How Can Anyone Be Serious about AGW?

_{September 23, 2016

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here’s a graph from the IPCC. I just happened upon it.

IPCC Report Fig 2.22 Historic Record of Temp, CO2 and Methane from Antartic Icecores.

Notice that, historically, global temperatures were, cyclically, about 4 degrees warmer than now. Just look at the repeated cycle! It’s been getting warmer for the last 15,000 years plus.

AGW is just a farce. And the IPCC itself makes this point.

Comments

wd400, you keep avoiding the issue on the table. @120 you made a claim about "damage" to our ecosystems from global warming. @122 I asked what kind of damage you were talking about, and you responded that ecosystems "are decimated by extinction and in many cases non-functional." The natural follow up to this claim is whether you have any examples of ecosystems "decimated by extinction" or made "non-functional" as a result of warming, which I asked @129. Since then, you have refused to provide any examples or details and have just engaged in obfuscatory games about how I asked the question. You know exactly what the question on the table is, so please exercise some intellectual honesty and address it, rather than deflecting it with lame excuses and misplaced accusations. If you don't have any examples, that is fine. You can say something like: "Global warming hasn't caused any significant extinctions or ecosystem damage yet, but I believe within _____ years it will because ____________________." That would be a reasonable way to answer to the question.Eric Anderson_{September 30, 2016
September
09
Sep
30
30
2016
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Apparently you didn't read the opening paragraph closely.PaV_{September 30, 2016
September
09
Sep
30
30
2016
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

EA, Read the question you asked me in 122. I have to say, I find the rest of your post pretty funny. It must take some real cognitive dissonance to launch into these fact-free preferred narratives of yours, while claiming that's what the scientists providing the details you are ignorant of are doing. PaV, Evolutionary bioloigists are not exactly fans of evolutionary psychology...wd400_{September 29, 2016
September
09
Sep
29
29
2016
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Just happened to see this: From Evolution and News, which tells us just how 'flexible' Darwinism can be to its purveyors.PaV_{September 29, 2016
September
09
Sep
29
29
2016
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

wd400:
I can’t believe I have to say this again, but no one is claiming CO2 is the only influence on climate. Just the one that is responsible for recent warming.
Framed like what a true Darwinist would do in the face of contradicting evidence. But, wd400, CO2 keeps going up, and temperatures, as reliably measured by satellites, have been the same for 20 years. And computer models can't 'correct'; any error present at the beginning, only gets worse. To see how a model either gets it right, or is forever wrong, here's something I linked to before: 2001 Graph from NASA. The AGW argument was wrong from the beginning. And now there's proof that it is wrong: the temperatures themselves.PaV_{September 29, 2016
September
09
Sep
29
29
2016
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

wd400:
I guess I made this mistake of answering the question you asked, instead of the one you would later decide you asked?
Good grief. The question is pretty simple and has always been the same, notwithstanding your apparent difficult with reading comprehension: Do you have some good examples of the apocalyptic doom you are peddling about species extinction from a couple of degrees of warming? Why don't you just come out and admit that you don't have any good examples, instead of squirming back and forth and avoiding the question. -----
. . . CO2 is . . . responsible for recent warming.
Yet we all acknowledge that there was an increase in CO2 without a corresponding increase in warming. Let this fact sink in for a moment and let us consider this carefully, without just glossing over it and without a knee-jerk run to Wikipedia to find the party line rationalization. An increase in CO2 without an increase in warming means that an increase in CO2 does not cause an increase in warming. Period. This is a simple logical fact, based on the evidence. This is not, to be sure, a slam-dunk argument against the broader claims of global warming, but it should give us significant pause, particularly in light of other evidence that warming precedes CO2 increase. As to the 20th century situation, we could of course point to other factors: aerosols, volcanoes, or (my favorite rationalization, h/t Trenberth) the heat is "hiding" in the deep oceans just waiting to come back and bite us if we don't repent, or some other explanation for why increasing CO2 did not result in increasing temperatures. It might even be that one of those explanations is true, which could then lead us to conclude that although increasing CO2 does not necessarily cause warming, CO2 would cause warming, except if other atmospheric factors prevent it. I expect you agree with this more careful and nuanced formulation. Which is to say, as to the period in question: If things in the atmosphere had been different than they were, then CO2 would have caused warming. Now, notwithstanding this more careful formulation, I can imagine that someone might still be frightened of CO2 and might fear that the very air they breathe out and is essential to life on Earth is somehow destroying the planet. And they might be right. But as soon as we start to look at the nuances, the whole thing becomes a lot less scary. As with another branch of science often discussed on these pages, the CAGW meme is kept alive with a series of vague generalizations, questionable models, sweeping assertions, and loose definitions. Thus, as with that other branch of science, we can formulate a helpful maxim for anyone interested in investigating the theory: The impression of CAGW's accuracy as a theory is inversely proportional to the specificity of the discussion.Eric Anderson_{September 29, 2016
September
09
Sep
29
29
2016
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

because it’s not my job to teach you elementary facts about the world
You are making vague assertions about ecosystems and extinctions, and your bottom line is that I can find similar assertions on Google. So what? But you are right, it's a troll job to make vague assertions on blogs. Andrewasauber_{September 29, 2016
September
09
Sep
29
29
2016
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

So what WD400 is really saying; Humans are insignificant, they mean nothing they are the result of chance and yet they have the power to destroy a planet! How does this matter WD400? Why do you even care?Andre_{September 29, 2016
September
09
Sep
29
29
2016
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT}

No. The question on the table is whether the apocalyptic doomsday claims of ecosystems being decimated by extinction from global warming is something we should take seriously. Some examples of such tragedies that have taken place thus far would be helpful.
I guess I made this mistake of answering the question you asked, instead of the one you would later decide you asked?
Unfortunately, have again failed to understand the nuances ..
Nah, my response was only to show how shallow the "mere 2C" line of argument is. If you want evidence for changes 2C (that's the minimum, btw) would produce it's very easy to find the scientific evidence.
I’m just pointing out in passing that the 20th century saw a multi-year period in which CO2 increased and temperatures did not rise. This is a demonstrable fact of the record that is often glossed over, and rarely properly addressed, by CAGW proponents.
I can't believe I have to say this again, but no one is claiming CO2 is the only influence on climate. Just the one that is responsible for recent warming. (FWIW, the cooling starting from the 1940s was very likely the result of aresols released by industry. This page does a nice job of describing the evidence supporing this).wd400_{September 28, 2016
September
09
Sep
28
28
2016
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

wd400:
You asked about the current state of ecosystems, not about what climate change has already done.
No. The question on the table is whether the apocalyptic doomsday claims of ecosystems being decimated by extinction from global warming is something we should take seriously. Some examples of such tragedies that have taken place thus far would be helpful. It still wouldn't answer the question of why we should view the ecosystems of today as somehow objectively more right and more worthy of protection than the ecosystems of a warmer world. And of course neither would it support the net-negative claims of CAGW.
As if frequently the case, you are just wrong about this. If nothing else, consider the world was only ~2C warmer than now during the peak of the last interglacial, when sea levels were 5m higher than today.
Unfortunately, have again failed to understand the nuances of the issue being debated. You made claims that global warming would result in more extreme weather, more heat waves, more droughts, and so on. Yet the evidence you cite is higher sea levels in the past? Where is the more extreme weather, the greater droughts? Here is the reality: the extreme weather events caused by global warming that we are supposed to fear currently exist only in the minds of CAGW proponents. Might they exist in the real world in the future? Perhaps. But not based on a couple of degrees of global average temperature rise -- particularly when extreme weather is typically caused by temperature differentials, something that may well even be less of an issue in a warmer world if some of the other global warming claims are to be believed. ----- As to the last point, I'm not interested in debating it in detail on this thread, as I agree with you that much more significant issues remain, even assuming the party line that an increase in CO2 causes an increase in global average temperature. I'm just pointing out in passing that the 20th century saw a multi-year period in which CO2 increased and temperatures did not rise. This is a demonstrable fact of the record that is often glossed over, and rarely properly addressed, by CAGW proponents.Eric Anderson_{September 28, 2016
September
09
Sep
28
28
2016
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT}

No, Asauber, because it's not my job to teach you elementary facts about the world. EA,
Wow, that is quite an apocalyptic view. Can you provide one or two concrete examples of ecosystems that have been “decimated by extinction” or made “non-functional” as a result of a couple of degrees of temperature rise?
You asked about the current state of ecosystems, not about what climate change has already done.
Nonsense. No-one has any credible evidence that a few-degree increase in global average temperatures (let’s keep our eye on the ball, please, not the wishy-washy convenience term “climate change”) will result in more extreme weather, more flooding, more heat waves, more droughts, etc.
As if frequently the case, you are just wrong about this. If nothing else, consider the world was only ~2C warmer than now during the peak of the last interglacial, when sea levels were 5m higher than today.
So, presumably you don’t believe the 20th century temperature and CO2 data that the IPCC uses. :)
I'm really not sure what you mean. 20th C warming can be explained with greenhouse gases, not without. wikipedia does a pretty good job on this.wd400_{September 28, 2016
September
09
Sep
28
28
2016
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

Google can get you started.
Because you can't? Andrewasauber_{September 28, 2016
September
09
Sep
28
28
2016
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

wd400:
No, they are decimated by extinction and in many cases non-functional. What’s left if worth protecting though.
Wow, that is quite an apocalyptic view. Can you provide one or two concrete examples of ecosystems that have been "decimated by extinction" or made "non-functional" as a result of a couple of degrees of temperature rise?
The damage is uncertain, in that we don’t know precisely the magnitude of impacts, but it’s not ‘unspecified’. We know very well that climate change will lead to more extreme weather, more flooding, more heat waves, more droughts in some areas..
Nonsense. No-one has any credible evidence that a few-degree increase in global average temperatures (let's keep our eye on the ball, please, not the wishy-washy convenience term "climate change") will result in more extreme weather, more flooding, more heat waves, more droughts, etc. I love this though: more flooding and more droughts. Yep, pretty much sums up the anti-scientific "every weather event is evidence for global warming" attitude. Tellingly, proponents of CAGW never seem willing to even countenance a discussion of whether a warmer Earth is a net-benefit. It's all doom and gloom as an underlying assumption.
The other questions you ask are all political/ethical/economic decisions that should be discussed, and my opinion on those isn’t particular important.
Absolutely correct. Most of the issues that people get worked up about in this area are non-scientific, notwithstanding the attempt to wrap them in the guise of scientific authority and pronouncement. I posted my prior comment before I saw this one, so you've already kind of responded, but I'd be curious to see your response to 127 anyway, if you don't mind. And, incidentally, I do think your opinion is important. We should be discussing those aspects more openly and having a real debate about it, rather than the knee-jerk responses we keep seeing from scientific societies and governmental agencies about what "must" be done, about which regulations and requirements must be imposed.
Wasting time of arguments as rediculous as wether Co2 can warm the climate . . .
So, presumably you don't believe the 20th century temperature and CO2 data that the IPCC uses. :) Seriously, though, I agree that much valuable discussion can be had even if we ignore the data and assume that increasing CO2 causes an increasing global average temperature. Indeed, nearly all the most important aspects of the debate still remain open, even after that assumption.Eric Anderson_{September 28, 2016
September
09
Sep
28
28
2016
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Asauber, This is pretty basic stuff, Google can get you started. EA, I pretty much already answered this, the first three are scientific, the later ones are not.wd400_{September 28, 2016
September
09
Sep
28
28
2016
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

wd400: And as to this:
I also find it very interesting to see how antiscientific ideas develop and reinforce themselves.
Yes, it is interesting indeed. ----- Which part of the following do you view as "scientific": - The claim that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will cause an increase in global average temperatures. - The claim that increasing global average temperatures will cause unprecedented environmental "damage." - The claim that the effect of a warmer global average temperature will be net-negative. - That a warmer global average temperature is due to humans. - That we should do something about it. - That we realistically can can do something about it. - That what we should do is attempt to control the Earth's temperature, rather than preparing for mitigation and adaptation. - That money and efforts and resources are better spent on prevention or mitigation of warmer temperatures, than on other environmental or social needs.Eric Anderson_{September 28, 2016
September
09
Sep
28
28
2016
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

So “they” is ecosystems.
Which ones? Do you know what specific means? Andrewasauber_{September 28, 2016
September
09
Sep
28
28
2016
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

that comment is in reply to the quoted text, right? So "they" is ecosystems. I don't think anyone denies that there have been a lot of human-induced extinctions, do they?wd400_{September 28, 2016
September
09
Sep
28
28
2016
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

they are decimated by extinction
Why so coy wd40? Who is 'they'? and extinction of what? Got anything specific? Andrewasauber_{September 28, 2016
September
09
Sep
28
28
2016
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

How will ecosystems be “damaged?” Presumably this simply means they will be different in the future than they currently are, which is, in turn, different than they were in ages past. Are the world’s ecosystems currently in an objectively ideal state that must be preserved?
No, they are decimated by extinction and in many cases non-functional. What's left if worth protecting though.
What kinds of things, in your estimation, should we do to prevent the possibility ...
The damage is uncertain, in that we don't know precisely the magnitude of impacts, but it's not 'unspecified'. We know very well that climate change will lead to more extreme weather, more flooding, more heat waves, more droughts in some areas.. The other questions you ask are all political/ethical/economic decisions that should be discussed, and my opinion on those isn't particular important. Wasting time of arguments as rediculous as wether Co2 can warm the climate prevents those dicussion from happening.wd400_{September 28, 2016
September
09
Sep
28
28
2016
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

wd400 @120: Thank you for the fair answer. Maybe I can follow up:
It’s likely that many people and ecosystems will be damaged by climate change . . .
How will ecosystems be "damaged?" Presumably this simply means they will be different in the future than they currently are, which is, in turn, different than they were in ages past. Are the world's ecosystems currently in an objectively ideal state that must be preserved?
. . . so we should do something to lessen that impact.
What kinds of things, in your estimation, should we do to prevent the possibility of some unspecified "damage" at some unknown location at some uncertain point in the future? Also, what cost is associated with attempting to prevent hypothetical future damage, and would those efforts and resources be better allocated toward real, identifiable environmental challenges that exist today? Alternatively, even if we are convinced of potential hypothetical damage in decades to come, would our resources be better allocated toward mitigation and adaptation, rather than attempting to control the Earth's temperature?Eric Anderson_{September 28, 2016
September
09
Sep
28
28
2016
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

wd400, but are you yourself preparing for the arrival of AGW? For instance, have you bought land and started building a home far closer to the arctic circle? If not, why not? You apparently are spending an extraordinary amount of time trying to warn others of the perils to come. Why don't your actions meet your words if you are so sure of the AGW doom that is to come?
"Gore’s Nashville mansion consumed a large amount of energy compared with the national average, and President George W. Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, had several environmentally friendly features." http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/al-gores-mansion/
bornagain77_{September 28, 2016
September
09
Sep
28
28
2016
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

Both. It's likely that many people and ecosystems will be damaged by climate change, so we should do something to lessen that impact. I also find it very interesting to see how antiscientific ideas develop and reinforce themselves.wd400_{September 28, 2016
September
09
Sep
28
28
2016
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

For rvb8, wd400, or any proponent of CAGW: Do you actually, personally, fear that Earth is headed for some catastrophe as a result of additional CO2 in the atmosphere? Or is your support of the theory more a matter of intellectual support -- standing up for science in the face of skeptics, so to speak?Eric Anderson_{September 28, 2016
September
09
Sep
28
28
2016
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

wd400:
No, I mean why do you think that statement is true? It’s not. It moved 10ppm in 5k years. A tiny blip compared to the >100ppm we’ve added in a few centuries.
Look at the chart right above the last zero of 100,000 number. We see about the same amount of rise in CO2, and within about the same time span, as we see in the last 6,000 years; and we also see almost a 5 degree increase in temperatures. So, your argument now is?
FWIW, greenhouse gases don’t work like greenhouses, so direct analogies are pretty useless.
Then, if the analogy is not apt, why call CO2, or any of the other gases, "greenhouse" gases? If, by extension, you want to say that stratospheric gases act as a kind of "glass ceiling" for the planet just like you have a "glass" enclosure" in a 'greenhouse,' then, OK. But what is the amount of H2O in the overall amount of GHGs compared to CO2? And what are the radiative properties of H2O relative to CO2? These are important answers to have if we want to discuss this in an intelligent way. CO2 is "trace" gas. Would you want to say that of H2O? And the radiative properties of H2O are much greater than CO2. So why consider CO2 the culprit? It makes no sense.
That the concentration of CO2 in atmosphere is low is not an argument for anything.
Oh, but it is. What about my post @ 115? Computer models get the wrong answers to temperatures in the stratosphere when allowing all GHGs to rise except H2O. When 'methane' is included, the model outputs begin to resemble actual data. Methane, of course, is second to water in its 'greenhouse' effects (radiative properties). Finally, when WATER is included, and allowed to RISE in the stratosphere, lo and behold, the model output slam-dunks the actual data. So, when CO2, and N2 and O2, and other trace gases are used as proxies for the warming of the stratosphere, you get garbage. When the two major 'greenhouse' gases are included (along with the other trace GHGs), then you get almost a perfect match. I rest my case. CO2 is meaningless in terms of planet warming. Common sense will tell you that, and scientific modelling in conjunction with accurate satellite measurements will also tell you that. Galileo saw the moons of Jupiter orbiting the planet, and understood heliocentrism at once. Then it took 100 years to shake the "scientific consensus" away from Ptolemy. So, should I believe my "lying eyes," or the prevailing "scientific consensus"? As I've said: I know enough.PaV_{September 28, 2016
September
09
Sep
28
28
2016
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Why do you think co2 was rocketing up in the last few thousand years?
I’m not really sure, but I suspect it is because earth’s core has been warming up slightly. But it certainly is NOT due to man-made sources.
No, I mean why do you think that statement is true? It's not. It moved 10ppm in 5k years. A tiny blip compared to the >100ppm we've added in a few centuries.
Why else call it a “greenhouse gas” if it doesn’t rise. Water vapor certainly rises in a “greenhouse” and is THE ‘greenhouse gas’ par excellent. And with water vapor, heat goes up inside a “greenhouse” as well. And, yes, the CO2 levels in a “greenhouse”—all else be equal—should go DOWN. So why in the world is it called a “greenhouse gas”? Is it convenient for the argument. What is the actual percentage of CO2 in a “greenhouse”? Well, it is only 0.03% in the air, and, given photosynthesis, it should be a little less. And, in a “greenhouse,” what is the percentage of H20? Well, it’s likely 80 to 90%. Meanwhile, CO2 is LESS than .03%. IOW, it should be entirely ignored, and not considered a true “greenhouse gas.”
These are hardly sentences, much less joined-up ideas. FWIW, greenhouse gases don't work like greenhouses, so direct analogies are pretty useless. That the concentration of CO2 in atmosphere is low is not an argument for anything.
I see you’ve used the plural form: “greenhouse gases.” If you really believed what you’re saying, you would have said ‘CO2’ instead of ‘greenhouse gases.’
This is getting dumber and dumber...
I know enough. I know all I need to know.
I'll admit this one made me laugh. Good luck with that, I guess.wd400_{September 28, 2016
September
09
Sep
28
28
2016
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

Here are two sentences from the above cited paper of Shindell:
Though not fully understood, the increased transport of water vapor to the stratosphere seems to have been caused at least partially by human activities. Because rising greenhouse gas emissions account for all or part of the water vapor increase, it is likely to continue for many decades.
You'll notice that it is impossible to logically get from the first sentence to the second. And Figure 1 contradicts the first sentence. But that's how 'dogma' works.PaV_{September 27, 2016
September
09
Sep
27
27
2016
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

Well, here's the chart that will end all controversies (or, at least one would hope!): NASA Graph It's from a 2001 study by Drew Shindell. The description of the graph is here:
Figure 1: Annually averaged temperature trends relative to 1980 over 60°N - 60°S, at 0.7 mb (~50 km altitude). Modeled values are taken from runs with greenhouse gas (ghg) increases, but fixed water and ozone (G); Ozone, with ghg and chlorine changes, calculated ozone, and fixed water vapor (G + O); MethOx, with ghg and chlorine changes, calculated ozone, and water vapor increases due to methane oxidation (G + O + M); and Water, with ghg and chlorine changes, calculated ozone, and increased water from methane oxidation and transport (G + O + M + W). In the MethOx and Water runs, water is allowed to change throughout the stratosphere and ozone is allowed to respond. Observations were taken by the Stratospheric Sounding Unit (SSU) satellite borne instrument over roughly 44-56 km altitude.
I've tried importing the graph, but can't. What we see is that when all "greenhouse gases" (ghgs) are modelled, but water vapor stays constant, then they cannot match actual data. Only when "water vapor" is allowed to increase does the model correctly predict actual measurements. Case closed. End of story!!! Why? Because the whole AGW scam is predicated on the notion that CO2 drifts up into the stratosphere, and from there radiates back energy which in turn heats up water, which in turns heats up the lower atmosphere where temperatures are recorded. But when modelling simply ghgs, the data don't match. End of story!PaV_{September 27, 2016
September
09
Sep
27
27
2016
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

PaV, If you question unguided material processes can produce life in all its multifarious forms, well according to wd400 you just don't understand evolution. And when you question that human civilization is doomed because of CO2, well according to wd400 you just don't understand global warming. Same M.O. different scenario. PaV, wd400 is, and always has been, a one trick pony. I think Barry Arrington even posted a few articles on wd400's 'you just don't understand' argument at one time,,, here is one where wd400 accuses Francis Collins himself of not understanding evolution; https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wd400-doubles-down-on-dobzhanskys-maxim/bornagain77_{September 27, 2016
September
09
Sep
27
27
2016
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

wd400: You're acting like no more than a "troll." If the substance of your posts don't change, then I will simply see fit to edit them out.PaV_{September 27, 2016
September
09
Sep
27
27
2016
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Why do you think co2 was rocketing up in the last few thousand years?
I'm not really sure, but I suspect it is because earth's core has been warming up slightly. But it certainly is NOT due to man-made sources.
Why do you think plant growth would add co2?
Why else call it a "greenhouse gas" if it doesn't rise. Water vapor certainly rises in a "greenhouse" and is THE 'greenhouse gas' par excellent. And with water vapor, heat goes up inside a "greenhouse" as well. And, yes, the CO2 levels in a "greenhouse"---all else be equal---should go DOWN. So why in the world is it called a "greenhouse gas"? Is it convenient for the argument. What is the actual percentage of CO2 in a "greenhouse"? Well, it is only 0.03% in the air, and, given photosynthesis, it should be a little less. And, in a "greenhouse," what is the percentage of H20? Well, it's likely 80 to 90%. Meanwhile, CO2 is LESS than .03%. IOW, it should be entirely ignored, and not considered a true "greenhouse gas."
Why do you insist on claiming that evidence that solar radiation cause warming in the past means greenhouse gases can’t do the same now?
I see you've used the plural form: "greenhouse gases." If you really believed what you're saying, you would have said 'CO2' instead of 'greenhouse gases.'
Did you read my last comment, or check out the data?
These are words that apply to you, not me. In my last post, I indicated that while temperatures remain steady to slightly declinging, CO2 levels shot up. Well, if you look at the graph that CLAVDIVS linked to, it's all rather clear. This rising of CO2 during steady temperatures---something that happened for thousands of years---tells a true scientist all he/she needs to know about the matter.
Why do you have such strong opinions about something you know so little about?
I know enough. I know all I need to know. I encourage people to go to "The Galileo Movement" for more information. [Aptly named organization since recent scholarship reveals that the single biggest reason the Church rejected Galileo's heliocentrism was because the vast majority of other scientists didn't agree with him: you know, the "scientific consensus."]PaV_{September 27, 2016
September
09
Sep
27
27
2016
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply