Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-10-02 Thread Bemmzim
 
In a message dated 10/1/2006 11:14:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

However,  in medicine (as in some other areas) people are suffering 
and dying during  all those years.  Particularly when the "established 
theory" is  "stress" or "IAIYH" as it was with ulcers as well as 
initially with MS and  many other diseases later shown to have a physical  
cause.





But there is no other way to do science and medicine. If every good  sounding 
idea were immediately accepted we would be wrong way more often than we  
would be right. Most established ideas are right, that is why they are  
established. New idea must prove themselves. Those who doubt and offer  
objections are 
just as much a part of the process as those who advocate the new  position.
 
There is a scene from Bedazzled (the original Peter Cook and Dudley Moore  
laugh riot not the lame Brendan Fraser remake). When the devil (Cook) first  
confronts Moore (a short order cook). Peter Cook (not the  cook)  announces 
that 
he is the devil. Moore responds that Cook is a  nut case. Cook responds that 
they said this about Jesus, Einstein, Newton. Moore  responds in turn that they 
also said it about a lot of nut cases.  In fact  as we should all be able to 
agree that said it about way more nutcases than the  real thing. 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-10-01 Thread Ronn!Blankenship

At 04:22 PM Sunday 10/1/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


In a message dated 9/27/2006 5:44:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Which  can take years or even decades.  Another example
from medicine that I  am hard put to explain, except to
think that no one _wanted_ to believe  such a thing was
so widespread, is something that I was still taught  in
the mid '80s:  Gonorrhea is a sexually transmitted
disease,  except that in some cases where children must
be sharing bathwater or  toweling with infected
adult(s), they can become  infected.




Big changes should take years to be accepted. They must prove themselves
against the older established theory. In the process of exploring the new
theories many unanticipated facts become known and science moves into anew
direction.



However, in medicine (as in some other areas) people are suffering 
and dying during all those years.  Particularly when the "established 
theory" is "stress" or "IAIYH" as it was with ulcers as well as 
initially with MS and many other diseases later shown to have a physical cause.



-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-10-01 Thread Bemmzim
 
In a message dated 9/27/2006 5:44:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Which  can take years or even decades.  Another example
from medicine that I  am hard put to explain, except to
think that no one _wanted_ to believe  such a thing was
so widespread, is something that I was still taught  in
the mid '80s:  Gonorrhea is a sexually transmitted
disease,  except that in some cases where children must
be sharing bathwater or  toweling with infected
adult(s), they can become  infected.




Big changes should take years to be accepted. They must prove themselves  
against the older established theory. In the process of exploring the new  
theories many unanticipated facts become known and science moves into anew  
direction. 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-29 Thread Dan Minette


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of pencimen
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:38 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
> is no reliab...
> 
> Dan  wrote:
> 
> > http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/george_monbiot/2006/09/
> post_411.html
> 
> > I think this gives some idea of just how expensive it will be to
> stop global warming by holding the CO2 levels steady in 25 years.
> 
> The article you cited also says:
> "There are three things on which almost all climate scientists are
> now agreed. The first is that man-made climate change is real. The
> second is that we need to take action. The third is that, to avert
> catastrophic effects on both humans and ecosystems, we should seek to
> prevent global temperatures from rising by more than 2C above pre-
> industrial levels.

The first is real science.  The second and third are political statements.
There will be a cost associated with global warming.  There is also a cost
to stopping it with present day technology.  The question I see is what is
our best path towards minimizing total costs. 

> Two degrees is the point at which some of the most dangerous
> processes catalysed by climate change could become irreversible. 

I notice two qualifiers there.  

>This
> includes the melting of the west Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets,
> which between them could raise global sea levels by seven metres. It
> includes the drying out of many parts of Africa, and the inundation
> by salt water of the aquifers used by cities such as Shanghai,
> Manila, Jakarta, Bangkok, Kolkata, Mumbai, Karachi, Lagos, Buenos
> Aires and Lima. It also means runaway positive feedback, as the
> Arctic tundras begin to release the methane they contain, and the
> Amazon rainforest dies off, turning trees back into carbon dioxide.
> In other words, if the planet warms by 2C, 3C or 4C becomes almost
> inevitable."

There are both positive and negative feedback mechanisms for global warming.
There is an indication that the positive feedback might eventually increase
2C to 4C.  But, if we do nothing at all, the official projections are for a
2C rise by 2100.

It seems to me that the best bet for minimizing global warming is 3-fold.

1) Minimizing the increase in fossil fuel usage by placing a significant tax
on fossil fuels.  An oil import tax of, say, $50/barrel might be a good
thing for the US. 

2) Significantly increase non fossil fuel energy sources.  Nuclear energy is
the clear best choice herewe could probably produce most of our
electricity with nuclear power in 25 years. Given the present cost of oil,
that would be cost effective.

3) Between the US, Europe, and Japan, spend tens of billions per year on
things like plasma physics, mesoscaler physics, material science to increase
the probability that technology for new energy sources (such as fusion or
solar) will be developed in the next 40-50 years.


> and
> 
> "But to use this as an excuse for inaction is like remaining on a
> railway track while the train is hurtling towards you. We might not
> have time to jump out of the way, but if we don't attempt it, the
> disaster is bound to happen. If we in the United Kingdom are to bear
> our fair share of dealing with climate change, we must cut our
> emissions by 87% in 24 years."
> 
> So Dan, do we do nothing and hope beyond hope that our scientists are
> wrong?  What is the cost of doing nothing?

The only estimate that I've seen comes in at about 5 trillion to 10
trillion.  Not chicken feed, certainly, but far less than the cost of
cutting CO2 emissions 60% worldwide.

Dan M. 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-29 Thread Dan Minette


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of pencimen
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:13 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
> is no reliab...
> 
> Ronn! wrote:
> 
> > What if we spend the >>$10T (Dan's figure) to reduce the
> > anthropogenic component of global warming and then find out that it
> > was not the primary driving cause and we still have to deal with
> > the storms, floods, droughts, famines and hundreds of millions of
> > refugees?  Or if China doesn't want to go along with what the rest
> > of the world does and uses its military to enforce its right to do
> > whatever it chooses to do?  (I suppose "nuclear winter" might
> > indeed be a way to counteract "global warming" . . . )  Or, of
> > course, "all  of the above" . . .

> Then we'll have a cleaner, more efficient world that, having worked
> together and not been entirely successful at solving a problem, can
> use that problem solving experience to face a grave threat to their
> survival.

But, we will also have a much poorer world.  Oil prices have tripled, and
the consumption of oil still increases.  That means, almost by definition,
that there is a tremendous incentive to grow GDP by increasing energy usage.
Dropping world wide energy use by 60% would be overwhelmingly expensive.  In
a real sense, it would reverse most of the productivity gains of the last
20-25 years.
 
> And how is it that we expect China to participate if the so called
> leaders of the world don't?

They will participate if and only if their participation is seen as
benefiting their government.  For example, they are now indicating that they
would oppose any UN action to stop genocide in Danfur unless it is approved
by the government of Sudan...which is sponsoring the genocide.  They also
have tight deals with the Chinese oil companieswhich explains the
importance of Sudan to China.

Dan M. 



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-29 Thread Dan Minette


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of pencimen
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:57 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
> is no reliab...
> 
> "Dan wrote:
> 
> > Their per capita GDP is also 75% of the US.  Since we are talking
> > about economic costs, let's look at energy usage per unit of GDP
> 
> Can you expand on the connection between energy use and GDP?

First, they are seen to be very strongly correlated.  First, let me give the
US numbers:

 Energy GDP 
194931982   1635
195034616   1777
195136974   1915
195236748   1988
195337664   2080
195436639   2065
195540208   2213
195641754   2256
195741787   2301
195841645   2279
195943466   2441
196045087   2502
196145739   2560
196247828   2715
196349646   2834
196451817   2999
196554017   3191
196657017   3399
196758908   3485
196862419   3653
196965621   3765
197067844   3772
197169289   3899
197272704   4105
197375708   4342
197473991   4320
197571999   4311
197676012   4541
197778000   4751
197879986   5015
197980903   5173
198078280   5162
198176343   5292
198273286   5189
198373146   5424
198476793   5814
198576580   6054
198676826   6264
198779223   6475
198882869   6743
198984999   6981
199084730   7113
199184667   7101
199286015   7337
199387652   7533
199489292   7836
199591200   8032
199694226   8329
199794800   8704
199895200   9067
199996837   9470
200098976   9817
200196498   9891
200297967   10049
200398273   10301
2004 100414 10704
2005P   99894   11049
 
The GDP growth rate averaged 3.5% per year, while the energy usage growth
averaged 2% per year.  Normalizing by averages, one can see a good
correlation between year to year GDP growth and energy use growth.  The RMS
variation for the actual data is less than 60% of the RMS variation between
randomly selected years. Also, by eyeballing it, you can correlate
recessions with either decreases or small increases in energy use.  

Here are a few more countries.  First I will give the average growth rates
from '80 to '05. Then, year by year will be given at the end of the post.

  Energy   GDP
  Growth   Growth
United States 1.0% 3.1%
Australia 3.3% 2.8%
China 9.5% 5.3%
Japan 2.4% 1.7%
S. Korea  6.9% 7.4%

Interestingly enough, the US has the best GDP growth/Energy growth of all
countries.  

Second, since the upper limit of real GDP growth is dependant on
productivity, the tie between energy usage and GDP becomes evident.
Historically, we've improved productivity per worker by having machines
extend a worker's capacity.  Originally, we could think of it as a steel
mill vs. a blacksmith.  Now, it more involves things like computers
maintaining inventory instead of people.

Third, wealthier people have more options.  Air conditioning is the
foundation of cities such as Miami, Houston, & Phoenix growing as they did.
It would be hard to live in this area without air conditioning.  Indeed, one
of the problems with the poor elderly is that they are liable to die in the
heat if they don't use AC.

That's a start at least.

Dan M. 

Australia   
1980230,091 2.76
1981238,288 2.778
1982232,001 2.895
1983244,378 2.857
1984256,110 3.043
1985267,104 3.158
1986273,379 3.181
1987288,038 3.312
1988299,685 3.476
1989310,891 3.624
1990310,528 3.718
1991311,313 3.709
1992322,676 3.817
1993335,249 3.916
1994349,363 3.918
1995364,272 4.05
1996378,078 4.223
1997394,940 4.56
1998415,912 4.595
1999431,550 4.82
2000440,426 4.833
2001457,513 4.993
2002472,195 5.097
2003490,012 5.093
2004496,678 5.266




 China  
1980160,920 17.503
1981170,166 17.192
1982186,456 17.934
1983206,695 19.01
1984238,169 20.453
1985268,157 22.006
1986291,083 23.226
1987323,620 24.747
1988358,151 26.433
1989372,900 26.943
1990382,996 26.985
1991423,410 28.21
1992483,815 29.251
1993549,328 31.301
1994619,795 34.023
1995685,057 35.154
1996750,678 35.924
1997817,023 37.562
1998880,754 37.003
1999942,878 36.91
20001,018,308   38.798
200

RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-29 Thread Dan Minette


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 10:30 PM
> To: 'Killer Bs Discussion'
> Subject: RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
> is no reliab...
> >
>>I was thinking of a temporary halt...during the recession.
> And I'm not sure that even a "temporary" halt would not lead to
> something more like a catastrophic economic meltdown rather than a
> mere "recession" . . .
 
Thinking about the general definition of recession as a drop in GDP for two
quarters, and not applying it too literally, my point is that there is a
strong tie between economic growth and increase in energy usage.  Averaged
over the last decade, most countries have improved their energy use per unit
of GDPnot tremendously, but noticeably.  During economic downturns,
energy use typically drops slightly.  So, a pause in economic growth should
cause a pause in the growth of energy use.

Dan M. 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-28 Thread pencimen
"Dan wrote:

> Their per capita GDP is also 75% of the US.  Since we are talking
> about economic costs, let's look at energy usage per unit of GDP

Can you expand on the connection between energy use and GDP?

Doug




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-28 Thread pencimen
Dan  wrote:

> http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/george_monbiot/2006/09/
post_411.html

> I think this gives some idea of just how expensive it will be to
stop global warming by holding the CO2 levels steady in 25 years.

The article you cited also says:
"There are three things on which almost all climate scientists are
now agreed. The first is that man-made climate change is real. The
second is that we need to take action. The third is that, to avert
catastrophic effects on both humans and ecosystems, we should seek to
prevent global temperatures from rising by more than 2C above pre-
industrial levels.

Two degrees is the point at which some of the most dangerous
processes catalysed by climate change could become irreversible. This
includes the melting of the west Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets,
which between them could raise global sea levels by seven metres. It
includes the drying out of many parts of Africa, and the inundation
by salt water of the aquifers used by cities such as Shanghai,
Manila, Jakarta, Bangkok, Kolkata, Mumbai, Karachi, Lagos, Buenos
Aires and Lima. It also means runaway positive feedback, as the
Arctic tundras begin to release the methane they contain, and the
Amazon rainforest dies off, turning trees back into carbon dioxide.
In other words, if the planet warms by 2C, 3C or 4C becomes almost
inevitable."

and

"But to use this as an excuse for inaction is like remaining on a
railway track while the train is hurtling towards you. We might not
have time to jump out of the way, but if we don't attempt it, the
disaster is bound to happen. If we in the United Kingdom are to bear
our fair share of dealing with climate change, we must cut our
emissions by 87% in 24 years."

So Dan, do we do nothing and hope beyond hope that our scientists are
wrong?  What is the cost of doing nothing?

Doug

Doug




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-28 Thread pencimen
Ronn! wrote:

> What if we spend the >>$10T (Dan's figure) to reduce the
> anthropogenic component of global warming and then find out that it
> was not the primary driving cause and we still have to deal with
> the storms, floods, droughts, famines and hundreds of millions of
> refugees?  Or if China doesn't want to go along with what the rest
> of the world does and uses its military to enforce its right to do
> whatever it chooses to do?  (I suppose "nuclear winter" might
> indeed be a way to counteract "global warming" . . . )  Or, of
> course, "all  of the above" . . .

Then we'll have a cleaner, more efficient world that, having worked
together and not been entirely successful at solving a problem, can
use that problem solving experience to face a grave threat to their
survival.

And how is it that we expect China to participate if the so called
leaders of the world don't?

Doug



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-28 Thread Dan Minette


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of pencimen
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:58 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
> is no reliab...
> 
> Dan wrote:
> 
> > If this is true, than why has world usage of fossil fuel gone up
> > after a tripling of price?
> 
> Poor leadership.  Can I have a cite for that BTW.
> 
> > Every indication is that a worldwide recession is the
> > only thing that will stop the growth of fossil fuel usage.
> 
> I think competent leaders would go a long way towards solving our
> problems
> 
> > The widespread use of nuclear power will slow it, but is not
> > projected to stop it.
> >
> > Let's just look at the US.  In '04, CO2 emissions were about 23%
> > above the Kyoto quota for the US.  Now, it's safe to say it's >25%
> > above.  So, to take the extremely small step that Kyoto represents:
> > delaying global warming 2-5 years will require the US to cut CO2
> > production 20%.
> 
> Yes, let's look at the U.S.  Per capita energy consumption (2001)
> 7.92 kgoe/y.  Japan: 4,091.5.  U.K.: 3,993.8.  France: 4,458.6.
> Germany 4,263.5.  Russia: 4,288.8.  Denmark: 3,706.1.  OK, here's one
> that's in the parking lot of the ballpark; Australia: 5,974.9.
> That's 75% of U.S. consumption.  Shame on you Australia 8^).

Their per capita GDP is also 75% of the US.  Since we are talking about
economic costs, let's look at energy usage per unit of GDP 


At 
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee1p.xls

there is a full listing from '80 through '04.  The US is at about the 70%
point in terms of increasing energy per capita.  To illustrate this, let me
give a subset from the list, ranked by increasing per GDP usage:

Ireland 4,992
Denmark 5,653
Italy 6,044
United Kingdom  6,205
Japan   6,532
Austria 6,660
Germany 7,175
France  7,209
Greece  7,391
Taiwan  8,680
Australia   8,922
China   9,080
United States   9,336
Sweden  9,356
Netherlands 9,673
Belgium 10,254
Zambia  11,773
Norway  12,228
South Africa12,477
Korea, South12,567
Canada  13,530
Korea, North15,716
Russia  15,763
Iceland 17,496
Saudi Arabia17,554
Ukraine 18,443
United Arab Emirates36,022
Kuwait  38,203
Syria   38,540


I did select a few more high ones than low one, but some of the unusual high
ones caught my eye.  I knew Canada's usage was significantly higher than the
US, but I didn't realize how much Syria used.

> 
> Looking at other industrialized nations, perhaps it isn't necessary
> to be wasteful to be successful.

Compact nations do have advantages in energy usage.  Older nations also have
an advantage...because their cities were built before cars.  The country of
Japan, for example, has a population density that is 75% higher than that of
_the Houston Metropolitan Area_.  

 
> Beyond that, I'm guessing that there are ways that CO2 can be cut
> without lowering consumption.

There are, and they should be used.  But, I was only pointing out the cost
of the first small step.  At

http://www.tsaugust.org/images/Stabilizing%20CO2%20in%20Atmosphere%20at%20Cu
rrent%20Levels.pdf#search=%22co2%20emissions%20reduction%20required%20stop%2
0global%20warming%22

http://tinyurl.com/zp6l9

the reduction in CO2 emissions needed to keep CO2 at the present atmospheric
level is 60%.  This is just the first site I googled, and I'd be happy to
see other references that give other numbers.  But, it's in the ball park of
what I've seen elsewhere.

So, I'll readily accept that, for a few trillion, the US could revamp it's
infrastructure to be more energy efficientapproaching the efficiency of
Japan.  But, that would only be the first step to stopping global warming.  

I've googled some more and at:

http://www.earthaction.org/en/archive/95-01-cich/alert.html

I have obtained the following quote.


"To reach this goal, however, will require much greater reductions in
emissions than merely returning to 1990 levels. The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, made up of leading scientists, predicts that 60% cuts are
needed."

And at

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/george_monbiot/2006/09/post_411.html


" Unfortunately, everything else is not equal. By 2030, according to a paper
published by scientists at the Met Office, the total capacity of the
biosphere to absorb carbon will have reduced from the current 4bn tonnes a
year to 2.7bn. To maintain equilibrium at that point, in other words, the
world's population can emit no more than 2.7bn tonnes of carbon a year in
2030. As we currently produce around 7bn, this implies a global reduction of
60%. In 2030, the world's pe

RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-28 Thread Ronn!Blankenship

At 09:02 PM Thursday 9/28/2006, Dan Minette wrote:



> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:53 AM
> To: 'Killer Bs Discussion'
> Subject: RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
> >
> >If this is true, than why has world usage of fossil fuel gone up after a
> >tripling of price? Every indication is that a worldwide recession is the
> >only thing that will stop the growth of fossil fuel usage.
>
>
> A recession?  Or would it take a depression, or a
> catastrophic meltdown of the whole world economy?

I was thinking of a temporary halt...during the recession.




And I'm not sure that even a "temporary" halt would not lead to 
something more like a catastrophic economic meltdown rather than a 
mere "recession" . . .





If World GDP
dropped, then I'd expect energy consumption to also drop.

>
>
>
> And what about the rest of the world, which wants
> what the US has:  IOW, the same standard of living, and all the "stuff" .

I Googled the official Chinese news on this, and found that they touted a 5
year plan to reduce energy consumption about 4%/year.  That sounded like a
unbelievable goal, with their economy growing at about 10% or so per year
for the last few years.  Then I read the fine print, and they pulled a Bush.




To be fair, Bush is not the first politician to do something like 
that, and is unlikely to be the last.  I think it is a characteristic 
behavior of the political sub-species.





They wanted to reduce energy usage/GDP by 4%/year.  That would still, if
their growth continues, result in about a 30% increase in their fossil fuel
usage during that time.  They will still consume less than the US in 5
years, but I'd expect them to exceed our consumption in 10-15 years.  And,
of course, they have long insisted on being outside of any agreement on
emissions reduction.



Like I said.  So who plans to "make" them comply with whatever the 
rest of the world decides (assuming the rest of the world agrees, 
which will probably occur sometime after you see flocks of pigs 
flying overhead . . . )?



-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-28 Thread Ronn!Blankenship

At 11:09 AM Thursday 9/28/2006, William T Goodall wrote:


On 28 Sep 2006, at 2:51PM, Dan Minette wrote:

I have tried to accurately express the consensus by quoting sites that
should represent the consensus: i.e. the UN agency responsible for
obtaining
and publishing the best understandings of the community.  The
numbers I
quote do not include "mights" or "coulds."  They determined the
probable
range from the best available data, models, etc.  I do not give
nearly as
much credence to single papers that indicate, for example, that
last year's
strong hurricanes are the result of global warming.  There is no
consensus
on that.  I think the error bars on the number of strong hurricanes
30 years
ago are large enough so that no signal can be measured.  Now, I'm
not saying
that I know there is no significant correlation, but that the data
do not
show it at the present time.


The problem with a 'wait and see' approach to the problem is that if
the more extreme scenarios *do* turn out to be correct then it will
already be too late to do anything to significantly ameliorate the
situation. 'Wait and see' is not a neutral position, it is gambling
that the milder scenarios prove to be correct.



I do not see this attempt by folks like Gore.  I see Bush-league
scientific
and economic understanding.  Gore's argument (from an interview I
referenced
here before) for being able to do it is: "when we need to do
something, it
can be done...just look at the Manhattan Project."

So, if you think it is the equivalent of vacuuming, then it should be
straightforward to come up with a demonstration of how cheap and
easy it
would be for the US to meet Kyoto.


Cheaper and easier than dealing with storms, floods, droughts,
famines and hundreds of millions of refugees.


If it comes to that Maru



What if we spend the >>$10T (Dan's figure) to reduce the 
anthropogenic component of global warming and then find out that it 
was not the primary driving cause and we still have to deal with the 
storms, floods, droughts, famines and hundreds of millions of 
refugees?  Or if China doesn't want to go along with what the rest of 
the world does and uses its military to enforce its right to do 
whatever it chooses to do?  (I suppose "nuclear winter" might indeed 
be a way to counteract "global warming" . . . )  Or, of course, "all 
of the above" . . .



-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-28 Thread pencimen
Dan wrote:

> If this is true, than why has world usage of fossil fuel gone up
> after a tripling of price?

Poor leadership.  Can I have a cite for that BTW.

> Every indication is that a worldwide recession is the
> only thing that will stop the growth of fossil fuel usage.

I think competent leaders would go a long way towards solving our
problems

> The widespread use of nuclear power will slow it, but is not
> projected to stop it.
>
> Let's just look at the US.  In '04, CO2 emissions were about 23%
> above the Kyoto quota for the US.  Now, it's safe to say it's >25%
> above.  So, to take the extremely small step that Kyoto represents:
> delaying global warming 2-5 years will require the US to cut CO2
> production 20%.

Yes, let's look at the U.S.  Per capita energy consumption (2001)
7.92 kgoe/y.  Japan: 4,091.5.  U.K.: 3,993.8.  France: 4,458.6.
Germany 4,263.5.  Russia: 4,288.8.  Denmark: 3,706.1.  OK, here's one
that's in the parking lot of the ballpark; Australia: 5,974.9.
That's 75% of U.S. consumption.  Shame on you Australia 8^).

> The sources and uses of power are available on the net.  I've
> looked at them.  So, my question is...given what's available, how
> can the US cut it's use of fossil fuel by 20% while still
> experiencing economic and population growth over the next 10
> years?

Looking at other industrialized nations, perhaps it isn't necessary
to be wasteful to be successful.

Beyond that, I'm guessing that there are ways that CO2 can be cut
without lowering consumption.

> I have tried to accurately express the consensus by quoting sites
> that should represent the consensus: i.e. the UN agency responsible
> for obtaining and publishing the best understandings of the
> community.  The numbers I quote do not include "mights" or
> "coulds."  They determined the probable range from the best
> available data, models, etc.  I do not give nearly as
> much credence to single papers that indicate, for example, that
> last year's strong hurricanes are the result of global warming.
> There is no consensus on that.  I think the error bars on the
> number of strong hurricanes 30 years ago are large enough so that
> no signal can be measured.  Now, I'm not saying
> that I know there is no significant correlation, but that the data
> do not show it at the present time.
>
> I do not see this attempt by folks like Gore.  I see Bush-league
> scientific and economic understanding.  Gore's argument (from an
> interview I referenced here before) for being able to do it is:
> "when we need to do something, it can be done...just look at the
> Manhattan Project."

The reviews by scientists I've seen say that in his movie Gore got
the science right for the most part.  Here's one:

[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-
movie/]

or

http://tinyurl.com/gke7d

> So, if you think it is the equivalent of vacuuming, then it should
> be straightforward to come up with a demonstration of how cheap and
> easy it would be for the US to meet Kyoto.

Set a goal to lower consumption to 125% of that of similar
industrialized nations.  Raise taxes so that consumers of energy
cover the cost of the infrastructure required for its use plus some
percentage for incentives, subsidies for those technologies that
lower the demand for polluting sources and research.  Continue to
develop and implement methods for Co2 sequestration.  Among many
other proactive things we could be doing.  Under Bush we're going
backwards.

In the time it took me to type this post we spent more than $5 M in
Iraq, but lowering our dependence on Mid East oil would do more (IMO)
to reduce the threat of terrorism than everything the Bush
administration has ever done.

If we can afford such a costly war, why can't we afford to vacuum?

Doug






___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-28 Thread Dan Minette


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:53 AM
> To: 'Killer Bs Discussion'
> Subject: RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
> >
> >If this is true, than why has world usage of fossil fuel gone up after a
> >tripling of price? Every indication is that a worldwide recession is the
> >only thing that will stop the growth of fossil fuel usage.
> 
> 
> A recession?  Or would it take a depression, or a
> catastrophic meltdown of the whole world economy?

I was thinking of a temporary halt...during the recession.  If World GDP
dropped, then I'd expect energy consumption to also drop.

> 
> 
> 
> And what about the rest of the world, which wants
> what the US has:  IOW, the same standard of living, and all the "stuff" .

I Googled the official Chinese news on this, and found that they touted a 5
year plan to reduce energy consumption about 4%/year.  That sounded like a
unbelievable goal, with their economy growing at about 10% or so per year
for the last few years.  Then I read the fine print, and they pulled a Bush.
They wanted to reduce energy usage/GDP by 4%/year.  That would still, if
their growth continues, result in about a 30% increase in their fossil fuel
usage during that time.  They will still consume less than the US in 5
years, but I'd expect them to exceed our consumption in 10-15 years.  And,
of course, they have long insisted on being outside of any agreement on
emissions reduction.

Dan M.





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-28 Thread William T Goodall


On 28 Sep 2006, at 2:51PM, Dan Minette wrote:

I have tried to accurately express the consensus by quoting sites that
should represent the consensus: i.e. the UN agency responsible for  
obtaining
and publishing the best understandings of the community.  The  
numbers I
quote do not include "mights" or "coulds."  They determined the  
probable
range from the best available data, models, etc.  I do not give  
nearly as
much credence to single papers that indicate, for example, that  
last year's
strong hurricanes are the result of global warming.  There is no  
consensus
on that.  I think the error bars on the number of strong hurricanes  
30 years
ago are large enough so that no signal can be measured.  Now, I'm  
not saying
that I know there is no significant correlation, but that the data  
do not

show it at the present time.



The problem with a 'wait and see' approach to the problem is that if  
the more extreme scenarios *do* turn out to be correct then it will  
already be too late to do anything to significantly ameliorate the  
situation. 'Wait and see' is not a neutral position, it is gambling  
that the milder scenarios prove to be correct.



I do not see this attempt by folks like Gore.  I see Bush-league  
scientific
and economic understanding.  Gore's argument (from an interview I  
referenced
here before) for being able to do it is: "when we need to do  
something, it

can be done...just look at the Manhattan Project."

So, if you think it is the equivalent of vacuuming, then it should be
straightforward to come up with a demonstration of how cheap and  
easy it

would be for the US to meet Kyoto.


Cheaper and easier than dealing with storms, floods, droughts,  
famines and hundreds of millions of refugees.



If it comes to that Maru
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

If you listen to a UNIX shell, can you hear the C?


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-28 Thread Ronn!Blankenship

At 08:51 AM Thursday 9/28/2006, Dan Minette wrote:



> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of pencimen
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:53 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
> is no reliab...
>
> William wrote:
>
> > Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years,
> and
> > is within 1 °C of being its hottest for a million years, says
> > Hansen's team. Another decade of business-as-usual carbon
> emissions
> > will probably make it too late to prevent the ecosystems of the
> north
> > from triggering runaway climate change, the study concludes
> > (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p
> 14288)."
>
> Even if those that predict doom and gloom in the near future, other
> than some (probably even more exaggerated) economic discomfort, there
> is very little down side to cleaning up our act.

If this is true, than why has world usage of fossil fuel gone up after a
tripling of price? Every indication is that a worldwide recession is the
only thing that will stop the growth of fossil fuel usage.



A recession?  Or would it take a depression, or a 
catastrophic meltdown of the whole world economy?




  The widespread
use of nuclear power will slow it, but is not projected to stop it.

It would be worthwhile to see a single site that had a serious analysis of
the costs of converting from fossil fuels to a PC form of energy (i.e.
nuclear is not PC) which comes up with the cost of stopping global warming
at <10 trillion dollars.  I've Googled and have not obtained anything close
to serious analysis.

Let's just look at the US.  In '04, CO2 emissions were about 23% above the
Kyoto quota for the US.  Now, it's safe to say it's >25% above.  So, to take
the extremely small step that Kyoto represents: delaying global warming 2-5
years will require the US to cut CO2 production 20%.

The sources and uses of power are available on the net.  I've looked at
them.  So, my question is...given what's available, how can the US cut it's
use of fossil fuel by 20% while still experiencing economic and population
growth over the next 10 years?




And what about the rest of the world, which wants 
what the US has:  IOW, the same standard of living, and all the "stuff" . . . ?





I have tried to accurately express the consensus by quoting sites that
should represent the consensus: i.e. the UN agency responsible for obtaining
and publishing the best understandings of the community.  The numbers I
quote do not include "mights" or "coulds."  They determined the probable
range from the best available data, models, etc.  I do not give nearly as
much credence to single papers that indicate, for example, that last year's
strong hurricanes are the result of global warming.  There is no consensus
on that.  I think the error bars on the number of strong hurricanes 30 years
ago are large enough so that no signal can be measured.  Now, I'm not saying
that I know there is no significant correlation, but that the data do not
show it at the present time.

I do not see this attempt by folks like Gore.  I see Bush-league scientific
and economic understanding.  Gore's argument (from an interview I referenced
here before) for being able to do it is: "when we need to do something, it
can be done...just look at the Manhattan Project."

So, if you think it is the equivalent of vacuuming,




Sometimes a vacuum [cleaner] blows hot air, and sometimes it just sucks.

Sounds exactly like a politician to me . . .



(And the problem with finding a solution to 
global warming is that it far more a political 
issue than it is anything else . . . and I mean 
"political" in the worst way:  iow, it doesn't 
matter whether or not the problem gets solved as 
long as my party comes out on top and your party 
gets not only defeated but humiliated, preferably destroyed . . . )




then it should be
straightforward to come up with a demonstration of how cheap and easy it
would be for the US to meet Kyoto.

Dan M.




-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-28 Thread Dan Minette


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of pencimen
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:53 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
> is no reliab...
> 
> William wrote:
> 
> > Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years,
> and
> > is within 1 °C of being its hottest for a million years, says
> > Hansen's team. Another decade of business-as-usual carbon
> emissions
> > will probably make it too late to prevent the ecosystems of the
> north
> > from triggering runaway climate change, the study concludes
> > (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p
> 14288)."
> 
> Even if those that predict doom and gloom in the near future, other
> than some (probably even more exaggerated) economic discomfort, there
> is very little down side to cleaning up our act.  

If this is true, than why has world usage of fossil fuel gone up after a
tripling of price? Every indication is that a worldwide recession is the
only thing that will stop the growth of fossil fuel usage.  The widespread
use of nuclear power will slow it, but is not projected to stop it.

It would be worthwhile to see a single site that had a serious analysis of
the costs of converting from fossil fuels to a PC form of energy (i.e.
nuclear is not PC) which comes up with the cost of stopping global warming
at <10 trillion dollars.  I've Googled and have not obtained anything close
to serious analysis.  

Let's just look at the US.  In '04, CO2 emissions were about 23% above the
Kyoto quota for the US.  Now, it's safe to say it's >25% above.  So, to take
the extremely small step that Kyoto represents: delaying global warming 2-5
years will require the US to cut CO2 production 20%.

The sources and uses of power are available on the net.  I've looked at
them.  So, my question is...given what's available, how can the US cut it's
use of fossil fuel by 20% while still experiencing economic and population
growth over the next 10 years?  

I have tried to accurately express the consensus by quoting sites that
should represent the consensus: i.e. the UN agency responsible for obtaining
and publishing the best understandings of the community.  The numbers I
quote do not include "mights" or "coulds."  They determined the probable
range from the best available data, models, etc.  I do not give nearly as
much credence to single papers that indicate, for example, that last year's
strong hurricanes are the result of global warming.  There is no consensus
on that.  I think the error bars on the number of strong hurricanes 30 years
ago are large enough so that no signal can be measured.  Now, I'm not saying
that I know there is no significant correlation, but that the data do not
show it at the present time.  

I do not see this attempt by folks like Gore.  I see Bush-league scientific
and economic understanding.  Gore's argument (from an interview I referenced
here before) for being able to do it is: "when we need to do something, it
can be done...just look at the Manhattan Project."  

So, if you think it is the equivalent of vacuuming, then it should be
straightforward to come up with a demonstration of how cheap and easy it
would be for the US to meet Kyoto.

Dan M. 



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-27 Thread pencimen
William wrote:

> Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years,
and
> is within 1 °C of being its hottest for a million years, says
> Hansen's team. Another decade of business-as-usual carbon
emissions
> will probably make it too late to prevent the ecosystems of the
north
> from triggering runaway climate change, the study concludes
> (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p
14288)."

Even if those that predict doom and gloom in the near future, other
than some (probably even more exaggerated) economic discomfort, there
is very little down side to cleaning up our act.  It's as if we're
putting off vacuuming our house because vacuums are too expensive.

Doug





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-27 Thread Deborah Harrell
> Dan Minette wrote:

 
> Peer review is based on the
> assumption that the scientific
> community does not operate on an inherently dogmatic
> or political basis.
> While new ideas may not initially get all the credit
> they might objectively
> deserve, the fact that additional data tends to
> support the correct theory
> results in the consensus shifting towards good new
> ideas.

Which can take years or even decades.  Another example
from medicine that I am hard put to explain, except to
think that no one _wanted_ to believe such a thing was
so widespread, is something that I was still taught in
the mid '80s:  Gonorrhea is a sexually transmitted
disease, except that in some cases where children must
be sharing bathwater or toweling with infected
adult(s), they can become infected.

Talk about denial... 
 
> I think it might be helpful to look at several
> examples before reapplying
> this principal to the 9-11 conspiracy theories. 
> These examples will be
> listed in increasing confidence in the scientific
> consensus.  They are:
> 
> 1) Global Warming
> 2) Cold Fusion
> 3) Young Earth


Except that I think global warming is worse than you
accept - but as you note, differences of opinion and
interpretation are quite legitimate, not
mean-spirited.

> Looking at this progression, I see the 9-11
> conspiracy theories matching
> best with cold fusion.  Both require deliberate
> blindness to the obvious by
> a wide range of professionals  

> This doesn't mean that we know exactly what
> happened, BTW.  There is still
> enough room in the data for a scenario that we are
> not thinking about to be
> the one that...after all is said and done...to be
> considered the best model

Heck, I should have read this before finishing my
post, then I could have just said "Ditto" to that
last.

Debbi
I Do Not Like Them In A Box,
I Do Not Want Them Via Fox  Maru  ;)

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-27 Thread William T Goodall


On 27 Sep 2006, at 4:20AM, Dan Minette wrote:



1) Global Warming
Our understanding of global warming is still incomplete.  We have not
verified our climactic models the way, for example, we have verified
numerical models that predict responses of electromagnetic  
systems.  The
various models have assumptions built in.  Different models have  
different

results because they are based on slightly different assumption sets.



'One degree and we're done for'

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? 
id=mg19125713.300&feedId=online-news_rss20


""Further global warming of 1 °C defines a critical threshold. Beyond  
that we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet  
than the one we know."
So says Jim Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space  
Studies in New York. Hansen and colleagues have analysed global  
temperature records and found that surface temperatures have been  
increasing by an average of 0.2 °C every decade for the past 30  
years. Warming is greatest in the high latitudes of the northern  
hemisphere, particularly in the sub-Arctic boreal forests of Siberia  
and North America. Here the melting of ice and snow is exposing  
darker surfaces that absorb more sunlight and increase warming,  
creating a positive feedback.


Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years, and  
is within 1 °C of being its hottest for a million years, says  
Hansen's team. Another decade of business-as-usual carbon emissions  
will probably make it too late to prevent the ecosystems of the north  
from triggering runaway climate change, the study concludes  
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 14288)."


[...]



--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are  
the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-26 Thread Dan Minette


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 8:39 PM
> To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
> Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
> is no reliab...
> 
> In a message dated 9/18/2006 11:06:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> Assuming  that a large number of people can't be wrong about something
>>> because  they are smart and well-connected is a tautology. I think
>>> there are  many examples of large numbers of smart, well-connected
>>> people who  turned a blind eye to an inconvenient truth. Not that I
>>> arguing that  that's the case with 9/11... but I've generally found it
>>> more  profitable to question authority than to make the kind of
>>> assumption  that you are arguing.
> 
>> Isn't that not a tautology at all, but one of the basic assumptions
>> about peer-review in science?
> What is the assumption? That one must always question authority or that
> peer review has is based on consensus and not open to new data? 

The assumption is not that experts are always right, and not that new data
should not be the basis of a revaluation of the present consensus.  Rather,
it is that the consensus of the professionals in the field represents our
best understanding of the available data and analysis.



> The essence of peer  review has to do with assessment of evidence. Most
> reviewers try to be fair even  when they don't agree with the results 
> of the paper. It is an imperfect process but it does better than most 
> other ways of deciding things.

We agree substantially here.  The point of my post is to answer the question
of "what is the assumption."  JDG, of course, can correct me if I'm wrong. I
see the question as "what provides our best understanding of the available
information?"  Peer review is based on the assumption that the scientific
community does not operate on an inherently dogmatic or political basis.
While new ideas may not initially get all the credit they might objectively
deserve, the fact that additional data tends to support the correct theory
results in the consensus shifting towards good new ideas.

I think it might be helpful to look at several examples before reapplying
this principal to the 9-11 conspiracy theories.  These examples will be
listed in increasing confidence in the scientific consensus.  They are:

1) Global Warming
2) Cold Fusion
3) Young Earth

1) Global Warming
Our understanding of global warming is still incomplete.  We have not
verified our climactic models the way, for example, we have verified
numerical models that predict responses of electromagnetic systems.  The
various models have assumptions built in.  Different models have different
results because they are based on slightly different assumption sets.

We do not have a complete set of data.  Our data sets from before 1850 are
incomplete, and depend on some assumptions concerning the properties of
layers of ice that have been recovered from glaciers.  Our recent surface
temperature measurements suffer, to some extent, from the heat island
effect.  Until recently, there was a significant discrepancy between the
satellite data and the surface data.

Yet, given all these uncertainties, a consensus has formed, and is
improving.  About 5 years ago, it was generally agreed that the human
induced global warming would have a -0.5C to 4.5C effect over the next
century.  Now, there is general consensus that the effect is 1.0C to 3.0C
effect.  

However, there are professionals who are outside of the consensus.  Some
folks still think the effects will be next to zero or very high (>=5C). They
site different difficulties with data sets, different unknowns, etc.  

These folks should not be considered crackpots.  Rather, I'd see them as
holding several sigma positions on the spectrum of scientific understanding.
Do I think that their views are influenced by their political beliefs?  Yes,
that's my opinion.  Yet, I don't think that they hold impossible positions.
The chance that the consensus may move one way or another to include their
positions within the limits of the consensus is small, in my opinion, but
not close to zero.

2) Cold Fusion
When Ponds and Fleischman made their claims 15+ years ago, I was very
skeptical from the start.  Not one, but two previously unseen laws of
physics would have had to manifest themselves at a fairly high level...at
least compared to the levels we have been observing by that time.  Now,
after 15 years of their inability to either provide a recipe for duplication
of their observation, or duplicate the work themselves in a well controlled
environment, the scientific consensus that this was a spurious report is all
but universal.  

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-24 Thread Charlie Bell


On 25/09/2006, at 11:52 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



I think that what Pinker meant was that natural selection explains the
presence of useful functions in creatures. All of the other  
mechanisms exist for

sure but to get good and useful doohickeys one needs selection.


If he's using "natural selection" in the broadest sense, encompassing  
all that I mentioned, then yes absolutely.


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-24 Thread Bemmzim
 
In a message dated 9/22/2006 9:39:31 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

That  natural  
selection is *part* of the mechanism is close to certain.  But there's  
way more to speciation - kin selection, sexual  selection, allopatric/ 
synpatric speciation. We're discovering some  amazing processes by  
which differential survival rates are  maximised.



I think that what Pinker meant was that natural selection explains the  
presence of useful functions in creatures. All of the other mechanisms exist 
for  
sure but to get good and useful doohickeys one needs selection. 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-22 Thread Charlie Bell


On 23/09/2006, at 7:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



" The relationship between
fact and theory (or maybe data and hypothesis) is dynamic and not  
> easily

seperated."


So is it a fact that evolution occurs because of natural selection  
or is that a theory? After all the data to support natural  
selection as a mechanism (maybe not the only mechanism but a  
mechanism) is extremely solid as well. It comes from many  
disciplines and can be direcltly proven in experiments on organisms  
with short generetatiion times (bacteria viruses). To me natural  
selection is a proven mechanism of evolution. Steven Pinker has  
stated that it is the only explanation for the presence of  
adaptations in the world.


Pinker is overstating it a bit. Natural selection is a specific  
mechanism that explains a lot, and it's the foundation of selection  
theories, but in recent years its being discovered that there's a lot  
more going on (like organisms modulating their *own* transcription  
error rates in response to environmental stress). That natural  
selection is *part* of the mechanism is close to certain. But there's  
way more to speciation - kin selection, sexual selection, allopatric/ 
synpatric speciation. We're discovering some amazing processes by  
which differential survival rates are maximised.


These are all natural explicable processes, though.  That natural  
selection is no longer considered the only selection criterion in no  
way means that evolutionary theory is "a theory in crisis", or that  
there's any doubt among honest scientists that life on Earth as we  
see it today evolved from common ancestors right back to prokaryotes.



These people ignore data and pre-existent well tested theories.  
They rely not on facts as a whole but isolated pieces of data and  
they develop theories that cannot stand the test of experience or time


Yep.

Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-22 Thread William T Goodall


On 22 Sep 2006, at 10:21PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



But with 9/11, autism/vaccine crankery, creationism, alternative  
medicine, perpetual motion and so on, we're seeing groups that  
either corrupt this relationship and the nature of science, or just  
ignore or dismiss it entirely.


These people ignore data and pre-existent well tested theories.  
They rely not on facts as a whole but isolated pieces of data and  
they develop theories that cannot stand the test of experience or time




That's one of the evils of religious thinking. To protect religion  
from scrutiny the advocates of all religions attack rational thought  
and arguments based on facts and evidence.


The Emperor is naked Maru

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely  
ensured [Hitler's] success, notably in Protestant areas." - Fritz  
Stern,  professor emeritus of history at Columbia



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-22 Thread bemmzim
 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no 
reliab...


On 21/09/2006, at 12:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 
> 
 
The similarity is a fact. The progression is a fact. The analysis that 
therefore all creatures are descended from common ancestors is very close to 
certain. I'd call fact, because there has been no other explanation that stands 
up to scrutiny. How it happened this way, that's theory. I note that you 
introduced "data". Yes, on the simplest level data is facts and analysis is 
theory, but as you say: 
> " The relationship between 
> fact and theory (or maybe data and hypothesis) is dynamic and not > easily 
> seperated." 
 
So is it a fact that evolution occurs because of natural selection or is that a 
theory? After all the data to support natural selection as a mechanism (maybe 
not the only mechanism but a mechanism) is extremely solid as well. It comes 
from many disciplines and can be direcltly proven in experiments on organisms 
with short generetatiion times (bacteria viruses). To me natural selection is a 
proven mechanism of evolution. Steven Pinker has stated that it is the only 
explanation for the presence of adaptations in the world.  
 
 
But with 9/11, autism/vaccine crankery, creationism, alternative medicine, 
perpetual motion and so on, we're seeing groups that either corrupt this 
relationship and the nature of science, or just ignore or dismiss it entirely. 
 
These people ignore data and pre-existent well tested theories. They rely not 
on facts as a whole but isolated pieces of data and they develop theories that 
cannot stand the test of experience or time
 
Charlie 
___ 
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l 

Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security 
tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free 
AOL Mail and more.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-22 Thread Dave Land

On Sep 20, 2006, at 8:20 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:



On 21/09/2006, at 1:13 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:


On 9/20/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

But it's often used wrongly, to state that the
probabilitical nature of "scientific proof" means we can't be  
certain

of some things.


Hey, you have inspired a neologism.

Creationism is probapolitically true.


*snicker* Pleased to be of service...


Now we have *two* words to express the same idea: this one can join
"truthiness", which means roughly the same thing. It's true because
it /feels/ true to me.

Dave


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-20 Thread Charlie Bell


On 21/09/2006, at 1:13 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:


On 9/20/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

But it's often used wrongly, to state that the
probabilitical nature of "scientific proof" means we can't be certain
of some things.


Hey, you have inspired a neologism.

Creationism is probapolitically true.


*snicker* Pleased to be of service...

Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-20 Thread Nick Arnett

On 9/20/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

But it's often used wrongly, to state that the
probabilitical nature of "scientific proof" means we can't be certain
of some things.


Hey, you have inspired a neologism.

Creationism is probapolitically true.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-20 Thread Charlie Bell


On 21/09/2006, at 12:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



I am not sure things are so simple in differentiating fact from  
theory. The
facts of evolution are that there is change over time in the type  
and nature

of  living things.


That's the "fact" part of evolution, yep.


  This implies that evolution occurs. Is this  a fact or  a
theory. The similarity between organisms in a region and between  
current and

past organisms also implies evolution. Is this data fact or  theory?


The similarity is a fact. The progression is a fact. The analysis  
that therefore all creatures are descended from common ancestors is  
very close to certain. I'd call fact, because there has been no other  
explanation that stands up to scrutiny. How it happened this way,  
that's theory. I note that you introduced "data". Yes, on the  
simplest level data is facts and analysis is theory, but as you say:

" The relationship  between
fact and theory (or maybe data and hypothesis) is dynamic and not  
easily

seperated."


Yep. There are some conclusions that are facts, and some data that is  
questionable or uncertain. As in all of science, there's no one  
answer to method and nomenclature that works all the time.


But with 9/11, autism/vaccine crankery, creationism, alternative  
medicine, perpetual motion and so on, we're seeing groups that either  
corrupt this relationship and the nature of science, or just ignore  
or dismiss it entirely.


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-20 Thread Bemmzim
 
In a message dated 9/19/2006 4:45:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I'm  fairly certain that gravity is a fact.
> >
> > How it works  is a theory.
>
> Finally - that's exactly what I was saying about  evolution before.
> Same thing.

No disagreement  here.




I am not sure things are so simple in differentiating fact from theory. The  
facts of evolution are that there is change over time in the type and nature 
of  living things.  This implies that evolution occurs. Is this  a fact or  a 
theory. The similarity between organisms in a region and between current and  
past organisms also implies evolution. Is this data fact or  theory?  The 
creationists would argue that this is pattern is  just what god wanted to do 
for 
whatever reason god does everything god  does. Even gravity is a theory. The 
facts about the way bodies interact  with each other can also be explained with 
the same all purpose  explanation used to counteract evolution. God did it that 
way because  god makes all things move the way god wants to make things move. 
I would  argue that what we have are pieces of data and we have theories to  
explain these pieces of data. Theories can in fact be provisionally  true when 
no data exists that contradicts our theory (or  hypothesis). 
 
More importantly the notion that facts are neutral and theories no matter  
how well conceived and documented are judgements about facts is open to  
conjecture. Scientist do not collect facts and then let the theories fall out,. 
 They 
develop hypotheses based on some observations and then collect facts or  
perform experiments to verify or falsify their theories. The relationship  
between 
fact and theory (or maybe data and hypothesis) is dynamic and not easily  
seperated.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-20 Thread Charlie Bell


On 21/09/2006, at 11:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Well according to Karl Popper there are no absolute facts in  
science. All
scientific facts are in theory provisional since scientific facts  
are by
definition falseafiable.  Many things are so well established and  
so  imbedded in a
net of other well established facts that they are virtually   
certainly true or

at least mostly true (gravity evolution atomic  theory)


Sure, and that's the scientific small print that is implicit in every  
statement of fact. But it's often used wrongly, to state that the  
probabilitical nature of "scientific proof" means we can't be certain  
of some things. Which is bunk. There may be details that need filling  
out (we don't know every twist and turn along the family tree from  
bacteria to elephants, for example) but that doesn't mean we're not  
certain that there was a long time in between and that fish and  
invertebrates are ancestral to elephants. Or in your own field, that  
we're not certain that the brain is the organ that is responsible for  
thought. Yes, we *could* be wrong. It could yet turn out to be the  
heart. But really, it's not something that troubles us. So it's a fact.


Charlie



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-20 Thread Bemmzim
 
In a message dated 9/19/2006 1:05:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

...'cause there's no such thing as something that is so well   
supported it can be considered a fact. Like gravity. Just a  theory.




Well according to Karl Popper there are no absolute facts in science. All  
scientific facts are in theory provisional since scientific facts are by  
definition falseafiable.  Many things are so well established and so  imbedded 
in a 
net of other well established facts that they are virtually  certainly true or 
at least mostly true (gravity evolution atomic  theory)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

2006-09-20 Thread Bemmzim
In a message dated 9/18/2006 11:06:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Assuming  that a large number of people can't be wrong about something
> because  they are smart and well-connected is a tautology. I think
> there are  many examples of large numbers of smart, well-connected
> people who  turned a blind eye to an inconvenient truth. Not that I
> arguing that  that's the case with 9/11... but I've generally found it
> more  profitable to question authority than to make the kind of
> assumption  that you are arguing.

Isn't that not a tautology at all, but one of the  basic assumptions
about peer-review in science?
What is the assumption? That one must always question authority or that  peer 
review has is based on consensus and not open to new data? It is certainly  
true that individuals who do peer reviews (like me) are people with expertise  
who therefore probably believe in the mainstream notions. Too often a novel 
idea  will be rejected because it is well novel but this is not universally 
true 
and  will not be true for long. When a paper is rejected the author has a 
choice  of dropping the idea curse the stupid bastards who don't understand 
brilliance  when they see it or go back and get more evidence. Even a negative 
and 
unfair  review and rejection (I have had a few of these) can be of value 
because in the  critique of the paper there are questions that can be 
addressed. 
New ideas are  tested in the world not in the minds of experts. New evidence is 
collected, new  experiments performed new predictions made and confirmed. The 
essence of peer  review has to do with assessment of evidence. Most reviewers 
try to be fair even  when they don't agree with the results of the paper. It 
is an imperfect process  but it does better than most other ways of deciding 
things.



This argument is very similar to the argument used by  Creationists when
I start pointing out the tremendous geological evidence  against the
young-Earth hypothesis.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l