> TheYell wrote:
> People have been drawing the surface of Jupiter for nearly 600 years, since Galileo put a double lens before his face and looked at the night sky.<
_Telescopes which we all know to be vastly inferior to even a Fisher Price 10.99 telescope. Exactly how much detail do you think Galileo and company saw? Here is a clue: http://www.hao.ucar.edu/Public/education/bios/galileo.4.html
Just look at that detail! It's almost like I'm there, flying thought the great red spot.
>That third red spot IS new.<
_And how many of Jupiter's other spots are new? Any new white ones? Are you aware that the Great Red Pot has been shrinking for the last 200 years, and is predicted to blow itself out within another 200 years?
>Occam's Razor? Not really applicable to physical sciences because the simplest answer may be some process you don't understand, repeated over and over. The "simplest answer" as Kuhn said, is to argue some scientist made a mistake in observations.<
Or to argue that that same scientist is totally correct.
>But let's try Occam's Razor: The Earth has notable climate disturbance in 2008, and that is due to human industrialization altering the composition of our atmosphere;<
_Yup, with you so far.
>and Mars has notable climate disturbance in 2008, and that is due to the wholly separate process of planetary wobble (unobserved, you know, nobody's got photos of the Martian surface and said "hey see how this continental plain moves up and down a bit? Mars is wobbly by so many degrees this year" its just a hypothesis);<
_Wrong, go away and do some research and don't come back untill you fully understand the nature of that which you are trying to rubbish. Here, I'll get you started: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070912_mars_ice.html
>and Jupiter has notable climate change in 2008 and that is due to a wholly separate, self-contained unexplained and as yet, undiscovered process inherent to the planet Jupiter.<
_What notable change? One new spot? Do you have any idea how many spots there are on Jupiter? Can you imagine how many of those spots are "new"? Unless you have some proof that the number of storms on Jupiter has increased significantly during the 2008 period I suggest you let that one go.
>Bit out of line, eh?<
_Irony, the political posters heroin.
>If you recall the "proof" of greenhouse warming was a supposed clear correlation between pollution and climate change in computer modelling. The computer modelling is now out of whack in its predictions for the past decade, and so "science" is reduced to circular reasoning: As we know pollution affects climate, we must discover the clear correlation between actual climate and pollution through better modelling.<
_Yup, couldn't agree more. I have to wonder what on earth made them think those models they churned out of their 486's had a half life of more than a decade. To be honest I'm not convinced we have a computer today that is up to the task.
>Look at that Martian story again, they're explicit: Abussomov must be wrong, because he can't explain how pollution drives Earth's climate change.<
_I would but the page appears to have been taken down.
>It is not reasonable that the tetrajoules of energy in the atmospheres of two terrestrial planets and God knows how much energy is stored in the soup of Jupiter, but its BIG, and they're isolated from phyiscal contact by light-hours of distance and strong gravity wells, and they correspond in some effect, and you say "well, that is coinkidink because we KNOW Earth is reacting to terrestrial influences." Balls.<
Nice speech, shame that Jupiter has more of an influence over Jupiter than the Sun:
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/jupiter_worldbook.html
"Temperature
The temperature at the top of Jupiter's clouds is about -230 degrees F (-145 degrees C). Measurements made by ground instruments and spacecraft show that Jupiter's temperature increases with depth below the clouds. The temperature reaches 70 degrees F (21 degrees C) -- "room temperature" -- at a level where the atmospheric pressure is about 10 times as great as it is on Earth. Scientists speculate that if Jupiter has any form of life, the life form would reside at this level. Such life would need to be airborne, because there is no solid surface at this location on Jupiter. Scientists have discovered no evidence for life on Jupiter.
Near the planet's center, the temperature is much higher. The core temperature may be about 43,000 degrees F (24,000 degrees C) -- hotter than the surface of the sun.
Jupiter is still losing the heat produced when it became a planet. Most astronomers believe that the sun, the planets, and all the other bodies in the solar system formed from a spinning cloud of gas and dust. The gravitation of the gas and dust particles packed them together into dense clouds and solid chunks of material. By about 4.6 billion years ago, the material had squeezed together to form the various bodies in the solar system. The compression of material produced heat. So much heat was produced when Jupiter formed that the planet still radiates about twice as much heat into space as it receives from sunlight."
But that can't be right, can it?
>We're at the stage where we say, Hey, here is an anomaly that challenges the paradigm. If the best you can do is "It's not really there, you made a mistake in observations, you can't be right about it meaning anything because the overall theory of climate changes lets us KNOW it can't be significant" then its time to work on a new paradigm.<
_Lucky for me I did some reaserch so my post is nothing like that.
I think you have everything you need to, at the very least, stop using that silly argument. 
