Santorum: The hoax of Global Warming

[uncarollo]

Thoughts from a potential leader of the free world:

GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum targeted primary rivals Mitt
Romney and Newt Gingrich on Tuesday for allegedly buying into the
"bogus" science of man-made climate change, while proudly declaring
that he himself had never believed in the "hoax of global warming."

"If you leave it to Nature, then Nature will do what Nature does,
which is boom and bust," Santorum said at an energy summit in
Colorado. "We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have
dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but
for our benefit not for the Earth's benefit."

[oriel36]

On Feb 7, 7:07 pm, uncarollo <chris1...@aol.com> wrote:
> Thoughts from a potential leader of the free world:

The ideology of human control over global temperature is only the
symptom of a hoax,the actual hoax itself is the basis for empirical
modeling which turns out that the same people insist on 1465 rotations
in 1461 days on the lead of magnification guys who imagine their goto
telescopes track the Earth's rotation as it follows a star in stellar
circumpolar motion.

Amazing what damage a few homocentric guys enamored by pieces of glass
can do !.

If you look at your telescope tonight as it turns about its own axis
in following any star,it might occur to you that all it is doing is
reflecting an observation made using the average 24 hour day as a
continuous stream of 24 hours days in the 3 year/365 day,1year/366 day
format.Then and only then can you call yourself an astronomer.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:07:23 -0800 (PST), uncarollo <chri...@aol.com>
wrote:

>Thoughts from a potential leader of the free world:
>
>GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum targeted primary rivals Mitt
>Romney and Newt Gingrich on Tuesday for allegedly buying into the
>"bogus" science of man-made climate change, while proudly declaring
>that he himself had never believed in the "hoax of global warming."

He's a corrupt, neocon wingnut, of limited intelligence (possibly even
stupider than GWB, if that's possible). So what do you expect? He's a
creationist, who doesn't believe in evolution. He believes that the
government should charge for weather data in order to help private
weather data providers make money. He believes that foreign policy is
best conducted by the military. He's anti-family and anti-woman. He
believes in government endorsement of religion (as long as it's his
flavor of Christianity).

I'd love to see him as the Republican candidate, because he couldn't
possibly win a national election. Not much chance of that happening,
though.

[oriel36]

On Feb 7, 7:34 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:07:23 -0800 (PST), uncarollo <chris1...@aol.com>

What is a common sense stance,that global temperatures have naturally
fluctuated and affected planetary geology and conditioned biological
adaption and even human migration or that humans have control over
global temperatures and can condition the planet to a perceived
standard temperature ?.

A simple temperature graph can explain a lot -

http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar%20temperature%20variation.jpg

You should try to read the daily dynamic from that graph as
temperatures see-saw through the day and the fact that I have to do
this in the 21st century demonstrates where the real crisis is.No
offence to the politicians in any country,they already caught the
sentiment of the wider population but that now leaves climate science
in ruins which is not such a bad thing considering it can be built
from scratch and free of modelers and meddlers.

[ab...@dizum.com]

oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6bacef05-e070-4e82...@t15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

> You should try to read the daily dynamic from that graph as
> temperatures see-saw through the day and the fact that I have to do
> this in the 21st century demonstrates where the real crisis is.No
> offence to the politicians in any country,they already caught the
> sentiment of the wider population but that now leaves climate science
> in ruins which is not such a bad thing considering it can be built
> from scratch and free of modelers and meddlers.
>
>

good idea...link your goofy assed ideas with santorun...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Santorum&l=1

[uncarollo]

On Feb 7, 1:34 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:07:23 -0800 (PST), uncarollo <chris1...@aol.com>

Yes but .. a lot of Americans, especially the elderly, do vote and do
not see anything wrong with his ideas. We scientists have made a poor
case for our side. I have evangelical friends and one couple who is
Mormon, and they see nothing whatsoever wrong with Santorum's
intelligence or ideas. They would love to see him, or someone just
like him, in charge of the future of this nation. The money is
certainly on their side. And in this world money trumps intelligence
by a long shot. Where is our voice??

[Chris L Peterson]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 13:27:54 -0800 (PST), uncarollo <chri...@aol.com>
wrote:

>Yes but .. a lot of Americans, especially the elderly, do vote and do
>not see anything wrong with his ideas.

Certainly, this country is on an intellectual decline. Nevertheless, I
don't think it has descended sufficiently low yet that Santorum could
win an election against Obama... although that day may not be too far
away.

There's no obvious fix for this country's problems. Or rather, I think
there are a number of obvious fixes, but they cannot be implemented in
today's political environment.

[oriel36]

Intelligence indeed !,I know of no race or culture who ever believed
they could control the planet's temperature let alone people who
designate themselves as 'scientists',they are empiricist who have run
amok with astronomical principles and vague notions of modeling
humanity into intellectual oblivion.Polishing a few mirrors would get
you a great job in the sculleries of the wealthy but the currency of
astronomy is honor,dignity and high reason and no money could buy
that.


"“than the persons thus suddenly elevated by the Hog-ian philosophy
into a station for which they were unfitted — thus transferred from
the sculleries into the parlors of Science — ­from its pantries into
its pulpits — than these individuals a more intolerant — a more
intolerable set of bigots and tyrants never existed on the face of the
earth. Their creed, their text and their sermon were, alike, the one
word ‘fact’ — but, for the most part, even of this one word, they knew
not even the meaning. On those who ventured to disturb their facts
with the view of putting them in order and to use, the disciples of
Hog had no mercy whatever. All attempts at generalization were met at
once by the words ‘theoretical,’ ‘theory,’ ‘theorist;’ — all thought,
to be brief, was very properly resented as a personal affront to
themselves. Cultivating the natural sciences to the exclusion of
Metaphysics, the Mathematics, and Logic, many of these Bacon-
engendered philosophers — one-idead, one-sided and lame of a leg —
were more wretchedly helpless — more miserably ignorant, in view of
all the comprehensible objects of knowledge, than the veriest
unlettered hind who proves that he knows something at least, in
admitting that he knows absolutely nothing." Edgar Allan Poe

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 7, 2:07 pm, uncarollo <chris1...@aol.com> wrote:
> Thoughts from a potential leader of the free world:
>
> GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum targeted primary rivals Mitt
> Romney and Newt Gingrich on Tuesday for allegedly buying into the
> "bogus" science of man-made climate change, while proudly declaring
> that he himself had never believed in the "hoax of global warming."

When one hears about the Warmingistas flying to a convention on
private jets and riding around in limos once there, it is difficult to
take the issue seriously.

> "If you leave it to Nature, then Nature will do what Nature does,
> which is boom and bust," Santorum said at an energy summit in
> Colorado. "We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have
> dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but
> for our benefit not for the Earth's benefit."

So what have -you- done to benefit the Earth lately? Nothing.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 7, 2:34 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:07:23 -0800 (PST), uncarollo <chris1...@aol.com>

There are three million fewer people working under the 0bama regime.
Maybe they will all wise up and vote for the Republicans.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:20:43 -0800 (PST), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:

>There are three million fewer people working under the 0bama regime.
>Maybe they will all wise up and vote for the Republicans.

I don't know what the "0bama (sic) regime" is. When comparing
employment statistics, you need to compare at least two dates. You've
provided none. So your statement here, like most of your statements,
is devoid of meaning.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 7, 7:26 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:20:43 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >There are three million fewer people working under the 0bama regime.
> >Maybe they will all wise up and vote for the Republicans.
>
> I don't know what the "0bama (sic) regime" is. When comparing
> employment statistics, you need to compare at least two dates. You've
> provided none. So your statement here, like most of your statements,
> is devoid of meaning.

Since he took office, dim bulb.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 7, 4:42 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 13:27:54 -0800 (PST), uncarollo <chris1...@aol.com>

> wrote:
>
> >Yes but .. a lot of Americans, especially the elderly, do vote and do
> >not see anything wrong with his ideas.
>
> Certainly, this country is on an intellectual decline.

You are a prime example.

> Nevertheless, I
> don't think it has descended sufficiently low yet that Santorum could
> win an election against Obama... although that day may not be too far
> away.
>
> There's no obvious fix for this country's problems.

Fair tax, decentralized government, respect for natural rights will
fix most of the problems. But that isn't obvious to you.

> Or rather, I think
> there are a number of obvious fixes, but they cannot be implemented in
> today's political environment.

By that do you mean the Constitution? Or do you mean the leftist
habit of plundering?

[ab...@dizum.com]

wsne...@hotmail.com wrote in news:f268379e-9083-4818-ac33-9f88adec4b25
@x19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

all lost by bush neocon policies...yeah vote for the dog that bit you you
fool

[ab...@dizum.com]

Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in
news:a6g3j7h10rhc0d9o1...@4ax.com:

republican sockpuppet rhetoric ...they're just trying to pass the blame

[ab...@dizum.com]

wsne...@hotmail.com wrote in news:58db049c-1583-415a-b64a-212e99423ae1
@h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

neocon tripe...very poor try
thanks for playing though

[ab...@dizum.com]

wsne...@hotmail.com wrote in news:acac410f-b077-471b-9d02-2564ba2c54b0
@i18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:

> Since he took office from dim bulb.
>

ftfy

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 7, 7:32 pm, "ab...@dizum.com" <ab...@dizum.com> wrote:
> wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote in news:acac410f-b077-471b-9d02-2564ba2c54b0

Don't go misquoting me. You have been warned.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 7, 7:30 pm, "ab...@dizum.com" <ab...@dizum.com> wrote:
> Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote innews:a6g3j7h10rhc0d9o1...@4ax.com:

>
> > On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:20:43 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>There are three million fewer people working under the 0bama regime.
> >>Maybe they will all wise up and vote for the Republicans.
>
> > I don't know what the "0bama (sic) regime" is. When comparing
> > employment statistics, you need to compare at least two dates. You've
> > provided none. So your statement here, like most of your statements,
> > is devoid of meaning.
>
> republican sockpuppet rhetoric ...they're just trying to pass the blame

The Dimocrats took over Congress in 2007, that's when the trouble
started.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 7, 7:28 pm, "ab...@dizum.com" <ab...@dizum.com> wrote:
> wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote in news:f268379e-9083-4818-ac33-9f88adec4b25

The unemployment rate and the number of unemployed have increased
dramatically since the Donkeys took over, you idiot.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 7, 7:26 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:20:43 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >There are three million fewer people working under the 0bama regime.
> >Maybe they will all wise up and vote for the Republicans.
>
> I don't know what the "0bama (sic) regime" is.

I guess one has to spell out Zerobama for you. You probably voted for
him. One of his minions stated prior to the election that "he would
be ready to RULE on day one."

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 7, 7:31 pm, "ab...@dizum.com" <ab...@dizum.com> wrote:
> wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote in news:58db049c-1583-415a-b64a-212e99423ae1

I am not a neocon. Do you have anything constructive to say?

[ab...@dizum.com]

wsne...@hotmail.com wrote in news:ab0e16ba-8781-4548-89fc-686d8bdd04f2
@m24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:

I live right down the block...come on over!!!

[ab...@dizum.com]

wsne...@hotmail.com wrote in
news:46be3cb5-4f16-43f5...@g27g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

you don't know what you are fool....

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 7, 7:52 pm, "ab...@dizum.com" <ab...@dizum.com> wrote:
> wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote in news:ab0e16ba-8781-4548-89fc-686d8bdd04f2

There aren't any idiots living on my block.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 7, 7:53 pm, "ab...@dizum.com" <ab...@dizum.com> wrote:

Obviously, you don't really understand what neocons are. Perhaps you
have heard of RINOs?

[ab...@dizum.com]

wsne...@hotmail.com wrote in
news:c50eca77-bca4-4a8f...@f5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:

I'll stop by later...

[ab...@dizum.com]

wsne...@hotmail.com wrote in
news:98de3ed6-08ef-4822...@p21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:

> On Feb 7, 7:53 pm, "ab...@dizum.com" <ab...@dizum.com> wrote:
>> wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote

>> innews:46be3cb5-4f16-43f5-8a6d-0bd67d757f28@g2

a turd is a turd...

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 7, 8:12 pm, "ab...@dizum.com" <ab...@dizum.com> wrote:

Bad idea.

[uncarollo]

On Feb 7, 6:26 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:20:43 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >There are three million fewer people working under the 0bama regime.
> >Maybe they will all wise up and vote for the Republicans.
>
> I don't know what the "0bama (sic) regime" is. When comparing
> employment statistics, you need to compare at least two dates. You've
> provided none. So your statement here, like most of your statements,
> is devoid of meaning.

It's interesting the tactic used by the two sides in a debate. Our
culture is now so fractured that perhpas it is not possible to come to
a common understanding about the world. There is misrepresentation by
both sides, and both sides have dug in and are hunkered down.
Here is an interesting discussion on Bill Moyer's new show about the
divide between conservatives and liberals, and how it might be
bridged: http://billmoyers.com/episode/how-do-conservatives-and-liberals-see-the-world/
Both sides should take a look at this interview and then look into
their own soul and see what has happened to themselves. I think
Jonathan Heidt is brilliant in this interview.


""JONATHAN HAIDT: Our minds evolved not just to help us find the truth
about how things work. If you're navigating through a landscape, sure,
you need to know, you know, where the dangers are, where the
opportunities are. But in the social world, our minds are not designed
to figure out who really did what to whom. They are finely tuned
navigational machines to work through a complicated social network, in
which you've got to maintain your alliances, and your reputation.

And as Machiavelli told us long ago, it matters far more what people
think of you than what the reality is. And we are experts at
manipulating our self-presentation. So, we're so good at it, that we
actually believe the nonsense that we say to other people.

We lie, cheat, and justify so well that we honestly believe we're
honest. Everybody believes they're above average in honesty. But in
fact, again, the studies show that when you give people a chance to
cheat, literally the majority take advantage of it.

They'll fudge a number here, or they'll go over-time. They'll change
an answer on a test, if, say, they get paid more money for getting
more correct answers, for example. And the amazing thing is they're
able to justify it. They're… they walk out of there thinking that they
didn't cheat and lie.""

[uncarollo]

On Feb 7, 9:13 pm, uncarollo <chris1...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 6:26 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:20:43 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >There are three million fewer people working under the 0bama regime.
> > >Maybe they will all wise up and vote for the Republicans.
>
> > I don't know what the "0bama (sic) regime" is. When comparing
> > employment statistics, you need to compare at least two dates. You've
> > provided none. So your statement here, like most of your statements,
> > is devoid of meaning.
>
> It's interesting the tactic used by the two sides in a debate. Our
> culture is now so fractured that perhpas it is not possible to come to
> a common understanding about the world. There is misrepresentation by
> both sides, and both sides have dug in and are hunkered down.
> Here is an interesting discussion on Bill Moyer's new show about the
> divide between conservatives and liberals, and how it might be

> bridged:http://billmoyers.com/episode/how-do-conservatives-and-liberals-see-t...

> Both sides should take a look at this interview and then look into
> their own soul and see what has happened to themselves. I think
> Jonathan Heidt is brilliant in this interview.
>
> ""JONATHAN HAIDT: Our minds evolved not just to help us find the truth
> about how things work. If you're navigating through a landscape, sure,
> you need to know, you know, where the dangers are, where the
> opportunities are. But in the social world, our minds are not designed
> to figure out who really did what to whom. They are finely tuned
> navigational machines to work through a complicated social network, in
> which you've got to maintain your alliances, and your reputation.
>
> And as Machiavelli told us long ago, it matters far more what people
> think of you than what the reality is. And we are experts at
> manipulating our self-presentation. So, we're so good at it, that we
> actually believe the nonsense that we say to other people.
>
> We lie, cheat, and justify so well that we honestly believe we're
> honest. Everybody believes they're above average in honesty. But in
> fact, again, the studies show that when you give people a chance to
> cheat, literally the majority take advantage of it.
>
> They'll fudge a number here, or they'll go over-time. They'll change
> an answer on a test, if, say, they get paid more money for getting
> more correct answers, for example. And the amazing thing is they're
> able to justify it. They're… they walk out of there thinking that they
> didn't cheat and lie.""

From the website yourmorals.org you can test your own self, see where
you stand between liberal and conservative:

Welcome to YourMorals.org, where you can learn about your own
morality, ethics, and/or values, while also contributing to scientific
research. We are a group of professors and graduate students in social
psychology at the University of Virginia, The University of California
(Irvine), and the University of Southern California. (See us here.)

Our goal is to understand the way our "moral minds" work. Why do
people disagree so passionately about what is right? Why, in
particular, is there such hostility and incomprehension between
members of different political parties? By filling out a few of our
surveys, you'll help us answer those questions We, in return, will
give you an immediate report on how you scored on each study, quiz, or
survey. We'll show you how your responses compare to others and we'll
tell you what that might say about you.

So please join us and register, then begin exploring your morality.
Registration takes just 2 minutes, and it will allow us to hold your
scores for you so that you may return at any time and continue to
build up your "morality profile." This site is a non-profit academic
venture, with no fees or advertising. We will guard your privacy
carefully.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 7, 8:13 pm, "ab...@dizum.com" <ab...@dizum.com> wrote:

You oughta know.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:59:18 -0800 (PST), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:

>There aren't any idiots living on my block.

Damn. Like shooting fish in a barrel...

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 8, 1:06 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:59:18 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >There aren't any idiots living on my block.
>
> Damn. Like shooting fish in a barrel...

Do you have anything intelligent to say, commie?

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 7, 10:13 pm, uncarollo <chris1...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 6:26 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:20:43 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >There are three million fewer people working under the 0bama regime.
> > >Maybe they will all wise up and vote for the Republicans.
>
> > I don't know what the "0bama (sic) regime" is. When comparing
> > employment statistics, you need to compare at least two dates. You've
> > provided none. So your statement here, like most of your statements,
> > is devoid of meaning.
>
> It's interesting the tactic used by the two sides in a debate.

There are always more than "two sides" in a "debate." (Although some
things should not be up for debate.)

<snip>

> ""JONATHAN HAIDT: Our minds evolved not just to help us find the truth
> about how things work. If you're navigating through a landscape, sure,
> you need to know, you know, where the dangers are, where the
> opportunities are. But in the social world, our minds are not designed
> to figure out who really did what to whom. They are finely tuned
> navigational machines to work through a complicated social network, in
> which you've got to maintain your alliances, and your reputation.

That is what monkeys and apes do. Humans have evolved beyond that, or
at least the conservatives have.

> And as Machiavelli told us long ago, it matters far more what people
> think of you than what the reality is. And we are experts at
> manipulating our self-presentation. So, we're so good at it, that we
> actually believe the nonsense that we say to other people.

That would explain 0bama and his cabinet.

<detritus snipped>

[uncarollo]

On Feb 8, 5:01 am, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > ""JONATHAN HAIDT: Our minds evolved not just to help us find the truth
> > about how things work. If you're navigating through a landscape, sure,
> > you need to know, you know, where the dangers are, where the
> > opportunities are. But in the social world, our minds are not designed
> > to figure out who really did what to whom. They are finely tuned
> > navigational machines to work through a complicated social network, in
> > which you've got to maintain your alliances, and your reputation.
>
> That is what monkeys and apes do.  Humans have evolved beyond that, or
> at least the conservatives have.

So you honestly believe that only conservatives (your definition of
conservative) have perfect reason, are responsible, hard working,
always make the right informed decisions? Perfect angels are they? Can
never make mistakes? I guess then that your kind have a monopoly on
God, goodness and perfection? ("Gott Mit Uns", a famous saying of the
3rd Reich).

If people would stop demonizing each other and just listen, perhaps
they would discover some value in what each have to say. Used to be
there were more than just far out right wing and far out left wing in
our political system, but the moderates have been weeded out, and the
nation is now poorer because of it. Compromise is no longer possible??

[Mike Collins]

If you think the diluted conservatives you call liberals are far out left
wingers you're just as out of touch as WSnell.

[oriel36]

On Feb 7, 7:51 pm, "ab...@dizum.com" <ab...@dizum.com> wrote:
> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote innews:6bacef05-e070-4e82...@t15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
> > You should try to read the daily dynamic from that graph as
> > temperatures see-saw through the day and the fact that I have to do
> > this in the 21st century demonstrates where the real crisis is.No
> > offence to the politicians in any country,they already caught the
> > sentiment of the wider population but that now leaves climate science
> > in ruins which is not such a bad thing considering it can be built
> > from scratch and free of modelers and meddlers.
>
> good idea...link your goofy assed ideas with santorun...
>
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Santorum&l=1

I don't have poor ideas and even if some readers are slow to catch
on,there are a number of things which have caught on even without
proper attribution.For instance,in 2005 there was no indication of
rotational influences on crustal evolution and motion and the science
was settled on 'convection cells',our own Chris Peterson adequately
expressed the prevailing opinion and the following post is not meant
to show him up,quite the opposite,as he remains one of the few who
does not act like a snake and defends his views -

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.amateur/msg/6bf72bc79a6a8500

Today as rotation makes it into wider circulation as a mechanism for
crustal dynamics they throw the kitchen sink at it rather than go
through the principles who led to its inclusion as the mechanism with
the highest probability for explaining crustal evolution/motion and
the 26 mile spherical deviation of the planet.The same may happen to
climate studies as a modification for the explanation of the seasons
and the distinction from global climate is long overdue so while the
details for differential rotation were worked out mostly in the
geology forum,to a large extent the large modification for climate
happened in this forum and is still happening.

It appears I have thought more of the readers here than they have
thought of themselves and that has been disappointing even as things
get accepted in the wider world.

[uncarollo]

On Feb 8, 2:29 pm, Mike Collins <acridiniumes...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > If people would stop demonizing each other and just listen, perhaps
> > they would discover some value in what each have to say. Used to be
> > there were more than just far out right wing and far out left wing in
> > our political system, but the moderates have been weeded out, and the
> > nation is now poorer because of it. Compromise is no longer possible??
>
> If you think the diluted conservatives you call liberals are far out left

> wingers you're just as out of touch as WSnell.- Hide quoted text -

Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say.

My point originally was that in today's contentious atmosphere, nobody
listens to anybody, and both camps have been driven to opposite sides.
How then does a rational scientist perform his proper function in
society? Scientists cannot get their point across because people do
not want to understand difficult subjects, they want easy
bumpersticker answers (like "Coal keeps the lights on"). People do not
understand why they should care that the glaciers in the Andes are all
melting and will be gone in 50 years. We scientists must do a better
job of educating the public and making a case for our side.

In politics anyone can lie about anything and not be held accountable.
In science, regardless of how a particular scientist feels about his
particular theory, there are others out there that will hold him
accountable. It's called peer review, and you really cannot ignore it.
In politics one can lie and cheat and hide behind his group and call
the others evil. And the group will defend him to the hilt, regardless
of the actual truth. That is human nature.

[oriel36]

On Feb 8, 8:53 pm, uncarollo <chris1...@aol.com> wrote:


> We scientists must do a better
> job of educating the public and making a case for our side.
>
> In politics anyone can lie about anything and not be held accountable.
> In science, regardless of how a particular scientist feels about his
> particular theory, there are others out there that will hold him
> accountable. It's called peer review, and you really cannot ignore it.

Peer review indeed !,I need peer review to handle my poor proofreading
skills but in technical and historical matters there is no such
thing,there are a bunch of modelers running amok with computers the
same way they ran amok with watches back in the late 17th century.

You have unbelievable graphics and imaging power and for the first
time in human history there exists a group who have firmly convinced
themselves that they can control the planet's temperature which
represents intellectual suicide for any discipline relying on natural
temperature fluctuations from daily to really long term cycles.

If I could find a person capable of interpreting a daily temperature
graph reflecting the daily motion of the Earth I would consider it a
minor miracle and considering this is actually the 21st century makes
it all the more dismaying.Anyone here want to be among the world's
first climate scientists by concluding that daily temperature
fluctuations keep in step with the number of rotations in 4 years ? -

http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar%20temperature%20variation.jpg

'We' scientists indeed !,none of our astronomical ancestors would
believe their efforts would end with a race who imagines that the moon
rotates because of the conclusion of a single individual like
Newton.Obviously you can do it and can maintain these things without
the slightest sense of responsibility so forget the cult ideology of
'saving the planet' from ourselves,humanity has found the biggest
problem to be among its own.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:53:04 -0800 (PST), uncarollo <chri...@aol.com>
wrote:

>My point originally was that in today's contentious atmosphere, nobody
>listens to anybody, and both camps have been driven to opposite sides.
>How then does a rational scientist perform his proper function in
>society? Scientists cannot get their point across because people do
>not want to understand difficult subjects, they want easy
>bumpersticker answers (like "Coal keeps the lights on"). People do not
>understand why they should care that the glaciers in the Andes are all
>melting and will be gone in 50 years. We scientists must do a better
>job of educating the public and making a case for our side.

You are right about the important role of scientists in educating the
public, and about how much better that could be done. But I don't
think it is correct to say "nobody listens to anybody". The social
environment is not symmetric. Outside of political bodies, there's
little doubt that those who self-identify as progressive are more open
to hearing scientific ideas, and generally have better education and
better critical thinking skills. But they aren't the problem, are
they? The question is, how can scientists teach those with poor
critical thinking skills? Those whose dogma overrides even examining
new ideas? Is it even possible to do so?

[oriel36]

On Feb 8, 9:40 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

> Those whose dogma overrides even examining
> new ideas? Is it even possible to do so?

So,how is the settled science on 'convection cells' going these
days ?.

Despite the constant drumbeat about 'predictions',people generally
like interpretation much better and those of an intense faith have
always understood the difference between predicting from
interpretation and predicting for its own sake -

"Prophets in the modern sense of the word have never existed …Every
honest man is a prophet and he utters his opinion both of private and
public matters -thus if you go on so the result is so. He never says
such a thing shall happen let you do what you will. A prophet is a
seer not an arbitrary dictator" William Blake

If you understood that the Earth rotates once in 24 hours you can
predict that the temperature will go up and down within those 24
hours,excepting local variations,if you conclude that the Earth
rotates 1465 times in 1461 days,and this is where your predictive Ra/
Dec system gets you,you predictions for daily temperature fluctuations
will fail.Had you interpreted the Ra/Dec system correctly you would
have understood its limitations and especially when it comes to
predictions/modeling and this goes all the way back to Isaac's agenda
which got the whole thing going.

[Mike Collins]

What I am saying is that all the people who you call extreme left wingers
would be perfectly at home in the British conservative party.

Until you educate your population better and control the excesses of the
media you have no chance of getting the two sides of the global warming
argument speaking rationally to each other. You need to change your society
to do this and society is moving towards confrontation and prejudice and
away from compromise.
You can't ignore peer review but the deniers see peer review as a
conspiracy. Religion teaches people to think six impossible things before
breakfast and religion has such a hold in your society that the rational
majority will be pushed around by those, like the tea party who are
irrational but enthusiastic.
But there is a hope.
When energy too expensive people will change their habits. But by then it
may be too late.

[uncarollo]

On Feb 8, 5:04 pm, Mike Collins <acridiniumes...@gmail.com> wrote:

> may be too late.-

Well, I'm not calling anybody an extreme leftist.

However, you sent us Rupert Murdoch, so thanks for nothing.

[Martin Brown]

uncarollo wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2:29 pm, Mike Collins <acridiniumes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> If people would stop demonizing each other and just listen, perhaps
>>> they would discover some value in what each have to say. Used to be
>>> there were more than just far out right wing and far out left wing in
>>> our political system, but the moderates have been weeded out, and the
>>> nation is now poorer because of it. Compromise is no longer possible??
>> If you think the diluted conservatives you call liberals are far out left
>> wingers you're just as out of touch as WSnell.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say.

I think the point he is trying to make is that US politics is strongly
skewed to the right compared to the available world political spectrum
which in most established democracies covers a far wider range. The US
mainstream "left" is left of centre in most of the rest of the world.

Viewed from outside it seems the two US political blocks of the bipolar
disorder represent primarily "corporate America and the filthy rich" in
the case of Repugnicans and "ambulance chasing lawyers and a different
subset of the filthy rich" in the case of Demonrats. Both parties are
mainly concerned with obtaining wealth and power for their politicians
and doing the bidding of lobbyists and their wealthy financial backers.
How else will they raise the money for their next election campaign?

The two parties have become so paranoid about the other that there is no
middle ground and each side merely runs incredibly expensive, corrosive
and destructive attack adverts on TV against their opponents. The GOP
candidates are even doing this against each other now - whatever
happened to *positive* visions of the future, targets and goals?

> My point originally was that in today's contentious atmosphere, nobody
> listens to anybody, and both camps have been driven to opposite sides.

With a large gap in the middle in any sensible democracy a new party
would form from disaffected centrist members of both of the old
established parties to claim the sensible middle ground, but for some
reason this hasn't happened. Instead Americans have gone for the extreme
ultraviolet fringe (excuse me using the UK political colour scheme) of
Kookie conservatism in the Tea Party and Religious Right.

> How then does a rational scientist perform his proper function in
> society? Scientists cannot get their point across because people do
> not want to understand difficult subjects, they want easy
> bumpersticker answers (like "Coal keeps the lights on"). People do not
> understand why they should care that the glaciers in the Andes are all
> melting and will be gone in 50 years. We scientists must do a better
> job of educating the public and making a case for our side.

Problem is that complicated arguments do not make 10s soundbites or
bumper stickers and you have a scientifically illiterate population and
they elect equally unsuitable lawmakers. They have the attention span of
goldfish and arguments have to be dumbed down to that lowest common
denominator to have any effect. Politicians can do this trick very well
indeed and unfortunately scientists cannot.

> In politics anyone can lie about anything and not be held accountable.

That is a strangely American phenomena. In the UK the government of the
day is held accountable by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and the
politicians are nothing like as polarised and hate filled as your lot.
Some oppositions don't make a good fist of it but they do their best.

Having three political parties, two main ones and one sat in the middle
of the see-saw seems to make for much more sensible government. That way
if one of the main parties makes a big enough mistake the smallest party
holding the balance of power gets a chance at government in a coallition
(as happened at the last election in the UK).

> In science, regardless of how a particular scientist feels about his
> particular theory, there are others out there that will hold him
> accountable. It's called peer review, and you really cannot ignore it.

Even in politics most countries use presentation of the facts, rational
argument and debate to a larger extent. Unfortunately US politics has
got itself stuck in a rut where lies and deceit are common currency and
paralysing the whole system of government is the aim of "opposition".

> In politics one can lie and cheat and hide behind his group and call
> the others evil. And the group will defend him to the hilt, regardless
> of the actual truth. That is human nature.

It doesn't help that politics in the US is all about money.

The guy with the deepest pockets will most likely win the GOP candidacy.
Remind me what is his burn rate for "attack" adverts in the Florida
campaign - $15M/month was mentioned over here recently.

Santorum sounds like he should be in a sanitorium (along with Ron Paul).

Regards,
Martin Brown

[unknown]

Two things I want to add here:

1) Man did fine without science for many thousands of years. With science,
indirectly you have created several sceneros that will eventually cause
society to be doomed to failure: a) increasing the lifespan of the
population; b) polluted Earth far beyond what would have been done without
science; c) destroyed the fabric of society- the family- by aiding the
movements that do not believe in a Supreme Being; d) refusing to entertain
any ideas or even evidence that may fall outside of the scientific method
but have definite validity. There are other examples, but these points are
the biggest.

With (a), you have managed to produce a society counterproductive to your
goal with the creation of many health problems, overpopulation and lack of
space available for the ailing/ elderly, and pushing monetary budgets beyond
limits. What was the average lifespan of human beings 1,000 years ago?
Don't forget that you have also helped produce superbugs, such as MRSA, a
once easily controlled organism in normal "staff" form, that now barely
reponds to the strongest antibiotics, something else you have helped create,
and such creation has now made even the more common bacteria very resistant
to. And don't forget the insecticide resistance that has develped due to
scientific study and experimentation.

With (b), you told us that nuclear energy was safe and people well trained
to prevent disasters. You developed purified forms of uranium and
plutonium, only to be scattered across the countryside and airborne
contamination throughout the world. Also, let us not forget weapons
deveopment beyond the simple atomic bomb to make the world "safer". How
much cancer has been created as a result of atomic testing/ worldwide atomic
disasters? Yet you justify it in the name of "science".

With (c), you have insisted that religion be separated from the schools and
made sure that every kid owns or uses an I-pod and PC or laptop, whether or
not it benefits his "education". You have wasted billions of dollars to
make this point. Simple prayer, re-education of proper morality at home,
and a firm belief in the Almighty would have saved billions.

With (d), you propagate "evidence" that a "big bang" created this whole
thing, and you expect the population to believe this without physical
evidence. Then you wonder why such a population dismisses you when they ask
you to entertain the concept of God.

I sit wondering what would happen if we did away with TVs, I-pods, PC's,
cars, and science. Is society truly better off with all of these things?
Or are we just kidding ourselves? These are the questions.

[unknown]

The second major point I wanted to add was that mankind did fine without a
government of any kind for thousands of years. Living in groups of small
populations was the key. Your modern technology has taken that away making
government a necessary dependency.

"unknown" <non...@none.net> wrote in message
news:jh0tc6$4pc$1...@dont-email.me...

[Chris L Peterson]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 11:48:02 -0500, "unknown" <non...@none.net> wrote:

>1) Man did fine without science for many thousands of years.

If your definition of "fine" includes commonly failing to survive
childhood, subsistence living, dying young from trivial causes, and
having no knowledge of how nature works, and therefore inventing gods
who speak through absolute rulers, than yeah.

>With science,
>indirectly you have created several sceneros that will eventually cause
>society to be doomed to failure: a) increasing the lifespan of the
>population; b) polluted Earth far beyond what would have been done without
>science; c) destroyed the fabric of society- the family- by aiding the
>movements that do not believe in a Supreme Being; d) refusing to entertain
>any ideas or even evidence that may fall outside of the scientific method
>but have definite validity. There are other examples, but these points are
>the biggest.

Some of these, like losing gods and understanding that everything can
be explained rationally, have the potential to save society. Others
are technological problems, with technological solutions. If they are
not fixed, it will be the result of social flaws already present,
nothing to do with science itself. None of the problems you list are
hard to fix from a technical standpoint.

>With (a), you have managed to produce a society counterproductive to your
>goal with the creation of many health problems, overpopulation and lack of
>space available for the ailing/ elderly, and pushing monetary budgets beyond
>limits. What was the average lifespan of human beings 1,000 years ago?

Somewhere around 40- assuming you survived to adulthood at all.

>Don't forget that you have also helped produce superbugs, such as MRSA, a
>once easily controlled organism in normal "staff" form, that now barely
>reponds to the strongest antibiotics, something else you have helped create,
>and such creation has now made even the more common bacteria very resistant
>to.

1000 years ago people regularly died of staph infections. They were
not "easily controlled" until the modern (and scientific) development
of antibiotics. Every staph infection was a superbug before that!

>And don't forget the insecticide resistance that has develped due to
>scientific study and experimentation.

Same argument. Before insecticides, you could consider every pest to
be "resistant". As a result, food production was so low that
starvation was always a risk, even in relatively rich societies.

>With (b), you told us that nuclear energy was safe and people well trained
>to prevent disasters. You developed purified forms of uranium and
>plutonium, only to be scattered across the countryside and airborne
>contamination throughout the world.

Nothing is 100% safe. But I'd wager that nuclear energy has saved many
more lives than it has taken. It could be safer... but that doesn't
mean it isn't substantially safe. I don't see it creating much harm in
our society.

>Also, let us not forget weapons
>deveopment beyond the simple atomic bomb to make the world "safer". How
>much cancer has been created as a result of atomic testing/ worldwide atomic
>disasters?

Not much. It is difficult to detect any effect much above the
background cancer level.

What is better: to live in a pretechnological society and die of a
tooth abscess at 40, following ten years of general decline, or to
live in our society today, and live a healthy life, dying of cancer at
80- even if the cancer was caused by something environmental? I know
which I'd choose!

>With (c), you have insisted that religion be separated from the schools and
>made sure that every kid owns or uses an I-pod and PC or laptop, whether or
>not it benefits his "education". You have wasted billions of dollars to
>make this point. Simple prayer, re-education of proper morality at home,
>and a firm belief in the Almighty would have saved billions.

Nothing has killed more people in history than a belief in irrational
and false nonsense like gods. The modern loss of religious belief in
advanced nations is one of the greatest things that scientific
thinking has produced. It means that people are more ethical and have
better morals. It's one of the few things in today's world that gives
me some hope.

>I sit wondering what would happen if we did away with TVs, I-pods, PC's,
>cars, and science. Is society truly better off with all of these things?

Yes.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 11:55:37 -0500, "unknown" <non...@none.net> wrote:

>The second major point I wanted to add was that mankind did fine without a
>government of any kind for thousands of years. Living in groups of small
>populations was the key. Your modern technology has taken that away making
>government a necessary dependency.

Humans have always had governments- even the smallest of groups or
tribes require it. And the population of humans had boomed far beyond
the point where we could live in small groups well before modern
science took hold.

If we are to reduce the size of the human population in a sane and
humane way, it will be technology that makes it happen, not the lack
of technology.

[oriel36]

On Feb 9, 4:48 pm, "unknown" <non...@none.net> wrote:
> Two things I want to add here:
>
> 1)  Man did fine without science for many thousands of years.  With science,
> indirectly you have created several sceneros that will eventually cause
> society to be doomed to failure: a)  increasing the lifespan of the
> population; b)  polluted Earth far beyond what would have been done without
> science; c) destroyed the fabric of society- the family- by aiding the
> movements that do not believe in a Supreme Being; d) refusing to entertain
> any ideas or even evidence that may fall outside of the scientific method
> but have definite validity.  There are other examples, but these points are
> the biggest.

To be fair to you it is empiricism you have a problem with rather than
science as the discovery and investigation of our celestial/
terrestrial surroundings as opposed to human technological innovation
has always happened as long as humans have lived on this planet.There
was a shift in emphasis in the late 17th century to mix technological
innovation/ experimental sciences with astronomy and this is roughly
where you are coming from now as the 'scientific method' is literally
a byword for attempting to homogenize solar system structure and
planetary dynamics with observations at a human experimental
level,much like saying an apple falling from a tree correlates to the
moon going around the Earth and despite any protestations,the
empirical agenda is that drastic and that destructive.

Can it be fixed ?,sure it can using the very innovations that now have
proceeded to an advanced level even as astronomy,other than
magnification power,has withered as a discipline.

I have asked each individual to mark where they stand when it comes to
climate insofar as a person who can read the rotation of the Earth out
of daily temperature fluctuations within a 24 hour period with
temperature rise and fall keeping in step with the daily rotation of
the Earth would qualify as both an astronomer and a climate scientist
but I still haven't found either an astronomer or a genuine
climatologist who can link the massive daily temperature fluctuations
with a rotating Earth -

http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar%20temperature%20variation.jpg

The very fact that this world is goaded into a situation of declaring
climate change is happening or declaring it a hoax is both a tragedy
and one of the most fascinating stories anyone is likely to
encounter,unfortunately most of the issues are fought out on an
astronomical basis with a few notable exceptions which make it
understandable to a person unfamiliar with the real problem of the
'scientific method'.These people will not quit,they are not reasonable
and as they are normally found at a classroom level they will not stop
indoctrinating students into their way of thinking.The 'scientific
method' ideology has always existed as a problem and even though it
surfaced as a dominant approach in the late 17th century,it has always
existed in one form or another and disliked intensely by those who
know it for what it is.That technological innovation has landed men on
the moon on one side has 40 years later given rise to its opposite
form of brutalizing humanity into a belief of human control over
global temperatures so at least you may understand why innovation and
interpretation are two different things and always have been -

"The same thing has struck me even more forcibly than you. I have
heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not so much
to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be
withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of
the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me that
some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In
their minds which, either because of its being their own or because
of
their having received it from some person who has their entire
confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever
to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed
idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no
matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant
acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward
against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with
disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them ill. Beside
themselves with passion, some of them would not be backward even about
scheming to suppress and silence their adversaries. I have had some
experience of this myself." Galileo

I have been among them and well know how peevish they become once the
'scientific method' is challenged with basic facts such as how many
times does the Earth turn in 4 years (the same number of days from
March 1st 2008 until Feb 29th 2012) but they can't even answer that
properly.

[lal_truckee]

On 2/9/12 8:48 AM, unknown wrote:
> Man did fine without science for many thousands of years.

That's an incredibly stupid claim.
Man couldn't even chip a spearhead from stone without a Materials
Scientist in the tribe to experimentally figure out how.

[oriel36]

No prizes for figuring out why it is necessary to prefix everything
with 'experimental' or 'empirical'.

Not a single person has ever seen the moon rotate and it is almost a
certainty that it is an affliction of the mind to believe it does yet
that is where your experimental/predictive science has led you and all
the other dummies who mistake speculation for conclusions.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-Hqdx_LUC&pg=PA580&dq=newton+moon+rotates&hl=en&ei=SQJ5TJP1FYTKswadoL2yDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

That is the real shock to the system as we share the observation of
the moon orbiting the Earth with the old astronomers from antiquity
and our generation is the only one to believe the moon
rotates !.People today are only discovering the dismal status of
empiricism when it encounters celestial and terrestrial disciplines
and somehow even the 'unknown' contributor to this thread must feel
that technological innovation does not give a person to speak about
natural matters that do not directly reflect experimentation.

[Quadibloc]

On Feb 9, 12:27 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not a single person has ever seen the moon rotate

People have seen the moon exhibit libration in longitude.

Which means that rather than the Moon keeping one face exactly pointed
to the Earth, it rotates uniformly in mechanical clock time relative
to the stars with the same period (about 27 1/3 days) as it orbits the
Earth compared to the fixed stars.

John Savard

[unknown]

"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:5lu7j7don51enjsbp...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 11:48:02 -0500, "unknown" <non...@none.net> wrote:
>
>>1) Man did fine without science for many thousands of years.
>
> If your definition of "fine" includes commonly failing to survive
> childhood, subsistence living, dying young from trivial causes, and
> having no knowledge of how nature works, and therefore inventing gods
> who speak through absolute rulers, than yeah.

There was also natural population control and far less pollution.

>>With science,
>>indirectly you have created several sceneros that will eventually cause
>>society to be doomed to failure: a) increasing the lifespan of the
>>population; b) polluted Earth far beyond what would have been done
>>without
>>science; c) destroyed the fabric of society- the family- by aiding the
>>movements that do not believe in a Supreme Being; d) refusing to entertain
>>any ideas or even evidence that may fall outside of the scientific method
>>but have definite validity. There are other examples, but these points
>>are
>>the biggest.
>
> Some of these, like losing gods and understanding that everything can
> be explained rationally, have the potential to save society.

Not everything can be explained rationally and never will, sorry. In fact,
your universe will yet be rewritten and perhaps the origin you subscribe to
as telescopes continue to improve.

Others
> are technological problems, with technological solutions. If they are
> not fixed, it will be the result of social flaws already present,
> nothing to do with science itself. None of the problems you list are
> hard to fix from a technical standpoint.

Well, I don't see the Japanese doing so well with the remains of their
reactors. In fact, they recently injected boric acid into one to try and
get the temperature more under control. With the huge amount of rads in
certain areas, how is such a "fix" going to take place when not even the
most radiation hardened robots can't take the dose. Same thing happened at
Chernobyl. If you can call a leaking sarcophogus a technological fix, I
question your use of the term "fix".

>
>>With (a), you have managed to produce a society counterproductive to your
>>goal with the creation of many health problems, overpopulation and lack of
>>space available for the ailing/ elderly, and pushing monetary budgets
>>beyond
>>limits. What was the average lifespan of human beings 1,000 years ago?
>
> Somewhere around 40- assuming you survived to adulthood at all.
>
>>Don't forget that you have also helped produce superbugs, such as MRSA, a
>>once easily controlled organism in normal "staff" form, that now barely
>>reponds to the strongest antibiotics, something else you have helped
>>create,
>>and such creation has now made even the more common bacteria very
>>resistant
>>to.
>
> 1000 years ago people regularly died of staph infections. They were
> not "easily controlled" until the modern (and scientific) development
> of antibiotics. Every staph infection was a superbug before that!

So, what good does it do then to use antibiotics and spend millions to
develop more when we are encountering the same situations as before their
discovery?

>>And don't forget the insecticide resistance that has develped due to
>>scientific study and experimentation.
>
> Same argument. Before insecticides, you could consider every pest to
> be "resistant". As a result, food production was so low that
> starvation was always a risk, even in relatively rich societies.

And you don't think starvation is still a problem? That being aside, I make
the same point here as with the antibiotics: why are millions being spent on
the insecticides if all that's going to happen is ever increasing
resistance? Kind of like ending up right back where you start, except now
you're bankrupt.

>>With (b), you told us that nuclear energy was safe and people well trained
>>to prevent disasters. You developed purified forms of uranium and
>>plutonium, only to be scattered across the countryside and airborne
>>contamination throughout the world.
>
> Nothing is 100% safe. But I'd wager that nuclear energy has saved many
> more lives than it has taken. It could be safer... but that doesn't
> mean it isn't substantially safe. I don't see it creating much harm in
> our society.

Don't see it creating harm? Do you realize that because of nuclear testing,
background radiation levels increased worldwide and have remained so ever
since? Oh, and be sure to add Chernobyl and Fukushima to the background
count. Do we know how much (or little) additional radiation it takes to
trigger cancer? I'd say the harm has already been created.

>>Also, let us not forget weapons
>>deveopment beyond the simple atomic bomb to make the world "safer". How
>>much cancer has been created as a result of atomic testing/ worldwide
>>atomic
>>disasters?
>
> Not much. It is difficult to detect any effect much above the
> background cancer level.

In your opinion, of course.

> What is better: to live in a pretechnological society and die of a
> tooth abscess at 40, following ten years of general decline, or to
> live in our society today, and live a healthy life, dying of cancer at
> 80- even if the cancer was caused by something environmental? I know
> which I'd choose!

Well, if you feel comfortable living in a nursing home where no one wants
you anyway and people are even more angered because there's no money to pay
for it, then I guess you've made your choice. If you want a continued
decline of socialization- mainly due to technology- then you've made your
choice. If you want divorce and family breakdown to no longer carry any
guilt or shame, then I guess you've made your choice.

>>With (c), you have insisted that religion be separated from the schools
>>and
>>made sure that every kid owns or uses an I-pod and PC or laptop, whether
>>or
>>not it benefits his "education". You have wasted billions of dollars to
>>make this point. Simple prayer, re-education of proper morality at home,
>>and a firm belief in the Almighty would have saved billions.
>
> Nothing has killed more people in history than a belief in irrational
> and false nonsense like gods. The modern loss of religious belief in
> advanced nations is one of the greatest things that scientific
> thinking has produced. It means that people are more ethical and have
> better morals. It's one of the few things in today's world that gives
> me some hope.

And the "big bang" makes sense to the general population? You know, you
mention taking chances on technology and living to be old as a result. Why
not take chances on a Supreme Being? That's the part that never makes sense
to me. Both require certain degrees of "faith".

>>I sit wondering what would happen if we did away with TVs, I-pods, PC's,
>>cars, and science. Is society truly better off with all of these things?
>
> Yes.

How? People visit personally nowadays far less than ever before. Divorce
is almost beyond statistics because of desocialization caused by technology
and probably a big cause of family breakdown too. I can't see how we're
better off.

[Rich]

uncarollo <chri...@aol.com> wrote in news:a0b070ea-c568-4347-a3d2-
119c1b...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

> Thoughts from a potential leader of the free world:
>
> GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum targeted primary rivals Mitt
> Romney and Newt Gingrich on Tuesday for allegedly buying into the
> "bogus" science of man-made climate change, while proudly declaring
> that he himself had never believed in the "hoax of global warming."
>
> "If you leave it to Nature, then Nature will do what Nature does,
> which is boom and bust," Santorum said at an energy summit in
> Colorado. "We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have
> dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but
> for our benefit not for the Earth's benefit."

I hope Santorum wins.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:29:46 -0500, "unknown" <non...@none.net> wrote:

>There was also natural population control and far less pollution.

Lovely. I'll take what science has brought us over that!

>Not everything can be explained rationally and never will, sorry.

I've not yet encountered anything that can't be. I doubt anything
exists that can't.

>Well, I don't see the Japanese doing so well with the remains of their
>reactors.

Trivial in the larger scheme of things. And something that we can
learn from, in order to reduce the chance of similar accidents in the
future. Again, that's how rational thinking works.

>So, what good does it do then to use antibiotics and spend millions to
>develop more when we are encountering the same situations as before their
>discovery?

We aren't. For every person that encounters a seriously resistant
strain of bacteria, millions are cured of what might otherwise be a
fatal infection. And science allows us to continue finding new
antibiotics.

>And you don't think starvation is still a problem?

Sure it's a problem. But nothing like it has been in the past.

>That being aside, I make
>the same point here as with the antibiotics: why are millions being spent on
>the insecticides if all that's going to happen is ever increasing
>resistance? Kind of like ending up right back where you start, except now
>you're bankrupt.

But we're not ending up where we started. We're MUCH better off, even
with some resistant pests. And again, we're always developing new
strategies against them. Indeed, modern natural strategies are
increasingly used, and owe their effectiveness to... you guessed it-
science.

>Don't see it creating harm? Do you realize that because of nuclear testing,
>background radiation levels increased worldwide and have remained so ever
>since? Oh, and be sure to add Chernobyl and Fukushima to the background
>count. Do we know how much (or little) additional radiation it takes to
>trigger cancer? I'd say the harm has already been created.

Whatever harm has been created is almost possible to detect. And that
is offset by gains. You think man-made radiation over the last 50
years is causing serious health problems? Where's your evidence?

>> What is better: to live in a pretechnological society and die of a
>> tooth abscess at 40, following ten years of general decline, or to
>> live in our society today, and live a healthy life, dying of cancer at
>> 80- even if the cancer was caused by something environmental? I know
>> which I'd choose!
>
>Well, if you feel comfortable living in a nursing home where no one wants
>you anyway and people are even more angered because there's no money to pay
>for it, then I guess you've made your choice. If you want a continued
>decline of socialization- mainly due to technology- then you've made your
>choice. If you want divorce and family breakdown to no longer carry any
>guilt or shame, then I guess you've made your choice.

Where this happens, it's a failure of societal ethics (something
caused in large part by religion, which encourages immoral behavior).
It has nothing to do with science. You think that because people are
unethical, we should throw out science so that everybody dies young?

>And the "big bang" makes sense to the general population?

It makes sense to anybody who is well educated, and who has learned to
think. There's a reason that such a high percentage of intelligent
people are not theists. Belief in supernatural mumbo-jumbo is one of
the first things to go when people actually start thinking about
things for themselves.

>You know, you
>mention taking chances on technology and living to be old as a result. Why
>not take chances on a Supreme Being?

Which supreme being? There are thousands to choose from.

>That's the part that never makes sense
>to me. Both require certain degrees of "faith".

The sort of "faith" required to believe in the effectiveness of
rational thinking is nothing like the sort required to believe in that
which lacks any shred of objective evidence. You obviously don't even
know what the word means.

>How? People visit personally nowadays far less than ever before. Divorce
>is almost beyond statistics because of desocialization caused by technology
>and probably a big cause of family breakdown too. I can't see how we're
>better off.

You apparently are not. And frankly, given your depressing and Luddite
views, I quite understand why nobody would want to visit you. I live
in a community. People support each other. People interact. People
take advantage of the things science and technology have provided
them. It certainly isn't making them worse off- or making them worse
people.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:53:37 -0600, Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>I hope Santorum wins.

I doubt he'll win the Republican nomination- his current success is in
caucus states- an unfortunate system that encourages the most extreme
fringe participation. He'll probably die in most primary states-
especially those with the most convention reps.

Personally, I'd like him to win the nomination, since he's such an
extreme wingnut that he stands virtually no chance of winning. But I
expect Romney to win the nomination- and he does have a chance in the
general election, assuming he reassumes his moderate positions and
stops being a lackey of the wingnut right (which is what killed
McCain's chances in the last election).

[Martin Brown]

On 09/02/2012 16:48, unknown wrote:
> Two things I want to add here:
>
> 1) Man did fine without science for many thousands of years. With

If you mean by "did fine" managed to eke out a living and just about
stay alive then I would have to agree. The main reason for inventing
"jam tomorrow" religions was to give the poor sods something to look
forward to as they lived from hand to mouth and in bad years starved and
watched their children die young from hunger and disease.

Even in the 1900's infant and maternal post natal mortality was still
seriously high in the first world. Vaccination had already started for
the most serious diseases but it wasn't until penicillin in the 1940's
that things really improved. TB was still a very serious threat to
healthy individuals back then. It killed Feynman's first wife in 1945.

The simplest way to re-educate the anti-science brigade is to remove
from them all the benefits of modern science starting with petrol,
electricity, clean water, antiseptics and analgesics. I think just
removing the last one on its own would be sufficient to make the point.

> science, indirectly you have created several sceneros that will
> eventually cause society to be doomed to failure: a) increasing the
> lifespan of the population; b) polluted Earth far beyond what would have
> been done without science; c) destroyed the fabric of society- the
> family- by aiding the movements that do not believe in a Supreme Being;

Science is neutral on the existence or not of a supreme being. It is not
a testable hypothesis. What science can do is show that the old myths
written down in various religious books are wildly inconsistent. Lets
see you build a wooden ark capable of holding two of every kind of
animal and keeping them alive for the requisite period of time...

For the record I should point out that I am a Bayesian and on the
available evidence I cannot believe in a God but I can still compute the
probability that there is a God from group symmetry arguments.

It peaks sharply at 0 (no God) or 1 (God) the distribution is the
uninformative Bayesian prior for a heads or tails decision:

P(x) = 1/(x(1-x))

You don't find many people arguing vehemently that the probability that
there is a God is exactly 1/2 but I will do that on symmetry grounds. I
am a hard line agnostic based on the available (lack of) evidence.

> d) refusing to entertain any ideas or even evidence that may fall
> outside of the scientific method but have definite validity. There are
> other examples, but these points are the biggest.

What do you mean by this? Bishop Ushers attempt to compute the age of
the Earth was a perfectly valid effort when he did it, as was Kelvin's
attempt to put a bound on how long the sun could burn for. They were
hopelessly wrong because their methods made invalid assumptions.

What is seriously wrong and misguided is to deny all of modern science
because it conflicts with your archaic superstitious beliefs.

>
> With (a), you have managed to produce a society counterproductive to
> your goal with the creation of many health problems, overpopulation and
> lack of space available for the ailing/ elderly, and pushing monetary
> budgets beyond limits. What was the average lifespan of human beings
> 1,000 years ago? Don't forget that you have also helped produce
> superbugs, such as MRSA, a once easily controlled organism in normal
> "staff" form, that now barely reponds to the strongest antibiotics,
> something else you have helped create, and such creation has now made
> even the more common bacteria very resistant to. And don't forget the
> insecticide resistance that has develped due to scientific study and
> experimentation.

Before antibiotics every bacterial infection was potentially lethal. We
have eradicated the deadly smallpox virus which was once a scourge of
humanity. Nice God that invents stuff like that and Ebola isn't it?

Nature fights back via evolution. We were too cavalier about the over
use of antibiotics and will pay for that mistake - particularly in the
USA where they are used to make livestock fatten up quicker which has
caused problems. Modern prescribing has improved but we could easily go
back to the bad old days when people often died of blood poisoning.

>
> With (b), you told us that nuclear energy was safe and people well
> trained to prevent disasters. You developed purified forms of uranium
> and plutonium, only to be scattered across the countryside and airborne
> contamination throughout the world. Also, let us not forget weapons
> deveopment beyond the simple atomic bomb to make the world "safer". How
> much cancer has been created as a result of atomic testing/ worldwide
> atomic disasters? Yet you justify it in the name of "science".

Comparatively few so far. Much more radioactivity has been spewed up the
chimneys of coal fired power stations in smoke. Uranium is a
surprisingly common element in the Earths crust with around 2ppm in most
rocks. What is very rare is to find mineable grade uranium ore.

Science only seeks to figure out how the world works. How that knowledge
is used afterwards is a matter for the wider society.

You would prefer everyone living in superstitious fear and ignorance.
Making sacrifices to your chosen "One True God". Too bad that different
brands of supporters of that "One True God" have been at each others
throats for centuries now. I suppose it is a sign of progress that they
have largely stopped burning each other at the stake for heresy.

We now have twenty first century science and engineering coupled with
stone age politics and superstition. The worst aspects are enshrined in
the US Religious Right who think they are Gods chosen people and await
the Rapture real soon now (overdue by 12 years and counting...).

Has that deranged cretin made any more "End of the World" predictions?
(is there a third strike and you are out rule???)

>
> With (c), you have insisted that religion be separated from the schools
> and made sure that every kid owns or uses an I-pod and PC or laptop,
> whether or not it benefits his "education". You have wasted billions of
> dollars to make this point. Simple prayer, re-education of proper
> morality at home, and a firm belief in the Almighty would have saved
> billions.

Your claim is unsupported by the evidence. I would agree that the modern
emphasis on excessive material consumerism is a bad thing.

>
> With (d), you propagate "evidence" that a "big bang" created this whole
> thing, and you expect the population to believe this without physical
> evidence. Then you wonder why such a population dismisses you when they
> ask you to entertain the concept of God.

I don't expect the general population to understand anything any more.
I am resigned to the fact that a fair proportion of them are too stupid
to tie their own shoe laces and you appear to be in that cohort.

>
> I sit wondering what would happen if we did away with TVs, I-pods, PC's,
> cars, and science. Is society truly better off with all of these things?
> Or are we just kidding ourselves? These are the questions.

Why don't you do the experiment and see how you like it?

I'd be prepared to bet you wouldn't last more than a week without having
to rely on modern technology. Moreover you probably would not even have
the first clue how to live today without fridge, freezer or potable
water on tap. Enjoy your life in the stone age.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[oriel36]

On Feb 10, 9:51 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> What do you mean by this? Bishop Ushers attempt to compute the age of
> the Earth was a perfectly valid effort when he did it, as was Kelvin's
> attempt to put a bound on how long the sun could burn for. They were
> hopelessly wrong because their methods made invalid assumptions.
>
> What is seriously wrong and misguided is to deny all of modern science
> because it conflicts with your archaic superstitious beliefs.

About the same time Bishop Ussher was harmlessly drawing conclusions
through the Genesis chronology,Bishop Nicolas Steno was drawing
conclusions on fossil records and rock strata in basically starting
off the field of geology as we know it.A contemporary equivalent are
the analemma folk and their wandering Sun compared to the substance of
genuine astronomy,as you follow the imaginary figure '8' in the sky at
least you know where you stand in my eyes in astronomical
matters,roughly the same as Ussher in Biblical affairs.

Had any Christian looked at the Genesis chronology they would discover
one very familiar figure attached to a break in the text 'then he
died' and this issue was once dealt with in the confines of a
University setting a century and a half ago.Joseph Campbell,the
American cataloguer of these things outlines the structure as Julius
Oppert first proposed it in context of similar structures -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=c4e81Qa0rQ4C&pg=PA10&dq=inner+reaches+outer+space+south+dakota&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e_M0T7CpNoi2hQf7zMHzAQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The eye catching figure of Enoch's 365 lifespan would normally
attract the attention of the astronomically curios but this assumes
there are actual astronomers who can figure out there are 365 days in
a year and I don;t hold out much hope that readers could extract a
subtle hint to the structure of the genealogy which ends at Genesis 7
v 11.These things are impenetrable for those who are neither
scientific nor religious in the true sense of those words insofar as
most merely act out the part superficially without moving along a road
to a different level of understanding and that is what these
structures do ,all the way from Genesis to the geometrical structure
of the Book of Revelation.

Like the worst parts of empiricism,you will torture the data to reach
a pre-conceived conclusion and the same goes for the Christian
heritage and St Augustine's comment is effective enough to
demonstrate the intellectual inferiority of the those who lack faith -

"If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and
manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken;
for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is
beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what
is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be
there." St Augustine

The concept of Infinity is an affirmation of limitless time and space
whereas you dummies set limits to time and space even though you would
lose your minds if you dwelt on what existed outside the limits you
set.The Christian accepts the Eternal and the Infinite yet in such a
way as it encompasses the individual,the empiricist dummy curses
himself with his own protective stupidity and imagines things that
don't exist such as a rotating moon,1465 rotations in 1461 days,a
wandering Sun,human control over global temperatures and even time
itself whereas these thing should horrify a reasonable person.

This 'unknown ' person hardly knows what empiricism is but in the way
it tries to set limits to human approaches and understanding to
promote itself is a cult in itself and the wider world is paying
dearly for this 350 year mathematician driven indulgence.

[Chris.B]

On Feb 10, 2:53 am, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> I hope Santorum wins.

Be careful what you wish for. Every right-wing, educationally-
challenged, emperor puppet widens the social and economic divide. Each
of them is infinitely more dangerous to national social order than a
few nut-case bombers.

The Arab Spring uprisings were always hampered by their lack of arms
and entrenched fear of the vicious security services and countless
spies. The American public has enough small arms to make the entire US
Army look like Adolph Assad's private bullies taking pot-shots at
overcrowded housing blocks with their Russian tanks and shiny new
shells.

A grass roots uprising in the "land of the tax free rich" would lead
to total anarchy and the establishment of local warlords almost
overnight. None of the industrialised countries has proved to have a
clue what to do about small groups of determined or lunatic, armed
assailants. Their organised armies are still practising WW1 manoeuvres
against a formal, matching entrenchment playing by the same rules of
war and diplomacy.

They still rely on massive imbalances of forces (and heavy arms and
total air-power superiority) to maintain any semblance of public order
in creaking, dust dry, stone-age Afghanistan. And, equally backward
and totally corrupt Iraq.

How would the Western forces possibly cope with with a revolt from
their own people on their own soil? Nuke them? Carpet bomb them? Use a
drone missile for every single "public enemy" head showing above the
nearest park bench or hot-dog vendor's stall?

War and national security have become so damned expensive it would be
far cheaper to agree to bomb your own people than that of the enemy.
That only works if the people are daft enough to stand or sit still as
easy targets. Most of the industrialised west isn't inhospitable
desert beyond the city limits. Given the present, private arsenal and
huge fleet of pick-ups and sporting off-roaders the People would
quickly roll over the corrupt mess posturing at the gilded trough in
their ridiculous, shiny, TV suits and virtual dog-collars.

Coming soon to a country near you? This is much more likely than a
rogue asteroid. It will take more than a fake miracle on YouTube for
America to avoid the coming global, economic chaos. All it takes is a
match.

[unknown]

"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message

news:2a99j7p7bptkkf2tj...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:29:46 -0500, "unknown" <non...@none.net> wrote:
>
>>There was also natural population control and far less pollution.
>
> Lovely. I'll take what science has brought us over that!
>
>>Not everything can be explained rationally and never will, sorry.
>
> I've not yet encountered anything that can't be. I doubt anything
> exists that can't.

And you don't think it is closed minded that some things are impossible to
ever explain?

>>Well, I don't see the Japanese doing so well with the remains of their
>>reactors.
>
> Trivial in the larger scheme of things. And something that we can
> learn from, in order to reduce the chance of similar accidents in the
> future. Again, that's how rational thinking works.

So, statistically, you know it's only a matter of time before there's a
similar accident in the US. Even if we base such data on Chaos and say that
there's "near perfection" in every attribute regarding nuclear reactors,
over time Chaos predicts that an accident will happen. This is rational
thinking and I don't know how you can dismiss the possibility and
consequences of an accident.

>>So, what good does it do then to use antibiotics and spend millions to
>>develop more when we are encountering the same situations as before their
>>discovery?
>
> We aren't. For every person that encounters a seriously resistant
> strain of bacteria, millions are cured of what might otherwise be a
> fatal infection. And science allows us to continue finding new
> antibiotics.


>>And you don't think starvation is still a problem?
>
> Sure it's a problem. But nothing like it has been in the past.
>
>>That being aside, I make
>>the same point here as with the antibiotics: why are millions being spent
>>on
>>the insecticides if all that's going to happen is ever increasing
>>resistance? Kind of like ending up right back where you start, except now
>>you're bankrupt.
>
> But we're not ending up where we started. We're MUCH better off, even
> with some resistant pests. And again, we're always developing new
> strategies against them. Indeed, modern natural strategies are
> increasingly used, and owe their effectiveness to... you guessed it-
> science.

Well, superbugs have develped inside rodents as well no doubt caused by ever
increasing and changing methods used to control them.

>>Don't see it creating harm? Do you realize that because of nuclear
>>testing,
>>background radiation levels increased worldwide and have remained so ever
>>since? Oh, and be sure to add Chernobyl and Fukushima to the background
>>count. Do we know how much (or little) additional radiation it takes to
>>trigger cancer? I'd say the harm has already been created.
>
> Whatever harm has been created is almost possible to detect. And that
> is offset by gains. You think man-made radiation over the last 50
> years is causing serious health problems? Where's your evidence?

Check this out for starters regarding Chernobyl:
http://www.solarsplendor.com/Nuclear%20Research/Chernobyl-related%20ionising%20radiation%20exposure%20and%20cancer%20risk.pdf>>> What is better: to live in a pretechnological society and die of a>>> tooth abscess at 40, following ten years of general decline, or to>>> live in our society today, and live a healthy life, dying of cancer at>>> 80- even if the cancer was caused by something environmental? I know>>> which I'd choose!>>>>Well, if you feel comfortable living in a nursing home where no one wants>>you anyway and people are even more angered because there's no money topay>>for it, then I guess you've made your choice. If you want a continued>>decline of socialization- mainly due to technology- then you've made your>>choice. If you want divorce and family breakdown to no longer carry any>>guilt or shame, then I guess you've made your choice.>> Where this happens, it's a failure of societal ethics (something> caused in large part by religion, which encourages immoral behavior).> It has nothing to do with science. You think that because people are> unethical, we should throw out science so that everybody dies young?How can religion encourage "immoral behavior" when it's designed to do justthe opposite? Ever been religious at all? No, I say a lot of the unethicalbehaviors are being caused by science and technology, not religion. Ifdying young means retaining your dignity and respect, yes. If dying oldmeans no one wants you around anymore and you are a burden to society causedby medicines keeping you alive that great, great grandchild has to pay for,then no.>>>And the "big bang" makes sense to the general population?>> It makes sense to anybody who is well educated, and who has learned to> think. There's a reason that such a high percentage of intelligent> people are not theists. Belief in supernatural mumbo-jumbo is one of> the first things to go when people actually start thinking about> things for themselves.And you don't think it's possible to "think for yourself" while beingreligious? Have you ever tried it yourself, or are you just going by whatyou hear or read?>>You know, you>>mention taking chances on technology and living to be old as a result.Why>>not take chances on a Supreme Being?>> Which supreme being? There are thousands to choose from.The Supreme Being who created it all, of course, but of course you won'tunderstand that.>>That's the part that never makes sense>>to me. Both require certain degrees of "faith".>> The sort of "faith" required to believe in the effectiveness of> rational thinking is nothing like the sort required to believe in that> which lacks any shred of objective evidence. You obviously don't even> know what the word means.Where's your direct physical evidence of the "big bang"?>>How? People visit personally nowadays far less than ever before. Divorce>>is almost beyond statistics because of desocialization caused bytechnology>>and probably a big cause of family breakdown too. I can't see how we're>>better off.>> You apparently are not. And frankly, given your depressing and Luddite> views, I quite understand why nobody would want to visit you. I live> in a community. People support each other. People interact. People> take advantage of the things science and technology have provided> them. It certainly isn't making them worse off- or making them worse> people.Mostly atheistic, or mixed? I tend to believe the former based on yourcommentary here. Of course, you'll answer the latter I suspect.Well, you can believe what you want. That is the concept of having a freesociety, but not to the exclusion that such belief might interfere with thehealth, safety, and moral corruption of human beings. That's where I drawthe line, but certainly no line is drawn in simple net conversation.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:46:50 -0500, "unknown" <non...@none.net> wrote:

>And you don't think it is closed minded that some things are impossible to
>ever explain?

I think it is closed minded to think that anything is impossible to
explain, given that nobody has yet demonstrated anything that falls
into that category, and almost everything that people have chosen to
include in that category in the past have either been explained, or
are clearly explainable in principle.

>So, statistically, you know it's only a matter of time before there's a
>similar accident in the US.

Sure. And a few thousand people might die or suffer health damage. The
point is, those numbers are trivial (although people try to suggest
otherwise). Any individual's chance of suffering physical harm from a
nuclear accident is absurdly small. That's what risk analysis is all
about.

>Well, superbugs have develped inside rodents as well no doubt caused by ever
>increasing and changing methods used to control them.

Yes. So what's your point?

[Chris.B]

There is no fear of the unlikely (or the unknown) which remotely
matches the very real dangers of human travel above a walking pace. In
fact, more people die from simply falling over than have ever died
from nuclear radiation. Even staying in bed has very serious dangers
to one's health. Though you can always hide under the covers. The bed
covers can protect you from anything. Even the bogeyman! ;-)

Death is a fatal consequence of living and is (presently) incurable.
Being paralysed by fear is another crippling, human condition. One
which destroys the capacity for normal human existence. It is
remarkably widespread and affects many billions of tragic victims. At
least they don't have far so far to fall when they are constantly on
their knees. Where, quite incidentally, they cannot see the sky
falling. So cannot possibly save themselves from the worst of their
fears. You'd think they'd all have mirrors. Instead of prayer mats. I
know I would. If I was a victim of this debilitating scourge.

[unknown]

"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message

news:mckaj7dk1gcbupscr...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:46:50 -0500, "unknown" <non...@none.net> wrote:
>
>>And you don't think it is closed minded that some things are impossible to
>>ever explain?
>
> I think it is closed minded to think that anything is impossible to
> explain, given that nobody has yet demonstrated anything that falls
> into that category, and almost everything that people have chosen to
> include in that category in the past have either been explained, or
> are clearly explainable in principle.

Really? What about "dark matter" and the "law of gravity"?

>>So, statistically, you know it's only a matter of time before there's a
>>similar accident in the US.
>
> Sure. And a few thousand people might die or suffer health damage. The
> point is, those numbers are trivial (although people try to suggest
> otherwise). Any individual's chance of suffering physical harm from a
> nuclear accident is absurdly small. That's what risk analysis is all
> about.

You might not think this way if it was a member of your own family. There
comes a point where risk outweighs advantage.

>>Well, superbugs have develped inside rodents as well no doubt caused by
>>ever
>>increasing and changing methods used to control them.
>
> Yes. So what's your point?

Science has helped augment the Bacteriological / virological changes/
mutations in living species making cures difficult or impossible. I speak
not only of "superbugs" but radiological damages as well perpetrated by
inadequate study and training by man.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:40:27 -0500, "unknown" <non...@none.net> wrote:

>Really? What about "dark matter" and the "law of gravity"?

What about them? Dark matter is entirely explainable, and the "law of
gravity" was explained on one level by Newton, hundreds of years ago,
and more completely by Einstein in the last century.

>You might not think this way if it was a member of your own family. There
>comes a point where risk outweighs advantage.

No doubt I'd be upset if it were my family. But that is beside the
point. Rationally, the risk is miniscule. You are right that there are
cases where the risk outweighs the advantage. This isn't one of them.

>Science has helped augment the Bacteriological / virological changes/
>mutations in living species making cures difficult or impossible. I speak
>not only of "superbugs" but radiological damages as well perpetrated by
>inadequate study and training by man.

There is no evidence that we are producing incurable diseases. Nor
that there is any significant radiological damage to humans. I'm sure
far more people suffer health effects every year from completely
natural radiation sources than they do from man-made ones.

[unknown]

"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message

news:dn0cj753c4aa9obt7...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:40:27 -0500, "unknown" <non...@none.net> wrote:
>
>>Really? What about "dark matter" and the "law of gravity"?
>
> What about them? Dark matter is entirely explainable,

It is? That's a new one to me. Where is it explained "entirely" with no
errors or questions, both of which come up all the time concerning it?

and the "law of
> gravity" was explained on one level by Newton, hundreds of years ago,
> and more completely by Einstein in the last century.
>
>>You might not think this way if it was a member of your own family. There
>>comes a point where risk outweighs advantage.
>
> No doubt I'd be upset if it were my family. But that is beside the
> point. Rationally, the risk is miniscule.

Here is where I personally think you're being "irrational". How can you say
"miniscule" when Chernobyl was caused by stupidity, 3-Mile Island by
instrument/ operator errors, and Fukushima by natural causes? I'll grant
you that Fukushima probably would have occurred no matter the construction,
training, or safety standards, but in the other two cases, not so. 66% is a
significant risk and "rational" thinking should be pointing to nuclear
infancy status instead of confident advanced thought.

You are right that there are
> cases where the risk outweighs the advantage. This isn't one of them.

I beg to differ.

>>Science has helped augment the Bacteriological / virological changes/
>>mutations in living species making cures difficult or impossible. I speak
>>not only of "superbugs" but radiological damages as well perpetrated by
>>inadequate study and training by man.
>
> There is no evidence that we are producing incurable diseases.

By strengthening what were once "bugs" into "superbugs", man is producing
incurable diseases. Isn't that enough evidence?

Nor
> that there is any significant radiological damage to humans. I'm sure
> far more people suffer health effects every year from completely
> natural radiation sources than they do from man-made ones.

Plutonium, strontium, uranium, and any other refined, heavy elements
scattered across the countryside causing innumberable cancers and genetic
damage outweighs any damage from "natural radiation sources".

You really suprise me here, Chris. Usually, you do show some sort of
rationality, but in this case you are definitely being irrational. I get
the sense, for example, that you would rather continue pursuing nuclear
energy no matter the cost to health and safety, rather than proceeding with
extreme caution despite accidents, global fallout increase, and numerous
cancer increase evidence. I also feel a certain "closed mindedness"
regarding astronomical theories-- what may be right or may be explained
tomorrow is certainly subject to change and/or not being explained at all.

Not trying to offend here, the aforementioned is what I have observed.
There's a lot more to being a scientist than facts and figures that, even if
the data shows correctness now, there may be a future point where such data
is invalid.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:20:21 -0500, "unknown" <non...@none.net> wrote:

>> What about them? Dark matter is entirely explainable,
>
>It is? That's a new one to me. Where is it explained "entirely" with no
>errors or questions, both of which come up all the time concerning it?

I didn't say dark matter was explained, I said it was explainable. No
theory of nature is entirely complete. That doesn't mean things don't
have good explanations, or explanations that are substantially
accurate if incomplete, or that they aren't explainable in principle.

>Here is where I personally think you're being "irrational". How can you say
>"miniscule" when Chernobyl was caused by stupidity, 3-Mile Island by
>instrument/ operator errors, and Fukushima by natural causes?

I fail to see the point. When the leader of a hunting party in some
small tribe makes a stupid mistake, and it results in two of the
hunters being killed, that is more devastating- both statistically and
practically- to that tribe than an entire nuclear reactor melting down
in today's society. Stupidity happens. People make bad decisions and
there are human consequences. Science hasn't changed that.

>> There is no evidence that we are producing incurable diseases.
>
>By strengthening what were once "bugs" into "superbugs", man is producing
>incurable diseases. Isn't that enough evidence?

None at all. "Superbug" is a word fabricated by sensationalists. You
make the same mistake of all Luddites- you assume that technology can
only cause problems, not fix them. Antibiotic resistant organisms have
been cropping up for more than 75 years. And each has been taken down
again by the development of new antibiotics. Do you think MSRA will be
anything but a footnote in textbooks in a decade? Indeed, we now
understand so much more about how cells work at a fundamental level
that drug development is increasingly a targeted, highly scientific
venture, rather than the trial-and-error system it was in the past.

>Plutonium, strontium, uranium, and any other refined, heavy elements
>scattered across the countryside causing innumberable cancers and genetic
>damage outweighs any damage from "natural radiation sources".

AFAIK, there is no published evidence of this. If you have some, I'd
be interested in seeing it.

>You really suprise me here, Chris. Usually, you do show some sort of
>rationality, but in this case you are definitely being irrational. I get
>the sense, for example, that you would rather continue pursuing nuclear
>energy no matter the cost to health and safety, rather than proceeding with
>extreme caution despite accidents, global fallout increase, and numerous
>cancer increase evidence.

Actually, I'm moderately opposed to nuclear energy in its present
forms. But not because of any health risks, which I think do not rise
high enough to offset the benefits of the energy produced. My
opposition is economic- nuclear is not a cost effective way to produce
energy.

>I also feel a certain "closed mindedness"
>regarding astronomical theories-- what may be right or may be explained
>tomorrow is certainly subject to change and/or not being explained at all.

I'm a scientist. I judge a theory on the weight of evidence behind it.
When that weight is large, I demand that alternate theories produce
solid evidence before taking them seriously. That is the rational way
to look at scientific theories. It does not demonstrate
close-mindedness to recognize that not all ideas have equal merit.

>Not trying to offend here, the aforementioned is what I have observed.
>There's a lot more to being a scientist than facts and figures that, even if
>the data shows correctness now, there may be a future point where such data
>is invalid.

There is no scientific theory that I'm not willing to throw out if a
better one comes along. But I'm not going to be excessively skeptical
of any good theory in the absence of good alternates, either.

[uncarollo]

On Feb 10, 4:55 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 9:51 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > What do you mean by this? Bishop Ushers attempt to compute the age of
> > the Earth was a perfectly valid effort when he did it, as was Kelvin's
> > attempt to put a bound on how long the sun could burn for. They were
> > hopelessly wrong because their methods made invalid assumptions.
>
> > What is seriously wrong and misguided is to deny all of modern science
> > because it conflicts with your archaic superstitious beliefs.
>
> About the same time Bishop Ussher was harmlessly drawing conclusions
> through the Genesis chronology,Bishop Nicolas Steno was drawing
> conclusions on fossil records and rock strata in basically starting
> off the field of geology as we know it.A contemporary equivalent are
> the analemma folk and their wandering Sun compared to the substance of
> genuine astronomy,as you follow the imaginary figure '8' in the sky at
> least you know where you stand in my eyes in astronomical
> matters,roughly the same as Ussher in Biblical affairs.
>
> Had any Christian looked at the Genesis chronology they would discover
> one very familiar figure attached to a break in the text 'then he
> died' and this issue was once dealt with in the confines of a
> University setting a century and a half ago.Joseph Campbell,the
> American cataloguer of these things outlines the structure as Julius
> Oppert first proposed it in context of similar structures -
>

> http://books.google.ie/books?id=c4e81Qa0rQ4C&pg=PA10&dq=inner+reaches...

It seems that you are intent on hijacking EVERY thread on SAA.
Addicted are you? No other life, have you? nevertheless, take this
simple test as described here, and see how you score (try for a 300 if
you can): http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/

[oriel36]

Here is a beautiful sequence of images of a non rotating moon and the
fact that your dummies think the moon rotates more or less determines
how valid all your other opinions are -

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ods-1piWRT8/TURt7EJC99I/AAAAAAAAADc/MuZ2ByDUb-w/s1600/MoonPhases.jpg

I wouldn't even bother explaining the phases of the moon are
indicative of its orbital circuit around the Earth least your minds
collapse under the strain of interpretation and again,I no longer feel
the responsibility of keep the horror of an idea like lunar rotation
front and center.If people can live with it then there is no such
thing as astronomy,science or civilization as we share that
observation above with all people who lived on the Earth from
antiquity and not once did they ever see or consider lunar rotation
until Newton.

If you land on the Serenitas crater and look out at the Earth,you can
constantly keep our planet in view and why ? - because the moon
doesn't rotate !.

So be it,you have this forum to yourselves.

[Quadibloc]

On Feb 11, 12:45 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you land on the Serenitas crater and look out at the Earth,you can
> constantly keep our planet in view and why ? - because the moon
> doesn't rotate !.

Can I keep the constellation Orion constantly in view?

No. So it depends on how you define "rotate". Our definition is
better, but for reasons you won't sit still long enough to listen to.

John Savard

[Chris.B]

On Feb 11, 11:34 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> Can I keep the constellation Orion constantly in view?
>
> No. So it depends on how you define "rotate". Our definition is
> better, but for reasons you won't sit still long enough to listen to.
>
> John Savard

Let's put it another, rather less parochial, way:

How fast would a retarded troll have to travel on the surface of the
Moon to keep Orion constantly in view through the narrow porthole of
his closed moon buggy?

Or, returning to our prime purpose here: If the troll took his
equatorially mounted telescope to the Moon... would the troll have to
adjust the drive speed to follow Orion? Or can the troll just switch
off the drive motor as he claims?

[Martin Brown]

On 11/02/2012 03:40, unknown wrote:
>
> "Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:mckaj7dk1gcbupscr...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:46:50 -0500, "unknown" <non...@none.net> wrote:
>>
>>> And you don't think it is closed minded that some things are
>>> impossible to
>>> ever explain?
>>
>> I think it is closed minded to think that anything is impossible to
>> explain, given that nobody has yet demonstrated anything that falls
>> into that category, and almost everything that people have chosen to
>> include in that category in the past have either been explained, or
>> are clearly explainable in principle.
>
> Really? What about "dark matter" and the "law of gravity"?

Both are capable of being tested experimentally and explained by modern
physics. Dark matter covers a multitude of sins - basically anything
with mass that is not self luminous (including planets). We don't yet
know what the invisible cold dark matter is in galaxies but we can see
its influence and experiments are under way to try and detect it.

Our understanding of gravity is sufficient to predict the motions of
objects with exquisite precision and accuracy. And it has been tested in
some very extreme environments using observations of binary pulsars.

>>> So, statistically, you know it's only a matter of time before there's a
>>> similar accident in the US.
>>
>> Sure. And a few thousand people might die or suffer health damage. The
>> point is, those numbers are trivial (although people try to suggest
>> otherwise). Any individual's chance of suffering physical harm from a
>> nuclear accident is absurdly small. That's what risk analysis is all
>> about.
>
> You might not think this way if it was a member of your own family.
> There comes a point where risk outweighs advantage.

You should give up driving a car immediately then. That is by far the
most dangerous thing that most people do regularly. US drivers on long
journeys avoiding flying after 9/11 killed a similar number to Al Qaeda
but in ones and twos on the roads rather than in one big bang.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=677549

Shows a roughly 250 additional road fatalities a month in the aftermath.

America is a rather dangerous place to drive. 2x worse than Germany and
3x worse than in the UK. Too many idiots refuse to wear seatbelts and
the explosive charge in the drivers side airbags can potentially kill.

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-multicountry-percapita-2004.htm

>
>>> Well, superbugs have develped inside rodents as well no doubt caused
>>> by ever
>>> increasing and changing methods used to control them.
>>
>> Yes. So what's your point?
>
> Science has helped augment the Bacteriological / virological changes/
> mutations in living species making cures difficult or impossible. I

They were completely impossible to cure before science as well. If we do
create perfect superbugs and all our antibiotics are rendered useless we
will only be returning to the natural order of things prior to 1940
where either your immune system wins out and you live or you die. I
don't expect that we will lose every antibiotic, but we will lose the
ones that have been abused to permit massive industrial scale factory
farming in the USA (and any others with related chemistry).

The problem is that evolution allows things to change to match their
environment and bacteria & viruses reproduce very quickly and can swap
genetic components around. This has always been occurring. The drugs
have merely selected for the ones that can survive that challenge.

> speak not only of "superbugs" but radiological damages as well
> perpetrated by inadequate study and training by man.

Meaningless gibberish from a terrified member of the worried well.

It is tragic that the US population is so wilfully ignorant of science.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Androcles]

"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JiMZq.4871$xH4...@newsfe19.iad...

It is tragic that Brown is so wilfully ignorant of mathematics and logic.
Disregards,
Androcles.

[unknown]

"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JiMZq.4871$xH4...@newsfe19.iad...

Accidents such as you describe don't have the potential to cause genetic
damage, induce cancer or possibly affect the lives of millions from a single
accident like radiation can and has done.

>>>> Well, superbugs have develped inside rodents as well no doubt caused
>>>> by ever
>>>> increasing and changing methods used to control them.
>>>
>>> Yes. So what's your point?
>>
>> Science has helped augment the Bacteriological / virological changes/
>> mutations in living species making cures difficult or impossible. I
>
> They were completely impossible to cure before science as well. If we do
> create perfect superbugs and all our antibiotics are rendered useless we
> will only be returning to the natural order of things prior to 1940 where
> either your immune system wins out and you live or you die. I don't expect
> that we will lose every antibiotic, but we will lose the ones that have
> been abused to permit massive industrial scale factory farming in the USA
> (and any others with related chemistry).
>
> The problem is that evolution allows things to change to match their
> environment and bacteria & viruses reproduce very quickly and can swap
> genetic components around. This has always been occurring. The drugs have
> merely selected for the ones that can survive that challenge.

So if immume systems are going to eventually fail anyway because the
superbugs will bring back pre-antibiotic societies, does it make sense to
keep spending billions of dollars on them?

>
>> speak not only of "superbugs" but radiological damages as well
>> perpetrated by inadequate study and training by man.
>
> Meaningless gibberish from a terrified member of the worried well.

Anytime folks in the so-called scientific community start barking, it is
usually from a result of being challenged on your existing methods when they
are shown to be faulty.

> It is tragic that the US population is so wilfully ignorant of science.

Ignorant because you're being challenged, or ignorant because you want they
or them to fit that description in your sense of the word?

I think anyone in science who doesn't constantly challenge the many aspects
of science, even if the trend is to be already well established in a theory
or even fact, is foolish.

> --
> Regards,
> Martin Brown

[oriel36]

Stars such as Sirius disappear from view for roughly 70 days because
the Earth is orbiting the Sun and it is slightly disconcerting that I
must descend to a level where I need to explain that as the moon
orbits the Earth , a person looking out from the Serenitas crater will
see the background stars change as the Earth remains constantly in
view due to the monthly orbital motion of the moon.People can work
these things out and that is why I included the saying of Plutarch
because a mind ignited with curiosity will burn away extraneous
notions that hinder the satisfaction we get from putting images in
context of motions and structure .

"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."
Plutarch

Is contemporary imaging not spectacular enough that people would
knowingly infer something as ridiculous as a rotating moon even when
the phases display its orbital motion alone ? -

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ods-1piWRT8/TURt7EJC99I/AAAAAAAAADc/MuZ2ByDUb-w/s1600/MoonPhases.jpg

It is the juxtaposition of a satellite's behavior as it orbits a
planet with a planet's orbital characteristic as it orbits the central
Sun that is the main issue here and while it is possible to watch the
orbital behavior of a planet directly as it turns to the central
Sun,albeit a quasi-rotation,when readers interpret a rotating moon
when clearly it doesn't,then the remarkable ability we now have to
cross reference planetary traits is lost or sterile.People can
actually see what Uranus is doing as it moves along its orbital
circumference and then draw this observation down to the Earth's polar
day/night cycle and its cause -

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn12529/dn12529-1_800.jpg

Maybe somebody can do better describing this however,judging by the
morphing explanations I see in Wikipedia,these things will eventually
happen one way or another even without proper attribution.

[Martin Brown]

Actually the levels of dodgy additives in US motor fuels means that
every time you fill up at the gas station you are exposed to a rancid
cocktail of carcinogens and poisons that would not be tolerated in any
other product sold to the general public.

Including but not limited to benzene and MTBE (the latter being a real
nuisance since it is water soluble and leaks from badly maintained bulk
storage tanks gets it into ground water and drinking supplies).

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/IntheWorkplace/benzene?sitearea=PED

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/IntheWorkplace/MTBE?sitearea=PED

Are you absolutely sure you don't want to give up driving?

>
>>>>> Well, superbugs have develped inside rodents as well no doubt caused
>>>>> by ever
>>>>> increasing and changing methods used to control them.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. So what's your point?
>>>
>>> Science has helped augment the Bacteriological / virological changes/
>>> mutations in living species making cures difficult or impossible. I
>>
>> They were completely impossible to cure before science as well. If we
>> do create perfect superbugs and all our antibiotics are rendered
>> useless we will only be returning to the natural order of things prior
>> to 1940 where either your immune system wins out and you live or you
>> die. I don't expect that we will lose every antibiotic, but we will
>> lose the ones that have been abused to permit massive industrial scale
>> factory farming in the USA (and any others with related chemistry).
>>
>> The problem is that evolution allows things to change to match their
>> environment and bacteria & viruses reproduce very quickly and can swap
>> genetic components around. This has always been occurring. The drugs
>> have merely selected for the ones that can survive that challenge.
>
> So if immume systems are going to eventually fail anyway because the
> superbugs will bring back pre-antibiotic societies, does it make sense
> to keep spending billions of dollars on them?

You really are clueless. If we lost every antibiotic the only thing left
would be our immune systems. But we already know enough about genetics
to target infectious agents in other ways. We may look back on the early
era of antibiotics and regret how we squandered them but that doesn't
mean that we cannot find other ways to achieve the same ends.

>>
>>> speak not only of "superbugs" but radiological damages as well
>>> perpetrated by inadequate study and training by man.
>>
>> Meaningless gibberish from a terrified member of the worried well.
>
> Anytime folks in the so-called scientific community start barking, it is
> usually from a result of being challenged on your existing methods when
> they are shown to be faulty.

What are you ranting about? You are utterly clueless.

>
>> It is tragic that the US population is so wilfully ignorant of science.
>
> Ignorant because you're being challenged, or ignorant because you want
> they or them to fit that description in your sense of the word?

Ignorant both in the sense of not knowing and also stupid.

> I think anyone in science who doesn't constantly challenge the many
> aspects of science, even if the trend is to be already well established
> in a theory or even fact, is foolish.

Scientists always question the status quo and look for ways to break the
established paradigms - that is how we make progress.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[unknown]

plonk

"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:I1QZq.18110$Au5....@newsfe23.iad...

[unknown]

Although we obviously agree to disagree, I'm glad you didn't resort to
personal attacks as some here have done and, for that reason, I won't plonk
you. Let me just say that I hope your confidence in science pays off. I
certainly don't have such confidence, but perhaps someday I'll be proven
wrong.

"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message

news:8vvcj71nnlhl3ksm2...@4ax.com...

[palsing]

On Feb 12, 4:32 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>...a person looking out from the Serenitas crater will

> see the background stars change as the Earth remains constantly in
> view due to the monthly orbital motion of the moon.

Doesn't this tell you that the moon must be rotating with respect to
those stars? If you were on the far side of the moon you would never
see the Earth at all, but those stars would still change. What does
this indicate to you, if not rotation??

[oriel36]

It would amount to a type of intellectual autism were I forced to
explain the difference between daily rotation as an independent motion
from orbital motion whether that of a satellite like our moon or a
planet.Our moon doesn't rotate and while our race has the
technological capacity to look out at a rotating Earth from the
surface of the moon,it chooses to conclude the moon has a motion is
doesn't have and nobody has ever seen.

Western society is certainly feeling the strain and it is beginning to
show up in an indifference to what normally are just straightforwards
facts such as the rotation of the Earth keeping in step with the days
and all the experiences within a 24 hour period.It is the shadow of
autism is descending on our race as the balance between technological
innovation and the interpretative celestial and terrestrial sciences
grow further out of kilter.

The assault on the interpretative faculties which affirm or reject
physical considerations of any topic and especially ones which are
immediate to human experience has gone on long enough for it is
beginning to show up in the wider sphere of existence as the creative
and perceptually innovative facets of human nature are being negated
by a tsunami of mathematical drudgery passing itself off as
astronomy,non-geometric generalizations lacking any hint of a
connection with experience.

I do not wish to come here and argue for the daily rotation of the
planet and the correct number of times it rotates in an orbital
circuit nor any of the other absurdities such as intrinsic lunar
rotation yet what other choice is there as Western society starts to
really lose contact with all the known astronomical facts and its
starts to show up with a type of indifference that looks like
autism.These things are horrifying to a person who feels the loss of
an intellectual standard and I know people would not willingly do
things that have an adverse effect on the wider population even as
many here can no longer connect cause and effect but that is the way
things are.

I will not descend to a point where I need to explain the difference
between daily rotation and orbital motion but the very fact that I
have come close to doing it reflects a real problem which is
devastating to our race when it can no longer look out at an orbiting
moon and just enjoy that for what it is.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 8, 4:40 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:53:04 -0800 (PST), uncarollo <chris1...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >My point originally was that in today's contentious atmosphere, nobody
> >listens to anybody, and both camps have been driven to opposite sides.
> >How then does a rational scientist perform his proper function in
> >society? Scientists cannot get their point across because people do
> >not want to understand difficult subjects, they want easy
> >bumpersticker answers (like "Coal keeps the lights on"). People do not
> >understand why they should care that the glaciers in the Andes are all
> >melting and will be gone in 50 years. We scientists must do a better
> >job of educating the public and making a case for our side.
>
> You are right about the important role of scientists in educating the
> public, and about how much better that could be done. But I don't
> think it is correct to say "nobody listens to anybody". The social
> environment is not symmetric. Outside of political bodies, there's
> little doubt that those who self-identify as progressive are more open
> to hearing scientific ideas, and generally have better education and
> better critical thinking skills. But they aren't the problem, are
> they?

Progressives ARE the problem ! They vote for people such as 0bama and
Nazi "We have to pass the health care bill so that we can see what is
in it" Pelosi.

> The question is, how can scientists teach those with poor
> critical thinking skills?

Such as progressives. Your typical "progressive" is both ignorant and
stupid, and has other serious deficiencies.

> Those whose dogma overrides even examining
> new ideas? Is it even possible to do so?

You are incapable of learning anything new as you have proven time and
again. You were spoon-fed some strange ideas when you were young,
apparently, and have had a closed mind ever since.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 8, 11:42 am, uncarollo <chris1...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 5:01 am, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > ""JONATHAN HAIDT: Our minds evolved not just to help us find the truth
> > > about how things work. If you're navigating through a landscape, sure,
> > > you need to know, you know, where the dangers are, where the
> > > opportunities are. But in the social world, our minds are not designed
> > > to figure out who really did what to whom. They are finely tuned
> > > navigational machines to work through a complicated social network, in
> > > which you've got to maintain your alliances, and your reputation.
>
> > That is what monkeys and apes do.  Humans have evolved beyond that, or
> > at least the conservatives have.
>
> So you honestly believe that only conservatives (your definition of
> conservative) have perfect reason, are responsible, hard working,
> always make the right informed decisions?

Someone with good reasoning skills, who is responsible, works hard and
makes good decisions will tend to become a conservative, even those
who were brainwashed by the liberal-run public school system when
young. Those who do not have those character traits will invariably
continue to be misled by the liberal politicians and MSM.

> Perfect angels are they? Can
> never make mistakes?

One learns from mistakes, but only if one is a conservative. Liberals
seem to keep making the same mistakes.

> I guess then that your kind have a monopoly on
> God, goodness and perfection?

Certainly conservatives do more good, are better, and and closer to
perfection than lefties. One has only to compare the polite behavior
of the Tea Party with the crass behavior of the Occupy-Wall-Streeters
to see that.

> ("Gott Mit Uns", a famous saying of the
> 3rd Reich).

Conservatism has nothing to do with and has no resemblance to Nazis,
you idiot.

> If people would stop demonizing each other and just listen, perhaps
> they would discover some value in what each have to say. Used to be
> there were more than just far out right wing and far out left wing in
> our political system, but the moderates have been weeded out, and the
> nation is now poorer because of it. Compromise is no longer possible??

We aren't looking to compromise. We want to keep what we earn, and
you are entitled to keep what you earned. That sounds reasonable,
correct? But, if you like socialism and communism so much then go
live on a hippie commune somewhere and let us know how that works out
for you.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 8, 3:29 pm, Mike Collins <acridiniumes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> uncarollo <chris1...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 5:01 am, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> ""JONATHAN HAIDT: Our minds evolved not just to help us find the truth
> >>> about how things work. If you're navigating through a landscape, sure,
> >>> you need to know, you know, where the dangers are, where the
> >>> opportunities are. But in the social world, our minds are not designed
> >>> to figure out who really did what to whom. They are finely tuned
> >>> navigational machines to work through a complicated social network, in
> >>> which you've got to maintain your alliances, and your reputation.
>
> >> That is what monkeys and apes do.  Humans have evolved beyond that, or
> >> at least the conservatives have.
>
> > So you honestly believe that only conservatives (your definition of
> > conservative) have perfect reason, are responsible, hard working,

> > always make the right informed decisions? Perfect angels are they? Can
> > never make mistakes? I guess then that your kind have a monopoly on
> > God, goodness and perfection? ("Gott Mit Uns", a famous saying of the
> > 3rd Reich).
>

> > If people would stop demonizing each other and just listen, perhaps
> > they would discover some value in what each have to say. Used to be
> > there were more than just far out right wing and far out left wing in
> > our political system, but the moderates have been weeded out, and the
> > nation is now poorer because of it. Compromise is no longer possible??
>

> If you think the diluted conservatives you call liberals are far out left
> wingers you're just as out of touch as WSnell.

The US govt has moved quite far enough to the left. It has gotten too
big and needs to be trimmed way back.

The prognosis for the UK is more bleak.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:09:53 -0800 (PST), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:

>Progressives ARE the problem ! They vote for people such as 0bama and
>Nazi "We have to pass the health care bill so that we can see what is
>in it" Pelosi.

You make my point without my having to say anything else.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 14, 12:27 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:09:53 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >Progressives ARE the problem !  They vote for people such as 0bama and
> >Nazi "We have to pass the health care bill so that we can see what is
> >in it" Pelosi.
>
> You make my point without my having to say anything else.

Your leftist comments say all that needs be said about your twisted
world view.

Progressives had control of both Houses of Congress and the White
House for two years, yet when they could not accomplish all of their
sinister goals, they started blaming the minority party.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 02:53:17 -0800 (PST), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:

>Progressives had control of both Houses of Congress and the White
>House for two years, yet when they could not accomplish all of their
>sinister goals, they started blaming the minority party.

And now moderate conservatives are controlling the Senate and the
White House, and radical conservatives are controlling Congress. And
economic recovery is just crawling. It's been decades since
progressives controlled anything at the federal level. Maybe it's time
to give them a chance.

[uncarollo]

On Feb 14, 4:53 am, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> "We have to pass the health care bill so that we can see what is
>>in it" Pelosi.

Nancy Pelosi actually never said that. But that's how myths are born
and take on a life of their own. It was a common tactic of the 3rd
Reich to put out a lie, repeat it often until people believed it to be
the truth.

[oriel36]

Truth and integrity are in short supply and you may as well bring the
Nazi party into it seeing that they adopted an approach close to
empiricists heart -

"Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the
truth" exists. […] The implied objective of this line of thought is a
nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls
not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such
an event, "It never happened"—well, it never happened. If he says that
two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect
frightens me much more than bombs […]" Orwell

If Newton and his followers say the moon rotates then it rotates even
though common sense observation says it doesn't and that it why the
central issue is pulling closer and closer to a type of collective
Western autism and a sort of indifference exists that is chilling to
observe.There is no reason why anyone would argue against one rotation
of the Earth maintaining a link to the temperature rises and fall
within a 24 hour period yet somehow the world is taught that it
doesn't even when February 29th approaching,a type of horror I know
day in and day out as people who are capable of the highest qualities
of humanity don't do these things where there is an attempt to create
an imbalance between rotations and days.

Localized politics where one side stands for religion and the other
side for science is being played out and neither side represent
science or religion but that is a different matter.

[ab...@dizum.com]

wsne...@hotmail.com wrote in news:246af35e-a3f2-4814-a577-
f88ca4...@m5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:

poor little fella...so sick and he doesn't even know it

[Quadibloc]

On Feb 14, 3:53 am, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Progressives had control of both Houses of Congress and the White
> House for two years, yet when they could not accomplish all of their
> sinister goals, they started blaming the minority party.

Can you spell "filibuster"?

Or were you on a desert island without access to news reports during
2009 and 2010?

John Savard

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 14, 5:33 pm, "ab...@dizum.com" <ab...@dizum.com> wrote:
> wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote in news:246af35e-a3f2-4814-a577-
> f88ca47fd...@m5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:

Yeah, 0bama is rather pitiful and almost as pathetic as you.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

It wasn't so much the small _threat_ of filibusters that slowed down
the Dimocrats as it was the fear that some of them had about what
would happen at the mid-term elections. You should learn more before
running off at the mouth, "51st stater."

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 14, 10:08 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 02:53:17 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >Progressives had control of both Houses of Congress and the White
> >House for two years, yet when they could not accomplish all of their
> >sinister goals, they started blaming the minority party.
>
> And now moderate conservatives are controlling the Senate and the
> White House, and radical conservatives are controlling Congress.

There is no such thing as a "moderate conservative" or "radical
conservative." One either is a true conservative or one isn't. There
are no degrees of conservatism. To suggest that 0bama is a "moderate
conservative" is totally beyond belief and just goes to show how
stupid and twisted your little mind has become.

> And
> economic recovery is just crawling.

The Republicans, because they currently control only the House, can
only do so much to fix the problem at this time.

> It's been decades since
> progressives controlled anything at the federal level. Maybe it's time
> to give them a chance.

They had their chance in 2009-2010.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 14, 12:29 pm, uncarollo <chris1...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 4:53 am, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> "We have to pass the health care bill so that we can see what is
> >>in it" Pelosi.
>
> Nancy Pelosi actually never said that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

Close enough.

> But that's how myths are born
> and take on a life of their own. It was a common tactic of the 3rd
> Reich to put out a lie, repeat it often until people believed it to be
> the truth.

For someone who is so hung up on the Nazis you sure seem to have
trouble seeing the startling similarities between them and some of the
more radical lefties in Congress.

[Chris L Peterson]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:14:04 -0800 (PST), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:

>There is no such thing as a "moderate conservative" or "radical
>conservative." One either is a true conservative or one isn't. There
>are no degrees of conservatism.

Absurd.

>To suggest that 0bama is a "moderate
>conservative" is totally beyond belief and just goes to show how
>stupid and twisted your little mind has become.

The fact that you don't recognize that he is very moderate serves only
to demonstrate how extreme your viewpoints are. Certainly, there has
been no progressive control of any federal bodies in this country for
close to 50 years.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 16, 1:40 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:14:04 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >There is no such thing as a "moderate conservative" or "radical
> >conservative."  One either is a true conservative or one isn't.  There
> >are no degrees of conservatism.
>
> Absurd.

You don't know what a true conservative is, so your opinion is invalid
and, quite frankly, unwelcome.

> >To suggest that 0bama is a "moderate
> >conservative" is totally beyond belief and just goes to show how
> >stupid and twisted your little mind has become.
>
> The fact that you don't recognize that he is very moderate serves only
> to demonstrate how extreme your viewpoints are. Certainly, there has
> been no progressive control of any federal bodies in this country for
> close to 50 years.

You really are out to lunch:

http://blogs.babycenter.com/community_buzz/food-police-threw-out-kids-lunch/

One (among many) of the problems with "progressives" is that they are
a bunch of know-it-alls who think they know what is best for
everyone. Interference in a parent's business WRT their child's food
gives a hint of the larger problems.

If 0bama appears to be a moderate (!) to your small excuse for a mind,
it is only because the Constitution (which you seem to hate) tends to
get in the way of his agenda.

[uncarollo]

On Feb 15, 7:00 pm, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 14, 12:29 pm, uncarollo <chris1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 14, 4:53 am, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > >> "We have to pass the health care bill so that we can see what is
> > >>in it" Pelosi.
>
> > Nancy Pelosi actually never said that.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU
>
> Close enough.

No, not close at all. Anyone can take a 10 second snip out of context
and make the pope look like he is endorsing the devil! Just look at a
recent quote from Romney where he said that he doesn't care about the
poor. Do you really think that is what he meant? Just about every
night on the Comedy Channel Jon Stewart makes shit of conservative
politicians by snipping out a few seconds of speech to show just how
callous or idiotic they are. Do you think that's fair too?

In the case of Pelosi, she was not speaking to her fellow lawmakers.
She was telling the public that this health care law was being lied
about by various politicians, and in the end the only way the public
will ever know what is really in there is after it is passed, which is
exactly what happened. The lies that were told about it have a life of
their own, and there are still millions who erroneously think there
are death panels (as you probably believe).

[Chris.B]

On Feb 16, 5:52 pm, uncarollo <chris1...@aol.com> wrote:
The lies that were told about it have a life of
> their own, and there are still millions who erroneously think there
> are death panels (as you probably believe).

Arguing about politics with extremists (of any leaning) is like
kicking the crutches out from under a blind cripple. It is about as
much fun as arguing religion with a moronic Mormon. It is so
ridiculously easy to score cheap points. Yet the opposition completely
spoils the game by never accepting that they score 100% of their "own
goals" each time they lose by a mile. And lose they must. Because they
haven't a clue about anything beyond the dogma they have learned by
rote. Too addled to recognise that they automatically vote for self-
harm. It's not unlike watching German Jews voting for the Nazi party
back in the 30s. A form of slow, agonising, masochistic suicide. With
an inevitable ending.

[wsne...@hotmail.com]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/beltway-confidential/2010/11/yet-more-proof-pelosi-never-read-health-care-bill/134880