The History of Wrong Conclusions - Part One -Health & Beauty Informations. This article, entitled The History of Wrong Conclusions - Part One, we have prepared this article carefully for you so you can retrieve information therein. Hopefully you understand the contents of this article that we put under the category knowledge, well, happy reading.

Title : The History of Wrong Conclusions - Part One
link : The History of Wrong Conclusions - Part One

The History of Wrong Conclusions - Part One

The history of science is the history of erroneous conclusions, finally being overturned by evidence, or more correctly by logic . Even today, the data that science discovers is more often misunderstood.
just have to go back to Copernicus and Galileo, or more recently Milankovich, to see how the scientific community in every age resists the right conclusions, and this same strength is evident in the present. I hate to say that religion almost always opposes science and scientific truths, so I'm going to change that and say without fear of contradiction, that false religion almost always opposes philosophy, which is the search for truth .
That false religion opposes truth is not evident in the past than it is today. In reality what we are really concerned about is not Philosophy and Science. Science is the study and establishment of facts; The philosophy is what allows man to reach correct conclusions. Today, with a wealth of scientific facts, a truly terrifying mountain of erroneous conclusions around us.
I will try here to show that every layman has every right to examine the data and form their own conclusions. There are those who say: 'We must leave it to the experts. Or they say.? 'I do not know enough about the topic "But we need to be supine We have been endowed with reason, and we should use
So in the above I will try to stimulate! all readers, not come to my conclusions, but to get to his own, and I'll do this simply by a series of questions. I put in answers where they are irrefutable, or I can do it later. I want to ask you all a series of questions on climate and climate change, since it seems that there is so much confusion and misunderstanding on this subject.
Does man control the sun?
Controls the man the sunspots on the Sun?
Controls the man solar winds?
is responsible man of solar radiation reaching the Earth?

those are my first questions. Do any of you answered "Yes"?
Controls man winds?
Controls man wind speed?
Can man control the Jetstream?
Can man control the barometric pressure?

Anyone here by "Yes"?
man has produce clouds?
Can man rain products?
Control of snow man?
control Hail man?
Can control monsoons man?
Can man produce aridity?

not know about you, but the Met Office does not seem to be able to control anything!
Controls man outer space?
Controls the man the stratosphere?
Can man control the troposphere?
Can man control the rate of heat loss in the atmosphere?
Can man Adiabatic Lapse Rate alter?

There are some who would answer "Yes" here. Reach your own conclusion.
Can man control the seas and oceans?
swindlers control the height of the waves?
Can man controls the tides?
Can man control salinity of the oceans?
Can the man controls the depths of the waters?
Controls the man the Gulf Stream, La Niña and El Niño?
O Pacific Decadal Oscillation?

Anyone who go along with King Canute?
man or man can Volcanoes control?
Controls the man volcanic eruptions?
Does man produce hot water vents and hot spring?
Control of the ocean floor and subsidence man?
Controls the man of the movement of tectonic plates?

Anyone for God?
Can man control the elliptical path of the earth around the sun?
Can man controls the angle of the Earth from the Sun?
Can man controls the distance from Earth to the Sun?
Can man Milankovich controls the oscillation?
Man can control the rotation of the Earth?
Can Man Ray product, thunderstorms and tornadoes?
Man hurricanes and typhoons can produce at will?

I think all these questions the answer must be a resounding "No". Man can not and does not control Climate in any way or form. However, some may argue that influence climate Man makes various ways, so try to examine that in the same way by asking a series of questions. I'll have to put these questions in some kind of context to make them sensitive. And the answer can be yes or no, depending.
These issues relate to the properties of gases. The question here is whether the gases are active or passive?
can be frozen carbon dioxide?
can liquefy carbon dioxide?
can cool the carbon dioxide?
can heat the carbon dioxide?

Here I will suggest that the answer in all cases must be, yes. Carbon dioxide can be converted into dry ice, which is even colder than ice water, and can even cause frostbite. Carbon dioxide can be liquefied and often is done to facilitate transport. Carbon dioxide can be cooled, and ice cold beer of a refrigerator. Carbon dioxide can be heated as hot beer. So the question is: Is dioxide carbon active or passive? Please note over the use of the passive voice.
Let's do the same with water vapor?
Can be cooled steam or even frozen?
can be heated water vapor?
You can retain heat of steam for some time?
will cool itself water vapor?

Here again, the answer must be Yes in all cases. Freezing fog is water vapor and stays cool. Moisture is water vapor and retains heat. It does not produce cold nor produces heat. So the answer is that the gases are liabilities.
can be compressed gases?
Will gases expand to fill a container?
can be inhaled and exhaled gases?

I hope so - in all cases it is clear that the gases are liabilities. Re-act. In no way can a gas jump out of a gasometer or a can, as a genius, and say 'Tickety-Boo!' (I am willing to be corrected!)
The following questions are about the environment.
Does man affect the environment?

The answer to this must be, simply, yes. Man is born without clothes. So the man immediately affects their environment by textile manufacturing and using animal skins. So the man affects their immediate environment. The man also affects their environment by felling trees and clearing land and growing crops. He also plant trees. Man bake bricks, cement and makes build houses, factories and temples. The man diverts rivers and building dams and canals. Man builds sewer systems. Man uses pesticides to eliminate mosquitoes and other pests. In other words, in a million and one ways Man it adapts to what is often a hostile environment. Man burns wood, coal and oil to produce heat. Man can heat water for a variety of processes, including cooking of food, and central heating in buildings.
Man also creates laws to protect the environment, to protect rivers and coasts of a variety of contaminants.
Indeed, in order to live and to be mobile, man, from the beginning of time has had to adapt to their environment. It has cast iron, bronze formed of copper, lead has been used in a variety of ways, including ceilings. He has built highways, and dikes. It's made of leather from animal skins. He has milked cows and goats and made a variety of dairy products. He has made medicines and hospitals for the sick. He has also made explosives.
So here it is very clear that man has affected the environment. This is true in abundance and is clearly within the power of man.
Some people argue that this man and affects their environment, therefore somehow alters the climate. Is this conclusion valid? I fear that what seems tempting to conclude, but it is a non sequitur.
Prove that himself.
Man is not conducive climate, but adapts to climate drivers.
The midwestern US is a Tornado Alley. Some tornadoes are more than a mile wide and maybe 50 miles long. . Google is interesting to look at the cause of tornadoes, so the question is:
Does man create tornadoes?
Hurricanes are man-made?
are artificial Thunderstorms and lightning?

I'm afraid these days of super self-deception still may be some cranks AGW, who aver that Hurricane Katrina was man-made or caused by burning fossil fuels . And that somehow twisting the facts and aver that almost all extreme weather conditions is somehow the fault of the evil man. But it is absolutely clear to any normal, logical person, that all these extreme characteristics of climate and weather simply occur naturally beyond the power of man.
where tornadoes are likely, it is perfectly feasible and desirable that at least half of the house is built below ground level, ie a large basement. In the same way, where there is a known flood plain, then the houses should be built on stilts, as is already done in some regions of deltas. In fact local authorities can and should require that all houses in flood-prone areas are built above garages, and gas services and electricity should be above the reach of a normal flood, which also suits the insurance companies much better.
Therefore, although a city like Phoenix can have a huge urban sprawl, so that it takes hours to drive out of it, as you well know, you can hardly argue that citizens Phoenix are affecting the climate. On the contrary, such is the heat there most every home and hotel has air conditioning, which is a way that man has adapted to local climatic conditions.
The suggestion that adaptation makes the heat is confusing cause and effect. That is why these arguments about global warming and climate change are essentially non-scientific arguments at all.
Furthermore, we know that the 'type atmosphere' used by airline pilots worldwide, takes the average surface temperature about 15 ° C, with a rate of expiration, which it is decreased as temperature elevation 2 ° C per 1000 feet. This means that at 7500 feet the temperature is zero, 0 ° Celsius. All travelers in a modern aircraft can confirm this for themselves, because the monitor will show decreasing temperatures, so that at 30,000 feet the temperature is about minus 45 degrees Celsius.
What conclusion, what logical conclusions follow from that? If the gases are passive, if the gases can be heated or may be cooled if the gases have no inherent temperature of their own, then there is no way they can cause heating. They are heated or cooled either.
If we put a potato a microwave and power switch, potatoes can be baked in 10 minutes. But the pope himself put in a freezer, how long does it take to cook? Is there a hot spot in the freezer? And yet, our noble scientists have been looking for a hot spot 10 kilometers high in the troposphere, ie about 33,000 feet! It is not a matter of science is a matter of logic; it is a matter of philosophy.
The crux of the argument is philosophical and knot it is logic. To suggest that man is somehow creating radical changes in climate is an unacceptable conclusion. And serving for heating the balloon, it is completely impossible.
Author: Anthony Bright-Paul

"The History of Wrong Conclusions - Part One", article source: riseearth.com

Thanks for Reading The History of Wrong Conclusions - Part One

Thank you for reading this The History of Wrong Conclusions - Part One, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.

You are now reading the article The History of Wrong Conclusions - Part One Url Address https://healthnbeautyarticles.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-history-of-wrong-conclusions-part_16.html