Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
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...
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...
-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...
-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 20011,094,681 40.835 20021,185,539 42.381 20031,295,795 49.727 2004
RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
-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...
-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...
-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...
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...
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...
-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...
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...
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...
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...
-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 people are likely to number around 8.2bn. By dividing the total carbon sink (2.7bn tonnes) by the number of people, we find that to achieve stabilisation the weight of carbon emissions per person should be no greater than 0.33 tonnes. If this problem is to be handled fairly, everyone should have the same entitlement to release carbon, at a rate
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. 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...
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...
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...
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=mg19125713.300feedId=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...
Dan Minette wrote: snipped most 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... grimace 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 snip very good discussion of these points 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...
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...
-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. IMHO, Ponds and Fleishman do deserve the title crackpots. First, if validated, their results would have required overwhelming changes in the theory of physics that would have dwarfed the changes made with the advent of QM, Special
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
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...
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...
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...
-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...
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...
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...
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
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
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
