Galileo's position that the Earth is not the center of the universe and global warming?

Question

How does Galileo's position that the Earth is not the center of the universe parallel the doubters' and scientists' position on global warming?

Answer 1

The facts are a conflict of interest back then just like now. Global warming is political so politicains side with global warming and even lie about it to further thier own agenda. Even tons of sceintists say they are not sure pollutants are causing global warming and other sceintists even say they are not period. Of course we are also coming out of an ice age so the earth is still getting warmer. The earth warms up and cools down in cycles. Also the sun has flared up causing the ice on Mars to melt as well. A strange coincedence we should take note of as well. 50 years ago the same parties saying we are causing the earth to heat up were saying we were causing the earth to cool down.

Answer 2

Well the church originally started saying that the Earth was the centre of the solar system. Galileo was one of the first to question the theory and now it is common knowledge. A while ago many different meteorological societies noticed an increase in temperature, ever so slight but still present. Most of these societies wrote this of as an oddity that would soon be corrected by, what they believed to be, a self correcting system. Many years of testing and sample computer environments and core samples later we have some pretty substancial proof that global warming exists. We are still in the process of other groups trying to deny these facts and find evidence against them. You see most scientists believe that global warming is the fault of humanity while others try to say that this is natural. In my oppinion, global warming is the fault of humanity and we need to stop it while we can. Hopefully soon the entire world will be aware of Global Warming and it's harmful effects on the world, just like how we all know now that the sun is the centre of the solar system. One difference is how we use the informaion. In Galileo's case the knowledge was just there for the sake of science and truth, but in the case of Global Warming we need to use the information to prevent our world from going up in smoke.

Answer 3

Actually, it doesn't.

First of all, Galileo's assertion that the Earth is not the center of the universe isn't entirely true - Nicolaus Copernicus devised that the simplest model of the solar system is planets orbiting a single star, which is the sun. At the same time, Einstein's theories of reletivity suggest that there is no priviledged point of rest ANYWHERE in the universe. A person in a moving car can say the rest of the world is moving and s/he is not and that person would be correct in a reletavistic sense. It wouldn't be the simplest model of interpretation, but it would also not be incorrect.

As far as global warming goes, the main point of contention isn't whether or not the globe is warming, but what is causing it. Most of the global warming advocates are saying it is humanity's fault while others say that climate change is a natural phenomenon that has happened before and is happening again. And when one considers that the Earth has heated and cooled many times over its history, before combustion engines and smokestacks were invented, and that as recently as 40 years ago, it was being predicted that the world wasn't warming, but cooling, it isn't that big of a stretch to consider that supporters of the latter view might have a point.

You might even want to consider the fact that all this hype about Green Industries and Al Gore might be nothing more than a plot to turn media hype into $$$ by scaring people into doing things that won't have an impact on the world anyway. If you ask me, the alarmism needs to stop. Humanity is only going to survive global warming if they turn their efforts into figuring out how to adapt to it, instead of turning it into a political and capitalist blunt instrument for getting votes and campaign contributions.

Answer 4

Hmmmm. You make a person think. There are some a parallels and some differences, I think. Galileo was not a lone scientist with a minority viewpoint. Most astronomers shared the view that the earth could not possibly be the center of the Universe. He actually acquired the idea from a contemporary, Nicolas Copernicus. When he was convicted, it was for "following the position of Copernicus". It wasn't all that radical. They got the theory from Ptolemy who got it from Pythagorus who advocated it a thousand years earlier.

Gailileo thought he had no reason to fear the authorities. Copernicus had published on the same subject several times without repercussions. His only worry was what the other scientists would think. Galileo had taken things one step forward by compiling thousands of observations that correlated to a heliocentric view, but not a geocentric view. He had added to it the observations he made with the new invention, the telescope. He was expecting only the process of peer review, where other scientists would question the validity of his data, and he'd have to respond.

What had changed was the politics of the government. The Inquisition had become wealthy from Columbus's discoveries, even though they were based on the heretical idea that the earth was round. They pretended not to notice that, and instead profited by funding other voyages of conquest. During Galileo's time there was a drastic swing to the Right, far to the Right of where things had been when Copernicus published. That's what got him in trouble. His real crime wasn't his astronomy. He was an advocate of experimental science, actually testing new ideas by experiment and observation (as were Copernicus and Pythagorus). That was markedly different from Aristotle, who taught that all truth could be arrived at by pure reasoning. The Catholic Church held strong Aristotelian beliefs (via St. Thomas Aquinas) , and experimental science was officially "sorcery". Unofficially, they used the maps drawn by both Columbus and Galileo, as they were more accurate than any drawn from a geocentric perspective.

So I see quite a few parallels. The heliocentric solar system idea was quite old when Galileo was born. The political intolerance that sought to force him to recant his published version happened well within his lifetime. Global Warming due to the Greenhouse effect as it applies to human beings had been known and discussed since the 1890's at least. The "Skeptic/denier" movement began in the 1970's.

The most telling similarity is that the government makes full use of the talent and training of the Climatologists and Meteorologists for every other purpose. I mean, it's not like NASA, NOAA, and the other agencies have two teams, one for Global Warming, and one for everything else, right? I don't really believe George Bush could possibly actually believe Global Warming is fake, stem cell research is cloning, and the Earth is only 4,000 years old. Maybe I just don't want to believe he could hold those views and still be elected President. I don't believe he really thought Saddam Hussein worked for Al-Quaida and had weapons of mass destruction. I think he came up with all this baloney to recruit the support of the Conservatives, who should have known better.

What's going on in America is an attack by the government on the scientists doing the most important research of our era(as individuals, and collectively) to damage the credibility of them and their work, while continuing to retain their services. It's very similar to what happened to Oppenheimer, Szilard, and the other atomic scientists when they tried to build a coalition of public awareness and support around the moral implications of their discoveries. They all experienced massive retaliation from the government, personally and professionally. Naturally they were called leftists, Reds, and all of that. The goverment even had it's own token scientist to say they were wrong (Edward Teller). From that point on, Teller got all the credit for the program. Ironically one of the publications mocked by the Skeptic/Denier crowd is the one founded by those scientists, although the name has changed several times. It is similar to what is going on now, and what happened to Galileo. You have a very astute point!

Answer 5

Because science and physics are not the same thing.

Galileo had evidence that suggested that his theory was true. The rest of the world was dominated primarily by the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, a religious belief that the Earth was the center of the universe. Now man made global warming has no real evidence, just a theory backed up by vast documents full of equations and algorithms. And sometimes refered to as proof, but the IPCC is merely just the believers religous text, the IPCC report, is also their spiritual guide. So the believers are more like the general consensus of Galileos time(Flat Earth Society). But a few scientists today that have studied the climate in the past, have much evidence that supports their view that the Sun controls the climate. And the Sun is forecast to grow weaker, and CO2 will not matter one darn bit. And they have to do their work quitely and get their funding from less desirable sources, or the Church of Global Warming will persecute them.

Answer 6

It Doesn't. 2 Separate issues altogether - unless the question is rhetorical.
It is our vanity that makes us think that we are the center of the universe - that we are so evolved and superior and intelligent that we can control everything, from the sun, to "global warming". We are indeed great and have done great things, but, with our knowledge we should know by now that we superior beings are not the reason for it all. Whether we want to or not some things will happen because they are meant to happen, ie as nature intends. Yes, we should not help adverse changes by stupid and wasteful behaviour, and going green is healthy and responsible for future generations - but no - I am sorry, even with our best actions we will not be able to stop gobal warming or cooling or any other "ing" that is the process of nature. Sorry, we are not the center of the universe!

Answer 7

Galileo might be thought of as a climatologist receiving his Ph.D. shortly after 2000.

The young climatologist reads the work of other climatologists. He concludes that their position, that global warming is mostly caused by man, is strongly backed by the data. He also knows that the doubters theories are weak, and do not match the observed data.

Similarly, Galileo reads the work of Copernicus, understands astronomy, and knows that Copernicus' theory, that the planets revolve around the Sun, is strongly backed by the data. He knows that the theory of Ptolomy does not match the data.

That convinces Galileo and the young climatologist. They go on to do their own research advancing the theories (a Sun centered solar system and mostly man made global warming) farther. While doubters attack their work with religious fervor and very strange theories (Tycho Brahe said the Earth revolved around the Sun, but the other planets revolved around the Earth) they persist.

Their fellow scientists applaud their work, although they are beset with political and religious opposition.

In this story Jim Hansen is Copernicus, Richard Lindzen is Ptolomy, and Senator Inhofe is the Catholic Church.

Answer 8

It doesn't. Those who believe that man made global warming is real because a consensus of people think it's real are no different than those who believed the Earth was the center of the universe because a consensus of people thought that was so.

One man with facts is a majority.

No one who believes global warming is man made can tell you if it's going to be warmer or cooler next year. They are just taking guesses based on their emotions and perceptions, not on objective science. These are the modern day flat Earthers.

Those who demand proof by objective science are those who see the Sun as the center of the solar system. The others need to keep up.

Answer 9

Good question. BTW--a detail--Galileo's troubles were over hs work on falling objects and astronomical discoveries. Copernicus isthe one who challenged the Earth-centered (Pdtolomeic) view.

But--here's why there's a parallel. Galileo's arguements were based on verified empirical evidence and tests--the facts,in other words. But the existing power structure didn't want to accept his evidence for political reasons.

That's what happened with global warming--the scientists base their conclusions on verified facts--which the existing power elite (Bush, etc.) didn't want to accept.

Of course, such denial is irrelevant to the facts--and, now as with galileo, the facts have won out. The difference now is that it didn't take nearly as long. In today's world, trying to falisify and supress scientific facts simply isn't doable--even inthe short run.

Answer 10

It doesn't have anything to do with it. Galileo simply observed the Earth orbiting the Sun. He very nearly was executed for his findings. Global warming is another issue. The "Green" people are convinced way ahead of science. The Scientists are still debating and studying the issue.