Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 18 Dec 2006 05:33 Cranks Reply wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > >>I do hope you're not really this stupid. Until now I thought you were quite >>smart. > > > i never thought you were smart you dumb donkeycnut. you are frigging > clueless. > > there should be laws passed against you breathing oxygen. > LOL he's feeding the plants.
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Dec 2006 07:35 In article <8536b$458563f7$4fe75c5$3024(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:45851079.D2420CDC(a)hotmail.com... > >> Without heading down the road of a conspiracy theory here, I am not sure >> what you are going on about. Climate science is as rigourous a discipline as >> anything else. They have peer reviewed journals and everything. > >Climate science is barely off the ground flapping its wings as >hard as it can to get airborne, but still needing an occasional >hard placed kick to get as far as it has. > >Weather, its sister science, discovered and submitted the first >formalization of Chaos theory. Note especially the butterfly >effect. I suggest that climate is a long term serial study of >weather. I don't think we can combine enough data from >weather to see any reasonable long term forecast for climate. > >Do a google search for (use the quotes) "mini ice age". > >I'll stick my neck out here again and state that politicians >and the rest of the great unwashed don't begin to contemplate >nonlinearity, let alone its place in causality. The problem >is that every time politicians get together to fix something >it invariably takes more money out of the public pocket one >way or another, and usually the goals are not achieved so >another even more expensive round of fixes is called for. > >In primitive societies, the strongest got to rule. In earlier >times leadership was arranged "by the grace of God" LOL. Today >it is supposed to have some relationship to the capacity of the >leaders to take us in the right direction, perhaps based on >mental prowess, however it seems to be the best liars who >usually get into office these days. This is what is wrong with our system at the moment. Those politicians are not our leaders; they are our employees. The fact that you consider them "leaders" is a bug in the system. It implies that you hand over your control to those few. > >These things being said, I don't have any faith in the so >called solutions will ever actually have anything to do >with global warming if the problem itself 1) really >exists and 2) is solvable by combined human action. > >What we have is a pseudoscientific political argument about >a pseudoscientific issue. Business as usual, I say. > >What makes personal economic sense, regardless of worldwide >implications, is to reduce consumption. We've done that in >my lifetime. Compare the most commonly owned automobiles >today to those of 50 years ago both in materials used in >manufacture as well as fuel consumption and replacement >period. 50 years ago I don't recall many cars getting over >100,000 miles of use before they were recycled. I do. People were able to own cars for decades and still expect them to function and be maintained. > Today folks >pay good money for cars exceeding 100K because we're heading >for 200K life. The above is generally true for most manufactured >durable goods. People buy cars with no expectation of using them for decades. They are buying items that have to be expensed and can't really be considered capital. <snip> /BAH
From: unsettled on 18 Dec 2006 10:27 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <8536b$458563f7$4fe75c5$3024(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>T Wake wrote: >> >>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:45851079.D2420CDC(a)hotmail.com... >> >>>Without heading down the road of a conspiracy theory here, I am not sure >>>what you are going on about. Climate science is as rigourous a discipline > > as > >>>anything else. They have peer reviewed journals and everything. >> >>Climate science is barely off the ground flapping its wings as >>hard as it can to get airborne, but still needing an occasional >>hard placed kick to get as far as it has. >> >>Weather, its sister science, discovered and submitted the first >>formalization of Chaos theory. Note especially the butterfly >>effect. I suggest that climate is a long term serial study of >>weather. I don't think we can combine enough data from >>weather to see any reasonable long term forecast for climate. >> >>Do a google search for (use the quotes) "mini ice age". >> >>I'll stick my neck out here again and state that politicians >>and the rest of the great unwashed don't begin to contemplate >>nonlinearity, let alone its place in causality. The problem >>is that every time politicians get together to fix something >>it invariably takes more money out of the public pocket one >>way or another, and usually the goals are not achieved so >>another even more expensive round of fixes is called for. >> >>In primitive societies, the strongest got to rule. In earlier >>times leadership was arranged "by the grace of God" LOL. Today >>it is supposed to have some relationship to the capacity of the >>leaders to take us in the right direction, perhaps based on >>mental prowess, however it seems to be the best liars who >>usually get into office these days. > > > This is what is wrong with our system at the moment. Those > politicians are not our leaders; they are our employees. The > fact that you consider them "leaders" is a bug in the system. > It implies that you hand over your control to those few. Try instructing your employees to balance the budget. >>These things being said, I don't have any faith in the so >>called solutions will ever actually have anything to do >>with global warming if the problem itself 1) really >>exists and 2) is solvable by combined human action. >> >>What we have is a pseudoscientific political argument about >>a pseudoscientific issue. Business as usual, I say. >> >>What makes personal economic sense, regardless of worldwide >>implications, is to reduce consumption. We've done that in >>my lifetime. Compare the most commonly owned automobiles >>today to those of 50 years ago both in materials used in >>manufacture as well as fuel consumption and replacement >>period. 50 years ago I don't recall many cars getting over >>100,000 miles of use before they were recycled. > > > I do. People were able to own cars for decades and still > expect them to function and be maintained. With no high speed interstate system in place people simply didn't drive as much as today. Own for decades, sure. Drive over 100K miles, not so much. Change oil and filter religiously every 1000 miles in order to achieve 100K, sure. In 1952 my neighbor sold his 1936 Rockne. It had 76,000 miles on it, and that's with him diving the mile and a half to work every day for years. Not only was the oil changed religiously but he painted it every 3rd year using a brush and a good grade of flat enamel. He sold it to a local kid for $200. It lasted 6 months. >>Today folks >>pay good money for cars exceeding 100K because we're heading >>for 200K life. The above is generally true for most manufactured >>durable goods. > > > People buy cars with no expectation of using them for decades. > They are buying items that have to be expensed and can't really > be considered capital. Its been a long time since I've lived someplace where they don't rust away faster than they wear our. The poor always pay more buy buying the most troubled period of cars. But the fact there is usefulness in a car double its life 40-50 years ago remains astonishing to me.
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Dec 2006 05:11 In article <4584C5F3.7D96CD3A(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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 ? > The current warming is due primarily to CO2, which has increased 36% due to human activities. Water is not up; any increase gets rained out so the equilibrium is maintained. Methane is up, but not as much was CO2, even taking into account its high GW potential. >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. > 1. CO2 is up 36% since 1880. 2. Burning fossil fuels produces CO2. 3. Around 1880 is when the industrial revolution took off, with lots of fossil fuel burning. 4. CO2 traps heat. 5. The earth is warming. You rarely get causation proved in science -- that requires controlled experiments. >It's a bit like the 'apples are green so green tomatoes must be apples' argument. > >Graham > > > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Dec 2006 05:13
In article <em6b7g$fo5$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <4584C5F3.7D96CD3A(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>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 ? >> > >The current warming is due primarily to CO2, which has increased 36% due to >human activities. Water is not up; any increase gets rained out so the >equilibrium is maintained. Methane is up, but not as much was CO2, even >taking into account its high GW potential. > >>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. >> > >1. CO2 is up 36% since 1880. >2. Burning fossil fuels produces CO2. >3. Around 1880 is when the industrial revolution took off, with lots of fossil >fuel burning. >4. CO2 traps heat. >5. The earth is warming. > >You rarely get causation proved in science -- that requires controlled >experiments. > >>It's a bit like the 'apples are green so green tomatoes must be apples' >argument. >> >>Graham >> >> >> >> No, it's like "If I add HCl to a solution, the pH goes down. I added HCl and the pH went down, so the logical assumption is adding the HCl caused the pH to go down." |