Some insights into Carbon Dioxide
CO2 in the atmosphere went up slowly from 1870 to 1970 (290 parts per million, ppm to 320ppm). It then rose a further 70ppm to about 390ppm in 2010. But while CO2 was increasing slowly over that total period, global mean temperatures actually went down twice in that period (1870 to 1915, and 1940 to 1970).
Temperatures actually went up rapidly in the 1915 to 1940 period when the change in CO2 was very flat (very slowly changing). Only in one period (1970-2010) has CO2 and temperature both increased. With 3 out of 4 periods not matching, is it illogical to conclude that there is a correspondence between CO2 and temperature? These trends are shown in the figure. We can only conclude that there is a poor correlation between CO2 and earth’s temperature.
Now if we look at the correlation between temperature and total solar irradiance we see a much better relationship; showing CO2 is not the main player! It is the activity of the sun (sun spots and solar flares modify other galactic cosmic radiation from outer space through the change in solar wind and magnetic flux), that affects the radiation arriving on earth). The sun moderates cloud cover!
Approximately 1% of the atmosphere is greenhouse gas GHG, and 90-95% of that is water. CO2 is about 0.05% of the atmosphere. But only 5% of that 5% is man-made! If CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from about 290 to 390ppm in just over 100 years, (and it has), and if only 5% of all the greenhouse gases is man-made (anthropogenic), then only 5% of the extra 100ppm could have been caused by mankind. This is only 5ppm over 100 years. But if we are generous and say 10% is man made, that is still only 10ppm in 100 years, then the other change is due to the 90ppm from naturally produced CO2!! But added to that, IF IPCC claim that we will get 3-50C more warming in the next 50 or so years, than logically mankind would only contribute 10% of that. That is only 0.3 to 0.50C. The very argument IPCC uses comes back to bite them. Of course they don’t consider the main greenhouse gas water…. they simply blame carbon dioxide (5% of the 5% of the 1% of the atmosphere [0.0025% of the atmosphere]). Is that even remotely logical?
What about water vapour and clouds? If 95% of the greenhouse gas is water, why not attribute ‘some’ of the past as well as the predicted increase to water/clouds? With CO2 at 390 ppmv and water vapour at between 10,000 and 40,000 ppmv (highest in the tropics/equator), water vapour clearly is the dominant greenhouse gas. It is inane that IPCC major on the minor greenhouse gas CO2 and then more on the very minor proportion of CO2 due to mankind, without attributing the bulk of any predicted change to the clouds and water vapour! No argument of logic will stand that! If that is clearly wrong, then that casts serious doubts on their credibility of assessing what CO2 is actually doing now!
The temperature rose 2.20C from about 1700 to 1735 (just about 40 years) as we came out of the Little Ice Age. That is more than double the effect of the last century blamed on poor old CO2. Clearly CO2 did not cause that! When can we start to be honest and see that if we have been in cooler periods, it is natural to expect that it will get warmer so quickly, there must be a much larger driving force than a trace of CO2 gas in the atmosphere? The Sun is major. Cosmic rays from interstellar space modified by the sun’s solar wind plus the sun’s and earth’s magnetic fields are next largest factors. Following this in significance is the arriving solar energy that sets up a dynamic evaporation-condensation mechanism of the major greenhouse gas water, to form various types, sizes and locations of clouds. Other greenhouse gases are important but are certainly minor players.
Greenhouse gases have overlapping bands of infrared absorption. The absorption of one gas will affect the energy absorption by another gas. Some wavelengths of infrared energy are absorbed by both water vapour and CO2. If the CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, water vapour will absorb that band of infrared energy. Thus the absorption by one gas depends on the other gases present in the atmosphere.
SPECTRAL OVERLAP is also important. In regions where infrared energy is already strongly absorbed by water vapour, the addition of more CO2 will make little or no difference. Over the last 11/2 centuries CO2 levels have risen from a pre-industrial 280 ppm to around 390 ppm, with a global average mean temperature rise of supposedly 0.8 to 1.0˚C.
There has been little change in the Barrier reef sea temperatures over almost 30 years. Why blame that on any coral whitening?
Little has been said about the massive influence of the El Nino / La Nina current effects in the ocean between South America and Australia/New Zealand. Although the average temperature of Antarctica is -46˚C, and the West Antarctic peninsula that points toward South America is – 34˚C, there has been great alarm in the breaking off of ice in the West Antarctic area. Ice melts at 0˚C, but the peninsula is much colder. This so-called ‘melt down’ was blamed on ‘global warming’, when in fact studies showed that it was the warm currents produced by El Nino in the South Pacific which caused a partial melting deep down that caused ice breakaway. In fact in the late 30’s and early 40’s, during a major El Nino, the temperature rose initially 3-6˚C, but then within about 5 years, fell 5-7˚C; that is, up to a 13˚C temperature difference in over a few years; not hundreds.
Between 1990 and 2000, a 5% decrease in cloudiness increased the total earth surface radiative flux by 6 Watts per square metre. The entire CO2 forcing as estimated by the UN’s IPCC climate panel was just 1.6 Watts per square metre over the past 250 years. The role of CO2 is minuscule compared with natural influences, and much lower than the UN’s IPCC estimates. Water, water vapour, and clouds are dominant, but only CO2 can be taxed!
See more here: climaterealists.org
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Roger Higgs
| #
Thank you. Very clearly argued and beautifully written.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Roger and Geoff,
Roger: “Very clearly argued”.
The fundamental basis of SCIENCE is to be ‘observed facts’ and ‘accurate definitions’; about which there can be no argument.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Roger Higgs
| #
Jerry, all science is conducted in two overlapping stages:
(1) observation (i.e. gathering of facts);
(2) interpretation (of those facts)..
Stage 2 is wide open to, and vastly improved by, disagreement (argument).
Argument is utterly essential to science.
When reading (or writing) any scientific article, always be clear in your mind whether any particular statement is observation or interpretation. In fact the same applies to any article in the media too. Many people don’t realise the distinction; this allows misinformation and disinformation to prosper.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Roger,
You accept there are observed facts. You are a geologist so I would hope you are aware of the valid observed physical evidence brought to the attention of the geological community in the early portion of the 20th Century. And because of this unquestionable fact of this evidence, those who discovered this evidence framed a hypothesis that the continents of Africa and South America had sometime, in the past, drifted apart.
But I read there were members of the Geological Community who argued that the hypothesis, despite the evidence which very strongly supported it, had to be wrong if it could not be explained how continents could drift. Evidently, too many members of the Geological Community had not read Motte’s English translation of Newton’s ‘The Pinciplia’ where he in the last page of Book III wrote: “But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis; … Thus it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea.”
And I read that, for 50 years after those proposing that continents could drift were ridiculed and mocked at a geological convention, no geologist dared to suggest that continents might drift.
A fundamental principle of SCIENCE is that only reproducible observations can be used to refute a wrong hypothesis.
Herb Rose has just made a comment about his (and James McGinn’s) hypothesis is that independent water molecules do no excess in the Earth’s atmosphere. Their ARGUMENT is that individual water molecules can only escape from a water surface if the temperature of water’s surface of the boiling temperature of liquid water because at a lower temperature a molecule of water does not have sufficient kinetic energy to escape.
Read my comment to Herb and report to me if my observed facts refute their hypothesis.
Have good day, Jerry
Reply
Barry
| #
Thanks for a well written article,factual and understandable. The IPCC know all to well what they are doing as this whole co2 scam was never about the climate only about world govt. what they want is for the west to give up their hard earned wealth so that they can have a great social reset. Fossil fuel has done more for mankind in a century than the progress made in the previous four thousand years. The people behind this lie are truly evil.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
As James McGinn has pointed out water vapor does not exist below 100 C. The water in the atmosphere is micro droplets of liquid crystals, as Dr. Gerald Pollack has shown.
If water were a single molecule gas it would obey the universal gas law but because it is liquid crystals it absorbs far more infrared energy without causing a corresponding expansion of volume. To raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 C you must add 1 calorie. To convert that 1 gram of 100 C water to 1 gram of water vapor you must add 540 calories. It is liquid crystal water that is transporting energy through the atmosphere, not water vapor.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and Roger,
I waited until this morning to make this comment which I promised Roger I would make. I now see there are several common demonstrations which need to viewed to follow what chemists claim to understand (explain) which I cannot demonstrate by telling you about them if you have not observed them. And I must admit because of previous lack os fundamental understanding I did perform these demonstrations in more than a few of the chemistry classes I taught.
So I will only call attention to a physical property of sodium chloride (common table salt) which is it melts at 800C (1472F) and what we all practically know: it (salt) readily dissolves in liquid water at any liquid water temperature. Herb, your and Jame’s argument is that individual water molecules at the surface of liquid water do not have sufficient kinetic energy to break the attractions of the water molecules which surround it an its sides and base. So my observation is that sodium ions and chloride ions on the surface of solid salt must have a kinetic energy to allow them to ‘break free’ from the other ions beside them and beneath the surface of a salt crystal to enter the liquid water molecules and interact with them at temperatures between 0C (32F) and 100C (212F).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and Roger,
Too late I see did not type the critical word: NOT. The sentence I intended was: And I must admit because of previous lack os fundamental understanding I did NOT perform these demonstrations in more than a few of the chemistry classes I taught. Which explains why you may NOT have seen these critically essential simple demonstrations
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Salt is a crystal formed from ionic bonds. It is dissolved by water because water is a polar molecule with differently charged areas which react with the ionic bonds of the crystal and pulls it apart rather than it dissolving by kinetic energy.
Here is an observation you can make Jerry. Put a tea kettle on the stove and bring it to a boil. The water initially escapes the spout as an invisible jet of water vapor. On cooling it becomes visible droplets of liquid water. On further cooling these droplets become invisible again. Why would water vapor on cooling go through a liquid phase?
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I consider myself an old guy since I now have lived a few days more 80 years and have many varied experiences from which I have acquired a little knowledge. Which, given the observed atate of today’s SCIENCE, I consider needs to be shared.
You have just given me a golden opportunity by describing an simple experiment, which most adults can conduct if they have not already done so. For nearly every morning I do exactly as you described as I brew my coffee and observe exactly what you have described. Plus, I observe a few more observations which you did not describe. But you asked: “Why would water vapor on cooling go through a liquid phase?” A very good challenging question.
To answer this question I begin with “all things are made of atoms little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another.” as published in The Feynman Lectures On Physics (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html) particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another.” as published in The Feynman Lectures On Physics (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html)
Feynman continued “In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.”
Two of my essays about Feynman’s blunder which occurred as he began to lecture nonsense were posted here at PSI several years ago. But to this day this nonsense has not be corrected.
But, given your scenareo and question, I now see that Feyman’s greatest blunder was that he began to lecture instead of doing what you have just done.
However, before I make the blunder of answering your excellent question, I ask you what are a few more common everyday observes I might find useful in answering your question. If, after a day, you have not responded with a list, I will share my list and ask you: Can you now answer your own question? Again, if after a another day you have not responded with your answer, I will share my answer to your question for you to ‘peer’ review..
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
All object absorb radiated energy and all objects radiate energy. An object has both internal energy (you call it potential energy but it is non radiated energy) and energy it is radiating trying to transfer to another object with less energy. If the source of energy radiating energy to the object (the object it is equilibrium with) stops radiating energy the object will continue to radiate energy as internal energy becomes radiated energy. Even when the object reaches absolute zero and stops radiating energy it will still have internal energy that preserves its structure.
If the external energy being radiated to an object exceeds its internal energy the structure will break. (If you add more than 450,000 joules/mole to oxygen molecules they will become oxygen atoms.) The structure of an object changes as it absorbs and radiates energy.
Water is a peculiar molecule because it is very close to being a neon atom. Its structure give it both polar characteristics and non polar properties that give it its unique properties.
As steam the water molecules are disassociated with each other and each molecule behaves a a separate object. As steam cools the individual molecules combine creating a larger structure (liquid water) created when internal bonds are formed by the polar nature of the molecules. When the water cools new bonds and structures form, similar to crystallization. The liquid forms individual liquid crystal units that separate from the liquid as evaporation carrying away energy from the liquid.
You need to read Dr. Pollack’s book “the Fourth Phase of Water”. In it he presents the evidence of when water absorbs IR energy it cause water molecules to split into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions. The hydrogen ion combines with a water molecule to form a hydronium ion. while the hydroxyl ion combines with several water molecules to form an external crystal shell around the liquid water and hydronium ion. As more IR energy is absorbed the crystal shell of the liquid crystal grows and its negative charge increases. (Similar to how electrons form a negative outer shell around the nucleus of an atom.) This negative charge is what causes the crystal to separate from the liquid structure and why as it gains IR energy (stored as electric energy) it rises in the atmosphere due to the negative charge of the Earth’s surface. (Sublimation is where liquid crystals form and separate from solid water without going through a liquid phase.)
The change in steam due to cooling is a result of new structures forming within the liquid hot water droplets and crystalizing into liquid crystals by converting IR energy into electric energy and then removing that energy from the liquid.
Liquid crystals have two melting points. In the case of water one of those melting points is at 0 C where in takes 80 calories/gram to break the crystal structure. The other melt point is above 100 C where the crystal shell is broken apart releasing the stored electric energy. When water rises in the atmosphere the kinetic energy of the gas molecules increases due to their increased absorption of UV energy from the sun, and the water liquid crystals melt.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I asked: “what are a few more common everyday observes [observations, one of my common mistakes] I might find useful in answering your question.
I really do not know if you consider your latest comment to be such a list of common, everyday observations; but I assume it is your list. So here is my list..
First, relative to your experiment, we not only see (observe) with out eyes but we also have a sense of feeling (hot, warm, cool, cold, moist air (humidity), dry air. We go swimming during warm to hot days to cool off because we feel the water is cooler than the hot air temperature. But when climb out the cool water on that hot day, we feel even colder in the hot air, as the water ‘drys’ off of our body, than we did just before in the cooler water out of which we just climbed. So, we know that when water ‘evaporates’ it is cooled below the temperature of the cooler water.
However, in the old days, women (and sometimes men) learned during some days that clothes dried faster than on other days. And they could see (observe) that there were two factor which varied this rate of drying: windy air vs. calm air and dry air vs. humid air. So that given windy, dry, hot air, the clothes dried the most rapidly. But given windy, hot, very humid air, the clothes dried very slowly.
I can hear the water when it boils in my tea kettle even though it is not easy to see into the tea kettle to see that the water is boiling and hear the sound that boiling water produces. However, before one can see the water begin to boil, there is sound close to the sound of boiling water. At the same time one hears these other sounds one can see, in an open kettle, ‘gas’ bubbles that have formed and continue to form on the side and bottom of the kettle as the water continues to warm.. These sounds and bubbles have nothing to do with the water which is actually boiling. However, I still draw attention to them because one must never ignore any reproducible observation because it must have some natural scientific\ significance. Because it is not a random event!
Many a cook has boiled potatoes in an open kettle of water until they were advised to put a cover on the kettle and at the same time to turn down the heat because the boiling water in the kettle will not cool below the temperature of boiling water with the lid on at the lesser rate of heating. But if the cook doesn’t turn down the heat when the water begins to boil when the cover is put on the kettle, the cook is guaranteed to see the water ‘boil over’.
There maybe are a multitude of common observations which can help a one answer your question. But I believe Feynman’s single sentence and these few might be sufficient. And if they are not, one can go searching for other common observations to test.
Have a good day, Jerry.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and hopefully PSI Readers,,
Before you drew attention to a great experiment which nearly anyone can do and which nearly every adult has observed without becoming conscious of what they were actually ‘seeing’. This because what you described would be seen during the experiment, if actually purposefully done, is such a common part of our lives we don’t literally see it. And if we don’t see it, we don’t ask a question about what is actually occurring and why; as you have.
I will eventually answer you question but first I will review the fact that R. C. Sutcliffe wrote a book which was published in 1966 with the title (Weather and Climate). I have just checked and a paperback of this book is available at Amazon for $19.95. Which fact suggests someone must be still reading it. Herb, if you haven’t read it, you could and should! For as Sutcliffe writes, it seems to me that he doesn’t consciously understand what he writes.
So, here I briefly illustrate that to which I conclude. Page: “Meteorology is not a fundamental physical science, that is to say it is not concerned to develop the basic laws of nature.” Page 47: “The net effect of the two processes going on continuously is either condensation or evaporation and there is a state of balance when escape and capture are at the same rate: in this case, the air is just saturated with respect to the liquid surface. …. It has been necessary to labour over this image of the processes in terms of molecular movements in order to appreciate the difficulties which arise when the vapor exists in the atmosphere far removed from any liquid surface. The air might be supersaturated, in the sense that if there were liquid present the vapor would be quickly captured by it, but in the absence of any liquid there is no obvious reason why condensation should ever begin and experiment proves that the argument is a valid one.” Here, I must insert the comment: argument is an improper word; the word should be hypothesis.
Herb, the results you describe for your simple and common experiment proves that the hypothesis is a valid one. But Sutcliffe reviewed the experiments of C. T. R. Wilson as he concludes: “These results, obtained first by Wilson and broadly confirmed by many later experimenters, have a very important bearing on natural meteorology, not because supersaturation occurs in the atmosphere but because it does not occur: why is it that the natural atmosphere, however clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acids, or other substances which serve just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapour.” Here vapour is not the proper word; it should be natural atmosphere (or simply ‘air’.Here I must point at an fact. My spelling and grammar checker is has not found fault with the English spelling of vapor but here it alerts me that something is wrong with ‘vapour’. However, as look back I see it has been changing vapour to vapor but now it no longer does. Interesting, but probably not important.
What is critically important to my purpose of illustrating that Sutcliffe does not consciously comprehend that which he wrote. For the observation that the atmosphere never has been observed to become supersaturated with water vapor (molecules) is a meteorological observed SCIENTIFIC LAW of the natural atmosphere.
And Herb, I do not miss the fact that I have basically allowed Sutcliffe to generally answer your question for me. Depending are your response I may more specifically review the details of your experiment.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
You continually stressed the importance of observation to establish proof but your beliefs are based on “never been observed” as establishing scientific fact.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and hopefully other PSI Readers,
Have you read a brief portion of Newton’s ‘Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy (Book III, The Principipia) as translated to English by Motte (1848) ???
“Rule I. WE ARE TO ADMIT NO MORE CAUSES OF NATURAL THINGS THAN SUCH AS ARE BOTH TRUE AND SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN THEIR APPEARANCES.
To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.”
“Rule II. THEREFORE TO THE SAME NATURAL EFFECTS WE MUST, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, ASSIGN THE SAME CAUSES.
As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America; the light of our culinary fire and of the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets.”
“RULE III. THE QUALITIES OF BODIES, WHICH ADMIT NEITHER INTENSION NOR REMISSION OF DEGREES, AND WHICH ARE FOUND TO BELONG TO ALL BODIES WITHIN THE REACH OF OUR EXPERIMENTS, ARE TO BE ESTEEMED THE UNVERSAL QUALITIES OF ALL BODIES WHATSOEVER.
For since the qualities of bodies are only known to us by experiments, we are to hold for universal al such as universally agree with experiments; and such as are not liable to diminution can never be quite taken away. We are certainly not relinquish the evidence of experiments for the sake of dreams and vain fictions of our own devising; nor are we to recede from the analogy of Nature, which uses to be simple, and always consonant to itself. We no other way know the extensions of bodies than by out senses, nor do these reach it in all bodies; but because we perceive extension in all that are sensible, therefore we ascribe it universally to all others also. That abundance of bodies are hard, we learn by experience; and because the hardness of the undivided particles not only of the bodies we feel but of all others. That all bodies are impenetrable, we gather not from reason, but from sensation. The bodies which we handle we find impenetrable, and thence conclude impenetrability to be an universal property of all bodies whatsoever. … ”
Newton’s comments to Rule III continue for another page and did not intend to quote what I have because this comment’s beginning was difficult from me to grasp because I had no idea what Newton’s definition of extensions generally was. But when he specifically refers hardness of bodies, I understand that hardness is an extension of solid bodies.
Herb, please correct me if hardness has never been observed (cannot be sensed). I have no idea what your definition of “never been observed” is relative to what we do observe.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
In Newton’s time there was the belief that there could be no action at a distance. The concepts of fields like gravity or electric fields was unknown so the an object was limited to the mass of the object.
“Never been observed” is your term used when you speak of temperatures below dew point (even though they have been observed in polar regions where water in the atmosphere precipitates as ice crystals of various sizes and shapes “diamond dust”) and the atmosphere has never been supersaturated. You maintain that the lack of observation establishes proof that these events never occur. You do not prove something with a negative but you can disprove something with a negative.
Have a good day,
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and hopefully PSI Readers,,
When you (Herb) write: “In Newton’s time there was the belief that there could be no action at a distance.”, I have to refer you to Newton’s comment of Rule III: “We are certainly not [to, another failure to accurately copy] relinquish the evidence of experiments for the sake of dreams and vain fictions of our own devising.”
“Never been observed” is NOT MY term!!! Just as air temperatures below atmospheric dew point temperatures have never been measured and reported at any elevation in polar regions. Atmospheric sounding data made at many sites in the northern polar region. Sorry, I cannot conveniently provide the link.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Since you have a problem reading your own comments I will quote from your comment above. “For the observation that the atmosphere has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED to become supersaturated with water vapor (molecules) is a meteorological observed SCIENTIFIC LAW of the natural atmosphere.”
Have a good day,
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and hopefully PSI Readers,
Very, very good Herb. You are correct that I wrote this and did not realize it.
Now do you know what you have been writing that also may not be correct? For I came to PSI this morning knowing that I had not been seeing and writing all that needs to be seen (considered) about our common, simple experience of heating and boiling water in “tea kettle”.
And to other readers of Herb and my conservations, I have not been honest with you. If you really want to learn about this activity we term SCIENCE, you need to begin by first reading the publishers preface to a reader of Galileo’s DIALOGUES CONCERNING TWO NEW SCIENCES. Which the publisher also titled.
And PONDER (look up the definition of this word) these two common sayings: “Sight can teach more and with greater certainty in a single day than can precept even though repeated a thousand times.” And, “Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.”
If we do not understand and accept the wisdom of these two saying, we, as learners, are lost.
In a future comment I will list the mistakes I have been making.
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and hopefully PSI Readers,
I forgot to also write in the last comment that you also need to read Book III of Newton’s THE PRINCIPLIA.
I can anticipate that most ‘modern’ people will find this assignment TOO time consuming because you objective is not to become a SCIENTIST for there are many other productive professions or necessary other human activities–like farming and collecting and deposing of garbage, teaching, delivering mail and packages, etc.
As an alternative to my reading assignment, keep watching for Herb and my comments to each other. For I know (at least reasonably sure) Herb will not give up what he writes and I state I will not give up what I write.
And discussions like our comments are an essential activity of SCIENCE.
And there is no reason that any reader cannot become part of this discussion (conversation).
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and hopefully PSI Readers,
Since there are so many new articles each day and so many comments each day, I scan backwards to see if there are any new comments related to my comments. While I did not find any new comment, I found that I had not responded to this comment of Herb’s. Maybe because I did not see the important fact to which he had drawn attention.
My belief (understanding) is that there is never ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC FACT. There is only REPRODUCIBLE OBSERVED FACT!!!.
I agree with Richard Feynman who, in a public lecture to the National Academy of Sciences stated: “Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty–some most unsure, some nearly sure, but NONE absolutely certain.” (“What Do You Care What Other People Think?”)
And I read that Einstein stated: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply