samedi 31 mai 2014

Kerry's 97 % had a precedent, TFP!

Here is first a link:

TFP : Kerry's 97 Percent of What?
Created on Friday, 23 May 2014 09:26 Written by Gary J. Isbell

Next a quote from the link:

Is Kerry honestly implying that 97 percent of all scientists support global warming?

Such an attitude frustrates the very purpose of science. The very role of scientific study is to question; it is to be skeptical of outcome allowing for solid evidence, not politics, to form opinions. It comes as no surprise that Kerry is presenting as fact, the idea that there is a real consensus on global warming, but this is not the case. The 97 percent consensus figure he quotes actually represents the opinion of only a small fraction of one sector of the scientific community.

The very notion of a scientific consensus around this issue was created for ideological and political purposes in order to advance the environmental agenda.


BUT, the notion of scientific consensus is older than that.

Heard about Scientific Consensus about Heliocentrism and Evolution?

Are there any agendas to those, perhaps?

Getting God our of the game, perhaps.

With Heliocentrism, the turning of the Universe around Earth, giving us day and night, is supposed to be apparent.

Once you assume it is real, you realise that there must be something or someone very powerful turning it around us.

Once you realise the planets and stars are not just attached to the inner wall of a hollow soccer ball, but have some freedom of movement - more apparent in planets moving around the Zodiak, less apparent in stars moving the up 0.76 arc seconds back and forth yearly (α Centauri) with the sun and up to some more than that against the sun - you also realise that the speeds involved and the absense of "train wreck" on a cosmic level, making train wrecks look like ripples on a pond, you realise it is not something, but Someone who moves the universe around.

We Christians think He was made Man, without ceasing to be God, and I suspect He may have asked His human stepfather St Joseph to build the first dreydel. Unless one can show spinning tops were already around earlier, of course.

But scientific consensus has it, watching Universe move and taking it as that is just getting it backwards, because we were placed ... sorry, because we happened to evolve (next scientific consensus) on a place where getting it backwards is inevitable.

Those scientific consensuses are pretty bleak precedents for the 97% (i e 76 scientists, if you read the link) of Kerry. Bleak and dark and illboding ones. Sorry TFP is not often attacking those!

As to the Global Warming issue, I do have a hunch, not as a specialist.

We do have a warmer climate now than back when Swedish kings could ride over the Ice of Big Belt in Denmark, in the War which earned us Scania (my province, my ancestors on that side were thus Danes). We do also know that back then it was colder than some time in the Middle Ages, when wine could be grown in places that are now too cold. I think we are not yet as warm as the 13th C. And that warmth very certainly was not man made.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Parmentier
Saturday after Ascension
31 / V / 2014

3 commentaires:

  1. I said: "less apparent in stars moving the up 0.76 arc seconds back and forth yearly (α Centauri) with the sun and up to some more than that against the sun"

    THe part about "against the sun" is a k a negative parallax.

    Here is the official version if you want it, link:

    HIPPARCOS FAQ Q 26 (third internal link from bottom, if you only get to top of page)

    Q. How far away (PC or LY) was, or what was the smallest parallax for, the most distant star measured by the Hipparcos satellite? I have seen varying numbers - one ESA publication stated that it was 1000 LY while I've seen various astronomy professors say it was on the order of 3000 LY. For whatever maximum distance is correct, can I assume that Hipparcos pretty much mapped all the stars within that distance from the Earth - i.e., the # in the Hipparcos catalog plus the # in the Tycho catalog? I suppose if I knew how to search the Hipparcos and Tycho catalogs, I could determine this answer, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

    A. Let's talk in terms of angles (a parallax of 1 milliarcsec means a distance of 1000 pc). You will find very small values of the parallax in the catalogue, e.g. 0.1 milliarcsec which formally would mean a distance of 10,000 pc. There are even negative parallaxes, which physically means nothing. The important point is also the accuracy of these estimates. If we measure 0.1 milliarcsec, and the accuracy is 1 milliarcsec, it doesn't mean that we have really determined a distance of 10,000 pc. So there is not really a simply answer to your question "what is the max distance measured"... it depends on the accuracy you are happy to accept. Many workers say that only want to work with distances accurate to say 10%. For a typical measurement accuracy of 1 milliarcsec, this will mean stars with parallaxes greater than 10 milliarcsec, i.e. stars within just 100 pc of the Sun. If you're happy with distance accuracies of 20%, our measurements extend out to around 200 pc. But not every star out to these distances was measured by Hipparcos, so the catalogue is certainly not complete to these distances.

    So, negative parallax physically means nothing?

    It would of course be meaningless on the assumption it is parallax. That is, if it is inverse apparent movement to our real one, seen from a distance. In that case a negative parallax is physically impossible and MUST be an error.

    Not if it is made by angels and really is the movement of the star.

  2. Quoting, dividing and answering #3 by VociMike:

    Physically, how can negative parallax exist? An object at infinity will have zero parallax, all closer objects will have positive parallax (maybe too small to measure).

    Exactly - and exactly why negative parallax is a give away against Heliocentric theory about parallax being parallax.

    Besides, what does this have to do with geocentrism? Whether the earth moves relative to the stars, or the stars move relative to the earth, the parallax will be the same.

    The angles observed are the same, but if we live in a geocentric universe, their nature need not be parallactic.


    The negative numbers are just as large as the positive numbers and just as evenly distributed.
    I am trying to determine if this is true. So far, I have yet to see this substantiated. Your initial link does not reference any evidence.
    It references the Hipparcos database itself.

    The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues
    Multiparameter Search Tool

    Make sure you select the Tycho main catalog. Then search for a range of 500 > 700 mas. You will get about 30 stars. Now search the range of -700 > -500 and you will get about 45 stars. If you search from -900 > -700 you will actually find 2 stars. So there are actually more and larger negative parallax readings than there are positive parallax readings.