Climate change wankers

hahaha! I love it!

A demand for an apology coupled with a declaration of intelligence that comes replete with insults and grammatical errors. Brilliant!

You are so right Nick. How stupid we have been.

I apologise to you unreservedly and if I may say, I admire your wit, charm and candour. Even though we can't see you, I bet you're really handsome too.

And here I was thinking that inhaling exhaust fumes was bad for me. How silly.

G'day nick how's your life going? I was surfing smoking Chinaman's today with your mate barley. I mentioned you and said you weren't happy with him calling you a fruitloop! He said he'd been seeding his paddocks and was too busy to respond to your question. We had a laugh in between waves and both felt really sorry for you as you will never know the joy of riding deep inside a perfect barrel;)
On the subject of the validity of climate change I heard some politician at a climate change convention was overheard saying "but what if we reduce pollution to save the environment and its all for nothing?"
Maybe it's a risk worth taking??

And citing such a highly esteemed scientific journal too.

Step aside Nature! what do you know Science? If Princi.... Princa... hang on, I'll get it... P-r-i-n-c-i-p-i-a-Scientifc says it's true, then who am I to stand in the way!?

In your face you (deep breath) man made global warmest alarmist's! Strike a blow for ignorance and bad spelling!

and so on and so forth...

From near to far, from here to there,
Funny things are everywhere.
These yellow pets are called the Zeds.
They have one hair upon their heads.
Their hair grows fast. So fast they say,
They need a haircut every day.

Who am I? My name is Ish
On my hand I have a dish.
I have this dish to help me wish.
When I wish to make a wish
I wave my hand with a big swish swish.
Then I say, "I wish for fish!"
And I get fish right on my dish.
So...
If you wish to make a wish,
you may swish for fish with my Ish wish dish.

At our house we play out back.
We play a game called ring the Gack.
Would you like to play this game?
Come down! We have the only Gack in town.

Look what we found in the park in the dark.
We will take him home, we will call him Clark.
He will live at our house, he will grow and grow.
Will our mother like this? We don't know.

And now, Good night.
It is time to sleep
So we will sleep with our pet Zeep.
Today is gone. Today was fun.
Tomorrow is another one.
Every day, from here to there.
funny things are everywhere.

Seuss (1960)

science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

This is the actual report that this article is basing all of it's information on. The measurements detailed in this short article have nothing to do with anthropogenic(human caused) climate change. They are purely measurements of how solar activity effected the "Thermosphere" which begins 85km's above the earths surface, on the 8th-10th of march, 2012.

The Thermosphere en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere

The trouble with this sort of climate change skeptic bullshit, even though completely fabricated, most people aren't going to bother going to the recent "NASA report" to check against the information cited on Principia Scientific. To see for themselves that it is taken out of context. Articles like this exist to simply coerce people who are fence sitting and generally disinterested in the subject. To help them justify reasons why they should continue to use fossil fuels. It's obviously fictional, but non the less makes a person question there own beliefs in climate change, and erode the drive to actually make a change.

Here is a video reporting on the ice loss in the Arctic circle.

www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-seaicemax-2013.html

Nick, you are a sucker. That is all.

Either way, down here in Vicco we're quite enjoying the climate change at the moment.

"Right Dave, so we'll create this lobby group, call it a 'think tank', give it a name that invokes Newton - Isaac not Bert -and begin foisting our pure, unadulterated science upon the heathens of the world."

"Luvly, Roger, let's get to it...."

Nick, Nick, Nick...Principia Scientifica is not a group of scientists, nor is it a think tank, it is a front for AGM denialists. You join it if you've got a preconceived view of the world, like Canada's 'most popular climatologist', Dr. Tim Ball.

Ball has argued climate change would be great for us: "A warmer Canada would improve our lives in these and other ways too numerous to list. Global warming? Let's hope so."

He questioned the science behind CFC's and the Ozone layer claiming that "CFC's were never a problem.... it's only because the sun is changing."

And in 2006 he brought an action against the Calgary Herald who questioned Ball's credentials. During the trial it was found: “The Plantiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.” And that "The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming." Ball subsequently withdrew the suit.

Nick, you may not be a Froot Loop but I'll still eat you for breakfast. RRAAAAARRRRR........

I'm feeling a bit left our here Nick, you addressed everyone else and ignored me. Sooooo, I'm gonna quote myself.

Nick, Nick, Nick...Principia Scientifica is not a group of scientists, nor is it a think tank, it is a front for AGM denialists. You join it if you've got a preconceived view of the world, like Canada's 'most popular climatologist', Dr. Tim Ball.

Ball has argued climate change would be great for us: "A warmer Canada would improve our lives in these and other ways too numerous to list. Global warming? Let's hope so."

He questioned the science behind CFC's and the Ozone layer claiming that "CFC's were never a problem.... it's only because the sun is changing."

And in 2006 he brought an action against the Calgary Herald who questioned Ball's credentials. During the trial it was found: “The Plantiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.” And that "The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming." Ball subsequently withdrew the suit.

Nick, you may not be a Froot Loop but I'll still eat you for breakfast. RRAAAAARRRRR........

By: "stunet"

I think Nick3 is christopher Pyne's love child..or maybe he is Barnaby Joyce..which one do you prefer ?

I recently read a very interesting book that I feel Nick (and most people in general) would benefit from reading.

"Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" by Naomi Oreskes

It is a fascintating and well documented read about mis-information that was spread to discredit many scientific / health issues. Well worth a look.

I slowly, deliberately masticate each morsel of information you post. That info about carbon dioxide being just 0.0003% of the atmosphere you posted? It's been shown to be an utter falsehood, and one, incidentally, that Alan Jones had to apologise for (clues!). Now the bogus report you posted above and the patsies who back it? Their true colours are on display. Real scientists...?

*Chew, devour, chew, devour*

Nick, please list again. I'm sure you've got nothing better to do.

So this guy wasn't joking with his first post?

Well that's disappointing. I thought he was funny for a minute there.

Stu, are you sure Nick's not on the payroll!! Everytime he posts or raises a new forum, you are gaurenteed he will generate a shitload of traffic.

The real trouble with statements like Nick's is that those of us not walking around with our heads up our arses (but still able to smell the shit) keep giving them oxygen by engaging them in debate. Just look at the asylum-seeker debate.

I say we leave the room, pump it full of carbon dioxide to stifle the flames and leave Nick and Alan Jones and all the rest of them writhing on the floor, red faced because nobody is giving them credit for having an opinion worth airing (which, in my opinion, they don't).

I'm not suggesting that they can't air their opinion, just that it's not really worthy of attention.

Have u noticed sceptics always seem to view this science as a competition? Interesting.

Nick, mate, exhaust gasses also contain Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide, good old H2O, Oxygen, Hydro-carbons, Nitrogen Oxides, Sulphur Dioxide and soot (particulate matter) in addition to Carbon Monoxide and trace elements of other little nasties.

You'll notice I said exhaust fumes which is all encompassing (vehicles, factories, anything that burns fossil fuels).

You ever been to Shanghai? I've been a couple of times and not once did I see blue sky.

I'm not going to stop driving or consuming (and producing for that matter) but reducing emissions by the biggest polluters can't be a bad thing, could it?

I'm not going to stop driving or consuming (and producing for that matter) but reducing emissions by the biggest polluters can't be a bad thing, could it?

By: "zenagain"

Realistically, without renewable's, at some stage in the next few decades you are going to be forced to stop driving. Oil and gas are temporary and unable to meet expected future demands of energy by themselves. Here's a reassuring link though!

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/conventional-wisdom-about-cl...

A very encouraging article lickwid. Here's hoping.

So, Nick, a question. Given that, as it certainly appears, the overwhelming weight of scientific analysis of raw primary data supports the conclusion, on balance of probability, of man-made climate change, what further evidence that is presently missing or unavailable would you need to be satisfied that you could personally buy in to that conclusion too?

I'm genuinely interested in understanding what, from your perspective, is still missing.

http://denierlist.wordpress.com/tag/principia-scientific-international/

sorry nick three , it seem I too have misunderstood the knowledge, insight and wisdom you have imparted on us, a confused and maniipulated fray of fuckwits.

I will listen harder from now on.

please accept my apologose,

cheers

Well maybe this nick guy is funny after all!

I mean, it is pretty funny when someone thinks they know something that all the pointy heads in the world haven't been able to figure out, but that same person can't spell, uses tautologies and misuses words (there, their, what's the difference?). Apparently Gen-Y don't need no skool. Jus comon cents. Learn good and youl no nuthin.

And it's even funnier when someone like that starts up a thread on a surf forum despite not actually surfing themselves. I mean, seriously who has that kind of time to waste??? I guess if you don't have a job or something you've got to find something to amuse yourself.

I don't know about you fellas, you can almost pity the guy but I'm back to laughing!

And seriously, if someone knows him, buy him a surf lesson for mother's day. Maybe this is all some kind of cry for help.

Common sense? That's not an answer. Be specific. Maybe these articles will help.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/302/5651/1719.abstract?sid=b357fb24-60...

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/289/5477/270.full?sid=85661285-fb3b-49...

Don't KNOW Nick 3 . Not sure i wanna .... but apart from that ... maybe he shred's ! ???
WHO cares .....

i think everyone in this DeBAIT , should KNOW their SHit . And if the EXPERTS can't get it right ( IPCC report 1997 ) [ yes the first. I'm looking at you with full eyeballs ] can't get within 40% of todays current Global average increase . Then the " Science " is Still MILES behind reality .
YES it was extremely Enjoyable in the SE in the last few days .
BUT ,the last time it was this warm in the SE of AUST in MAY ( 1866) was at the end of the Maunder Minimum ....

So how many PPM has CO2 risen with no Net increase on a 150 ish Yr record .
Does it matter ? NO ...
Does being self sufficient count . YES .
WHO flew overseas last year ?
WHO bought from " Made In CHINA " last year ....
POT/KETTLE/BLACK ........

nothing works . when the SYSTEM is Broken !
okay lets find something else to tax !?

Don't attack me , I work in renewables ..... but for how long ?

Lets not Talk Rubbish

@Southey and Nick: The following is an extract of a 2010 letter signed by more than 200 individual members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, protesting against political attacks on, and the politicisation of, science in the US.

"Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modelling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined,they gain the status of “well-established theories” and are often spoken of as “facts.” For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution. Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend. Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change. (i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact. (ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. (iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes. (iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic. (v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more."

Your response?

Nick you should probably know what you are talking about before you go on ranting about something. There has been quite a few skeptics jumping on the bandwagon with this one. I'm not arguing for or against climate change, but the topic you quote here is almost irrelevant in regards to the climate change subject, in fact it actually supports man made climate change.

Firstly, as lickwid says these are measurements of solar absorption at the top of the atmosphere by CO2 and NO. This cooling effect in the upper atmosphere has been known about for a long time and has nothing to do what the IPCC call climate change. The climate change they discuss is due to warming in the lower atmosphere, due to greenhouse gases such as CO2. The article you reference actually says the data makes a mockery of Gavin Schmidt's article. This is totally incorrect, the earth's greenhouse effect which is mainly water vapour (but also CO2), keeps the earth about 30C warmer than it would be otherwise.

The second point is this data supports climate change. Climate change is not just global warming, some regions are forecast to cool including the thermosphere. So your quoted measurements actually support man made climate change due to increased CO2 in the thermosphere.

Again I'm not going into " the Physics " of this and that .
" The masses " find it hard to swallow much of what is " politically " jammed down their throats .
And steve111 , its kind of hard to listen to the ever changing threats to civilisation that keep getting thrown in the mix .
If its more about " climate change " ( which the two of those words together are an Oxymoron = as in Climate never stays the same . )
yes 30 years had steep climb of which has plateaued/stalled /slowed for a while now , but don't deny that the words used to first describe the entire debate were not AGW .
if you don't or can't see it then I'm wasting my time .
No one wins in these arguements , ideally people should learn more . but it always goes back to an Us & them outcome.
where is the grey middle ground .

PS .
@ whaaat ,
i wonder how many of those 200 that signed in 2010 would still sign again today .....
do you think there would be a few " cleft notes " attached for points 1 through 5 .

As the first half of that letter states , it only takes one Floor to F%#$ a theory .
And at the moment that floor is their inability to MODEL the negative feedbacks .

" My washing is still on the line " ...............

That would be "flaw", I'm guessing.

And what is the grey middle ground you refer to? How is this a multiple choice question?

New information that affects how climate change models work is being discovered all of the time. For example-

http//www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/05/mineral-dust-plays-key-role-cloud-for...

But the primary point remains this: notwithstanding early inaccuracies in climate change forecasts, the overwhelming consensus from scientists is still that man-made effects are the great accelerator. The only question is how much and at what rate.

Southey, " its kind of hard to listen to the ever changing threats to civilisation". That's science we learn more all the time. Is it any different to economic modelling that we see revised daily, quite often with the opposite trends to the previous forecast? In the climate modellers defence, the message has been fairly consistent, but with additional details as more work is done. In any case all I wanted to do with my last comment is point out the flaw's in Nick3's original post, I wasn't arguing for or against the forecasted climate change. That's something that I and most are not equipped to make an informed judgement on.

"I'm not going into 'the Physics' of this and that" is a lot like the fundamentalist argument about the existence of God. Don't bother with the details - you know, logic, or evidence or other nasty stuff like that - just take it on faith as a given 'fact'. And we'll shoot you dead if you don't.

Gidday whaaat. Yeh, but religion doesn't own that one either. Indigenous Peoples and Cultures got shot dead left right and centre, scientifically, under the guise of colonialism. And are held captive there, chained by colonialism, and the intelligent, scientific view, at gunpoint.

'They tried to escape, they are criminals, so we had to shoot them.'

We are all empirical, scientific to an extent, its just that our governing science ends up guided by little incentives, helping hands if you like. Look at NASA, no money, no NASA.

I want to 'prove' that Testerolxtremoidmusclitis X builds massive muscles in 4 weeks and should be banned/use at your own risk or you'll become a muscle bound hulk... here University of Z, here's the money, prove it. Or perhaps even that a sweat shop...oops I mean magnificent factory built Fryatronstretchoxxxthermaticenvirogarm wetsuit built from cheap inferior rubber that begins breaking down after one surf (no top grade Yamamoto anywhere) has been proven to save the environment whilst keeping you boiling hot in a blizzard. Here magazine X, how much, no problem, now say it.

The funniest thing I've seen is when the 'Pros', Slater/Quicksilver, Fanning/RipCurl, and Parko/Billabong weren't properly trained to be 'Pros' yet, and got off their leads to scurry around at Bells a few years ago, whining about how they couldn't surf properly because they were freezing to death. They complained that they were too stiff and cold, couldn't feel their hands or feet, despite having brand new, expensive, scientific, super, worlds best (well, after the Japanese) suits. Next a journo inadvertently commented on it in ASL, and the 'Pros' hardiness and toughness, despite the Wetsuit Test claiming it was in fact, impossible. When I pointed it out to the magazines, they glossed it up and over, circled the wagons, and said I was a grouch who didn't appreciate advancements. Ouch, meanies.

The winning science in the climate change debate will come down to funding. A little bit goes a long way, a huge bit gets there. But then, there's the ever present, scientific, Piltdown factor to contend with as well. And the Galileo factor. And perhaps the biggest, glaring factor, every scientific century, despite being so right, so clever at the time, ends up wrong? Blast shoot the ignoramuses!!! Or these scientific days, vaporise them!!! A bit more gas won't matter.

"... every scientific century, despite being so right, so clever at the time, ends up wrong".

Fuckin' knew it.

Gravity, earth is round, gunpowder explodes at around 427 degrees etc etc - lies, damned lies and propaganda.

Aaahh well, the old smokescreen technique, more gas.

'Gravity, earth is round, gunpowder explodes at around 427 degrees etc etc - lies, damned lies and propaganda.'

Early days yet, it seems bullet proof, just like the good old days. Here we go, whats this shit, here's that blasted, quantam physics, strings, quarks, two places at one time bunkum rearing its ugly head. Dolts. Lock them up, throw away the key, Galileo style I say your honour!!! They'll be lucky to get legal aid! No chance at all your honour!

Very well whaaat, I hereby...blast it man...I have the wrong robe on!

Facts, man. Backed by evidence. Not hyperbole. Or blather.

Same question I asked Nick: what further evidence would you need for you to buy in to the conclusion that human activity is the great climate change accelerator?

PS. Colonialism is a political concept, not a scientific one. Nor is it a concept unique to recent history or the West (or North, if you prefer to speak geopolitically).

PPS: Neither, too, is the common law system you so disparage based on 'outdated mediaeval' concepts: it's based on concepts that are much, much older. So they must be even crappier, I guess.

PPS. It was once a proven fact that the earth was flat. That the liver pumped blood, Indigenous Australians weren't human. The human body was physically incapable of running a four minute mile. Protein did the job of DNA. A factual observation. Simple to prove. Science of the past. Please by all means, if that's wrong, argue, blather and prove otherwise (tip the greenhouse gases over the edge in the futile attempt). Any contrary opinion at the time, was wrongly considered blather and heresy, even hyperbole. So we have Galileo. Again, maybe that's wrong too, if so, give us the factual version, the blather of how the Galileo story really happened (again, tip the greenhouse gases over the edge in the futile attempt). South Park might buy the scripts. There are endless examples of similar episodes in the history of science. Fact.

PPPS. Colonialism was, and is based on and justified by the 'science' of Darwinism. Fact. Browse through the first 20 odd pages of this lot, and I'll give you another 20 or so at a time to refute, for the next 20 or so years.

https://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&gs_rn=12&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=egfYwx43nHkvF...

I'll just throw this in, in the vein of the somewhaaat humble, big, muscular, good looking, raw boned athlete that I am, but I'm on the Deans Honour Roll multiple times, and won awards at several Universities for studying colonialism. (Personal Development, dontcha just love it, dontcha wish ya lawyer was just like me, dontcha!)

PPPPS. I'll, 'humbly rely on the blessings of the almighty God', when I say this. Our legal system which upholds our constitution, is based on medieval Christianity. Whether you like it or not.

How are your academic results relevant to this debate?

Your argument is that ‘facts’ are contestable because they derive from the most powerful, often at the expense of the powerless. In this way, you say, the theory of evolution was used to justify colonialism. Your argument, as far as it goes, is fair enough. Evolution was also used to justify eugenics.

Colonialism (which I understand you to mean in its manifestation as a Western political construct) and eugenics have both been discredited.

Evolution still stands as the ‘best’ (in probability terms) explanation for how everything is how it is.

OK. With me so far? My point is this: just because one ‘fact’ or ‘scientific’ theory (such as eugenics) gets debunked does not mean that all of its underpinning framework gets debunked along with it. Can we agree on that?

If so, which ‘facts’ about human activity being an accelerant of climate change are you contesting?

If not, I am without words.

Whaat , as everyone gets up off the Flaw ;-)

my point was that people take you as Black or White in this futile debate . no grey ground .
Good theories in Science are replicable in experiments , this is beyond humans or even their Supercomputers .
the variables far still outweigh the Knowns .
they can't even replicate similar results from multiple runs of Models , they have to use mean's of Ensembles . the variation's betwwen Models are quite large , if they can't forecast the ENSO going out beyond 6 mths what chance Average global temps in 20 years .

what gets my goat is the fact there are elements of elitism that decide because they have a SOLID theory , and you won't get an argument from me on the basic Physics , thats the problem though . they've only solved a fraction of the puzzle . and that fraction is the easy bit. The observations long ago left the Projected lines. The theory is FLAWED .

How are your academic results relevant to this debate?

Your argument is that ‘facts’ are contestable because they derive from the most powerful, often at the expense of the powerless. In this way, you say, the theory of evolution was used to justify colonialism. Your argument, as far as it goes, is fair enough. Evolution was also used to justify eugenics.

Colonialism (which I understand you to mean in its manifestation as a Western political construct) and eugenics have both been discredited.

Evolution still stands as the ‘best’ (in probability terms) explanation for how everything is how it is.

OK. With me so far? My point is this: just because one ‘fact’ or ‘scientific’ theory (such as eugenics) gets debunked does not mean that all of its underpinning framework gets debunked along with it. Can we agree on that?

If so, which ‘facts’ about human activity being an accelerant of climate change are you contesting?

If not, I am without words.

Sorry Southey, didn't mean to post twice.

Yeah, I well take your point about variations. And that the theory has problems with replication.

But isn't that 'just' a problem with its variables, not the framework itself?

Or do you reckon we're looking in the wrong places?

Which, if true, could definitely be a disaster - so much rides on it being presumed correct.

'How are your academic results relevant to this debate?'

Well, all right, you win, I just saw an angle to point out my looks and physique.

Here we go again, spoken like a true colonial boy, fair enough. You'll allow it.

'Evolution still stands as the ‘best’ (in probability terms) explanation for how everything is how it is.'

Please, that's just the colonial conditioning. It assumes a we know all there is to know, so that's it, colonial outlook.

Your actual initial argument is changing, now you are actually repeating, actually reinforcing and demonstrating my point.

Sometimes science is based on some points that are misconstrued, sometimes it not, its just wrong. The bottom line is that it repeatedly proves to often be wrong, despite ruling the day. If you deduce that 2 + 2 = 17, it is still totally wrong despite it being based on addition.

Many, many, other cultures prefer their own view point, based on what they choose to believe and think. Which could be based on things you don't want to believe or accept in the slightest. Western thinking presently entertains that a cloud appeared out of... out of... out of... well forget that minor detail, then decided to explode because... because... because... well forget that minor detail, and by a fluke, evolved into you and your computer! Brilliant! As for the other supposed ludicrous explanations of other less brilliant, less colonial, less evolved Cultures... sheer ignorant bunkum!

Yet, the latest chapter in science, is leaning towards that they actually all might be true. If you believe it, that's being touted as the important factor. And as in the past, the contrary is holding on, fighting tooth and nail for dear life.

In relation to climate change, getting the 'science' is as you point out, and reinforce, not exactly reliable, and subject to error, corruption of 'fact',(sometimes deliberate, sometimes not), and change. Many other Cultures got it right without our science, or opinion. Perhaps, just maybe, implausible, impossible as it may seem, they may have better ways at accessing information than science.

'PPS: Neither, too, is the common law system you so disparage based on 'outdated mediaeval' concepts: it's based on concepts that are much, much older. So they must be even crappier, I guess.'

PPPPPPS. Again, I'll, 'humbly rely on the blessings of the almighty God', when I say this. Our legal system which upholds our constitution, is based on medieval Christianity. Whether you like it or not.

'Mediaeval' is usually seen to have begun in the 5th century, beginning with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. It lasted until the 15th century, taking in the Renaissance and the Age of Discovery. When do you say Christianity began again?