim that they were right all along.
It appears CNN has completely gone of off the rails with GW propaganda. Not even left wing rags post the amount of “the world is ending if we do not act” front page stuff that CNN produces on their website. Is CNN heavily invested in renewable energy or something? I mean their GW propaganda push is extreme.
These are headline articles from one CNN front page today
– BREAKING NEWS ‘Ambitious and balanced’ deal – Leaders welcome a draft agreement to fight global warming
– Community stands up to coal
– You’re making island vanish
– Moral case for action
– ‘Fairy tale’ island
All of the article are vacuous propaganda with the last article being kind of interesting. According to the article, a farming community of 4000 that converted to renewables all “on their own” is a model for the rest of the world to follow. Yes converted completely “on their own” except for the 80 million dollars in government subsidies and free technical consulting and the farming machinery and transportation which still runs on fossil fuels. The moral of the story is you too can live on a farm on a windy island (average wind is 12+ mph) and receive $20,000 for each man, woman and child in your home to put up a windmill.
Using the same model, for only 24,500 trillion dollars (only 1,400 times the US national GDP) the entire USA can be converted to renewables as well. Seems like a good idea,US citizens should their congressman. CNN will write a story about it.
That could work. If they could print the dollars fast enough, then you’d at least have a week or two of living like a king on your windy island before inflation set in and you’d have to cart your cash to the baker in wheelbarrows.
I think with current photocopying technology, they should be able to achieve the speed of printing necessary to create the perfect utopia and pay off the Chinese.
Leif. Thank you. I had not seen that.
“Once science used Darwin’s theory to replace God as the Creator it left a void. It required an answer to the question of who created the Universe, but more important the question of who put humans here and made them so markedly different from all the other species.”
Really? How are THESE the most important (or even in any way interesting) questions for a sane human being? Making us believe, or rather parrot without thinking, that these considerations which have no influence at all about our actual life are important, is already part of the delusional “religious” way of thinking that keeps people from minding themselves and mastering their own life.
It is because the opposition is so weak that in 100 years time the issue of ‘climate change’ will become much like the theory of evolution is today. Darwin’s notions began with an observation that savage tribes (aboriginal, black skin,Irish) are supplanted by white skin tribes – more survival of the ruthless,cunning ect –
“One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of
Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”–disease,
accidents, war, and famine–which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also….. because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain–that is, the fittest would survive…. The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species.” Charles Darwin
The idea of ‘races’ became blurred insofar as the idea of the human race began to fracture from the rest of the animal kingdom . The evolutionary trajectory which included black skin intermediaries between humans and apes was not proposed in any way racist but as a ‘law of nature’ . Of course the indoctrination is so great in society and the defense is now so weak that not even the full extended title of ‘Origins Of The Species’ raises an objection –
Try that with the following assault on the eyes –
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” Darwin
They got away with Darwinism and without the right opposition the same will happen with climate research or lack of true research.
“Making us believe, or rather parrot without thinking . . ”
What it seems to me many have been trained to parrot without thinking, is Evolution theory. Consider, please;
An “explosion of body plans suddenly appears in “the fossil record”, fully “evolved”, with zero observed evidence that they exited before that in a less evolved state. Why is that not scientific evidence that natural selection did not bring those creatures into existence?
Answer; Because Evolutionists say so, right?
Why is it that virtually all creatures (without significant controversy) which we can observe remains of, enter and exit the fossil record essentially unchanged, regardless of how many millions of years they ostensibly survived? All supposed “Evolution” occurs off stage, so to speak, just as Mr. Darwin indicated long ago was the strongest evidence that his theory was wrong . . Why is this not a major problem for the theory?
Answer; Because Evolutionists say so, right?
How come Evolutionist get to just say so? That’s not science.
It all comes down to Rule III as a foundation for evolution,climate change, planetary motions or anything else which uses the flimsiest of propositions at an experimental level applied to terrestrial sciences and astronomy –
“Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.” Newton
It means you can remove the limitations from experimental analogies and apply them as Universal facts to the Earth’s climate . This and this alone is why an entire society can find itself believing it has the ability to control the planet’s temperature.
What began as a single rule was expanded to the language of ‘laws’ and eventually to the ‘scientific method’. You all live in the shadow of Newton’s awful agenda with its voodoo and bluffing.
gkell1,
“It means you can remove the limitations from experimental analogies and apply them as Universal facts to the Earth’s climate .”
I don’t see how one could logically conclude that, sir. I suspect you may have misunderstood Mr. Newton’s words. To me, what he said is that one cannot rightly ascribe qualities to objects which are not consistent with what can be ascertained experimentally. That’s what the computer climate modelers have violated, as I see these matters, not what they stuck to.
John,
I suppose you’re referring to the so-called Cambrian Explosion. In fact, fossil evidence, as well as every other line of evidence, does indeed show the evolution of body plans before the Cambrian. Science has much better knowledge now of Pre-Cambrian life than sixty years ago. The first Pre-Cambrian fossils recognized as such were only found in 1957 in Charnwood Forest, England. Since then older discoveries have been assigned to the Pre-Cambrian which were previously wrongly assumed Cambrian in age, and many Ediacaran fossil assemblages have been found around the world.
The Cambrian is now know to be less an explosion in body plans as in size and durability. Other Pre-Cambrian life forms appear not to have left Phanerozoic descendants. The Snowball Earth episodes were challenging for life on our planet.
Evolution is a fact.
Gloateus,
” Science has much better knowledge now of Pre-Cambrian life than sixty years ago.”
That sort of lingo is to me no different than some CAGW pusher saying;
*Science has much better knowledge now of man’s irresponsibility for warming the globe than sixty years ago.*,
The lingo itself tells a story, so to speak . . Can you hear it?
“The first Pre-Cambrian fossils recognized as such were only found in 1957 in Charnwood Forest, England.”
Some Evolutionists say, right? And that to you is Science knowing, right? And it’s up to “Science deniers” to prove otherwise, right? Have Evolutionists ever made claims that turned out to be flat out wrong, even intentional fraud? Of course, many times . . but you still speak of what they say as “science” knowing things. The lingo tells a story, and it’s not about about a scientific thinker, to my mind.
John,
It is not lingo but actual, physical facts.
Pre-Cambrian fossils and trace fossils have now been found all over the world. That is a fact.
You refuse to accept the reality of all the facts I’ve showed you, so clearly you’re a hopeless, antiscientific case. It’s a shame that climate skeptics are saddled with so many religious cultists as yourself. It detracts from the climate realist message, making it easy for alarmists to tar all skeptics with the Christian and other religions’ fundamentalist brush.
D@ny reality all you want, but all you have is verbiage, ie lingo. The real world shows that evolution has been occurring for around four billion years on earth and continues to do so. For evidence, creationists have zip. For confirmed predictions, equally zip. All evidence, all confirmed predictions support the fact of evolution, ie descent with modification.
John,
Every creationist claim has turned out wrong. There is not a shred of evidence in support of creationism and all the evidence in the world against it.
The Charnwood and other Pre-Cambrian fossils are Pre-Cambrian not because “evolutionists”, ie scientists, say so, but because that is the measured age of the rocks and their position in the geological sequence. That’s known in science as an observation, ie a fact.
Give it up. You have nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Zippydeedoodaa. Sorry, but that’s the way the world is.
John,
Instead of spewing creationist cant, how about educating yourself a little before trying to comment on subjects about which you know nothing:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/ediacaran.php
I get it, Gloateus, you’ve made my initial point for me. Evolutionists say, and you believe. There is no sign whatsoever in your language use that you hesitate in the slightest to believe without question, without any skepticism at all. That ain’t scientific anything, it’s blind faith.
One can see the double-talking BS that is used to indoctrinate us, in virtually any “official” treatment of the issue, if one looks for it honestly, it seems to me. Please think (if you can ; ) about this sentence in the Berkeley article Groateus linked too, for example;
“Many paleontologists held little hope that fossils would ever be found in rocks so ancient as the Ediacaran.”
Does it really make any sense that two massive beds of “Cambrian” fossils have been found on different continents (as well as several smaller ones), and, that anyone in there right mind would think there was “little hope that fossils would ever be found” in the layer right below that?
Of course not, simple logic renders that notion absurd, I say. So why is it there? Why the con-artist style BS? There’s a story in the lingo itself . . and it’s a story about some “scientists” who will come to be seen as they are; about as relevant to real science as Astrologers, if people begin to realize how little actual evidence exists which supports Darwin’s theory.
To all the “It’s the sun stupid” folks, Leif has been trying to gently correct some very unscientific claims and thinking. The anthropogenic CO2 hypothesis (at least the catastrophic variety) fails on it’s own. One needn’t embrace one scientifically invalid hypothesis to refute another.
One needn’t reject them out of hand, either.
Unless one has an agenda.
Both are rejected because of lack of compelling evidence…
The CO2 conjecture has failed, but the solar hypothesis has not; it simply needs a lot more study. Those who reject solar influence have to start denying colder and warmer periods like the LIA and MWP. Awkward.
Then study this and quantify how well solar activity has caused MPW and LIA:
http://www.leif.org/research/Flimsy-Temps-TSI.png
To say that somethings need more study is your admission that the evidence is weak and not compelling.
Really? That’s your “argument”? Tsk tsk, Leif.
“tsk, tsk” just doesn’t cut it. Try gain.
“Needs more study” means exactly what it says, not your idiotic spin on it.
Try this:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=solar+amplification+mechanism
“need more study” is always good [=send more money], but also means that it is premature to draw conclusions at this time. So you agree that it is so.
I get it, Gloateus, you’ve made my initial point for me. Evolutionists say, and you believe. There is no sign whatsoever in your language use that you hesitate in the slightest to believe without question, without any skepticism at all. That ain’t scientific anything, it’s blind faith.
Changes in TSI, whether due to orbital dynamics or actual changes in the sun are only one variable and without determination of the effects of the other elephant in the room, that 70% of our planet covered by an average depth of 12, 000 ft of water which stores and releases energy and we don’t really know how, and then there are clouds and geothermal heat etc., etc. But I guess that .04% of our atmosphere that is CO2 is really the control knob on the entire machine. Right?
Jim,
Total Solar Irradiance isn’t much affected by earth’s orbital mechanics (if at all), but insolation experienced on earth is. A useful distinction, IMO.