Are Children Brainwashed About Climate Change?
I am a 22-year old British woman returning to college to study science. I see young people today are duped.
Take for example, Greta Thunberg (pictured below), a 16-year old iconic climate activist lauded for being green for sailing across the Atlantic to New York for the UN climate summit in a multi-millionaire’s zero-emissions yacht.
Of course, sailing the Atlantic at such a young age is a commendable act, but the reason behind this teen’s journey is farcical, at best. A child does not possess the insight necessary to have fully-informed opinions on climate change. Children are not taught critical reasoning skills in their schooling.
Like many young people across the UK and Europe, I was spoonfed a host of talking points about the Earth’s climate. This included man-made global warming. Not till I left school did I understand that the national curriculum is written by government to get young people to accept what the government tells us.
During my schooldays everyone just accepted that human emissions are a problem and CO2 is “toxic” and “destroying” our planet, triggering more warming. Our teachers told us we had to reduce our carbon footprint through various means, such as electric cars, recycling and renewable power.
I was sucked into the hoax. I believed for the longest time that everything I had been taught was the “truth” because our teachers, and people in power, wouldn’t lie to us. Would they?
While I mention teachers, I do accept many don’t have a choice. Yes, I’m sure some buy the government’s self-serving agenda; others go along to get along and teach what is on the curriculum rather than risk losing their careers.
In my view, governments are the source of so much misinformation. To me, it is clear the term “settled science” is spawned by politicians to dissuade critical thinking. Governments, per se, act as self-serving entities that virtue signal to win votes and encourage young people to be dependent on the state rather than be self-reliant.
My first insight towards becoming less subservient came when I chanced to read a simple book, Betrayers of Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science by William Broad and Nicholas Wade.
The book analyses fraud and deceit within the scientific community; a book for any age for those who want to glean insight into the corruption of science.The authors, Broad and Wade, reveal to readers the dark heart of science. Science by its nature is rational, but people aren’t.
We are biased and by our nature driven mostly by personal and professional gain. There are shocking revelations about some of the most famous people in history. The book opened my eyes to the less-than-perfect giants of human achievement, including Galileo, Isaac Newton and Robert Millikan.
All are proven to have committed some sort of fraud, whether it be in the way they presented their work or how the work came into being. It dawned on me this is nothing new, just the way of the world and it continues today with climate change.
Childhood mandatory education makes us wear idealized rose-tinted glasses making children lazy about thinking critically. But developing the skills to reason critically and logically is far more important than memorizing someone else’s facts.
Young people must go the extra mile to uncover the truth for ourselves. The question I now pose to anyone my age when talking about climate is: how can carbon dioxide gas, which inherently cools things, heat up the planet?
From my own research the inescapable answer is: It can’t.
CO2 used in appliances such as fridges keeps things cold. It is impossible for something that cools to heat up the planet. Fact: The Earth’s climate is cyclical. It experiences periods of cooling and warming. Think of the planet just like the human body, we don’t command our bodies to warm up when we are cold or cool down when we are hot, it does it naturally and the Earth is exactly the same.
If you look back through history our planet experienced Ice Ages; Earth warms up until it reaches a peak, then it naturally cools back down until we enter another Ice Age. The cycle repeats (see graph below).
My quest to find the truth led me to the conclusion that Global Warming only became a well-known term among policymakers during the reign of the’ Iron Lady,’ Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Older reading material, like encyclopaedias and science books that I found in libraries, do not mention the ‘greenhouse gas effect’ – it was though it didn’t exist until politicians decided it was the devil’s work, sometime in the 1980’s,
As someone who grew up in an old coal mining district in south Wales, I listened as my older relatives spoke of global warming as a concocted excuse to shut down the British coal industry due to the militancy of miners.
My parents told me of the ‘three-day week’ when power cuts caused by striking miners meant electricity was generated on a part-time basis. In a way, I came to understand that ‘going green’ was going to put us back to the dark old days of the three day week, because we are expected to live in a future dependent on the intermittent power supply of wind and solar.
There is said to be enough coal deep in the Welsh valleys to serve the energy needs for the whole of Britain, for at least 300 years. To take away our natural occurring resources like coal, destroy the soul of so many Welsh communities to make us dependent on unreliable solar energy, wind turbines etc. is foolhardy.
I feel like my heritage was taken away from me when the coal industry, a former crucial economic force in Wales, was killed off by PM Thatcher to the ‘save the planet.’ Nowadays entire communities in Wales are still not recovered from the devastation of enforced mass employment due to political ideology.
I view the whole exercise of inducing hysteria and panic in young people on a global scale is simply to get us to surrender to ‘decarbonization’ making us all poorer and a means to promote population control. Well, they may be fooling Greta Thunberg, but they haven’t fooled me.
As long as there are independent scientific organisations like Principia Scientific International then the brainwashing has an intellectual antidote. I know there are far more people like me in my generation who are waking up.
We take pity on silly little girls like Greta. I believe scepticism will keep growing and my generation won’t be so much fooled by the privileged ‘useful idiots’ from rich families who think ordinary people like me are stupid and expendable, in their elitist world view.
I end with one of my favourite quotes and hope it offers more food for thought:
“In a room where people unanimously maintain a conspiracy of silence, one word of truth sounds like a pistol shot.” – Czesław Miłosz
Read J.A. Cook’s blog at forthenovellovers.wordpress.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Andy Rowlands
| #
Well said JA. I know two teachers. One refuses to discuss climate change, the other is a skeptic, but feels he has to abide by the curriculum for fear of losing his job.
Reply
Jerry Todd
| #
The front line of attacking out traditional values and our understanding of science is our children. We already have a generation of indoctrinated products of a top-heavy education system that brooks no discourse or challenging opinions.
In California, I trust this will be a key battleground as we fight to take our schools and our children back.
Reply
Graeme Mochrie
| #
The first time I heard about global warming was in a lecture in 1973. Recent readings suggest that the Kennedy administration discussed it in the early ’60s. I suspect that politically it was about encouraging nuclear power and this would be the case again after the first oil shock. Thatcher may have been keen on renewables because she wanted to castrate the unions and she largely succeeded. Chernobyl and Three Mike Island cooled the public appetite for nuclear as did the build up of nuclear weapons in the UK in the’80s. There were always old hippies around who wanted to use wind and water mills, but the feasibility for more than limited generation was never there. I often wonder how we got sufficient enthusiasm for renewables. I suspect investment went into it and prices dropped and so more investment was made. Once people have made a bet on something they generally do all they can to get a return.
You are lucky to live when you do. When we were young we tended to believe what we read and certainly believed teachers. You are healthily skeptical and hopefully you will infect lots of others.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi J. A. Cook,
My question to you: Are you trying to brainwash readers of PSI’s science news articles and essays?
You wrote: “I was sucked into the hoax. I believed for the longest time that everything I had been taught was the “truth” because our teachers, and people in power wouldn’t lie to us. Would they?”
And you seemed to endorse a simple book by William Broad and Nicolas Wade who, according to a book review referred to by you, seemingly wrote: ” Although the have been many great scientists throughout history who were not so honest and didn’t conduct their experiments as they reported and I’m only going to name a few:
• Galileo is often hailed to be the founder of modern scientific methods because of his insistence that experiment should be the arbiter of truth. Although many scientists of the 17th century had great difficulty reproducing his results and doubted that he even conducted certain experiments.
• Isaac Newton the genius who formulated the law of gravitation relied on an unseemly fudge factor in order to make the predictive power of his work seem greater than it actually was.
• Robert Millikan who won the Nobel Prize for being the first to measure the electric charge of an electron extensively misrepresented his work in order to make his experimental results seem more convincing.
These are just a few of thousands famous historical scientists whose work cannot be replicated even with the technology and scientific advances.”
Because you, J.A., referred this book to us, I ask you more questions which I hope you will answer. Which of Galileo’s experiments have you been unable to duplicate? I even ask: Have you read Crew and de Salvio’s English translation of Galileo’s famous book? Or, are you only believing what Broad and Wade wrote?
What was Newton’s unseemly fudge factor? Have you read Motte’s English translation of Book III of The Principlia? Or are you only believing what Broad and Wade wrote? Now a fact is that Newton on the last page of The Principlia wrote: “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 seas.”
I expect the fudge factors, referred by Board and Wade, might have been what physical scientists a half-century ago still referred to as perturbations. Perturbations is a word which I no longer commonly read. For the motion of our seas to which Newton referred and claimed to explain, many know can be very diverse. At certain places only a diurnal ocean tide is observed while at other locations only semi-diurnal tides are observed. Cyclic diurnal tides were easy to explain by the influence of the gravities of the sun and moon. But the many cyclic semidiurnal tides also observed could not be explained with the same reasoning or by considering any realistic perturbations.
Board and Wade and Newton all referred to ‘the laws’ which he claimed to have explained. Do you know the definition of a scientific law?
Sienko and Plane wrote in a very popular chemistry textbook: “Natural laws, which may be qualitative statements or mathematical formulas, describe observed phenomena. They contrast with legislative laws which require or prohibit, and which may be “broken.” There is no room in science for the statement “the exception which proves the rule.” A familiar example of a natural law is the law of gravity. Less familiar examples of laws are those which describe the behavior of gases. For example, all gases can compressed, and Boyle’s law states that their volume is inversely proportional to the pressure exerted upon them. Boyles’ law, like the law of gravity , gives no reason for natural behavior but simply states what the behavior is.”
Galileo wrote: “But Simplicio, I trust you will not follow the example of many others who divert the discussion from its main intent and fasten upon some statement of mine which lack a hair’s-breadth of the truth and under this hair, hide the fault of another which is as big as a ship’s cable. Aristotle says that “an iron ball of one hundred pounds falling from a height of one hundred cubits reaches the ground before a one-pound ball has fallen a single cubit” I say that they arrive at the same time. You find, on making the experiment, that the larger outstrips the smaller by two finger-breadths, that is, when the larger has reached the ground, the other is short of it by two finger-breadths; now you would not hide behind these two fingers the ninety-nine cubits of Aristotle, nor would you mention my small error and at the same time pass over in silence his very large one.”
I am sure Galileo understood, as I claim to, that the difference of two finger-breadths is due to the tiny perturbation of the air resistance upon the two balls as they fall.
Richard Feynman is a well-known physicist who had several generally recognized scientific achievements during the 20th Century. In 1955 he addressed the National Academy of Sciences (“What Do You Care What Other People Think?”) He titled this address The Value of Science. You can read in his address’s preface as to the address’s ‘why’. He addressed three values but it seems, to me, clear that the third was the most important.
“I would now like to turn to a third value that science has. It is a little less direct, but not much. The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty—some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.”
Then he considered this third values for three more pages in the book that I have.
J.A., Have you read this book?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
David Wieland
| #
Yes, I had the same questions about the Broad and Wade book, judging by the linked review. This kind of garbage is worse than useless in supporting accusations of brainwashing of children. Even if J.A. Cook is real (which the poor writing makes me doubt), this article is a questionable choice for PSI.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Hi David, Ms Cook is genuine. At PSI we feel we need to encourage young adults into skepticism and speaking out, rather than trash them for raw writing skills.
Reply
David Wieland
| #
My concern is that the claimed eye-opener book is so poorly written and questionable that it weakens the valid arguments that are what give PSI its scientific credibility.
Reply
David Wieland
| #
What I meant by “the eye-opener book” was Ms. Cook’s review and quotes from it. To claim that all the giants of science have been proven guilty of fraud is pretty extreme. Proven? Can’t you request careful editing before publishing an article that, admittedly, does contain useful information?
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
I am a 72 year old retired professional Mechanical Engineer. My Grandfather was a Welsh miner. I recall at least one teacher in my schooldays telling us “Education is not about telling you what to believe, it is about getting you to make your own minds up.” What a sea change in educational philosophy over less than one lifetime!
I completely agree with this young lady and I take heart that at least some of our younger generation are able and willing to see through the propaganda directed at them for reasons of political expediency. We are being lied to, but I do not think this is accidental. Nor do I think this is some inexorable, cause with infinite momentum that we all are forced to go along with. It takes people with intelligence and courage to stand up and demand that alternative viewpoints are taught alongside the polemic and insist that pupils are invited to discuss and possibll even make their own minds up on serious issues like this.
There is a reason for this drive by governments to force this thinking down our throats.
https://principia-scientific.com/connecting-apples-climate-change-and-world-war-3/
Reply
Pete Sudbury
| #
No, children are educated about science.
The writer is apparently blissfully ignorant of it, either wifully or through laziness.
And it must be difficult to acknowledge that even a 16 year old with autistic spectrum disorder can understand climate breakdown, but it really isn’t that hard.
Try:
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/energy-environment-climate/topic/
Written by some real scientists.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Dr Pete of Greenpeace, I have taught science in mainstream UK schools in recent years – Ms Cook’s words resonate with my experiences. Many science teachers I’ve spoken with are disturbed at the level of climate propaganda in schools today.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
First of all there is no ‘climate breakdown’, that is a complete myth, it has recently been described by a retired former Principal Scientific Officer with the government’s Dept of the Enivironment I am acquainted with as ‘scientific fraud of the highest order’. The Earth is healthier now than a century ago. Not only is there blatant propaganda in schools about so-called ‘climate change’, I was at a charity event Sunday just gone, and saw a scout group collecting, with a banner outside their tent saying we need to raise awareness about climate change in young people. The Scout Association is therefore also spreading propaganda and indoctrinating children.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Pete,
Children are not educated about science, they are told about science A 15 year old has only algebra math skill, no physics, no chemistry, and only the most general knowledge about anything. That is not education and why there are special laws protecting children from being exploited by their elders. To think that a child with an “autism spectrum disorder” is a valid voice for a position on science just shows how low you will stoop in your propaganda campaign. You are not a scientist but an advocate for a belief in a philosophy that defies science.
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi David, Herb, and Others,
I thought of saying what John O’ wrote. We should not be frightened by what someone writes (says), but we do need to respond to it.
I ask each of you who have commented here, the same questions I asked J.A.. Have you read the English translations of Galileo’s and Newton’s Book III of The Principlia? I had not until very near the end of my chemistry teaching career. A informal poll has disclosed that very few teachers of physical science (regardless of the level of education) have yet to read these books. In the case of Galileo’s book a historical fact was there had been no English translation of his book for more than a century before 1914. So, it seems the English speaking physicists and chemists got along quite well without reading this book.
I have quoted extensively from R. C. Sutcliffe’s book (Weather and Climate). Have you read it? It is a very honest book about what was ‘known’ (considered) about meteorology in 1966. And one cannot understand anything about climate until one understands meteorology. For climate is merely the average of common meteorological factors at a given location on a given day of the year.
Herb wrote: “You [Pete} are not a scientist but an advocate for a belief in a philosophy that defies science.”
Sutcliffe, in his preface, wrote: Much is heard of the two cultures and of science and technology becoming intolerably specialized and sophisticated with concepts often unintelligible to the non-scientist.” Then early in his introduction he wrote: “The dual interest of the scientist in the natural world of phenomena and in the basic principles which explain them, which identify the natural with the rational, was accepted generally and did not begin to lose validity until—with the tremendous success of experimental laboratory physics of the late nineteenth century—the applications of basic physical theory were largely diverted from the natural macro-environment of man to the essentially simple physical systems which he invented for himself and learned to construct and control. It is of course easy to overstate the case but it can hardly be denied that the physics of the present century has become preponderantly the basic science of engineering of the completely revolutionary electrical, electromagnetic, electronic, atomic, and nuclear engineering, and of chemical engineering with its ever-expanding range of new materials created by man.”
Then after couple sentences he wrote something which I now consider to be quite profound. “The classical scientists were philosophers not engineers … ” Profound because I claim to be one of the few scientists who make comments or post articles here at PSI. Most comments and posts, not related to scientific news, are written by engineers who likely have only taken the science courses introduction to chemistry and introduction to physics which are taught by professors of chemistry or physics. And these science professors know little about engineering and the engineering professors know little about the history of science.
Now back to Sutcliffe’s ‘two cultures’. I was in graduate school in 1966 when his book was published. I do not claim to know what he intended relative to these two words. I know that Galileo knocked Aristotle and his fellow Greek philosophers off their ‘intellectual’ pedestal and these philosophers , who had great faith in their rational intelligence, clearly distained the fact that a common saying of Galileo’s time that “sight can teach more and with greater certainty in a single day than can precept even though repeated a thousand times.” (Elzevir, the publisher of Galileo’s book in the publisher’s preface to the reader, as translated by Crew and de Salvio). And it should not be overlooked that Galileo demanded that his book be printed in the common Italian language and not the intellectual language—Latin. Clearly this was a in your face by Galileo to the ‘intellectual’ community. And this community has been trying to climb back on their rational ‘intellectual pedestal’ since that time.
And I sometimes (often) state: physical science is not logical. How often have you read positive things about quantum mechanics here at PSI?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Are you asking me if I read these books or what? I once tried thread Principia but the language has changed so much it was incomprehensible.
Newton’s great fudge factor is G, the gravitational constant.There is nothing in his data that connects gravity with mass (velocity of planet and distance of a planet from the sun) yet you, who stresses observation, are quite willing to accept his unsupported assertion that gravity is a function of mass. When observations are made (binary asteroids) that contradict his assertion you dismiss the evidence because it contradict the established expert. You will only accept evidence that supports your belief in accepted science.
You state that averages don’t exist in reality yet you accept the explanation for the high tides on the side of the Earth opposite the moon are a result deviations from the average force of gravity. You are the one who always cites long dead scientists as the established authorities even thought observations, data, and the theories they used to develop their own theories are no longer accepted as being accurate.
.Sutcliffe got it exactly wrong. Climate is determined by the energy the Earth gets from the sun and weather is how that energy is distributed around the Earth.You cannot understand weather without understanding the energy that produces it (climate) and you cannot understand climate until you realize that the temperature does not correlate to the energy, despite what your dead experts say, of molecules and the data being used is inaccurate.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Matt
| #
Gentlemen; choose your weapons; take ten paces; turn, then engage.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
First you state: “I once tried thread Principia but the language has changed so much it was incomprehensible.” Whose fault is that? You should not blame others for your lack of comprehension.
I previously did not refer the following statement: “Robert Millikan who won the Nobel Prize for being the first to measure the electric charge of an electron extensively misrepresented his work in order to make his experimental results seem more convincing.”
But I did not find they referred to Feynman’s commencement address to Caltech’s graduating class of 1974. (“Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”) He stated: “We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It’s a little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It’s interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan’s, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.” He asked: “Why didn’t they discover that new number was higher right away?” If you are curious you can read his answer in his book. And you should read his following comments.
Back to Newton and your claim “There is nothing in his data that connects gravity with mass (velocity of planet and distance of a planet from the sun).”
Is his data the astronomical observations of Tycho Brahe and the mathematical analysis of Brahe’s data by Johannes Kepler who discovered three laws of the planets’ motions about the sun. First law: A planet revolves around the sun in an elliptical-shaped orbit with the sun at one focal point. Second law: An imaginary line joining the sun and any given planet sweeps out equal area in equal time. Third law: in its simplest form is p^2 = r^3 where p is the period of revolution of a planet in earth years and r is average distance in A.U. (average distance of earth from sun) of the planet from the sun.
If Newton got the explanation of these laws wrong, what is your explanation of these three laws. For I have not read that they are no longer valid.
Here, before you jump on the average distance, the average value is not of some randomly varying values but of a mathematical equation which varies according to a mathematical equation.
While I question if you have accurately described Newton’s explanation for the observation of semi-diurnal tides, Newton used the accepted (observed) values of the earth’s equatorial diameter, and the observed distance of the sun and moon from the earth at the various times of the lunar phase cycle. Obviously these values are changing with time and the inertia of the ocean does not allow an immediate response. And the real (actual) earth is not a sphere covered with some layer of ocean water. There are many perturbations involved in the actual tidal cycles observed at locations even physically near one another.
The factors generally used to classify climates are primarily based upon the meteorological factors of air temperature and precipitation at a given location and the seasonal variation of these two factors . A third lessor factor is the wind which does distribute the thermal energy gained or lost at one location to another location or ocean currents which are mainly driven (caused) by the winds at the surface.
John O’, are you sure that Herb Rose is an actual person? Of course, he is a person. The question is ‘Herb Rose’ the stage name of a person whose legal name is different?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
When you object to what someone says you resort to citing dead experts not data. How do you explain binary asteroids or are you going to pretend they don’t exist because your experts don’t reference them?
Kepler’s law are correct because they are based on verifiable observations. Newton’s interpretation of these laws making mass the source of the force is wrong and gravity. and the motion of the planets around the sun are a result of energy, not mass.
James is right about water. 0 C water has more kinetic energy than 0 C ice. 100 C steam has more kinetic energy than 100 C water. The heat of crystallization and evaporation doesn’t disappear and become potential energy but does not register on the thermometer. It takes 720 calories/gram to convert 0 C ice. to 100 C steam. The thermometer has an 11% error at 0 C and a 86% error at 100 C. The fact that a calorie is measured a given temperature range shows that it is understood that the amount of energy in a calorie changes with the temperature of the water. Since the thermometer its calibrated by using ice water and boiling water the instrument used to determine the amount of energy in a system is wrong and all data on the energy in the atmosphere is inaccurate.
Jerry, science progresses as new information or theories are discovered. The dead experts you cite made significant contribution to the progress of science but did not have the final/right answer because there’ll never be a final/right answer. Knowledge, like energy, never stops moving.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Thank you for your comments because they allow me to review the HISTORY that I know and you must admit that you know even if you choose to disregard it.
You wrote: “When you object to what someone says you resort to citing dead experts not data. How do you explain binary asteroids or are you going to pretend they don’t exist because your experts don’t reference them?”
You have just acknowledged that you know that the dead I cite were experts. But then you disregard that they were experts because they (Galileo and Newton) used observations (data) to guide their reasoning. Galileo built a telescope to see more. Newton built a different type of telescope with which he observed two comets which approached the sun very closely as they swung around the sun in a day or so. Other people of that time observed the same thing as they used their telescopes which dead Galileo had brought to their attention. How does anyone see the binary asteroids to which you refer? What instruments of science have you invented?
Now I review the history, which I should have acknowledged long ago, It was known that a upward buoyant force is exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, whether fully or partially submerged, long before Galileo started to do his thing. “Archimedes’ principle states that the upward buoyant force that is exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, whether fully or partially submerged, is equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces and acts in the upward direction at the center of mass of the displaced fluid.” (Wikipedia) Archimede: Born: 288 BC, Syracuse, Italy Died: 212 BC, Syracuse, Italy (Wikipedia)
Somehow dead Galileo knew the history of dead Archimede. As it is common historical knowledge that Galileo used the principle of buoyancy when he made the first instrument that measured ‘temperature’. Somehow Galileo, or someone else, observed that heated water expanded (became less dense) so he could measure the ‘temperature’ of unheated natural water with the principle of buoyancy.
I know that Galileo did not invent the telescope but I believe you should admit that he made its use as a scientific instrument popular. I could care less about binary asteroids because I am quite sure they have nothing to do with what the temperature of today is going to be.
I came to PSI having observed (therefore knowing) that clouds are the earth’s primary thermostat. As Sutcliffe (now dead) had stated in his book Weather and Climate. And it seems that others are now seeing what Sutcliffe and I saw. Which is very good even if I cannot claim to have had anything to do with this change of understanding.
I close by reviewing some personal history. I somehow discovered PSI because I first had discovered Joe Postma’s blogsite. Where he and Carl Allen Brehmer had been referring to Horace de Saussure’s ‘hot box’ experiments. And I have yet to read that anyone has seen that Horace’s hot box was a scientific instrument—a radiometer—as I have. Of course, I am abnormal and can admit that I could be wrong.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Binary asteroids were discovered as satellites were send to the outer regions of the solar system. There have been several observed and are when one asteroid orbits another asteroid as they orbit the sun in the asteroid belt. If you assign an arbitrary value to the mass of an asteroid (1 million kg) and calculate the diameter of the asteroid using their average density you will find that by using Newton’s formula G times mass of asteroid equals the distance of the orbiting asteroid times its velocity squared the orbiting asteroid must either be so close to the surface or moving so slowly that it cannot be observed. It is observed so Newton’s formula doesn’t describe reality. They have nothing to do with temperature.
You say that clouds are the atmosphere’s primary thermostat but they are also thermometers. Clouds in the troposphere are made of water droplets and water acts as a thermometer. When the kinetic energy of the water molecule is less than the attractive force between the molecules water is ice. When the kinetic energy is greater than the attractive force water is steam. In the range where the two forces are approximately equal water is a liquid. The fact that the clouds are composed of liquid water droplets means that the thermometer’s reading of -50 C is not accurate. It is not due to super cooling. Super cooling only occurs in pure water where there are no nuclei to initiate crystal formation and cannot occur if there is any agitation to the liquid. Neither of these conditions exist in the clouds in the atmosphere..
I do not deny that Galileo and Newton were great scientist and made important contributions to the advancement of science but their observations and instruments were primitive by today’s standards and science has made great advancements since then. The work of a great historian in the 18th century would be inadequate today because the information to them was limited and in some cases inaccurate. Myths were accepted as real history and real information (Marco Polo) was dismissed as fantasy. Science advances and sometime it moves in the wrong direction but as long as it moves and stays true to its fundamental premises it will continue to develop and never find the final right answer.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
If you read Motte’s English translation of The Principia, you will find Newton qualitatively stating that far from the sun is where ‘tiny’ forces like the gravitation forces between the two asteroids exert upon each other as they orbit the sun have their greatest influence each other. For Newton recognized that there is a factor termed impluse (the force times the time the force is being applied). In the case you describe it seems the time of the tiny gravitational forces acting between the two asteroids is approaching infinity. Hence, the impluse becomes very large as is the impluse of the very weak gravitation force of the sun acting upon the two asteroids.
If you recognize there is the factor–impluse–it seems there is no mystery.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
In order for an object not to “fall down” upon another object or be propelled into space in a “right line” the force of the attraction must equal the force propelling it into space..Mass closer to the central mass have greater velocity than objects of similar mass at a greater distance. There is no time factor in his formula separate from velocity. Your statement is another case of you ignoring evidence that contradicts your complete faith in your dead expert and looking for anything to serve as an excuse.
Have a good day,
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Jerry,
So much of what is taken as true or false in the natural sciences has to do with what is easy to understand and convey. Climatology and its most perverse theory of catastrophic global warming is only the most obvious variant on this theme. Misinformation and blatant pseudoscience is thick in all of the natural sciences. At the root of it all is a brain-dead, artificially simplistic understanding of H2O. And the silence of fools.
Much of the foolishness in the natural sciences started with Linus Pauling, about 60 or 70 years ago, when he made a conceptual error and the rest of the scientific community blindly followed. I refer to this error as Pauling’s Omission.
Here is a link to a video that obviates this error and its wider ramification:
Pauling’s Omission: The Original Sin of the Natural Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=iIQSubWJeNg
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
Does water evaporate? I hang a wet wash cloth up after taking a bath in the evening. The next morning the wash cloth is dry. I would like you to give us (readers of PSI) a step by step mechanism by which this water disappeared.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry,
The burden of proof is on those making extraordinary claims. Since you believe evaporation magically defies the known boiling temperature/pressure of H2O, you tell me how you ‘know’ the ensuing evaporate is gaseous H2O and not invisibly small nanodroplets.
What You Never Suspected About Water in the Atmosphere
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16615
James McGinn / Genius
Reply