"One-stop shop" for the TOTAL transformation of India

Category: Science

Comments on climate change from one of the greatest economists of all time, Vernon Smith

We hear a lot about climate change from many bad economists. It is time to hear the views of one of the greatest economists of all time and a winner of the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. These comments (below) are originally from 2012, but they make perfect sense even today. [I’ve slightly amended formatting for ease of reading and added a few annotations including colour, bolding and underlining. My commentary in blue.] I’ve taken the comments from Smith’s FB page:

In brief, Vernon Smith confirms the findings in my booklet of 2008, which I keep updating sporadically (I now mainly post updates on my FB page on climate change).

==VERNON SMITH’S COMMENT==

Here is the long version of my specific comments on global climate change (2012). Its happening, and we should prepare for it, but stopping it is way beyond current technology, which is why CC [Copenhagen Consensus] plugged for energy saving and CO2 sequestration research with over a dozen WW [Sanjeev: worldwide?] problems easily besting climate given the budget we worked with. Since this is 2012 it would need updating, but you get the idea. You may have to click for the charts. [Sanjeev: I’ve pasted the charts here]

Comment [2012]: Vernon L. Smith

Carbon (dioxide) emission mitigation.

This is the solution that I and the panel rated lowest. I begin with this option because reducing carbon emissions is widely perceived by politicians, journalists, and many scientists (although skeptics abound) as (1) necessary to reduce global climate change; (2) worth the cost.

On (2) my view, given the state of current knowledge, is that the cost in sacrificed human betterment and poverty reduction would be prohibitive in achieving reduced near-term effective atmospheric carbon inventories (new emissions have an uncertain half-life estimate of 40 or many more years.

On (1) in my view there is so much uncertainty in the relevant sciences that we cannot yet make that judgment. That there is climate change in recent history (see temperature charts below) is not at issue, but rather its cause and reversibility through reduced carbon emissions.

Thus,

• The leading scientific hypothesis is that global climate change is due to anthropogenic carbon emission forcing, but other hypotheses are not dead, e.g., solar forcing in combination with complex surface-air interactions and lags.

• But forcing is recognized as being much modified by physical principles operating through endogenous feedback loops—some recognized, others in discovery process—that are poorly understood in systems as complex as the global land-ocean-lower-upper atmospheric interactions. We cannot know, only estimate, what might be the climate state if carbon forcing were absent.

• Since 1850, emissions have grown exponentially, and therefore, if indeed anthropogenic emissions are the cause of recent warming, we have no observational experience with how emission reversals, might asymmetrically map into temperature change (+, 0, −) over short or long intervals.

• Climate change has both benefits and costs, with perhaps the largest cost being that of adaptation. Humans have thrived during Pleistocene cooling, and have thrived during Holocene warming. That adaptation is likely to continue as our knowledge base grows beyond anything that is conceivable across century-length episodes (compare Einstein’s year, 1905, with 2005)?

Uncertain causes of global climate change and the carbon “balance.”

Our knowledge of the dynamics of global temperature derives in part from well known experimentally verified spectral properties of carbon (a trace gas in the atmosphere, 0.036% by volume) that enables one to estimate the marginal isolated contribution to surface temperature of the net incoming radiative energy from the sun that is due to the carbon concentrations in the atmosphere.

The estimated equilibrium contribution of carbon to earth surface temperature symmetrically increases and decreases in the logarithm of its relative concentration in parts per million by volume.

How that marginal contribution interacts through dynamic lagged positive and negative feedbacks in the complex air-ocean-land-forest system is governed by hypotheses of great logical and quantitative uncertainty and subject to constant new scientific discover, subject to error. Error includes both model specification error and measurement error conditional on the specifications.

Comparable error properties pervade other complex systems like those in ecology, culture and economy. For the economy, in spite of well developed models of economic and financial interactions, sometimes even tested against samples of data not used to calibrate them, monetary policy utterly failed to anticipate that a bursting of the housing-mortgage market bubble beginning in 2006 would engulf the international economy by 2008. The chain of events was inherently unpredictable in a manner that policy actions could anticipate and prevent. Comparable uncertainty issues plague climate complexity.

I begin this brief summary with a myopic view—myopic relative to the totality of temperature observations begging for better understanding—from −400 to 2000 AD, with Roman and other historic events flagged in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Climate of the last 2400 years

climate-of-2400-years

[Source: Greenland ice core charts from here]

The deviations, inferred from ice core data, are plotted relative to the mean over this period. Recent temperatures have been trending up since 1900, and have exceeded the 2400 year mean only since about 1950. Anthropogenic carbon is not usually implicated in warming before about 1850.

Note also how common are “natural” (non-anthropogenic) “tipping points” when temperature signatures suddenly change direction especially at extreme points outside the range ±0.5 C. Although temperatures appear to have become more volatile since 1850 (this could be a data splicing problem), rapid 50-year upward trends are unremarkable over the whole 2400 years (e.g., 3rd, 5th ,9th, 11th,13th centuries). Always keep in mind that these indirect (ice core) measures of temperature are subject to error as are any “direct” observations of mean global temperature..

In Figure 2 is displayed a longer view (the Holocene includes the post agricultural revolution since about 9000 BC), with the last 2400 years revealed to be one of relative temperature decline.

Figure 2 Climate of the last 12,000 years.

climate-of-12000-years

(Reference cited in Figure 1)

A global warming skeptic might easily argue that warming in the last century is merely part of a 500 year return to average temperatures prevailing since before the beginning of agriculture. But uncertainty cuts both ways, and we are well advised to be skeptical of the skeptics.

Also evident is the sharp 6 C increase in temperature in the two millennia just prior to agriculture. This warming was part of a 120 meter (four hundred feet) increase in sea level, beginning 18,000BC in which, for example, the Persian Gulf was filled to its present level, submerging the river of four heads from Mesopotamia.

Ice core data records a small dip in carbon from 9000BC to about 4500BC after which it increased, possibly due to anthropogenic forest clearing. This hypothesis has just been reported to be “confidently rejected” in favor of natural causes through the study of carbon isotope signatures. (See J. Elsig, et al, 2009,“Stable Isotope Constraints in Holocene Carbon Cycle…” Nature, 461, pp 446, 507-510.)

Looking only at the recent industrial era, as in Figure 3, warming is both prominent and coincides with accelerating growth in anthropogenic carbon emissions. [Sanjeev: It only seems to “coincide”. If one goes back in time in the geological record, there is absolutely no correlation between temperature and CO2 emissions. When I started studying this issue in 2008, this was the first question I asked: show me the very long term correlation.]

Figure 3 Climate since 1880

Fig.A2

See: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

But is it a causal relationship? The greatest error source is concerned with how the climate system responds to the flow of new carbon into the far larger global inventory of carbon: Does the response decrease warming (negative feedback) or increase it (positive feedback), with what lags, and how does the response change over time? What are in short supply are observational tests of the predictive implications of the models for any relevant data not used in their calibration.

Because of the higher quality data base for calibrating the simulation models, modelers have focused on the period since 1975, leaving insufficient data for out-of-sample (subsets of data not used in model calibration) tests of models validity. As time goes on, however, and the data accumulate this problem is diminished. For example, concerning recent decadal relative cooling trends we have:

“Observations indicate that global temperature rise has slowed in the last decade…much less than the 0.18°C decade–1 recorded between 1979 and 2005… This is despite a steady increase in radiative forcing as a result of human activities and has led some to question climate predictions of substantial twenty-first century warming…Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.” (Do Global Temperature Trends Over the Last Decade Falsify Climate predictions [in “State of the Climate in 2008”] . Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90 (8), S22-23.)

The quotation shows a refreshing commitment in advance to observations that would constitute falsification of a model. But this should not be comforting, as the complexity problem is emphatically not one of just measuring the effect of an equilibrium disturbance in the carbon heat balance, as the entire system already has a complex dynamic motion quite apart from anthropogenic sources, as is evident in Figures 1 and 2.

Calculating confidence intervals for deviations from unknown sources of trend is a deep mathematical challenge. (See Wu, Zhaohua et al, 2007, On the trend, detrending, and variability of nonlinear and nonstationary time series. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 104, pp 14889–14894).

My purpose is not to detract from the enormous recent advances in climate science, but to emphasize that our ignorance of global dynamics continues to be overwhelming.

Cut Black Carbon.

I rated this fairly high essentially because of the recent scientific claims that these particulate emissions may account for much of lower atmospheric temperature increases and particularly the regional warming associated with loss of Arctic and glacial ice. This may turn out to be a promising break-through, or just one more dead end, but it is worth aggressive investigation. Since the Asian stove sources are also a health hazard, black carbon merits cutting in any case; the principle problem has been to implement a change in remote stove use against powerful cultural norms.

On recent issues in black carbon (soot) and related brown cloud science:

“Here we use three lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles that were vertically stacked…over the polluted Indian Ocean…(that)… deployed miniaturized instruments measuring aerosol concentrations, soot amount and solar fluxes….(making)… it possible to measure the atmospheric solar heating rates directly. We found that atmospheric brown clouds enhanced lower atmospheric solar heating by about 50 per cent…. brown clouds contribute as much as the recent increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases to regional lower atmospheric warming trends. We propose that the combined warming trend of 0.25 K per decade may be sufficient to account for the observed retreat of the Himalayan glaciers.” V. Ramanathan et al (2007) “Warming trends in Asia amplified by brown cloud solar absorption.”Nature 448, 575-578

Also see V. Ramanathan & G. Carmichael (2008), “Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon.” Nature Geoscience 1, 221 – 227; and J. R. McConnel, et al (2007) “20th-Century industrial Black Carbon Emissions Altered Artic Climate Fording.” Science. 317, pp 1381-1384.
And again:

“We conclude that decreasing concentrations of sulphate aerosols and increasing concentrations of black carbon have substantially contributed to rapid Arctic warming during the past three decades”. Drew Shindell and Greg Faluvegi (2009). Climate Response to Regional Radiative Forcing During the 20th Century. Nature Geoscience, 2, pp. 294–300.

Planning Adaptation.

I rated this solution very high. Regardless of the causes of climate change, the trend in global warming, sea level rise and loss of glacial and ocean ice for the last 20,000 years is most likely to continue. This is shown in Figure 4 for the virtually monotone increasing sea level rise in the Persian Gulf long before anthropogenic causes could be implicated.

Figure 4. Sea Level Rise in the Persian Gulf.

[Sanjeev: the reference below, and title of the chart don’t seem to coincide, but the point being considered is the same]

sea water mwp

MWP refers to various meltwater pulses or “sudden” rises of 10 meters (33 feet) or more in a few hundred years. The most recent was MWP-1C, ~8,200-7,600 years ago. See at http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

If carbon is a principal new cause, its accumulated effects are thought to be already built in and irreversible short of an unanticipated natural reverse “tipping.” The failure to respond efficaciously to hurricane Katrina shows clearly the need to ask whether and in what way adaptive planning can be implemented. We need also to ask if New Orleans or other cities located below sea level should be protected, rebuilt if lost, or simply moved with migration assistance.

Adaptation also makes sense because in intervals of tens of thousands of years the ice core temperature record going back 420,000 shows that warm episodes have been rare and short-lived—a few thousand years—with carbon concentration lagging temperatures.

Climate Engineering.

I rated research on cloud whitening highest, aerosol insertion lower.

Cloud whitening is scalable, subject to relatively controlled experiments and reversible so far as we know. It appears therefore to chart an incremental low cost learning path in which unintended consequences can be identified on a small scale before applying it more aggressively to counteract anticipated damages from warming.

Aerosol insertion is less attractive on these measures since it is less incrementally controlled, but research seems justified because of the prospect that it could act more quickly than carbon mitigation. Even cloud whitening, however, is fraught with incredible uncertainties that are just elementary reflections of our broader scientific ignorance: “Despite decades of research, it has proved frustratingly difficult to establish climatically meaningful relationships among the aerosol, clouds and precipitation.” (B. Stevens and G. Feingold, 2009, “Untangling aerosol effects on clouds and precipitation in a buffered system.” Nature, 461: p 607.)

These options have merit only because they offer promising new increases in our practical knowledge, not because they can be assured of rescuing us if that be necessary. Nevertheless, both of these technologies may have risks, whose origins are precisely the same as those governing the causes of global warming: we know precious little about systems as complex as that of the global climate, and we should proceed with caution to avoid unintended harm.

R&D.

In line with the previous CC meeting conclusions, I am persuaded that if target anthropogenic GHG reductions are necessary to reduce global climate change—a distinctly speculative proposition—then the brute force approach with existing technology is not feasible.

If there is any effective means of reducing GHG emissions, it rests with R&D discoveries that will enormously increase energy savings (or, alternatively, finesse the whole issue through climate engineering as above). But we cannot assure discovery; we can only commit to trying, and the technical paper cautiously recognizes this potential outcome.

Even in the absence of a carbon tax and public R&D it is easy to underestimate the extent to which rising relative energy prices for long periods will induce innovations that will increase energy efficiency, as is evident by simply looking back to 1830 when kerosene-from-coal—or “coal oil”—was the response to the high price of whale oil.

 

ADDENDUM

My response to Fred Folavary who suggested we have a green tax.

Vernon L. Smith had also noted this article on his page a few days ago: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/05/no-one-ever-says-it-but-in-many-ways-global-warming-will-be-a-go/   [Smith’s comment was: “Green on the increase? Why do climate Chicken Littles not put more emphasis on adaptation, and preparation for further warming?”]

– an analysis of the benefits of CO2. What if the benefits exceed costs? (which, in my view – since 2008 – they do. There are plenty of studies which show that there is a net benefit of CO2 to life on earth for at least the next few decades.)

As plants have increased, so has animal life on earth. There is clear evidence that current levels of CO2 are at least 10 times less than peak levels on earth – which caused the huge book in plant life that kickstarted evolution.

We should carefully consider why we want to tax something which benefits life on earth.

Further, almost all green technology is extravagantly expensive, and requires taxpayer subsidy.

A green tax therefore (a) reduces the benefits of CO2 and (b) destroys precious resources which would could have gone into useful production.

Finally, it is only a matter of a couple of decades (at most) when carbon will become one of the most outdated resources. Solar and fusion technologies are on the verge of becoming cost-effective. Coal and oil will die out on its own, anyway.

Our best bet is to let markets do what they do best, without taxing them or subsidising them unnecessarily.

Continue Reading

The “Brahmin” hero, Parag Chakraborty – my, my, what a great man!

A man committed to trumpeting own greatness – as a “Brahmin” – by name of Parag Chakraborty, came to one of my blog posts the other day and put out some of the most amazing comments I’ve received on my blog:

Comment 1

One first class typical low IQ Indian has created this blog and typical low IQ low caste people have commented.

Hey Ganesh:You idiot Bengali Brahmins with 2 million population have already produced 3 Nobel prize worthy work from India.Tagore,IVF pioneer Subhas Mukhopadhyay,Amartya Sen.

In USA Bengali Brahmins have 5000 population and from that population we have 1200+ patents which is best stat in the world.In USA we have also won 14 grammy awards(Ravishankar and his daughter Nora Jones),2 Pulitzer winners and one of the greatest microbiologist dr Anandamohan Chakraborty.

In 2012 Ashoke Sen working in India won world’s richest scientific prize $3M-Milner prize.

So don’t comment about your superior MASTER Bengali Brahmin and stay under our feet.

Comment 2

Oh Idiot! Among 1200+ patents in USA,our family has 330+ patents.

Google this name:Inventor Arpan Chakraborty.At age of 32 he(my cousin) has 190 patents.He will go down one of the greatest inventor of all time.My uncle inventor Amit Chakraborty has 113 patents and I have 48 patents at age of 26.

Read this blog-Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle(comments 949-981).I wrote about it there and since then whole world follow us on twitter.

We are not third rate Brahmin as you first class idiot have commented,but we are best in the world.Now be jealous of your superior MASTER.

He then took my bait [see this] and provided some of his details. I now have a bit of a profile about him.

Worth discussing briefly, and placing this on the public record.

I do so not out of malice, but out of pity. For him. For his pathetically weak sense of self-worth, for his need to have his “accomplishments” praised, for his need to attribute his accomplishments to “Brahminhood”, and for his comprehensive failure to analyse society or economy or to even understand what I wrote on my blog post.

A sad case, to be much pitied.

FIRST, WHO IS HE?

His nickname is Sampan. A graduate of Pune University, he currently lives in Sunnyvale [probably one of these places].

His Linkedin profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/paragpc [Screenshot]

His F6S profile: https://www.f6s.com/paragchakraborty

His patents: http://patents.justia.com/search?q=Parag+Chakraborty

His twitter account: https://twitter.com/cultofcreations [Also this, which he “jointly” operates: https://twitter.com/bosemicrowave]

His blog: http://chakrabortysampan.blogspot.com.au/

His google page: https://plus.google.com/105507302170031870644/about

NOW FOR HIS TWITTER ACCOUNT

This is the screenshot:

sampan chakraborty

I’m sure there is some convoluted argument by which 8 (eight) followers translate into “several” millions.

But that’s not the point. The point to note is that someone cares so much that a large number of people “follow” him, that he makes that the key qualifier of his profile.

I have a suspicion the man failed to compete with his peers in standard, well-regarded approaches in his field (e.g. IIT entrance exam?) and has made it his life’s mission to chrun out petty patents on every topic under the sun, and to boast about his being “Brahmin”, in order to prove his “greatness”.

Note also the account: https://twitter.com/bosemicrowave which he jointly operates with his “inventive” family. [Science geeks@bosemicrowave. Account run by Sampan Chakraborty & 3 of world’s most prolific inventors. Arpan Chakraborty (192 patents), Amit Chakraborty(114 patents), Sambit(48 patents).]

He has set up two accounts: One account praises his other account (i.e. himself!)

self-praise-chakraborty

CONCLUSION

A man much to be pitied.

I encourage him to not feel so inferior. He has tried to rise from the pathetic socialist education system of India and has moved to the USA where anyone who puts in some effort can do well.

I wish him well in his future endeavours.

In particular, I recommend he try to understand basic economics and political philosophy (and biology). Doing so will show him why some countries succeed, and others don’t. America doesn’t have “Brahmins”, but the average American has produced wonderful stuff, including innovations in every field of life.

What matters, dear Sampan, is FREEDOM. When you’ve understood that, your fever about your greatness, or the greatness of “Brahmins” will disappear.

In relation to “Brahmins”, I hereby anoint all Dalits as Brahmins. And I challenge anyone to oppose me. These ignorant fool “Brahmins” have made India the socialist hell hole it is. The filthtiest place in the world. The poorest place in the world. These fools don’t understood the basics of economics or governance and flee to live in the West, since they can’t do anythign about their own country.

The only Indian in pre-Independence India who understood economics was Ambedkar, the man they oppressed and ridiculed.

And they try to tell others they are “superior”. Such fools are to be deeply pitied. They know not, AND CAN’T KNOW what they don’t know.

I encourage Sampan to abandon religion, which is the most false and spurious idea ever invented. Sampan, if you understand even the BASICS of science, you’ll give up the nonsense of religion. The fact that you don’t, says it all.

Unfortunately, some people may be fundamentally ill-equipped to understand. Understanding economics, political philosophy and biology is not for everyone.

But I encourage you to do whatever little you can, with the equipment you have been born with.

KEYWORDS

Sampan Chakraborty, Parag Chakraborty, Arpan Charkraborty, @bosemicrowave, @cultofcreations

Continue Reading

The Quran is a deadly weapon against knowledge. It crushes the slightest seed of new thought in the Islamic world.

The Islamic world had periods of scientific progress in the past, but these were shortlived because the Quran came back to bite.

The Quran is one of the most deadly weapons against knowledge and progress.

A good example is evolution. The Quran is totally anti-evolution, being absolutely and comprehensively ignorant.

In July 2011, however, I published a blog post showing how advanced Islamic scientific thought was, at one time. Consider this extract from the writings of Ibn Khaldun, 400 years before Darwin:

“One should then look at the world of creation. It started out from the minerals and progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner to plants and animals.

The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs, and seedless plants. Last stage of plants such as palms and vines is connected with the first stage of animals, such as snails and shellfish which have only the power to touch.

The word ‘connection’ with regard to these created things means that the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the next group. The animal world then widens, its species become numerous, and, in a grad­ual process of creation, it finally leads to man, who is able to think and reflect.

The higher stage of man is reached from the world of monkeys, in which both sagacity and perception are found, but which has not reached the stage of actual reflection and thinking. At this point we come to the first stage of man (after the world of monkeys). This is as far as our (physical) observation extends.”

This is amazingly advanced! Unfortunately, this kind of thought is not sustainable in the Islamic world.

Such advances are quickly CRUSHED by the Quran.

Quran remains pure POISON. Christianity crushed science for over 1500 years. Islam keeps crushing science at every step, today.

I’m afraid anti-science Muslims must stop wearing a flat cap and wear a dunce cap, instead.

Religion has set back human progress by 2000 years. It is time to bin all religions. These are pure rubbish – and worse.

Continue Reading

The bigoted doofus Zakir Naik – and further proof that Quran’s “scientific facts” are PURE nonsense.

I came across Zakir Naik some time ago and commented about him here. In that post I focused on his bigotry (he is absolutely extremist in his views – a very dangerous demagogue).

But he is a clown, as well. A true circus joker.

I couldn’t help laughing throughout the two videos below. Joker personified.

Btw, this FURTHER proves (if any such proof was needed) that the Quran is purely MAN-MADE. God has NOTHING (not one zilch) to do with it.

Zakir Naik, the nut case, on evolution


Zakir Naik’s TOTAL idiocy exposed

But, of course, this is not the key point. The man doesn’t understand the BASICS of the scientific method and continuously mixes up things like “theory”, “law” and “principles”.

This man is a medical doctor! He MUST have cheated in all his exams. He would flunk the most basic 101 course in science. He also has the most shonky memory” for facts – a total clown, as you’ve seen in the second video, above.

The good thing: he is helping destroy Islam from within. Just like VHP and BJP are helping destroy Hinduism, and the Pope is helping destroy Christianity.

We don’t need these religious duffers to tell us about the facts of life.

Go away, fools!

Continue Reading

God knows everything. But Quran is full of scientific blunders. Hence God had NOTHING to do with it.

A few weeks ago I published: Testing the claims that the Quran contains amazing “knowledge”. I can confirm it is 100 per cent man made.  This led to the post: Quran is 100 per cent man made (and so are Vedas, Bible and the lot). And no, I don’t care about your propaganda.

The topic of science in the Quran came up again, so I spent a few hours over the past few days researching the scientific “facts” in the Quran. There are a number of people who have written about this on the internet, so it was helpful to review their findings first. But in each case I further checked the original source and made my own findings.

[Some of the internet sources that have analysed the scientific content of the facts in the Quran include: WikiislamNairalandSkepticsannotated bible.comFaithfreedom.orgCouncilofexmuslims.organswering-islam.org]

I’m linking to my Facebook posts on this topic, that compile both an image and URL of the relevant source, and my analysis.

MY ANALYSIS

This is a pretty raw analysis – when I find time I’ll compile into a booklet I plan to write on Islam.

Islamic idiot 1 with an absurd “scientific model”

Islamic idiot 2 with his absurd “scientific model”

The sky is held by God, else it will fall down

The sun STOPS and takes rest each night

The moon split into two

Camel urine is medicine

Some Hindus drink cow urine as medicine. Mohammed believed camel urine was medicine.

Man was created before the rest of the universe

Science in the Quran: (1) There was no evolution. Man was created directly; (2) Unlike in the Old Testament version (which itself is a total joke), man came FIRST; the rest of the Universe came later. That means our immediate universe is not 14 billion years old (there are almost certainly an infinity of other universes out there), but less than a hundred thousand years. I must say I’m able to even more firmly declare that God DEFINITELY did not “dictate” this document that’s full of some of the most basic falsehoods. Even ONE error would have proved this was nothing but Mohammed’s own rambling. But the number of errors (and their magnitude) are beyond belief.]

The story of creation of the universe is beyond puerile

Science in the Quran. So after God made man (without any place to stand or any air to breathe), this is the order of things that happened (http://quran.com/79/27-30).
Observations:
1) The sky is a ceiling – it is finite – you could potentially touch it.
2) There is light everywhere, but you need to “extract’ light in order to get darkness. This is presumably done every night.
3) The earth is flat – it has been duly spread.
4) Water has to be extracted from this flat earth.
5) Without God’s actions, the mountains would not be firm and would keep doddering around the place
6) All this was needed for the man (hanging in thin air – who had been first created without a place to stand) – who could then be gingerly placed on top of this flat earth.
Sadly, God made a huge blunder in this process. He forgot to teach Islam to this man, so he had to thereafter secretly (not openly) communicate with Mohammed, who had to be persuaded – over the course of many years – to kill off the kafirs – a good chunk of his own creation!!
He needed an intermediary since God has no power to talk directly to his creations (although He did somehow learn Arabic – so he could communicate with one of us).
This is a strange God, indeed. He could do all these wonderful things but forgot to program Islam into man’s DNA, causing a level of confusion among men who are therefore busy killing each other to this day.
Maybe God – obviously a pretty incompetent “creator” – should dismantle this school project and start a new one, in which his creation (man) can be programmed to believe only in Islam.
God’s real mistake was to give man a brain. Man, today, after acquiring vast amount of knowledge through tens of thousands of experiments and studies, wants to know why God didn’t know (when the Quran was dictated) about how the world actually got created. If God was/ is ignorant and needs man’s help to understand the universe, he should say so.

science-in-quran-list

Why does God sit on top of our sun every night, when there are almost an infinity of other suns?

Science in the Hadith: Mohammed confirms that the Quran is correct. The sun does sleep every night (it has a bed below God’s Throne – the throne is, however, invisible, since it is on the other side of the flat earth and no one can see it).

http://hadithcollection.com/sahihbukhari/87–sp-421/4098-sahih-bukhari-volume-004-book-054-hadith-number-421.html

Now, there’s this slight problem with the actual facts (apart from the fact that the sun never “rests”): there are at least 100 billion TIMES 100 billion suns in this universe – more suns than the grains of sand on earth.

Why is our sun so special that God has to sit on top of it every night?]

The purpose of stars it to throw stones at rebellious devils

Science in the Quran. http://quran.com/37

Question: What’s the purpose of angels?
Answer: To drive clouds.

Question: What’s the purpose of stars?
Answer: To stop rebellious devils from listening to angels and to pelt such rebellious devils from every side if they dare to listen to the angels.

Question: What if a devil listens to some words of the angels?
Answer: Thereafter stars pursue them in a burning flame that is piercing in brightness (i.e. stars become comets: now you know).

This tells you a lot about what’s going on up above you.

1) Stars are living creatures with ears that can listen pretty long distance to the earth’s clouds (where the angels drive – push? – our clouds and chat about noble things).

2) Each time you see a meteor shower, that’s the stars pelting rebellious devils.

3) When a comet comes by, be sure there’s a really bad rebellious devil in front of it (invisible to us) who is being chased with blindingly bright light.

In brief, devils have NO CHANCE.

Be happy, people. You are well protected by the stars.

science-in-quran-list2

The purpose of mountains is to hold down the earth from crumpling

Science in the Quran. Mountains are stakes that hold the earth in place. Otherwise this flat earth would curl up because of our movements, like a carpet that crumples when you walk on it. http://quran.com/78/6-7

Man was created using a “clinging substance”

Science in the Quran. http://quran.com/96/2

Remember, man was created first (before everything else). Well, there’s a further first step: to find a “clinging substance” (some have translated it as “blood clot”).

God obviously had to make everything, so when he woke up with a new project idea in mind and found nothing – absolutely nothing – around him, he first made a clinging substance (DNA mixed with clay? – but wherefrom came clay without creating the earth first? – don’t ask me too many questions, folks). The sequence of God’s current school project is:

1) Make clinging substance
2) Make man but forget to teach him Islam
3) Make other things including (a) stars (that listen to angels in the clouds and belt rebellious devils with stones) and (b) other things that are more commonly observable
4) Put man on the earth
5) Secretly talk to Mohammed since, somehow, God – despite his amazing power – is not allowed to speak out openly (till today) to the rest of us.
6) Get those who listen to Mohammed to kill off those who don’t much care about such illogical ramblings.

Too easy!]

My questions regarding God’s strange behaviour 

Science in the Quran, continued. I’ve got some questions.

Anyone know why God made the rebellious devils? If there were no rebellious devils, he would not have needed to make 100 billion times 100 billion stars and almost an infinity of meteorites and comets; save himself a lot of bother.

Also, why not come out of hiding today? I can understand it was hard for God to communicate with all men in the past: there was no TV. So he secretly spoke to one of us. But today? Any clue why God is afraid to get up from his Throne and talk to us on TV? Or is his problem that he is invisible and can’t be seen on TV? What’s going on?]

Ignorance about asexual reproduction

Science in the Quran. http://quran.com/51/49

God had obviously never looked through a microscope. He was limited by man’s ignorance at the time he “dictated” the Quran.]

Moon has its own light

Science in the Quran http://quran.com/71/16

Note that the original Quran ***doesn’t*** have the word “reflected”. It is pure corruption to suggest that God knew that the moon reflects the sun’s light when he “dictated” the Quran.

God was deeply ignorant about basic cosmology in those days.]

Talking ants

Science in Quran http://quran.com/27/18

Talking ants. Reminds me of a Disney movie I saw somewhere. Quran is clearly a fairy tale for children – but because of the violence embedded in it, it is a pretty dangerous one once people actually believe it.

 
ADDENDUM
This is an extremely useful summary of the rise and fall of Islamic knowledge:

Continue Reading