Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 19 Dec 2006 09:43 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:45878BF2.C5A7C86F(a)hotmail.com... > The media are well known for taking press releases and spinning them in new > directions, as well as scientists (knowingly or otherwise) using press > interviews as a change to push non-peer reviewed opinion into the public > domain (MMR for example). The problem is that people who are not involved in > the discipline often do not have the means, background or interest to fully > research the findings for themselves. This does not automatically mean the > science is not properly researched. In the MMR example, nothing in the > published work drew a conclusive link between the vaccine and autism (as it > was peer reviewed work), but during press interviews the link was alluded to > and the rest is history. People always seem to want someone or something to blame. If we could take the human element out of the scientist a number of things might become easier (starting with the 24/7 work week LOL) but in the meanwhile we'll just have to deal with human foibles. You make a good point. There are plenty of consequences, some more obvious than others.
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Dec 2006 09:50 In article <e91ca$4586b366$49ecfaf$10575(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >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. There is no incentive to balance budgets if the voters keep giving them unlimited spending money. > > >>>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. Yes they did. Why are you equating high speeds with distances traveled on land? They didn't go to foreign countries but they certainly drove to other states. You might try to trace how goods were disbursed. Pay attention to coal, seed, etc. You also need to count the miles a tractor was driven before it was junked. > 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. I saw my Dad's 1954 Ford odometer turn 200K. > >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. Then he wasn't in a commercial business that required driving. >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. You grew up in a city. > >>>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. It was nothing to keep a car going 50 years ago. I could do that work. Today's engines are never rebuilt. There were dozens of places when I was growing that were in the business of rebuilding engines and lived doing that work. /BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 19 Dec 2006 05:00 In article <458786EF.F88FF01A(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> >T Wake wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>>No-one fully understands what drives the weather. >> >> >> >> That isn't really what climate science is about though, and interestingly >> >> not fully understanding what drives something does not affect the quality >> >> of the science (inflation, cosmological expansion, even the propagation >> >> of gravity all remain "not fully understood"). >> > >> > We know enough to usually understand what a really good >> > model is. Occasionally we get lucky early in the game. >> > I don't believe we have with climatology as yet. >> > >> > Look at some of the diverse elements: >> > >> > variability of solar energy directed at us >> > what happens enroute before that reaches us >> > variable atmospheric considerations >> > variable ocean currents >> > Earth tilt/axis_wobble >> > chaotic interactions >> > solar eclipses >> >> Unfortunately I am no where near up to speed with climatology enough to >> respond to this in a meaningful manner. Hopefully a climatologist will be >> able to chime in and give better detail. > >I went to http://realclimate.org/ and what do I see there ? > >" quibbles with technical details which have little or no effect on the answer >to the overall question no matter how they are resolved (e.g. whether the >NRC/NAS statement in 2001 that post-1950 ocean warming was 0.050C is >meaningfully different from the Levins et al. 2005, more recent figure of >0.037C). " > The ocean has a lot more heat capacity than the air, so is it surprising it's warming slower? >Ocean temp rises of 1/20 or 1/30 of a degree in 50 years ! > Which will speed up as the warming of the atmosphere is speeding up. >And.... > >" The precise factors underlying the so-called "Little Ice Age" (LIA) have been >intensely debated within the scientific community." > >So no-one knows what caused it but we'll happily predict the opposite. > That's NOT what the statement means. Besides, who cares? It's like saying we need to know what all the factors in the Black Death were before we take any action on avian flu today. >" One key metric in this debate is the spatial pattern of cooling which may >provide a 'fingerprint' of the underlying climate change, whether that was >externally forced (from solar or volcanic activity) or was part of an intrinsic >mode of variability. " > >= we haven't the tiniest clue but we'll use some big important sounding words to >cover it up ! > >Note also that volcanic activity *IS* being seen as a significant factor in >climate change. > Sure, when it's happening. Hint: It ain't today! >Graham > >
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 19 Dec 2006 16:08 On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:09:14 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: ><snip> >> Ocean temp rises of 1/20 or 1/30 of a degree in 50 years ! > >Are you saying this is trivial? My recollections of ocean life and its part >in the food webs are based on biology and geography classes nearly that long >ago themselves. > >Is raising the mean temperature of the planets oceans by 0.03-0.05K of >little importance? Beyond the obvious and substantial energy required to raise ocean temperatures, already mentioned, and to accentuate your comment here: Consider methane clathrates (hydrates) where there is a methane molecule trapped inside a 6-H20 frozen ring as part of a water ice that holds substantial CH4 in it. CH4 itself is an important greenhouse gas. If you warm the oceans by 50mK, let's say, how does this affect the probabilities of the CH4 leaving the ring? Is this a nice linear function of temperature or temperature change? (Not!) Tests have shown that 70-80% of CH4 released from the ocean bottoms makes it to the surface to be released into the atmosphere. Jon
From: unsettled on 19 Dec 2006 20:04
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <e91ca$4586b366$49ecfaf$10575(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>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. > > > There is no incentive to balance budgets if the voters > keep giving them unlimited spending money. Referring to your statement directly above "It implies that you hand over your control to those few." it now appears that you now agree that the politicians are in control. I never saw an actual line on a ballot relaying to politicians what they're allowed to spend. Have you? >>>>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. > Yes they did. Why are you equating high speeds with distances > traveled on land? They didn't go to foreign countries but they > certainly drove to other states. You might try to trace how > goods were disbursed. Pay attention to coal, seed, etc. > You also need to count the miles a tractor was driven before > it was junked. So you've jumped subjects from "people driving" to the distribution of goods. Don't forget there was a significant transition after WW2 from railroad distribution to roadway distribution systems. That transition closely followed the implementation of Eisenhower's Interstate Roads system. If you ever get a wanderust get into a car and follow as much of the old Boston Post Road as still exists between Boston and New York City. You'll be amazed at how awful it used to be. It also has another name, US1. I traveled from NYC to Atlanta many a time before the Interstates shortened the trip. I *know* what those roads were like. >>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. > I saw my Dad's 1954 Ford odometer turn 200K. How many engine changes/overhauls? 1954 was the first year Ford even had an overhead valve engine. Except for the lighter body panels and the updated engine, it was the same car they built from 1949 through the late 1950's. I owned a couple of 1954 Ford wagons and a 1954 Mercury sedan. None of them saw it past 100K miles. >>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. > Then he wasn't in a commercial business that required driving. Nope, he worked as an electrician at a research facility. >>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. > You grew up in a city. I expect you would say so because you grew up on a farm. I grew up in a little settlement surrounded by farmland and farms. >>>>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. > It was nothing to keep a car going 50 years ago. I could > do that work. Maybe then you could, though I doubt even then you had the muscle to remove or torque head bolts during a rebuild. > Today's engines are never rebuilt. Sure they are, but the cheapest replacement is a Jasper short block. check this out: http://www.aftermarket.org/erc/Engine_Repower.asp Notice who the Chairman is. > There > were dozens of places when I was growing that were in > the business of rebuilding engines and lived doing that work. Given the rebuilding industry of today it is a better deal to let the professionals do it, with warranty. Local Joe makes out better doing the swap outs without having to buy all the tools, dedicated shop space, and so forth. My son had a local shop in another state do a complete overhaul on a volvo engine. He'd have come out way ahead buying a long block from anywhere. I have vintage (1950's 1960's) agricultural tractors today that were rebuilt by the local machine shop. Of course he's the only facility with his capabilities for about 90 miles in any direction. He'll replace a modern automotive engine, if necessary, but use a factory rebuilt rather than get involved with those. It is a mixed bag today, based more on what makes economic sense than the availability of the skills to do the work. The following captivated my funny bone. "Just like realpolitik, there should be something called "realeconomik"-- the compromises you have to make in order to remain in power and do some of the things dear to you." http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2004/jul/29guest1.htm |