Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 16 Dec 2006 23:11 Lloyd Parker wrote: > The military commissions bill passed recently denies people held the writ of > habeas corpus (check out what Sen. Spector had to say about it). It's truly remarkable how that one slipped through without much complaint. Essentially it makes ppl guilty until proven innocent ( among other nasty things ). Your average Military Junta must be jealous at how Bush worked that one. Graham
From: Eeyore on 16 Dec 2006 23:22 Lloyd Parker wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Lloyd Parker wrote: > > > >> I love these right-wingers. Man can't damage the earth with CFCs or global > >> warming, but a few radicals can destroy western civilization. > > > >There's a questionable presumption there that 'man' is responsible for global > >warming. > > > >Graham > > Uh, not in science, there is not. At least not among scientists not on the > payroll of the oil companies or right-wing "think tanks." Why is it then that it's supposedly carbon dioxide that's the problem and not water vapour or methane for example ? I've never seen a rational explanation for this. As I see it 'science' can show a correlation between increasing global temperatures and increasing CO2 in the atmosphere but can't prove causation one jot. It's a bit like the 'apples are green so green tomatoes must be apples' argument. Graham
From: Eeyore on 16 Dec 2006 23:30 Ken Smith wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > >>> That danger is now secondary in a list of priorities. The danger > >>> will disppear if Western civilization is destroyed. > >> > >>And who's exactly going to *destroy* it ? > > > >It is a stated goal by people we call Islamic extremists. If > >you haven't noticed, they have been making a lot of progress > >towards that goal. > > There are lots of people with lots of stated goals. The progress towards > the destruction of western civilization has been made by the neocons not > the Islamists. BAH makes the classic error of assuming Islamic extremism / Islamism has a popular and widespread base. It doesn't. Although the west can make it more popular by over-reacting for sure. Graham
From: T Wake on 17 Dec 2006 04:17 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4584C5F3.7D96CD3A(a)hotmail.com... > > > Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >Lloyd Parker wrote: >> > >> >> I love these right-wingers. Man can't damage the earth with CFCs or >> >> global >> >> warming, but a few radicals can destroy western civilization. >> > >> >There's a questionable presumption there that 'man' is responsible for >> >global >> >warming. >> > >> >Graham >> >> Uh, not in science, there is not. At least not among scientists not on >> the >> payroll of the oil companies or right-wing "think tanks." > > Why is it then that it's supposedly carbon dioxide that's the problem and > not > water vapour or methane for example ? Methane is also a problem, and not being a climate scientist I haven't read enough to pass comment on the water vapour issue (although vague recollections seem to follow that H2O has less insulating properties than CO2). However, your argument here seems to be "why have you singled out one of many problems?" When you identify there is a BADTHINGT� happening, but you can only affect a subset of the problems causing the BADTHINGT�, do you advocate total inaction? > I've never seen a rational explanation for this. As I see it 'science' can > show a > correlation between increasing global temperatures and increasing CO2 in > the > atmosphere but can't prove causation one jot. Then read more articles on the subject. If you have access to ATHENA there are tons of publications which explain the background to the theory and the science involved. Your implication here is now that all the climate scientist who are supporting global warming are doing so based on no evidence. This strikes me as an egotistical way to view your own interpretation of the evidence. Unless you are climate scientist keeping up to date with the research, I doubt you are aware of the whole array of information. I certainly am not, but I know climate scientists who are and are convinced of the human driven global warming problem. As an aside, sneer quotes around the word science are pretty odd. Statistics shows the correlation, and science proposes theories as to why this is happening. Science does not prove things in the manner you demand here, as the scientific method is one of falsification. Scientific theories which imply the human causation of global warming are sound and experimentally verified. As with everything in science, tomorrow we may find a flaw but until then the theory is sound. > It's a bit like the 'apples are green so green tomatoes must be apples' > argument. No it isn't.
From: Eeyore on 17 Dec 2006 04:40
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> > > >> >> I love these right-wingers. Man can't damage the earth with CFCs or > >> >> global warming, but a few radicals can destroy western civilization. > >> > > >> >There's a questionable presumption there that 'man' is responsible for > >> >global warming. > >> > > >> >Graham > >> > >> Uh, not in science, there is not. At least not among scientists not on > >> the payroll of the oil companies or right-wing "think tanks." > > > > Why is it then that it's supposedly carbon dioxide that's the problem and > > not water vapour or methane for example ? > > Methane is also a problem, and not being a climate scientist I haven't read > enough to pass comment on the water vapour issue (although vague > recollections seem to follow that H2O has less insulating properties than > CO2). However, your argument here seems to be "why have you singled out one > of many problems?" Very much so actually. As if there were a desire to prove a point regardless of real scientific endeavour. > When you identify there is a BADTHINGT� happening, but you can only affect a > subset of the problems causing the BADTHINGT�, do you advocate total > inaction? Not if the 'bad thing' can be shown to be genuinely responsible. In this case I see an absence of proof. > > I've never seen a rational explanation for this. As I see it 'science' can > > show a correlation between increasing global temperatures and increasing > > CO2 in the atmosphere but can't prove causation one jot. > > Then read more articles on the subject. If you have access to ATHENA there > are tons of publications which explain the background to the theory and the > science involved. > > Your implication here is now that all the climate scientist who are > supporting global warming are doing so based on no evidence. I've yet to see anything other than a casual link as opposed to causal one. > This strikes me > as an egotistical way to view your own interpretation of the evidence. It reflects my healthy scepticism actually. Once upon a time ppl said we would all die in a horrible nuclear inferno. When that failed they said we'd die because of poisonong from nuclear power. When that failed... well here we are. Ever heard the story of the boy who cried 'wolf' ? > Unless you are climate scientist keeping up to date with the research, I > doubt you are aware of the whole array of information. I certainly am not, > but I know climate scientists who are and are convinced of the human driven > global warming problem. And yet we hear wailing and gnashing of teeth about the loss of polar ice sheets and global sea level rise yet the melting of ice sheets doesn't raise the sea level even a millimetre. > As an aside, sneer quotes around the word science are pretty odd. > Statistics shows the correlation, and science proposes theories as to why > this is happening. Very flawed theories. > Science does not prove things in the manner you demand > here, as the scientific method is one of falsification. Scientific theories > which imply the human causation of global warming are sound and > experimentally verified. As with everything in science, tomorrow we may find > a flaw but until then the theory is sound. > > > It's a bit like the 'apples are green so green tomatoes must be apples' > > argument. > > No it isn't. Then prove it ! I'm simply not convinced it's not just normal variation in global weather. We're quite powerless to stop it anyway so fretting about it and taxing ppl more is totally pointless. Graham |