A Global Cooling alarmist? Graeme you are 35 years too late!!!”

Same moron. Two different threads. You idiot Matt!!!!!! How can a debate of 35 years ago affect PHYSICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. You are clearly a dim bulb fella. Matt you are just a dummy. You are acting as if the physical world gives a tinkers cuss about petty science/media debates.

Follow the evidence you blockhead. This is just depressing. That we are surrounded by people so given over to the stupid demon.

AGW is not a scientific field – its a political movement misusing science, hence my rejection of it. It can be dismissed on first principles without the statistical jiggery pokery charlatans need to demonstrate their idea of scientific truth.

As for evolution – it isn’t supported in fact but in rhetoric. You need to understand how it came into use – and to do that you need to be familiar with the politics of England at the time of The Great Reform Act of 1832.

Charles Lyell effectively shifted Creation from its Ussherian date of 4004 BC to one far removed to the past. Darwin’s theory then supplied the means by which this new date of creation could account for the presently observed biodiverisity by a mechanical process. Darwin’s theory has quite a few holes in it, causing Stephen Jay Gould to come up with his improvement as punctuated equilibria.

Lyell moved a fiction from one point in time to another. Darwin, starting from that removed fiction, then supplied a mechanism to explain “evolution”. Note that the human being remains as the ultimate product of this process, therefore not contradicting Lyell’s beliefs as a devout Methodist, in which man is made in God’s image. (Do not underestimate the power of a scientists cultural background in biassing his science).

And please let’s not get into THAT area of disputation.

Objectively you will find that life seems to appear as lifeforms which are suited to a particular environment, so what our forbears might have interpreted as evolution to maintain fidelity with their religious beliefs, may rather be lfie forms that can be associated with a particular physical environment.

Lyall Watson writing in his various books, (Supernature etc) has pointed to quite problematical facts concerning evolution. Science journalist Richard Milton caused an even greater hysterial outburst with his controversial books questioning evolution.

But I am not going to got into detail at this point because I have other priorities.

Bear in mind that the so-called fringe scientists are the ones whose theories and observations displace the fossilised corpus of institutionalised science that is intrinsically a political phenomenon dominated by group think and group mentality dominated by the intellectually normal, in a purely statistical sense I hasten to add. The history of science is one of the more fascinating areas of study, I find.

I will post up some evolutionary red herrings on my blog later this week and link to here – but as I said above, I, lilke many professional exploration geologists find ourselves suddenely unemployed due to the commodities collapse and following the, now more reasonable posted, pitter-patter of the comments here is just not possible in the short term.

Bear also in mind that there is also a paradigm shift happening in geology in which Plate Tectonics has been consigned to the has beens in theories, and the development of this can be glimpsed by reading the various papers at the New Concepts of Global Tectonics Newsletter site – http://www.ncgt.org. I post pertinent bits of the quarantined issues on my blog http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/ .

I’m on the fringe area of science because I can afford to be since my work does not depend on my academic “position” in terms of dogma. I also do a tremendous amount of geological field work as a diamond exploration geologist, covering both hard and soft rock areas of geology, such being the nature of the rare rocks we look for, kimberlite. As I started studying geology when I was 13 years old at high School, so it’s a vocation, not a job.

And because I get my hand dirty doing the hard yakka, like Warren Carey and other geologial mavericks, we tend to find that the perfect theories beloved of academia are not, because we, for commerical reasons, need our science to be based on facts, not airy-fairy theories.

Qualified at WHAT blockhead?

“Hubris” in so much as both Lovelock and Ward believe mankind can significantly impact global climate.”

We can cool the earth if we want to. We’d be crazy to try but there is really no doubt that if we were serious about it we could cool the planet. It isn’t the hardest thing to do to cool a planet that has a one-way cooling bias. Its warming the planet that would seem to be beyond our capabilities.
I think Wrong-Way Corrigans dad must have been prolific sperm donor. Where else are all these people coming from?

I agree – though I get uncomfortable with the conclusion that the German Historical School has general authenticity – but as an inter-connected “thing”, yes, easily understood in terms of electromagnetics, and from your perspective in the chemical domain. (Louis Kevran makes some interesting points, so I am told).

I don’t support Darwinian evolution nor the flawed dating of the Earth, for reasons which I won’t go into here, (and nothing to do with Creationism) but generally tend to support the ideas, various, Michael Talbot enunciated in his book “The Holographic Universe”, as well as Amit Goswami’s book “The Self Aware Universe”. Lyall Watson’s ideas have also affected my take on life in a biological sense.

I just wanted to pick up on your comment ““Hubris” in so much as both Lovelock and Ward believe mankind can significantly impact global climate. ”

Personally I’d say “”Hubris” in so much as some believe mankind can do whatever it wants and never significantly impact clobal climate, and even if we did we’d have the technology advances to cope with it.”

I always start this discussion with Exhibit A: Nuclear winter : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

in that if every nuclear weapon on the planet were detonated in a nuclear war we would change the climate, based on current scientific understanding:

“A global average surface cooling of –7°C to –8°C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still –4°C (Fig. 2). Considering that the global average cooling at the depth of the last ice age 18,000 yr ago was about –5°C, this would be a climate change unprecedented in speed and amplitude in the history of the human race. The temperature changes are largest over land … Cooling of more than –20°C occurs over large areas of North America and of more than –30°C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions.”

So there you have it – it is completely within our ability as a race to change the climate overnight, at the push of a few buttons no less!

An intersting (to me) aside is that I generally have this conversation with associates who are religious… ie they think it is arrogant that humans think they can change the climate (because God created the planet and he is strong and allmighty). Which runs counter to the “AGW is a religion” claim.

I am generally of the opinion that “living within our and the planet’s means” is a totally non-hubristic concept. (I may have just had the hubris to have invented a new term in non-hubristic).