Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Re: Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
Andre Jute
> On 2009-12-08, Qui si parla Campagnolo <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
> > The earth
> > IS getting warmer, nobody really knows why tho. Could be man, could be
> > a natural swing BUT if it IS man, and the repub boobs yell, get
> > peoples attention over nonsense, then our kids and our kids kids are
> > screwed.
>
> We're also screwed if it isn't man and we waste our time pointlessly
> cutting CO2 instead of building the dykes a bit higher.
>
> The Aztecs assumed the climate change that wiped them out was their
> fault and the obvious solution was to sacrifice more humans. It's
> possible their energies might have been better directed elsewhere.
I wonder if we could bring back Aztec practices after the global
warmies put our economies back in the stone age? Then we'll really see
who believes in global warming every time we call for volunteers to
have their beating hearts ripped from their living chests to appease
the god of carbon dioxide, the Carbo Doxy (slogan: "I just vant to be
alone."). I bet most of the loudest global warmies on RBT will
suddenly be dead silent and very, very small, more in keeping with the
size of their dicks than their mouths.
Omnia vincit nexus.
Cyber Nexus (1)
Pontiff
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
(1) The cyclist who before his elevation to High Priest of the Heart
Rippers was known as Andre Jute
D'ohBoy
Patrick Turner
> On Dec 8, 2:32 pm, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
> > On 2009-12-08, Qui si parla Campagnolo <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
> > > The earth
> > > IS getting warmer, nobody really knows why tho. Could be man, could be
> > > a natural swing BUT if it IS man, and the repub boobs yell, get
> > > peoples attention over nonsense, then our kids and our kids kids are
> > > screwed.
>
> > We're also screwed if it isn't man and we waste our time pointlessly
> > cutting CO2 instead of building the dykes a bit higher.
>
> > The Aztecs assumed the climate change that wiped them out was their
> > fault and the obvious solution was to sacrifice more humans. It's
> > possible their energies might have been better directed elsewhere.
>
> I wonder if we could bring back Aztec practices after the global
> warmies put our economies back in the stone age? Then we'll really see
> who believes in global warming every time we call for volunteers to
> have their beating hearts ripped from their living chests to appease
> the god of carbon dioxide, the Carbo Doxy (slogan: "I just vant to be
> alone."). I bet most of the loudest global warmies on RBT will
> suddenly be dead silent and very, very small, more in keeping with the
> size of their dicks than their mouths.
>
> Omnia vincit nexus.
>
> Cyber Nexus (1)
>
> (1) The cyclist who before his elevation to High Priest of the Heart
> Rippers was known as Andre Jute
There was a newspaper article today which said psychologists agreed
Global Warming was the perfect kind of problem humans could have while
never having to deal with. Rather like having a gambling addiction, or
watching trashy TV shows or over eating.
As more Americans become aware of GW, they seem to be going further
into denial. Just get a bigger better air con.
Problem solved.
Lemme see now, 10% of mortgage payers in the US are in trouble with
payments. Unemployment is more like 15%.
house owner equity is declining further while the printing presses are
rolling. So GW is the least of their concerns.
In Oz, the GFC caused very little trouble because we export so much to
China etc and we didn't have larrakin banks. Maybe we'll be more
likely to do more about GW, but the new leader of the Opposition here
says we must not do anything unless the US and China make serious
moves first. He started out denying GW, but seems to now accept it is
happening.
He wants radical solutions without expense. A Magic Pudding.
Just what happens about GW won't be affected by what is said at this
forum.
Someone has to pay for the changes to energy production which are
needed to keep a nice cool world. Everyone wants money for 1,001
things and my guess is that most ppl in the world will spend for the
short term betterment rather than for the betterment of their grand
children. Why would a species spend on the welfare of its yet-to-be-
borns when live members have had to fund all their lives without
inheritance? Why would a species spend on un-borns when they know
half of them will turn out into porn watching drug addicts?
We can all be so loving towards the rest of mankind, but like so many
marriages that begin with such hope and potential, the end result is
an ugly argument about money.
Patrick Turner.
sam booka
"Is this on?" news:41ruh5do4sdr5v2ip...@4ax.com:
>>Someone has to pay for the changes to energy production which are
>>needed to keep a nice cool world. Everyone wants money for 1,001
>>things and my guess is that most ppl in the world will spend for the
>>short term betterment rather than for the betterment of their grand
>>children. Why would a species spend on the welfare of its yet-to-be-
>>borns when live members have had to fund all their lives without
>>inheritance? Why would a species spend on un-borns when they know
>>half of them will turn out into porn watching drug addicts?
>>
>>We can all be so loving towards the rest of mankind, but like so many
>>marriages that begin with such hope and potential, the end result is
>>an ugly argument about money.
>>
>>Patrick Turner.
>
> I see no sane reason to 'pay' for a fabricated 'crisis' fantasy and
> you stomping around in ashes and sackcloth wailing "the end is near,
> sinner repent" isn't a compelling argument no matter how loud, or
> often, you scream it.
>
The dumazzes still don't get it that they've been disgraced and banished
to the dogma house. Now I see they are trying to deflect to the sea level
rising fraud, long debunked by the late great John L. Daly, although all
the raw data is still up on his site, www.john-daly.com. In particular,
it is this damning article, http://www.john-daly.com/altimetry/topex.htm
so spread it far and wide to expose their double down on stupid while the
caviar, jets, limos, and hookers are still hot
--
All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise,
not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not
from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance
of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation,
John Adams
landotter
> flipper <flip...@fish.net> tapped the mic and amongst other things, said,
> "Is this on?"news:41ruh5do4sdr5v2ip...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
> >>Someone has to pay for the changes to energy production which are
> >>needed to keep a nice cool world. Everyone wants money for 1,001
> >>things and my guess is that most ppl in the world will spend for the
> >>short term betterment rather than for the betterment of their grand
> >>children. Why would a species spend on the welfare of its yet-to-be-
> >>borns when live members have had to fund all their lives without
> >>inheritance? Why would a species spend on un-borns when they know
> >>half of them will turn out into porn watching drug addicts?
>
> >>We can all be so loving towards the rest of mankind, but like so many
> >>marriages that begin with such hope and potential, the end result is
> >>an ugly argument about money.
>
> >>Patrick Turner.
>
> > I see no sane reason to 'pay' for a fabricated 'crisis' fantasy and
> > you stomping around in ashes and sackcloth wailing "the end is near,
> > sinner repent" isn't a compelling argument no matter how loud, or
> > often, you scream it.
>
> The dumazzes still don't get it that they've been disgraced and banished
> to the dogma house. Now I see they are trying to deflect to the sea level
> rising fraud, long debunked by the late great John L. Daly, although all
> it is this damning article,http://www.john-daly.com/altimetry/topex.htm
> so spread it far and wide to expose their double down on stupid while the
> caviar, jets, limos, and hookers are still hot
Which university granted John Daly a degree in climatology? Which
scientific organizations stand behind this fringe opinion?
KTHANX!
Lord Valve
I'd wager Daly has better credentials than Algore. Bet?
Lord Valve
Globally Cool
RichL
Oh sure, a fucking sailor says it ain't so, so screw all the scientists.
RichL
Gore doesn't claim to base his views on his own research.
Thanks for playing, though!
Bill Sornson
> Gore doesn't claim to base his views on his own research.
No, he just lies repeatedly:
sam booka
You haven't been paying attention Doc. The so-called scientists are
disgraced by fraud and pathetic attempts to cover their tracks. The
only ones left with any credibility are the skeptics.
http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/damning-evidence-of-fraud-by-nils-axel-morner/
Come to think of it, you haven't been very skeptical.
landotter
> "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> tapped the mic and amongst other things, said, "Is this on?"news:-fWdnSGGqIFU8L3W...@supernews.com:
>
>
>
> > sam booka <Y...@email.com> wrote:
> >> flipper <flip...@fish.net> tapped the mic and amongst other things,
> >> said, "Is this on?"news:41ruh5do4sdr5v2ip...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>> Someone has to pay for the changes to energy production which are
> >>>> needed to keep a nice cool world. Everyone wants money for 1,001
> >>>> things and my guess is that most ppl in the world will spend for the
> >>>> short term betterment rather than for the betterment of their grand
> >>>> children. Why would a species spend on the welfare of its yet-to-be-
> >>>> borns when live members have had to fund all their lives without
> >>>> inheritance? Why would a species spend on un-borns when they know
> >>>> half of them will turn out into porn watching drug addicts?
>
> >>>> We can all be so loving towards the rest of mankind, but like so
> >>>> many marriages that begin with such hope and potential, the end
> >>>> result is an ugly argument about money.
>
> >>>> Patrick Turner.
>
> >>> I see no sane reason to 'pay' for a fabricated 'crisis' fantasy and
> >>> you stomping around in ashes and sackcloth wailing "the end is near,
> >>> sinner repent" isn't a compelling argument no matter how loud, or
> >>> often, you scream it.
>
> >> The dumazzes still don't get it that they've been disgraced and
> >> banished to the dogma house. Now I see they are trying to deflect to
> >> the sea level rising fraud, long debunked by the late great John L.
> >> Daly, although all the raw data is still up on his site,
> >>www.john-daly.com. In particular, it is this damning article,
> >> wide to expose their double down on stupid while the caviar, jets,
> >> limos, and hookers are still hot
>
> > Oh sure, a fucking sailor says it ain't so, so screw all the scientists.
>
> You haven't been paying attention Doc. The so-called scientists are
> disgraced by fraud and pathetic attempts to cover their tracks.
There is no evidence of fraud, nor is there evidence of a coverup. You
are lying.
>The
> only ones left with any credibility are the skeptics.
Credibility? You gain credibility if you have evidence. It's not a
place you default to because you think someone else stepped over the
service line.
>
> http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/damning-evidence-of-fraud-by-...
>
> Come to think of it, you haven't been very skeptical.
No evidence there. But do tell me why you lunatics can't link to a
single reputable source that agrees with you? Wankers who submit to
blogspot from their "shacky" one man institutes in the rockies don't
count.
This is the exact sort of "gotcha" bullshit we have to endure from
glazed-eye creationists who point at every gap in the fossil record as
proof that Spider Man created the universe.
:sigh:
Enjoy the cock of Exxon. Don't forget to lube up occasionally.
landotter
[moronsnip]
> http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/
[moronsnip]
Roy Spencer is a proponent of "intelligent design"--the crackpotiest
of crackpot "theories". Really--what more needs to be said other than,
fuck off you ignorant dooshnoozle?
Every single reputable scientific body vs. ... a young Earth
creationist.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Peter Cole
> I see no sane reason to 'pay' for a fabricated 'crisis' fantasy and
> you stomping around in ashes and sackcloth wailing "the end is near,
> sinner repent" isn't a compelling argument no matter how loud, or
> often, you scream it.
Just curious -- such skepticism must have roots. Has there yet been a
major "environmental" movement that proved to be over-hyped hysteria?
Conservatives often cite ozone and DDT, but researching those, I haven't
seen anything to support the claim that those hazards were overestimated.
Personally, I'd find it heartwarming that Americans were actually too
"green". I'd love to hear the argument.
Stephen Cowell
"Peter Cole" <peter...@verizon.net> wrote
> flipper wrote:
>
>> I see no sane reason to 'pay' for a fabricated 'crisis' fantasy and
>> you stomping around in ashes and sackcloth wailing "the end is near,
>> sinner repent" isn't a compelling argument no matter how loud, or
>> often, you scream it.
>
> Just curious -- such skepticism must have roots. Has there yet been a
> major "environmental" movement that proved to be over-hyped hysteria?
> Conservatives often cite ozone and DDT, but researching those, I haven't
> seen anything to support the claim that those hazards were overestimated.
Strictly speaking, 'Silent Spring' was a little over the top...
as close as I can come, sorry.
__
Steve
.
landotter
I think the crux of the issue is the ability to change one's mind
given evidence. DDT, for example, is certainly a bad substance when
used willy nilly, but it's a lifesaver when used to treat mosquito
nets and residential structures in malaria stricken regions.
sam booka
said, "Is this on?" news:0e77fc98-1027-4960-906b-e38d5cdae982
@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>>The
>> only ones left with any credibility are the skeptics.
>
> Credibility? You gain credibility if you have evidence. It's not a
> place you default to because you think someone else stepped over the
> service line.
When you collect evidence not even accurate to a meter, then use it to
support your millimeter level hypothesis, then get caught in not just one
lie but a series of lies and cover-ups over it, that isn't supposed to
make any reasonable man, regardless of their location, skeptical?
sam booka
said, "Is this on?" news:86464bc1-d43d-4aac-a262-
079014...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 10, 9:34�am, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> [moronsnip]
>> http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/
> [moronsnip]
>
> Roy Spencer is a proponent of "intelligent design"--the crackpotiest
> of crackpot "theories". Really--what more needs to be said other than,
> fuck off you ignorant dooshnoozle?
>
> Every single reputable scientific body
... that got caught cheating and has now lost all credibility...
vs. ... a young Earth
> creationist.
>
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Perhaps you should get his Ph.D. revoked then, although it is clear that
you are nutz. Let me know how that goes for you...
In the meantime, astrophysicists are predicting Global Warming up until
2040 from our present state of cooling for 10 years (when the recently
discovered fraudulently manipulated and poorly collected data is
chucked.) Their methods appear to stand up to peer review, as do Dr. Roy
Spencer's. Unfortunately, after that they appear to say it will cool off
again, based on tracking the prime climate driver, solar activity cycles.
Better go debunk them too. Good luck because it looks like their methods
fit backwards for hundreds of millenia.
landotter
> landotter <landot...@gmail.com> tapped the mic and amongst other things,
> said, "Is this on?" news:86464bc1-d43d-4aac-a262-
>
> > On Dec 10, 9:34 am, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> > [moronsnip]
> >>http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/
> > [moronsnip]
>
> > Roy Spencer is a proponent of "intelligent design"--the crackpotiest
> > of crackpot "theories". Really--what more needs to be said other than,
> > fuck off you ignorant dooshnoozle?
>
> > Every single reputable scientific body
>
> ... that got caught cheating and has now lost all credibility...
>
> vs. ... a young Earth
>
> > creationist.
>
> > Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
>
> Perhaps you should get his Ph.D. revoked then, although it is clear that
> you are nutz. Let me know how that goes for you...
>
> In the meantime, astrophysicists are predicting Global Warming up until
> 2040 from our present state of cooling for 10 years (when the recently
> discovered fraudulently manipulated and poorly collected data is
> chucked.) Their methods appear to stand up to peer review, as do Dr. Roy
> Spencer's.
No they don't stand up to peer review. You are lying.
>Unfortunately, after that they appear to say it will cool off
> again, based on tracking the prime climate driver, solar activity cycles.
Which scientific bodies say this? The Young Earth Creation
Dooshbaggery Union?
> Better go debunk them too. Good luck because it looks like their methods
> fit backwards for hundreds of millenia.
If a crackpot theory isn't good enough for any legitimate scientific
organization to recognize, then I'll take a pass. However--you seem so
desperate for evidence for a politically formed opinion that you'll
listen to fucking flat earth creationists.
landotter
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:46:52 -0800 (PST), landotter
>
> <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 10, 9:34 am, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> >[moronsnip]
> >>http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/
> >[moronsnip]
>
> >Roy Spencer is a proponent of "intelligent design"--the crackpotiest
> >of crackpot "theories". Really--what more needs to be said other than,
> >fuck off you ignorant dooshnoozle?
>
> the other.
No they are extremely relevant. He denies evidence in order to embrace
a religious POV with no evidence. Religion is not immune from
criticism.
If he thought Spiderman was living in his pants--would you give him a
pass?
> Or are you suggesting we discard everything Einstein did
> because some claim he was 'wrong' about Quantum Mechanics, or because
> he uttered the word God and said ""Science without religion is lame,
> religion without science is blind."
Typical wingnut misuse of Einstein, who did not believe in a personal
god of any sort.
Tell me--which scientific facts did Einstein discard in lieu of
theological assumption?
>
> >Every single reputable scientific body
>
> The ones falsifying the data or the ones duped into using it?
>
> > vs. ... a young Earth
> >creationist.
>
> Keep the faith, baby. You're more of a religious zealot than any of
> those you curse at. But a good example of how AGW zealots will use
> anything to avoid a discussion of science.
Which scientific organizations agree with your point of view? You guys
keep omitting this. How many times do I have to ask? A mouthbreathing
evolution denier is just not enough.
Arlowe
> On Dec 10, 10:52ï¿œam, sam booka <Y...@email.com> wrote:
>> landotter <landot...@gmail.com> tapped the mic and amongst other things,
>> said, "Is this on?" news:86464bc1-d43d-4aac-a262-
>> 079014060...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Dec 10, 9:34 am, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
>>> [moronsnip]
>>>> http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/
>>> [moronsnip]
>>
>>> Roy Spencer is a proponent of "intelligent design"--the crackpotiest
>>> of crackpot "theories". Really--what more needs to be said other than,
>>> fuck off you ignorant dooshnoozle?
>>
>>> Every single reputable scientific body
>>
>> ... that got caught cheating and has now lost all credibility...
>>
>>
>>> creationist.
>>
>>> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
>>
>> Perhaps you should get his Ph.D. revoked then, although it is clear that
>> you are nutz. Let me know how that goes for you...
>>
>> In the meantime, astrophysicists are predicting Global Warming up until
>> 2040 from our present state of cooling for 10 years (when the recently
>> discovered fraudulently manipulated and poorly collected data is
>> chucked.) Their methods appear to stand up to peer review, as do Dr. Roy
>> Spencer's.
>
> No they don't stand up to peer review. You are lying.
>
>> Unfortunately, after that they appear to say it will cool off
>> again, based on tracking the prime climate driver, solar activity cycles.
>
> Which scientific bodies say this? The Young Earth Creation
> Dooshbaggery Union?
>
>> Better go debunk them too. Good luck because it looks like their methods
>> fit backwards for hundreds of millenia.
>
> If a crackpot theory isn't good enough for any legitimate scientific
> organization to recognize, then I'll take a pass. However--you seem so
> desperate for evidence for a politically formed opinion that you'll
> listen to fucking flat earth creationists.
jeezus, where do I start...
Ok, about peer review....
how can anyone accept the concept of peer review when it is stated in
the "East Anglia"emails that there were attempts to discredit
contradictory science via the peer review process?
Any time there is data that does not match the official land
temperature data it is dismissed, or massaged away. like the way
satellite readings of temperature have been changed to match the
official land temperature, however they still can not explain why the
lower atmosphere temperature readings don't reflect their estimates
based on the "official land temperatures".
When tree ring data didn't support their theory what did they do? the
ommited the data that didn't match.
They never considered the problem may lie in the way they collect real
temperaure data. Why? because they could control that, they could make
it appear to support their theory.
landotter
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:28:10 -0800 (PST), landotter <landot...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Tell me--which scientific facts did Einstein discard in lieu of
> >theological assumption?
>
> that "God does not play dice".
Fail.
Einstein is one of the founding fathers of QM.
Chalo
>
> sam booka wrote:
>
> > RichL wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh sure, a fucking sailor says it ain't so, so screw all the scientists.
> >
> > You haven't been paying attention Doc. The so-called scientists are
> > disgraced by fraud and pathetic attempts to cover their tracks.
>
> There is no evidence of fraud, nor is there evidence of a coverup. You
> are lying.
>
> >The
> > only ones left with any credibility are the skeptics.
>
> Credibility? You gain credibility if you have evidence. It's not a
> place you default to because you think someone else stepped over the
> service line.
>
> >http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/damning-evidence-of-fraud-by-...
> >
> > Come to think of it, you haven't been very skeptical.
>
> No evidence there. But do tell me why you lunatics can't link to a
> single reputable source that agrees with you? Wankers who submit to
> blogspot from their "shacky" one man institutes in the rockies don't
> count.
>
> This is the exact sort of "gotcha" bullshit we have to endure from
> glazed-eye creationists who point at every gap in the fossil record as
> proof that Spider Man created the universe.
>
> :sigh:
>
> Enjoy the cock of Exxon. Don't forget to lube up occasionally.
Exxon makes lube. You might have to accept some chlorinated oils with
that. But what's a little cancer between friends?
It is pretty amazing that when there's a suggestion that someone in
the scientific community has done what what the trumped-up "opposing
viewpoint" has been doing all the time, from its inception, to the
exclusion of *any* legitimate information gathering or scientific
analysis, these monkeys start shrieking and flinging shit like their
lives depend on it.
I still have a very hard time seeing the downside of conserving the
fossil fuels we have left, and developing sustainable new energy
technologies. Of course, I'm not on the board of directors of an oil
company, looking at the stock options potential of a series of major
supply crises that will recur for as long as the industrial world
remains stuck on dirty energy.
Chalo
landotter
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:34:30 -0600, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> >In the first place, whether someone else does, or does not, have 'the
> >right answer' has no bearing on your pet conjecture. Or, put another
> >way, ignorance of the 'correct answer' does not mean the one you
> >dreamed up is correct. Case in point: earth as the center of the
> >universe surrounded by crystal spheres was not only 'the consensus'
> >for hundreds of years but it actually *worked*. You could predict the
> >future position of the known heavenly bodies and, by golly, that's
> >where they'd be.
>
> >A perfectly good theory... except for being completely wrong.
>
> Or a more recent example. The scientific consensus around 1900 was that
> although atoms seemed to work as a theoretical model of matter, they
> couldn't possibly be real.
That would be a lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#Origin_of_scientific_theory
Chalo
When my mom was a kid in East Texas, the DDT truck would come down the
street, spraying as it went, to exterminate the insect life in
roadside ditches. The kids rode along behind on their bicycles,
enjoying the cool mist and bug-free zone.
That's where these folk's heads are at. That's how they used the
stuff, when it was possible for them to use it.
You'll notice that anti-environmentalists' compassion for the poor
malaria-stricken people of the world does not extend so far as to
develop and use mosquito-specific biological countermeasures,
effective but environmentally non-persistent alternatives to DDT, or
anything like that. They just like to whine about environmentalists
choosing birds, fish, and cats over cancer, extinctions, diabetes, and
DDT-resistant skeeters.
Chalo
Bill Sornson
> landotter <land...@gmail.com> tapped the mic and amongst other
> things, said, "Is this on?" news:0e77fc98-1027-4960-906b-e38d5cdae982
> @d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> The
>>> only ones left with any credibility are the skeptics.
>>
>> Credibility? You gain credibility if you have evidence. It's not a
>> place you default to because you think someone else stepped over the
>> service line.
>
> When you collect evidence not even accurate to a meter, then use it to
> support your millimeter level hypothesis, then get caught in not just
> one lie but a series of lies and cover-ups over it, that isn't
> supposed to make any reasonable man, regardless of their location,
> skeptical?
Bzzt. "Reasonable" is out the window with GroundRat and the rest of his GWA
fundies.
HTH
Andre Jute
> flipper wrote:
> > I see no sane reason to 'pay' for a fabricated 'crisis' fantasy and
> > you stomping around in ashes and sackcloth wailing "the end is near,
> > sinner repent" isn't a compelling argument no matter how loud, or
> > often, you scream it.
>
> Just curious -- such skepticism must have roots. Has there yet been a
> major "environmental" movement that proved to be over-hyped hysteria?
> Conservatives often cite ozone and DDT, but researching those, I haven't
> seen anything to support the claim that those hazards were overestimated.
DDT was banned on the hysterically hyped claim that it caused cancer.
Not a single case of DDT-caused cancer was ever reported. The banning
of DDT killed hundreds of millions of the poorest and most defenseless
people on earth miserably by starvation and malaria. Rachel Carson,
far from being a saint as the green movement pretends, was the brains
behind a genocide. Those who marched for the banning of DDT committed
a bigger genocide than Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Ho Chi Min and Pol Pot
together.
I've explained all this to you, Colesy, and I remember your
disgustingly smug reply to the effect, "Oh, we now permit them limited
use of DDT," as if their lives are up to you to permit or dispose of.
It's that sort of callousness that makes the American left into such
very, very Ugly Americans.
> Personally, I'd find it heartwarming that Americans were actually too
> "green". I'd love to hear the argument.
Yup, to American greens, a few eagles are worth 220 million human
lives. Of course, the same greenies are all loudly anti-war. Figures.
Much cooler and less dangerous to your own precious skins to kill poor
people by starvation, eh, Colesy?
With utmost contempt,
Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes
Andre Jute
<stephenleeNOSPAMcow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Peter Cole" <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote
You must be a very nice guy to be so mild, Steve. "Silent Spring" was
the motivator of a monstrous genocide by the banning of DDT that
continues to this day. Rachel Carson was the figurehead of gross and
disgusting genocide.
Andre Jute
Let's call the thing by its name
Michael Press
Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:43:10 -0500, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Gore doesn't claim to base his views on his own research.
>
> Of course not. He bases it on the solid majority of scientists who believe
> the temperature of the interior of the earth is several million degrees.
Are you say it's not?
--
Michael Press
Andre Jute
First I'll let Chalo have his say, then I'll demonstrate that every
sentence contains at least one lie:
> It is pretty amazing that when there's a suggestion that someone in
> the scientific community has done what what the trumped-up "opposing
> viewpoint" has been doing all the time, from its inception, to the
> exclusion of *any* legitimate information gathering or scientific
> analysis, these monkeys start shrieking and flinging shit like their
> lives depend on it.
Okay, here it is again, this time with analysis and commentary:
> It is pretty amazing that when there's a suggestion
Climategate isn't a "suggestion", it is a *confession* of scientific
and criminal wrongdoing by an entire branch of a science,
paleoclimatogoly for two decades.
>that someone in
> the scientific community has done
We're not talking about some obscure lab assistant, we're not even
talking about a leading scientist in an obscure branch of a forgotten
science, we are talking about the "scientists" on whose word we're
asked to spend trillions, possibly to wreck our planet for ever. And
now we decide they have consistently, for decades, conspired to lie to
us and to suppress the truth.
What you and the other global warming faithful seem unable to grasp,
Chalo, is that without the disappearance of the Medieval Warm Period
and the Little Ice Age by these lying paleoclimatologists, there is no
global warming, because those historical events are proof that nothing
abnormal has happened or is happening in our time. The lies of those
men are the key to global warming.
>what what the trumped-up "opposing
> viewpoint"
Nothing "trumped-up" about the skeptics. They merely demand what is
our right in every science -- science rather than politics and lies.
>has been doing all the time, from its inception,
Prove that the skeptics lied even once, invented data even once,
suppressed the truth even once, conspired to cover up each other's
crimes even once. Those are the crimes Climategate proves in their own
confessions in their own words that the scum who are the leaders of
paleoclimatology committed constantly, persistently, and over such a
long time that their crimes became so natural that, even as they
criminally deleted the original data and discussions, they left the
incriminating e-mails stand!
> to the
> exclusion of *any* legitimate information gathering or scientific
> analysis,
The skeptics don't have to prove anything. It is up to the proposers
of the hypothesis that there is global warming and that it is caused
by manmade CO2 to produce proof of both the event and the connection.
>these monkeys start shrieking and flinging shit like their
> lives depend on it.
Once more, we've known all along that these paleoclimatologists who
confessed in the Climategate Papers were crooked, because they lied
about a historically and scientifically well proven events. Once more,
the theory of manmade global warming stands like an upside down
pyramid on the unstable point of the hockey stick. When the hockey
stick is exposed as a fraud, and a confessed fraud, there is no proof
of global warming, and if there is no event, there is no need to
scapegoat CO2 (or even to look for the real cause).
> I still have a very hard time seeing the downside of conserving the
> fossil fuels we have left,
Sure, we shouldn't waste. But that is no reason to scapegoat CO2, nor
to wreck the world economy with measures that won't reduce carbon
emissions enough even to be measurable in the atmosphere. What sort of
crap policy is this? I'll tell you, it is hysteria in action, nothing
to do with science.
>and developing sustainable new energy
> technologies.
I'm not too keen on windfarms sliding down hills and causing many
acres of soil erosion, as one lot did in Ireland only a few years
back. The only alternative source is nuclear energy, and that has not
only its own problems but a lot of stiction in the political system,
in part because the greenies delight in screeching that someone should
do something while simultaneously denying him the means of acting.
>Of course, I'm not on the board of directors of an oil
> company,
You probably could be for asking. You could be their "show"-greenie.
>looking at the stock options potential of a series of major
> supply crises that will recur for as long as the industrial world
> remains stuck on dirty energy.
Those crises are manmade by the same methods the global warmies use to
create their own hysterical panics. There is absolutely no shortage of
fossil fuel at any possible (never mind likely) rate of growth for
further into the future than the industrial revolution is behind us.
In any event, your argument appears to come down to, So these
paleoclimatologists lied, so what, we'll just believe in global
warming regardless of whether there is any science to support it. Of
course, that's basically been the IPCC position since the hockey stick
and its creator were completely discredited by about 2003.
Andre Jute
“We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” -- Jonathan Overpeck,
climate "scientist", IPCC writer
Andre Jute
>
> When my mom was a kid in East Texas, the DDT truck would come down the
> street, spraying as it went, to exterminate the insect life in
> roadside ditches. The kids rode along behind on their bicycles,
> enjoying the cool mist and bug-free zone.
And what? Nobody ever got cancer from DDT.
> That's where these folk's heads are at. That's how they used the
> stuff, when it was possible for them to use it.
So what, Chalo? You're still labouring under the old myth that DDT
caused cancer. Not a single case was ever proven.
> You'll notice that anti-environmentalists' compassion for the poor
> malaria-stricken people of the world does not extend so far as to
> develop and use mosquito-specific biological countermeasures,
> effective but environmentally non-persistent alternatives to DDT, or
> anything like that.
Wow! The people who pressurized politicans into banning DDT committed
a monstrous genocide, but now they want to blame those who predicted
their crime for not, somehow, by magic perhaps, having saved all those
poor wretches that the DDT-banners were killing by starvation and
malaria, hundreds of millions of them over the intervening decades.
>They just like to whine about environmentalists
> choosing birds, fish, and cats over cancer, extinctions, diabetes, and
> DDT-resistant skeeters.
Prove a single instance of cancer, a single instance of diabetes, a
single extinction caused by diabetes. As for bugs building up
resistance, so what, it happens, then you alter the formula and they
die again. That's about the stupidest argument I've ever heard, the
equivalent of saying we should stop all work on pesticides because
bugs will develop immunity. Yo, pal, you might get out in nature a
little more often and discover that bugs have already developed
immunity to a whole lot of natural poisons, and countermeasures to
predators -- it is called evolution, and it is what will eventually
evolve man out of existence.
The big irony is that DDT wasn't even banned for green reasons, it was
explicit among the leaders of the campaign that it was a test case to
demonstrate their political muscle. Their little demonstration has so
far cost about 220 million lives, and anybody who today supports the
continued banning of DDT is complicit in that continuing genocide.
Andre Jute
Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live -- Mark Twain
Bill Sornson
Huh?
AMuzi
>>> Tell me--which scientific facts did Einstein discard in lieu of
>>> theological assumption?
> Spender <Spen...@Mars.org> wrote:
>> Einstein pretty much discounted quantum mechanics in whole on the grounds
>> that "God does not play dice".
landotter wrote:
> Fail.
> Einstein is one of the founding fathers of QM.
Oh that horse is dead. Stop beating it.
We've all read myriad Einstein comments about his god.
Whatever your or my opinion, Einstein believed.
Let's move on.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
AMuzi
I also rode behind the DDT trucks in summers long past.
You're off on some argument I can't follow but we have
precious little malaria here, much due to DDT. Which we deny
to people who suffer.
And that suffering is not merely agony and death.
Productivity in the malarial countries drops precipitously
as it is a chronic debilitation, dooming large areas to poverty.
RichL
AMuzi
Anyone who has plodded through her 'Silent Spring' and 'Edge
of the Sea' has suffered too. Total waste of time.
AMuzi
>>>> Gore doesn't claim to base his views on his own research.
>> Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
>>> Of course not. He bases it on the solid majority of scientists who believe
>>> the temperature of the interior of the earth is several million degrees.
> Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Are you say it's not?
Spender wrote:
> Are you say it is?
Hey guys this is a knowable thing:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=earth%27s+core+temperature
Andre Jute
I don't suppose anything measures up against the genocidal death toll
caused by the banning of DDT, but the banning of DDT was one of the
most gross racist acts ever performed by the left. And "manmade global
warming" is another grossly racist act of the left.
But then again, the left has neither sense of humour nor shame. What
is a few hundred million more condemned to poverty and disease in the
wake of the 220,000,000, mainly women and children, they've already
killed by banning DDT.
Andre Jute
Never more brutal than he has to be -- Nelson Mandela
RickH
>
> - Show quoted text -
Me too. All things in moderation they say, what doesnt kill you just
makes you stronger. I used to collect mercury as a kid, all the aunts
an uncles would be sure to save their old thermometers and thermostats
so I could harvest the mercury, I had about a quart of it in a jar. I
had lead soldiers too, left to me when grandpa died, I had the molds
and melting pot, used to melt lead pipe and make soldiers. I'm
perfectly healthy at 54 and can keep up with a 20 year old at the gym.
The banning of DDT is one of the great tragedies of our time, malaria
is a horrably crippling infection with multiple amputations often
being the only recourse to extending life. Makes aids look like a
summer cold.
Tom Sherman °_°
>>> landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Tell me--which scientific facts did Einstein discard in lieu of
>>>> theological assumption?
>
>> Spender <Spen...@Mars.org> wrote:
>>> Einstein pretty much discounted quantum mechanics in whole on the
>>> grounds
>>> that "God does not play dice".
>
> landotter wrote:
>> Fail.
>> Einstein is one of the founding fathers of QM.
>
>
> Oh that horse is dead. Stop beating it.
> We've all read myriad Einstein comments about his god.
> Whatever your or my opinion, Einstein believed.
> Let's move on.
>
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Peter Cole
> I've explained all this to you, Colesy, and I remember your
> disgustingly smug reply to the effect, "Oh, we now permit them limited
> use of DDT," as if their lives are up to you to permit or dispose of.
> It's that sort of callousness that makes the American left into such
> very, very Ugly Americans.
We've been all over this before. You're wrong.
Peter Cole
> "Peter Cole" <peter...@verizon.net> wrote
>> flipper wrote:
>>
>>> I see no sane reason to 'pay' for a fabricated 'crisis' fantasy and
>>> you stomping around in ashes and sackcloth wailing "the end is near,
>>> sinner repent" isn't a compelling argument no matter how loud, or
>>> often, you scream it.
>> Just curious -- such skepticism must have roots. Has there yet been a
>> major "environmental" movement that proved to be over-hyped hysteria?
>> Conservatives often cite ozone and DDT, but researching those, I haven't
>> seen anything to support the claim that those hazards were overestimated.
>
> as close as I can come, sorry.
> __
> Steve
>
>
I've reread parts of it, and given that it's 45 years old or so, I think
it holds up very well.
Chalo
>
> You're still labouring under the old myth that DDT
> caused cancer. Not a single case was ever proven.
The same can be claimed for dioxins. People get cancer, they die--
who's to say what caused it? Correlation between exposure levels and
cancer rates proves nothing. It doesn't matter that most
organochlorides feature the same statistical anomaly in this regard.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it, says the intransigent
polluter.
Chalo
Don Pearce
>>> landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Tell me--which scientific facts did Einstein discard in lieu of
>>>> theological assumption?
>
>> Spender <Spen...@Mars.org> wrote:
>>> Einstein pretty much discounted quantum mechanics in whole on the grounds
>>> that "God does not play dice".
>
>landotter wrote:
>> Fail.
>> Einstein is one of the founding fathers of QM.
>
>
>Oh that horse is dead. Stop beating it.
>We've all read myriad Einstein comments about his god.
>Whatever your or my opinion, Einstein believed.
>Let's move on.
He laid all this crap to rest once and for all:
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but
have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)
d
sam booka
said, "Is this on?" news:a7588fb5-04e7-4a08-8f44-a26c10e676a0
@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> Those crises are manmade by the same methods the global warmies use to
> create their own hysterical panics. There is absolutely no shortage of
> fossil fuel at any possible (never mind likely) rate of growth for
> further into the future than the industrial revolution is behind us.
>
> In any event, your argument appears to come down to, So these
> paleoclimatologists lied, so what, we'll just believe in global
> warming regardless of whether there is any science to support it. Of
> course, that's basically been the IPCC position since the hockey stick
> and its creator were completely discredited by about 2003.
>
> Andre Jute
> "We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." -- Jonathan Overpeck,
> climate "scientist", IPCC writer
>
They're caught green handed in a lie, apparently with the motive of
extorting money from developed nations. Since it is the largest extortion
and fraud in history, they should do the largest amount of jail time in
history, spread out amongst their collaborators and apologists. Madoff
got 150 years for 50 billion... How much time will be spread out for
their trillions at 3,000 years per trillion?
The other alternative is of course World War, which as history has
proven, always seems to be the end game of democ'RAT cash shuffling
shenanigans. Of course, it turns them more profit too, and the world
continues to turn in their death grip of hellish socialist greed.
--
All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise,
not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not
from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance
of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation,
John Adams
sam booka
said, "Is this on?" news:4b21...@news.x-privat.org:
Ground'RAT... Now that's fzckin' hilarious. :p
andre...@aol.com
> "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> tapped the mic and amongst other things, said, "Is this on?"news:-fWdnSGGqIFU8L3W...@supernews.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > sam booka <Y...@email.com> wrote:
> >> flipper <flip...@fish.net> tapped the mic and amongst other things,
> >> said, "Is this on?"news:41ruh5do4sdr5v2ip...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>> Someone has to pay for the changes to energy production which are
> >>>> needed to keep a nice cool world. Everyone wants money for 1,001
> >>>> things and my guess is that most ppl in the world will spend for the
> >>>> short term betterment rather than for the betterment of their grand
> >>>> children. Why would a species spend on the welfare of its yet-to-be-
> >>>> borns when live members have had to fund all their lives without
> >>>> inheritance? Why would a species spend on un-borns when they know
> >>>> half of them will turn out into porn watching drug addicts?
>
> >>>> We can all be so loving towards the rest of mankind, but like so
> >>>> many marriages that begin with such hope and potential, the end
> >>>> result is an ugly argument about money.
>
> >>>> Patrick Turner.
>
> >>> I see no sane reason to 'pay' for a fabricated 'crisis' fantasy and
> >>> you stomping around in ashes and sackcloth wailing "the end is near,
> >>> sinner repent" isn't a compelling argument no matter how loud, or
> >>> often, you scream it.
>
> >> banished to the dogma house. Now I see they are trying to deflect to
> >> the sea level rising fraud, long debunked by the late great John L.
> >> Daly, although all the raw data is still up on his site,
> >>www.john-daly.com. In particular, it is this damning article,
> >>http://www.john-daly.com/altimetry/topex.htmso spread it far and
> >> wide to expose their double down on stupid while the caviar, jets,
> >> limos, and hookers are still hot
>
> > Oh sure, a fucking sailor says it ain't so, so screw all the scientists.
>
> You haven't been paying attention Doc. The so-called scientists are
> only ones left with any credibility are the skeptics.
>
>
> Come to think of it, you haven't been very skeptical.
>
> All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise,
> not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not
> from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance
> of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation,
> John Adams
A handful of scientist got caught doing dishonest stuff and some
people are condemning the entire scientific community and using this
against global warming research. A few years ago some scientists got
caught covering up data when submitting an article to JAMA about the
effects of some drugs. Of course nobody said that all scientists and
all drugs were flawed, and the right wing pharma supporters did not
call for stopping all R&D funding to the pharmas. We didn't stop
taking drugs either because we are intelligent enough to figure out
that in every single community there are dishonest people but we don't
through the baby with the bath water. But now, because of a handful of
scientists, the right is ready to condemn all climatologists as
frauds. The Afrikaner spammer clown and a few others are following
suit in this group.
Lord Valve
ROFLMBFAO!
No, I'm saying the temperature in the center of Algore's
brain is probably much closer to room ambient than is
most folks'.
http://www.bikepainter.com/hopey-changey.jpg
Lord Valve
Cheerfully posted from the People's Republic of Obamastan
(Occupied United States of God Damn America)
BaaaaaarrrrrRRRRAAAACCCCCCKKK!! <Safety!!>
O ne
B ig
A ss
M istake,
A merica!
Don't forget to nark this fishy post to fl...@whitehouse.gov!
andre...@aol.com
> On Dec 10, 2:47 pm, Spender <Spen...@Mars.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:28:10 -0800 (PST), landotter <landot...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Tell me--which scientific facts did Einstein discard in lieu of
> > >theological assumption?
>
> > that "God does not play dice".
>
>
> Einstein is one of the founding fathers of QM.
Actually, Einstein died trying to disprove QM. He spend his life
coming up with thought experiments that would disprove Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle. Every one of his attempts failed. While
Einstein was part of the groups of physicists from the era of QM, he
didn't buy into the principles of it. Einstein was the founder of
relativity and special relativity. Plank is considered by many as the
founder. Heisenberg and Bohr are the main dudes.
While Einstein did not base any of his claims in theology even though
he made the famous statement about god and the dice. He did not
believe that QM was essentially indeterminable. He felt that the
interdeterminability of QM was a problem of lack of knowledge, and
that at some point, new knowledge would emerge showing that non
communting elements in QM would be determinable. He died in that quest
and as scientists keep on digging, the evidence keeps mounting that
electrons and other quantum particles are essentially indeterminate.
HIs last claim was a thought experiment called the ERP paradox that he
came up with two other scientists. Bohr refuted it the day after in a
flash of brillance. You guys can google it.
landotter
Ok--you do know why Einstein was brought up? As a smokescreen when I
pointed out that a wingnut source is an evolution denier. Trolls love
when you get sidetracked. My recollection of QM history might be a bit
fuzzy--but I do know better than to cite people who live in Alabaman
shacks and believe Jesus rode a dinosaur. ;-)
andre...@aol.com
W/o going down through all the posts, I figured that much out.
Einstein did not use religion to refute QM. He made his famous
statement as a metaphor for the fact that the laws of nature would not
be uncertain and depend on probability. He was essentially questioning
the ontological argument that the essence of things could not be
indeterminate or probabilistic. Unfortunately all the evidence
accumulated since then has proven him wrong and has open the debate
about the certainty of perception and determinacy of nature all the
way back to Zeno's paradoxes.
It is true that Einstein was one of the physicists in the center of
the debate about QM and a leading physicist. The irony of the whole
thing is that Niels Bohr was able to refute the EPR paradox using
Einstein's own relativity theory. It was both really simple,
incredibly cool and a flash of total ingeniousness how he did it.
Ben C
[...]
You mean he was putting forward that argument presumably?
> Unfortunately all the evidence accumulated since then has proven him
> wrong and has open the debate about the certainty of perception and
> determinacy of nature all the way back to Zeno's paradoxes.
It may still be that nature is deterministic, just that we don't know
yet what determines the result of a measurement of a quantum state. I
think this is called the "hidden variables" interpretation. We have no
evidence for any such hidden variables, but also none that they don't
exist.
The other difficulty Einstein had with it was the still unexplained
"spooky action at a distance"-- having just created a theory in which
nothing could travel faster than the speed of light.
But to this day these problems have not been resolved, so I think it's
too early to say anyone has been proved wrong. In a sense Einstein was
right in that QM appears not to be the final answer. We just haven't
figured out anything better yet.
Lord Valve
> It may still be that nature is deterministic, just that we don't know
> yet what determines the result of a measurement of a quantum state. I
> think this is called the "hidden variables" interpretation. We have no
> evidence for any such hidden variables, but also none that they don't
> exist.
Gee...that sounds kinda like God, don't it? ;-)
LV
sam booka
other things, said, "Is this on?" news:b422a941-2e47-4333-a2c8-
0112b1...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> A handful of scientist got caught doing dishonest stuff and some
> people are condemning the entire scientific community and using this
> against global warming research. A few years ago some scientists got
> caught covering up data when submitting an article to JAMA about the
> effects of some drugs. Of course nobody said that all scientists and
> all drugs were flawed, and the right wing pharma supporters did not
> call for stopping all R&D funding to the pharmas. We didn't stop
> taking drugs either because we are intelligent enough to figure out
> that in every single community there are dishonest people but we don't
> through the baby with the bath water. But now, because of a handful of
> scientists, the right is ready to condemn all climatologists as
> frauds. The Afrikaner spammer clown and a few others are following
> suit in this group.
>
Difference is that 1. The fraud wasn't as widespread and 2. It likely
wasn't for the purpose of ripping off trillions. Did the pharma guys
stonewall raw data requests and obstruct for 10 years? Did they buddy up
with every azzhole who would thump their tub to plump up their
credibility? Did they attack every single source of criticism, all of it
valid in retrospect? No. Only the clearly insane chicken little bleating
mo0nbat pseudoscientists did that, and now they are caught in a
trainwreck born of their narcissism, also bringing down their
narcissistic supply buddies.
sam booka
said, "Is this on?" news:b1283721-fab2-41c7-a458-e91977c1b655
@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> The big irony is that DDT wasn't even banned for green reasons, it was
> explicit among the leaders of the campaign that it was a test case to
> demonstrate their political muscle. Their little demonstration has so
> far cost about 220 million lives, and anybody who today supports the
> continued banning of DDT is complicit in that continuing genocide.
>
> Andre Jute
> Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live -- Mark Twain
>
Bingo! I wonder how much pseudoscience they relied on to hoodwink the
public in that debate?
sam booka
said, "Is this on?"
news:49c5i55nl6qnde2rg...@news.easynews.com:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:07:08 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>>>>> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Gore doesn't claim to base his views on his own research.
>>
>>>> Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
>>>>> Of course not. He bases it on the solid majority of scientists who
>>>>> believe the temperature of the interior of the earth is several
>>>>> million degrees.
>>
>>> Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Are you say it's not?
>>
>>Spender wrote:
>>> Are you say it is?
>>
>>
>>Hey guys this is a knowable thing:
>>http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=earth%27s+core+temperature
>
> It is at least a estimitable (if that's a word... hell, it is now)
> thing, with estimates ranging from 7,000� to 13,000� F.
Hell, he only missed by (several million)-10,000 or so. Yeah, Al Gore is
a regular fzckin' rocket surgeon alright... :p
Ben C
Subtly different, because you might expect to find evidence for these
hidden variables one day.
If you could construct a theory that made use of them then it might
imply an experiment you could design to detect them.
But I don't think anybody expects they will ever be able to design an
experiment to detect the presence of God. It's not an empirical question
at all. The debate is more about whether the idea makes sense at all.
If you did think you had detected God empirically, you would be best
advised to ask him what he needed with your starship and watch him
unravel from there.
Les Cargill
Hidden variables aren't part of the Copenhagen
interpretation. You don't need them, anyway -
uncertainties work out a lot like Shannon's
information theory, and indeed, the Nyquist and
Shannon Theorems are used in physics, especially
in large scale cosmology and how that interacts
with quantum effects - black holes, IOW.
You definitionally *cannot* prove the existence of God,
because that would simply then be nature and no longer
divine. Leads to a contradiction.
If you can find the old episode of Bill Buckleys' show with
the head of the Anglican church, he goes through all this
No, I don't know where to find it.
People used to understand that there wasn't a problem with
faith coexisting with reason. Then the 1960s happened.
--
Les Cargill
AMuzi
Which is fine. Belief is not knowledge but it's harmless, at
least until one starts lopping infidel heads. Such as mine.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Les Cargill
Um.... yeah they have.
1) Nature isn't very deterministic. Perfect determinism requires
error bars to be exactly zero; that's not the case. Noise exists,
and you can't negotiate it away. You can, however, move it around.
2) "Spooky action at a distance" is just a poorly formed
question. In fourspace "distance" does not mean what you think
it does...
> so I think it's
> too early to say anyone has been proved wrong. In a sense Einstein was
> right in that QM appears not to be the final answer. We just haven't
> figured out anything better yet.
If they figure it out, everybody has to get real jobs.
--
Les Cargill
RichL
"EPR" paradox (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen). And I don't believe it can
be fairly said that Bohr *successfully* refuted it.
The resolution of the paradox depends on what version of the
*interpretation* of QM that you subscribe to. It's still being actively
debated today.
It was a brilliant *gedanken* experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox#Implications_for_quantum_mechanics
RichL
Reality check....from someone who's on your side of the political fence,
I believe...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121003159.html
(Gerson was GWB's speechwriter...)
"Even if every question raised in these e-mails were conceded, the
cumulative case for global climate disruption would be strong. The
evidence is found not only in East Anglian computers but also in
changing crop zones, declining species, melting ice sheets and glaciers,
thinning sea ice and rising sea levels. No other scientific theory
explains these changes as well as global warming related to the rise in
greenhouse gas emissions since the Industrial Revolution. Over
millennia, the climate shifts in natural cycles. But we seem to be
increasing the pace of change so rapidly that plants, animals and humans
may not be able to adequately adjust."
Gerson goes on to address the *legitimate* issues of scientific ethics:
"But the hacked e-mails are not irrelevant. They reveal another sort of
warming -- an overheated academic world in which hard science melts into
politics."
To the degree that it can be shown that there was unethical behavior,
this is a serious issue and should be addressed, as it has begun to be
addressed in the case of Michael Mann at Penn State, and still needs to
be at East Anglia. But it does *not* discredit the entire enterprise of
global warming research, any more than andresmuro's example discredits
pharmaceutical research. If you think otherwise, you're living in a
fantasy universe.
Andre Jute
Climategate:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121003159.html
Mr Gerson makes some very fine points but he has missed the key
technical point. The problem with global warming is that it stands
like an upside down pyramid on the work of these men disgraced in
Climategate for lying about that every work. The problem is acute
because it is their work, and only their work, which by statistical
lies flattens the historically and interdisciplinarily absolutely
anchored Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age out of existence
so that the 1990s can look like an abnormally hot period. The moment
one understands that they have been lying all along -- and almost
everyone interested and capable of handling the statistics has known
for a decade that they were lying (though some tried to pretend that
Michael Mann was merely spectacularly incompetent rather than actively
malicious)-- the question arises, "But, if the earth was warmer for
five hundred years in the Middle Ages than it is now, and if there was
an intervening Ice Age from which we've not fully recovered, what is
this global warming fuss about?" All that is different now is the
criminals have had their confessions published in those Climategate e-
mails. The earth in our time is still cooler than it was for almost
half a millennium in the Middle Ages, when modern agriculture was
established. If there was no unnatural global warming -- and there
can't be, by simple comparison with the MWP, and hasn't been -- then
there is no reason to find a scapegoat in CO2. It follows that there
is no need for drastic, expensive action.
That is why those who understand what Climategate means onat the
overarching technical end of climate science say openly that global
warming is dead.
The more politically adept global warmies can feel the change in their
water. They have already given up even mentioning global warming; they
now talk about "sudden climate change, up or down". Eventually we'll
put that one down too, just another in the long line of entirely
unwarranted wannabe environment/climate/health panics.
You can bet your house, the coming ice age will be shouted by the same
people now screeching about global warming.
Andre Jute
"Loonies like Asher will continue to shout 'Global Warming' until
they suddenly start shouting 'Global Cooling' as if they'd done that
from the beginning." -- Tom Kunich
"Now's a good time for good ole Bill to switch." -- Andre Jute
Here Is RichL's full text:
On Dec 12, 12:41 am, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> sam booka <Y...@email.com> wrote:
> > "andresm...@aol.com" <andresm...@aol.com> tapped the mic and amongst
> > other things, said, "Is this on?" news:b422a941-2e47-4333-a2c8-
> > 0112b132d...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> A handful of scientist got caught doing dishonest stuff and some
> >> people are condemning the entire scientific community and using this
> >> against global warming research. A few years ago some scientists got
> >> caught covering up data when submitting an article to JAMA about the
> >> effects of some drugs. Of course nobody said that all scientists and
> >> all drugs were flawed, and the right wing pharma supporters did not
> >> call for stopping all R&D funding to the pharmas. We didn't stop
> >> taking drugs either because we are intelligent enough to figure out
> >> that in every single community there are dishonest people but we
> >> don't through the baby with the bath water. But now, because of a
> >> handful of scientists, the right is ready to condemn all
> >> climatologists as frauds. The Afrikaner spammer clown and a few
> >> others are following suit in this group.
>
> > Difference is that 1. The fraud wasn't as widespread and 2. It likely
> > wasn't for the purpose of ripping off trillions. Did the pharma guys
> > stonewall raw data requests and obstruct for 10 years? Did they buddy
> > up with every azzhole who would thump their tub to plump up their
> > credibility? Did they attack every single source of criticism, all of
> > it valid in retrospect? No. Only the clearly insane chicken little
> > bleating mo0nbat pseudoscientists did that, and now they are caught
> > in a trainwreck born of their narcissism, also bringing down their
> > narcissistic supply buddies.
>
> Reality check....from someone who's on your side of the political fence,
> I believe...
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR200...
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> tapped the mic and amongst other things,
> said, "Is this on?" news:b1283721-fab2-41c7-a458-e91977c1b655
> @x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > The big irony is that DDT wasn't even banned for green reasons, it was
> > explicit among the leaders of the campaign that it was a test case to
> > demonstrate their political muscle. Their little demonstration has so
> > far cost about 220 million lives, and anybody who today supports the
> > continued banning of DDT is complicit in that continuing genocide.
>
> > Andre Jute
> > Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live -- Mark Twain
>
> Bingo! I wonder how much pseudoscience they relied on to hoodwink the
> public in that debate?
Not only pseudoscience by the ton, papers in peer reviewed journals
now quietly forgotten because everyone knows they're politically
inspired lies, but the same bullying tactics of accusing anyone who
dissented from their hysteria of taking the pharmashilling,
intimidation of real scientists who asked for proof rather than
ideology, suppression of the truth (they knew there was not a single
case of cancer traceable to DDT, yet they claimed the 50,000 a year
were dying from DDT induced cancer), outright lies, etc. Same old same
old.
Second and third generation DDT banners cringe when I call them
genocides and bluster (as Chalo does) that he doesn't care if I have
all the statistics, he still believes DDT is carcinogenic or Cole who
cuts away my argument and whines, without even trying to counter my
facts, that I am "wrong" -- nope, Colesy, your sainted Rachel Carson
killed 220,000 of the most defenseless people on earth, mainly women
and children, by the misery-making weapon of avoidable starvation. The
arrogance of the scum who banned DDT is unbelievable, and so is the
arrogance of the people now defending that action on no better ground
than that they want DDT banned and don't care who dies as a result.
Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar
Andre Jute
I heard the voice from the burning bush but, even to me, it sounded
like me. Damn, gotta work on myt ventriloquist projection. Definitely
a hidden variable at work... -- Andre Jute
Andre Jute
> The Afrikaner spammer clown
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > You're still labouring under the old myth that DDT
> > caused cancer. Not a single case was ever proven.
>
> The same can be claimed for dioxins. People get cancer, they die--
> who's to say what caused it? Correlation between exposure levels and
> cancer rates proves nothing.
I keep saying to you, Chalo, that I have no problem if you want to
believe as a religious imperative in smoking potatos and eating boiled
tobacco leaves. The problem arises when you, who clearly from what you
say on other subjects *knows better*, on global warming reject science
and even truth in your compulsion to find Man and CO2 guilty of
something, anything. And now, on DDT, when you have no answers to my
accusation that the banning of DDT resulted in a monstrous genocide
caused by environmental arrogance fronted by Rachel Carson, you come
out with this crap about proof not mattering.
> It doesn't matter that most
> organochlorides feature the same statistical anomaly in this regard.
That's a marxist dialectic trick, declaring any data that refuses to
fit the preconception to be an "anomaly". It's never the theory of
ideologues that is wrong, always the data or the people who refuse to
conform to social engineering.
> That's my story and I'm sticking to it, says the intransigent
> polluter.
At least you're only polluting the truth here.
Andre Jute
The IPCC -- longest hand job in the history of mass hysteria -- has
now lasted twice as long as the Third Reich
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > I've explained all this to you, Colesy, and I remember your
> > disgustingly smug reply to the effect, "Oh, we now permit them limited
> > use of DDT," as if their lives are up to you to permit or dispose of.
> > It's that sort of callousness that makes the American left into such
> > very, very Ugly Americans.
>
> We've been all over this before. You're wrong.
Cole cuts away my argument and whines, without even trying to counter
my facts, that I am "wrong" -- nope, Colesy, your sainted Rachel
Carson killed 220,000 of the most defenseless people on earth, mainly
women and children, by the misery of avoidable starvation. The
arrogance of the scum who banned DDT is unbelievable, and so is the
arrogance of the people now defending that action on no better ground
than that they want DDT banned and don't care how many hundreds of
millions die as a result.
Need I say that I despise the lot of you?
Andre Jute
The iron law of unintended effect will whiplash the thoughtless and
the arrogant
RichL
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:59:32 -0800 (PST), "andre...@aol.com"
> <andre...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually, Einstein died trying to disprove QM. He spend his life
>> coming up with thought experiments that would disprove Heisenberg's
>> uncertainty principle. Every one of his attempts failed. While
>> Einstein was part of the groups of physicists from the era of QM, he
>> didn't buy into the principles of it. Einstein was the founder of
>> relativity and special relativity. Plank is considered by many as the
>> founder. Heisenberg and Bohr are the main dudes.
>>
>> While Einstein did not base any of his claims in theology even though
>> he made the famous statement about god and the dice. He did not
>> believe that QM was essentially indeterminable. He felt that the
>> interdeterminability of QM was a problem of lack of knowledge, and
>> that at some point, new knowledge would emerge showing that non
>> communting elements in QM would be determinable. He died in that
>> quest and as scientists keep on digging, the evidence keeps mounting
>> that electrons and other quantum particles are essentially
>> indeterminate.
>>
>> HIs last claim was a thought experiment called the ERP paradox that
>> he came up with two other scientists. Bohr refuted it the day after
>> in a flash of brillance. You guys can google it.
>
"Loose one"? QM is one of the most successful theories in modern
physics. Ability to predict the results of experiments in some cases to
precisions of one part in 10^12 and higher is hardly what I'd call
"loose".
The problem with QM (if there even is one) isn't the theory itself, it's
with the *interpretation* (read: attempts to relate it to intuitive,
every-day phenomena). It is attempts to extrapolate those phenomena
beyond their established domains of validity that leads to apparent
conflicts.
> We
> can't seem to predict where particles will be, but that doesn't mean
> that they aren't predictable. We also have the issue of small vs.
> large objects.
That is the essence; we expect that small objects should behave as large
ones and that we should be able to acquire as much information about
small objects as we do large ones.
> Clearly the theory of relativity seems to be holding
> for large objects
The theory of relativity holds for small objects as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
Those little buggers can't go faster than the speed of light, either!
> and logically there's some mathematical progression
> to smaller objects and hopefully a Unified Field Theory.
The "field" that causes problems in attempting to unify physics isn't QM
or special relativity, it's gravity. Now they're up to 11 dimensions in
their efforts to provide such unification.
> I tend to defer to Einstein in that I think we just don't know enough
> about small objects to figure out whey they don't show up predictably
> - aside from the very issue of our inability to measure them without
> affecting them.
You're assuming such information is knowable. It's not. The Heisenberg
principle is pretty firmly established; it's a necessary consequence of
the duality between particle and wave behavior.
>
> I wonder if any of us will be alive when they figure it out...
Most physicists consider it "figured out" already.
RichL
> RichL refers us to a piece by Mr Gerson evaluating the impact of
> Climategate:
>
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121003159.html
>
> Mr Gerson makes some very fine points but he has missed the key
> technical point. The problem with global warming is that it stands
> like an upside down pyramid on the work of these men disgraced in
> Climategate for lying about that every work. The problem is acute
> because it is their work, and only their work, which by statistical
> lies flattens the historically and interdisciplinarily absolutely
> anchored Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age out of
> existence so that the 1990s can look like an abnormally hot period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm weather between about AD
800-1300, during the European Medieval period. Initial research on the
MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe,
where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented. It was
initially believed that the temperature changes were global. However,
this view has been questioned; the 2001 IPCC report summarises this
research, saying ".current evidence does not support globally
synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame,
and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm
Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in
hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries".
Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake
deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been
slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm
Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century. Crowley and Lowery
(2000) note that "there is insufficient documentation as to its
existence in the Southern hemisphere."
From the Wiki article:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature
_Comparison.png
It is obvious to all but a mindless Zombie, looking at the graph, that
inclusion of data from the Medieval warm period and the little ice age
do not significantly alter conclusions drawn from the post-1800 data in
comparison with the prior data.
andre...@aol.com
Could be. The question is if QM is essentially or ontologically
indeterminable, or if it is an epistemological problem. Einstein
thought that it was the second but that we didn't have the tools to
understand it. Thing is that as we learn more about QM, the more it
appears that small particles are ontologically indeterminable and not
that it is our tools and knowledge.
Recently there was an article in the NYT about the Higgs Boson. The
article states that according to a theorem, its discoverability is
impossible because the impossibility of it being discovered is
contained within the particle itself. The particle is influencing back
in time the possibility of it being discovered. Of course, this is as
incomprehensible to me as the Afrinkaneers brain or jim beam's logic.
However, while this could be refuted in the future, there is strong
evidence of the probabilistic and indeterminable characteristics of
nature.
andre...@aol.com
> RBT's resident racist abuser Andres Muro <andresm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
not arguing that these three elements are connected. It just happens
that posses all those qualities. BTW, I'd love for you to place me in
your killfile. It was such an honor.
Michael Press
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 3:56 pm, "Stephen Cowell"
> > <stephenleeNOSPAMcow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Peter Cole" <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote
> >>
> >>> flipper wrote:
> >>>> I see no sane reason to 'pay' for a fabricated 'crisis' fantasy and
> >>>> you stomping around in ashes and sackcloth wailing "the end is near,
> >>>> sinner repent" isn't a compelling argument no matter how loud, or
> >>>> often, you scream it.
> >>> Just curious -- such skepticism must have roots. Has there yet been a
> >>> major "environmental" movement that proved to be over-hyped hysteria?
> >>> Conservatives often cite ozone and DDT, but researching those, I haven't
> >>> seen anything to support the claim that those hazards were overestimated.
> >> Strictly speaking, 'Silent Spring' was a little over the top...
> >> as close as I can come, sorry.
> >> __
> >> Steve
> >
> > You must be a very nice guy to be so mild, Steve. "Silent Spring" was
> > the motivator of a monstrous genocide by the banning of DDT that
> > continues to this day. Rachel Carson was the figurehead of gross and
> > disgusting genocide.
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > Let's call the thing by its name
>
> Anyone who has plodded through her 'Silent Spring' and 'Edge
> of the Sea' has suffered too. Total waste of time.
As a youngster interested in stuff and looking for more
things to be interested in I bought a paperback with
the title UFO's. It promoted the thesis that there are
extraterrestrial UFOs visiting planet Earth. I was
disappointed to find that there was not one persuasive
argument in the entire book. Scarred me for life. Since
then I have never been able to read a book that reminds
me of that unpleasant experience. Rachel Carson emitted
the same aura as UFO's.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:04:20 -0800, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <8vm2i51br2jsb6jpg...@news.easynews.com>,
> > Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:43:10 -0500, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Gore doesn't claim to base his views on his own research.
> >>
> >> Of course not. He bases it on the solid majority of scientists who believe
> >> the temperature of the interior of the earth is several million degrees.
> >
> >Are you say it's not?
>
> Are you say it is?
Oh wait. I was thinking of the _Sun_. Nevermind.
--
Michael Press
Don Pearce
<noEmai...@stillnodomainey.com> wrote:
>But QM is still just a theory
JUST a theory? Do you realise that "theory" is the highest accolade
that science can bestow on any piece of work? It means that countless
scientists have tested it, the means of refutation has been described,
but never met. It means that it can be used to predict outcomes, and
those outcomes are all found to be real.
Just a theory - geez!
d
Michael Press
Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:49:48 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> >>> landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Tell me--which scientific facts did Einstein discard in lieu of
> >>>> theological assumption?
> >
> >> Spender <Spen...@Mars.org> wrote:
> >>> Einstein pretty much discounted quantum mechanics in whole on the grounds
> >>> that "God does not play dice".
> >
> >landotter wrote:
> >> Fail.
> >> Einstein is one of the founding fathers of QM.
>
> Yes, and it is quite humorous since he just couldn't bring himself to
> accept the implications. Einstein's inability to accept the implications
> of quantum mechanics had it's use though. It forced others - most notably
> Niels Bohr - to refine their own theories in an attempt to prove aspects
> of QM to Einstein.
Einstein lost the argument with Bohr. He did not have facts
we have now, nor did Bohr. Einstein was a better physicist
than Bohr and his argument is ultimately better than Bohr's.
The problem is conflating statistics and wave mechanics. At
the time of the debates all physical evidence of wave functions
was from experiments in which coherent states were not observed,
but rather inferred from atomic events in a heat bath. Einstein
was just as confused as Bohr. He was correct in his hunch
that the fundamental laws are continuous. Since then we have
isolated and observed several astounding phenomena manifesting
coherent states.
Persistent Current in Superconducting Ring
Expulsion of Magnetic Field by Superconductor
Atomic Laser
Quantized Flux in Superconducting Ring
Integer Quantum Hall Effect
Fractional Quantum Hall Effect
Bose-Einstein Condensate
Assuming the success of efforts to accomplish a complete
physical description, the statistical quantum theory would,
within the framework of future physics, take an approximately
analogous position to the statistical mechanics within the
framework of classical mechanics. I am rather firmly convinced
that the development of theoretical physics will be of this
type, but the path will be lengthy and difficult.
--Albert Einstein
I feel that it is a delusion to think of the electrons and
the fields as two physically different, independent entities.
Since neither can exist without the other, there is only _one_
reality to be described, which happens to have two different
apspects; and the theory ought to recognize this from the
start instead of doing things twice.
--Albert Einstein
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
The hidden variables theories have not panned out.
>
> The other difficulty Einstein had with it was the still unexplained
> "spooky action at a distance"-- having just created a theory in which
> nothing could travel faster than the speed of light.
>
> But to this day these problems have not been resolved, so I think it's
> too early to say anyone has been proved wrong. In a sense Einstein was
> right in that QM appears not to be the final answer. We just haven't
> figured out anything better yet.
Yes.
--
Michael Press
Ben C
[...]
> Reality check....from someone who's on your side of the political fence,
> I believe...
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121003159.html
>
> (Gerson was GWB's speechwriter...)
>
> "Even if every question raised in these e-mails were conceded, the
> cumulative case for global climate disruption would be strong. The
> evidence is found not only in East Anglian computers but also in
> changing crop zones, declining species, melting ice sheets and glaciers,
> thinning sea ice and rising sea levels.
This is a common myth. Yes temperatures are going up a bit, which is why
sea levels are going up and glaciers retreating. But that in itself is
not a cause for alarm, although people should obviously be prepared.
I've seen no evidence that it's unprecedented or unusual, and certainly
none that it's caused by human CO2.
> No other scientific theory explains these changes as well as global
> warming related to the rise in greenhouse gas emissions since the
> Industrial Revolution.
That's highly debatable. Certainly CO2 models don't explain the
temperature record since 1900 very well. If CO2 causes instant warming
(which is the claim, since warming since 1980 is being attributed to it)
then why did it get cooler between 1940 and 1980 and hotter between 1900
and 1940?
The CO2 theory on which James Hansen's 1988 forecasts were based has now
been falsified by history-- CO2 went up by more than his worst case "do
mothing" scenario, and temperatures didn't go up by nearly as much as
in his "drastic CO2 cuts" scenario.
Models in which the solar wind drives temperature at least seem to show
better correlation with the temperature record.
But even if AGW were the best scientific theory, it doesn't follow from
that that it's any good.
> Over millennia, the climate shifts in natural cycles. But we seem to
> be increasing the pace of change so rapidly that plants, animals and
> humans may not be able to adequately adjust."
Seem to be? The evidence for this is the hockey sticks, which are
essentially fiction.
What I've yet to see is any of the people who defend the theory try to
show what remains of it when the influence of the Climategate clique is
subtracted.
The argument was always weak, but it gets a whole lot weaker without the
hockey stick, with the knowledge that the computer models were not
necessarily done in good faith, and with a recount of the so-called
consensus.
Ben C
> On Dec 11, 2:38�pm, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>> It may still be that nature is deterministic, just that we don't know
>> yet what determines the result of a measurement of a quantum state. I
>> think this is called the "hidden variables" interpretation. We have no
>> evidence for any such hidden variables, but also none that they don't
>> exist.
>
> Could be. The question is if QM is essentially or ontologically
> indeterminable, or if it is an epistemological problem. Einstein
> thought that it was the second but that we didn't have the tools to
> understand it. Thing is that as we learn more about QM, the more it
> appears that small particles are ontologically indeterminable and not
> that it is our tools and knowledge.
The weird thing though is that they only become indeterminable when you
try to measure them, and we still don't really understand what a
measurement is, or whether they happen if no-one's looking.
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> Which is fine. Belief is not knowledge but it's harmless, at least until
> one starts lopping infidel heads. Such as mine.
>
Taper greasers?
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
thirty-six
wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:59:32 -0800 (PST), "andresm...@aol.com"
>
>
>
> <andresm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Actually, Einstein died trying to disprove QM. He spend his life
> >coming up with thought experiments that would disprove Heisenberg's
> >uncertainty principle. Every one of his attempts failed. While
> >Einstein was part of the groups of physicists from the era of QM, he
> >didn't buy into the principles of it. Einstein was the founder of
> >relativity and special relativity. Plank is considered by many as the
> >founder. Heisenberg and Bohr are the main dudes.
>
> >While Einstein did not base any of his claims in theology even though
> >he made the famous statement about god and the dice. He did not
> >believe that QM was essentially indeterminable. He felt that the
> >interdeterminability of QM was a problem of lack of knowledge, and
> >that at some point, new knowledge would emerge showing that non
> >communting elements in QM would be determinable. He died in that quest
> >and as scientists keep on digging, the evidence keeps mounting that
> >electrons and other quantum particles are essentially indeterminate.
>
> >HIs last claim was a thought experiment called the ERP paradox that he
> >came up with two other scientists. Bohr refuted it the day after in a
> >flash of brillance. You guys can google it.
>
> can't seem to predict where particles will be, but that doesn't mean
> that they aren't predictable. We also have the issue of small vs.
> for large objects, and logically there's some mathematical progression
> to smaller objects and hopefully a Unified Field Theory.
>
> about small objects to figure out whey they don't show up predictably
> - aside from the very issue of our inability to measure them without
> perhaps the force is relatively speaking so extreme as you approach
> finite sizes that the force itself causes unpredictability.
>
> I wonder if any of us will be alive when they figure it out...
It's "The force". It is everywhere observable as pressure, gravity,
heat and induction. George Lucas is the keeper of the force and
controls it directly.
Peter Cole
"Silent Spring" dealt with ecology, epidemiology and entomology.
According to the afterward written by E. O. Wilson in the 40th
anniversary edition, the science (in all 3 areas) has withstood the test
of time. He points to the fire ant eradication program (the "Viet Nam of
entomology") as a classic example. The organochlorides which were the
focus of the book are, if anything, in greater disrepute, the ecological
and epidemiological effects being better, if still far from completely,
understood. The entomology (Wilson's primary expertise) of both the fire
ant and the mosquito are complex -- simple-minded approaches, "carpet
bombing" with chemicals, simply don't work, for sound scientific
reasons. Wilson still struggles to educate the public and policy makers
on these realities -- an uphill struggle 40 years on.
RichL
> On 2009-12-12, andre...@aol.com <andre...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 2:38 pm, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> [...]
>>> It may still be that nature is deterministic, just that we don't
>>> know yet what determines the result of a measurement of a quantum
>>> state. I think this is called the "hidden variables"
>>> interpretation. We have no evidence for any such hidden variables,
>>> but also none that they don't exist.
>>
>> Could be. The question is if QM is essentially or ontologically
>> indeterminable, or if it is an epistemological problem. Einstein
>> thought that it was the second but that we didn't have the tools to
>> understand it. Thing is that as we learn more about QM, the more it
>> appears that small particles are ontologically indeterminable and not
>> that it is our tools and knowledge.
>
> The weird thing though is that they only become indeterminable when
> you try to measure them
A tautology. You're essentially defining "indeterminable".
> and we still don't really understand what a
> measurement is, or whether they happen if no-one's looking.
"A measurement" is fully defined and understood within the rules of QM.
What happens when no one is looking is again well defined within QM: if
a system is in an eigenstate it will remain so in the absence of an
external perturbation. Any system's state can, at any moment of time,
be expanded in a series of eigenstates since the entire set of
eigenstates form a complete set, and it will evolve according to the
time-dependent Schrodinger equation.
RichL
> What I've yet to see is any of the people who defend the theory try to
> show what remains of it when the influence of the Climategate clique
> is subtracted.
That's certainly a legitimate question, but in my view it's one that's
far from being answered. To me, those who oppose climate-warming
research seem to be making a huge leap to a highly premature conclusion
by assuming (that is, if they're not being disingenuous) that somehow
the whole of the research effort rests on (as yet unconfirmed) frauds
perpetrated by a few.
I'd counsel patience by all at this point.
Don Pearce
wrote:
>"A measurement" is fully defined and understood within the rules of QM.
>What happens when no one is looking is again well defined within QM: if
>a system is in an eigenstate it will remain so in the absence of an
>external perturbation. Any system's state can, at any moment of time,
>be expanded in a series of eigenstates since the entire set of
>eigenstates form a complete set, and it will evolve according to the
>time-dependent Schrodinger equation.
>
As I understand it, a measurement in QM is anything that collapses the
wave function. In other words, if you find yourself in a position to
be able to say anything about the state of a quantum system, you have
made a measurement.
d