Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
On 04 Apr 2014, at 19:05, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Apr 2014, at 11:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 4 April 2014 20:33, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit, rather than 'what it might mean' thus removing all constructs and myths surrounding it. Dr. Maurice Bucaille did something similar when he examined the scriptures in the light of scientific knowledge. Online translation: https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf To be fair, you have to allow that if there is a scientific inaccuracy in a holy book which is considered the word of God then, unless God got the science wrong, that would be evidence against the holy book being the word of God. The problem is that even if a believer says they are open-minded in this way they don't really mean it because that would be an admission that they are willing to test God, which is contrary to faith and therefore bad. What are you called if you are willing to test god? A believer? Rational. Yes. And as long the test does not contradict his theory, he can develop a rational belief, which is basically a positive attitude about some assumption. In the case of God, there is one more difficulty, which is the difficulty to agree on some non trivial definition which should be precise enough to make a test meaningful and interesting. With some definition, God can also been disproved, or proved, in mathematical theories. Gödel's formalization of St-Anselmus' notion of God makes its existence provable in the modal logic S5 (the Leibnizian theory). About Bucaille I will take a second look, but from I read quickly, it seems to me to take for granted Aristotle's God (the creation, the universe), and well, I have some doubt. It is very hard to interpret such texts. It is too much easy to reinterpret favorably some paragraph, and for a neoplatonist, this would mean that the author of the sacred text did just have some insight/intuition, which for a neoplatonist is always divine. In that case, both the existence of the work of ramanujan, but also the existence of arithmetic in high school are evidence for some God. Alice in Wonderland too. Why Alice in Wonderland? You might read the annotated Alice by Martin Gardner. Lewis Carroll perturbed classical logic, and found everything: relativity, the quantum, Gödel, He is better than Plotinus. Unfortunately, he was completely rejected by Charles Ludwig Dodgson, who was quite reactionary---an aspect made quasi explicit in his longer Sylvie Bruno. Is Mr Dodgson equal to Lewis Carroll? The rabbit hole in Wonderland is very deep. For example, it illustrates the hardness to reason with a relativist nitpicker. From memory: Alice: I explore the garden ... The queen: Oh! you can call that a garden, if you want, but I know garden in comparison with which this one is more like a desert. Alice: ... and want to see that hill. The queen: Oh! you can call that a hill, if you want, but I know hills in comparison with which this one is more like a valley. Alice: That is not possible, a hill cannot be a valley, that would be a nonsense! The queen: Oh, you can call that a nonsense, if you want, but I know nonsense in comparison with which this one is as meaningful than a dictionary! :) Bruno I am uneasy with a priori sacralization of books, as it looks to me like an encouragement to authoritative arguments. Any one is free to feel some text divine, but to put divine on the front looks close to blasphemous to me (doubly so when true). Bruno -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
Probably you saw people visiting houses in your neighbourhood, but that did not reached consciousnees you were busy thinking about other things. (I will not insert here these funny videos of people failing to recognize a bear in the middle of a scene). But according with a theory of evolutionary psychology, dreams are in order to be prepared for possible threats specially the most dangerous ones. The material of the dreams is taken from past events, and the subconscious takes into account not only the things that were you conscious of, but everithing. And maybe, sometimes the elaborative mechanism of the dreams does work very well. In some sense it is precognitive. That is in order to protect your sacred skepticism ;) 2014-04-06 7:13 GMT+02:00, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au: On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 05:42:10AM +1000, Kim Jones wrote: Finally you got to it. It was a precognitive dream. I have had many, an enormous number throughout my life in fact, so I don't think we need to beat about the bush here. Some dreams foretell or synchronistically coincide with near-future events (usually cloaked in some symbolic representation). Period. Jung certainly thought so. We cannot explain this away. Not sure about that. It's happened maybe 2-3 times to me in my whole life. I would call that rate coincidence. Not statistically significant. YMMV :). Also, presumably by chance, some people's rate of precognitive dreams would be much higher, just like some people are more accident prone than others. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 04 Apr 2014, at 19:32, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:03, LizR wrote: On 3 April 2014 05:56, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of smi...@zonnet.nl It is the belief that the scentists can be trusted to do the research they are supposed to do in a scientifically responsible way, vs. the belief in the conspiracy theory that the entire scientific field has been hijacked by ultra left wing environmental pressure groups. Saibal A conspiracy theory that has become spread through massive funding by the big holders of fossil carbon reserves -- seeking to protect the future valuation of those reserves, which has a large impact on the current valuation of their carbon holdings. An eminently rational (if cynical) motive, for these narrow carbon interests, but one that has sowed confusion and doubt, using the same junk science (and left wing hijacked science) accusations that were perfected by Big Tobacco in the preceding decades. It worked then for Big Tobacco and this same strategy of sowing falsehoods, is working now for the big carbon interests. Exactly. It's even been making some headway in the interests of denying evolution, for God (as it were) knows what reason. That is why I don't think politics is possible as long as prohibition continue. It has been used as a sort of Trojan horse for bandits, and they will sell you what they want. Stopping prohibition will not be enough. We must separate politics from money. Agreed, but I think there's a subtly here -- politics in necessarily about money, because money is the fundamental tool that we have to manage resources, unless someone figures out a way to make communism work. There's nothing fundamentally good or evil about money, it's just a neutral tool that can be used both ways. I agree, the problem is black money only, and grey money. But I still believe that lobbying should be without money. If not you get big pharma, and big tobacco, voting for you. Electoral campaign should be payed with taxes, and be minimal, and equal for all party/politicians. I see the problem as more one of managing incentives. People react to incentives. I strongly believe that the pollution problem could be mitigated quickly if the free market had the incentive to do so. Carbon credits are a horrible idea, because they reinforce bad behaviours without creating the incentives that can actually solve the problem. If an objective cost can be calculated for the damage that certain companies cause to the environment, then let's charge them for this and re-distribute this money directly to the people, with no special rules or distinctions. Just a simple division. None of this money should ever fall under the control of politicians. Then the companies have an incentive to solve the problem, and less people have an incentive to lie. I am not sure that this is really realist, especially if the problem are big, mundial, and unaffordable by most companies responsible. Then if you have the (black) money, you can dilute the responsibility efficaciously. But again, my point was concerned with the origin of bad dishonest politics and its maintenance by special corporate interests. If a politicians can be proved to have lied on technical matter should be fired. Perhaps. This should be purely handed by the police and the courts, in the same way that they are used to place a cost on other undesirable behaviours. If instead this money falls under the control of politicians, we now have two problems. OK. Bruno Best, Telmo. We should vote on ideas and not humans. We should find a way to prevent democracies against propaganda, if not corporatism. The green should be ally with the antiprohibitionists. I do think that prohibition is the deep reason of possible climate perturbation, and economy. Like the abandon of rationality in the spiritual is the deep reason of why the non-sensical prohibition has seem conceivable today. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 06 Apr 2014, at 07:13, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 05:42:10AM +1000, Kim Jones wrote: Finally you got to it. It was a precognitive dream. I have had many, an enormous number throughout my life in fact, so I don't think we need to beat about the bush here. Some dreams foretell or synchronistically coincide with near-future events (usually cloaked in some symbolic representation). Period. Jung certainly thought so. We cannot explain this away. Not sure about that. It's happened maybe 2-3 times to me in my whole life. I would call that rate coincidence. Not statistically significant. YMMV :). Also, presumably by chance, some people's rate of precognitive dreams would be much higher, just like some people are more accident prone than others. I thought making precognitive dreams, and that is one of the reason why I decide to have a dream diary. I continued to have such dreams, but the diary made me realize that in mot case, that was more a type of déjà-vu phenomenon, the predicted events occurs before the dreams. So this can be judged only from massive amount of case, with the dream being dated, and the pre-seen event too, and I have never found such data. So I am not sure if there are serious evidences, which of course, by itself, does not refute the precognition theory. Bruno Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 05 Apr 2014, at 12:44, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:00 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? A boring explanation for this sort of thing is that the set of possible coincidences is so large that it is likely that we find one once in a while. Indeed. Another one is that our brain is so good at detecting patterns that we realize subconsciously that something is likely to happen, by pinking on subtle clues from the environment. Yes, Liz could have seen those guy doing their work, without noticing it consciously, but generating subconsciously a warning of their arrival. But of course, who knows? My favourite personal experience: once I was bored waiting on the subway station. I entertained myself by imagining a mysterious story that involved empty trains passing by the station without stopping, with the lights turned off. The next train passed by without stopping, with the lights turned off. Looks like a movie by Bergman, or Delvaux ... :) Bruno Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 06 Apr 2014, at 06:47, meekerdb wrote: On 4/5/2014 4:18 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/5/2014 3:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Sure, I also find it quite likely that powerful fossil fuel companies are lobbying or using even dirtier tricks to discredit AGW theory. On the other hand, this says nothing about the truth status of AGW theory. Doesn't it? If it weren't true, then dirty tricks wouldn't be needed to discredit it, would they? It could be discredited like the flat earth, creationism, and cigarettes-are-good-for-you theories. If that was true, the world would be free from religious superstition So do you classify religion as a conspiracy? Do you think clergy are really all atheists and are just conspiring to fool others? I am pretty sure of this. Do you think that a christian believer of the top would protect the children molester, and this in a way making them continue the misdoing for 20 years? Bruno Brent and electing a president that claims to believe in a book of old desert myths would be unthinkable. Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 6 Apr 2014, at 5:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: So do you classify religion as a conspiracy? Do you think clergy are really all atheists and are just conspiring to fool others? I am pretty sure of this. Do you think that a christian believer of the top would protect the children molester, and this in a way making them continue the misdoing for 20 years? Bruno Organised, public religion is quite simply the biggest conspiracy theory of all time. It has been a front for power play ever since someone realised that you can simply tout a personal set of revelations in public and people will swoon and fall into line behind you. Church + Education + Politics = The Holy Trinity of Conformity. These three groups, each individually and in concert with each other, make me feel very disturbed about the future most of the time. Particularly since you have one, (The Catholic Church) which has moved into and colonised another, (Education) and is currently being evaluated for all the damage it has caused there with the growing scandal involving the shielding of child-abusing priests and pedophilic clergy generally. Roman Catholicism is revealed today as about pretty much nothing more than a creche for kiddy abusers. Jesus said suffer the Iittle children to come unto me. Each of the members of The Holy Trinity of Conformity worships its own past and its history to excess. Each promotes the mistaken belief that to study the lessons of History is the only way that mistakes will be avoided in the future. There is a lack of generative, creative thinking skills in The Holy Trinity of Conformity. Every day we hear of the lapse of taste or the outright corruption and fall from grace of people sitting in and between these 3 very special and very powerfully self-serving groups. Each of these power groups assists the other as a real tri-une force for social control. One can only hold the greatest fear for the production of honest and audacious priests, teachers and politicians, since everyone must submit to the HToC. A priest who was married in secret was thrown out of his parish by the Catholic Church. Decades of sexual abuse of students by religious people has gone unreported and undealt-with. Politicians reveal their lack of vision, their misogyny, their sycophancy for religion and all manner of horrific prejudices and fascist-tendencies on a daily basis on the floor of the parliament - and children are meant to derive some kind of role-model from these people. I could go on, but I think you may have the gist of it by now. Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 5 April 2014 23:44, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:00 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? A boring explanation for this sort of thing is that the set of possible coincidences is so large that it is likely that we find one once in a while. Yes, I realise that. Another one is that our brain is so good at detecting patterns that we realize subconsciously that something is likely to happen, by pinking on subtle clues from the environment. If I realised a religious person was going to turn up several hours later, that sounds rather ... clairvoyant! But of course, who knows? My favourite personal experience: once I was bored waiting on the subway station. I entertained myself by imagining a mysterious story that involved empty trains passing by the station without stopping, with the lights turned off. The next train passed by without stopping, with the lights turned off. That is, however, quite common. My dream was a one off and the guy was a one-in-several-years. (Do the maths! :) Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 05 Apr 2014, at 16:19, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 11:47 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't narrow it down too much. Je m'accuse. I was one of them. My point was that conspiracy theories, in the sense of power elites secretly cooperating to further their own interests against the interests of the majority are not, unfortunately, unusual events in History. We know of countless examples of this happening in the past. I think it requires some magical thinking to assume that this type of behaviour is absent from our own times. I further pointed out that broadly discrediting any hypothesis that some elites might be conspiring against the common good, in broad strokes, seems to benefit precisely the ones in power. Furthermore, thanks to Snowden, we now have strong evidence of a large-scale conspiracy by western governments that I would not believe one year ago. In this case I'm referring to the secret implementation of global and total surveillance, with our tax money, by the people we elected, to spy on us, infringing on constitutions. I can't help but notice the very common rhetorical trick of using the nutty conspiracy theories (UFOs, the Illuminati, fake moon landing, etc.) to discredit the much more mundane and reasonable suspicions of elites abusing their power. The paper you cite in this thread uses that trick too. This broad denial of the existence of conspiracies is silly, if you think about it. The official explanation for 9/11 is a conspiracy theory: some religious arab fundamentalists conspired to create a global network of terrorist cells with the objective of attacking western civilisation. They hijacked planes and sent them into buildings and so on. If you don't believe in this explanation, you are then forced to believe in some other conspiracy. Of course conspiracies exist. The current denial of this quite obvious fact feels Orwellian, to be honest. To state conspiracy in some domain or level seriously, you have to be precise and point accurately. Who, what, where, when, why? Just referring to elites or entire industries, of which I am often guilty, doesn't suffice. That's a sort of conspiracy comfort tale, which has the same effect as denying damaging backdoor deals on a large scale exist: inaction, no coordination, less people on the streets. The distinction is not trivial, as the comfort tale is abused as some explanatory weed, that illuminates all aspects of world politics, the hopeless vista of the speaker's position; everything they disagree with being part of the grand conspiracy and everything they agree with the opposite. The comfort tale use is not serious and more a psychology thing istm. PGC In the case of cannabis conspiracy, Jack Herer gives already much names and details. All points have been confirmed, like the fact that Ford and the followers will scupper the evidences that cannabis can cure mice cancers. In the case of 9/11, it is harder to evaluate the portion of the misdoer in the government, and the extent of their participation or leading role, but it is easy to have suspicion on some people (the same as for marijuana, basically). Bruno Best, Telmo. On 5 April 2014 22:31, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: It was in one of the climate threads. Le 5 avr. 2014 09:11, LizR lizj...@gmail.com a écrit : On 4 April 2014 19:35, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-04-04 1:29 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: Climate Deniers Intimidate Journal into Retracting Paper that Finds They Believe Conspiracy Theories Ironically, it looks like they are conspiring to silence any mention of this fact! http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-intimidate-journal-into-retracting-paper-that-finds-they-believe-conspiracy-theories PS I know this isn't about everything but there seems to be some interest in this topic on this forum. It is strange, because when I did mention that here, the answer was that it was perfectly normal and rational to believe in global conspiracy theories and irrational not to. That sounds a slightly strange view, imho. Who said that, may I ask, and in what context? (I will be sending my ninja assassins round to deal with them later, as per the standing instructions of the Grand High Adepts of the Illuminati...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 05 Apr 2014, at 12:30, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 11:47 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't narrow it down too much. Je m'accuse. I was one of them. My point was that conspiracy theories, in the sense of power elites secretly cooperating to further their own interests against the interests of the majority are not, unfortunately, unusual events in History. We know of countless examples of this happening in the past. I think it requires some magical thinking to assume that this type of behaviour is absent from our own times. I further pointed out that broadly discrediting any hypothesis that some elites might be conspiring against the common good, in broad strokes, seems to benefit precisely the ones in power. Furthermore, thanks to Snowden, we now have strong evidence of a large-scale conspiracy by western governments that I would not believe one year ago. In this case I'm referring to the secret implementation of global and total surveillance, with our tax money, by the people we elected, to spy on us, infringing on constitutions. I can't help but notice the very common rhetorical trick of using the nutty conspiracy theories (UFOs, the Illuminati, fake moon landing, etc.) to discredit the much more mundane and reasonable suspicions of elites abusing their power. The paper you cite in this thread uses that trick too. This broad denial of the existence of conspiracies is silly, if you think about it. The official explanation for 9/11 is a conspiracy theory: some religious arab fundamentalists conspired to create a global network of terrorist cells with the objective of attacking western civilisation. They hijacked planes and sent them into buildings and so on. If you don't believe in this explanation, you are then forced to believe in some other conspiracy. Of course conspiracies exist. The current denial of this quite obvious fact feels Orwellian, to be honest. I agree. Prohibition was purely conspiratorial. People met to develop a propaganda and making other people, through precise list of lies, voting laws making it possible to avoid a oil-hemp competition, and impose oil. You can find all the names on the net. I have completely stop to believe that prohibition has ever have had a relation with public health. A lot of people voted the prohibition of cannabis, without knowing that it was hemp. I saw video of interview of old people saying so. Many government hided the result of research on cannabis, and build fake data instead (US, France, UK notably). Then when there were talk that Obama might sign a text allowing the arrest and detention without trial of suspects, without mentioning radical islamism, or precise terrorist group, that is a text violating the most basic human rights, in time of peace, I mocked this as ... a conspiracy theory. But not only Obama signed it, but after two years, still refuse to add the coma, and precision asked. Since then I read the Nist report, and it seems obvious to me, that the official theory does not make sense at all. I don't know the truth, but the Nist reports is 100% nonsense. It is very thin also, and evacuates all relevant facts. You can see this also by looking at all Air crash investigation, the difference between most normal investigations and those for the 9/11 planes is striking, and makes clear that we are lied on this. The kennedy assassination is also quite enlightening on all this, and you can almost name one the big chief playing a role in drug prohibition, Kennedy's assassination, and 9/11: Bush senior. They are just bandits, (if you dislike the term conspiracy), and some members of the senate avowed that they just fear them. By injecting the black money in the markets, they are taking the whole middle class into hostage. In my country some very bad people (children murderers) are protected, and journalists having made inquests, have been murdered, or disappeared without trace. Prohibition seems to me to have been planned in advance by bandits to get power, with the complicity of some special interest. They failed with alcohol, but succeeded with marijuana. Bruno Best, Telmo. On 5 April 2014 22:31, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: It was in one of the climate threads. Le 5 avr. 2014 09:11, LizR lizj...@gmail.com a écrit : On 4 April 2014 19:35, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-04-04 1:29 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: Climate Deniers Intimidate Journal into Retracting Paper that Finds They Believe Conspiracy Theories Ironically, it looks like they are conspiring to silence any mention of this fact! http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-intimidate-journal-into-retracting-paper-that-finds-they-believe-conspiracy-theories PS I know this isn't about everything but there seems to be some interest in this topic on this forum. It
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
Boris Iskatov has derived a Quantum Information Theory from Dirac Eq. based on reality being (in part) a gas of microleptons (which is consistent with Brandenburger's String Gas Cosmology) That predicts that weak signals/information can leak back from the future and the past. His theory is not available in English. I discuss it in this paper: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/DarkMatt.html On a personal note I had the pleasure of riding next to Boris on a bus from Orlando to the Kennedy Ctr when I was under contract to the CIA to talk to Soviet scientists. We talked about religion, a common ground, and a bit of his theory. That was in the late 1970s. Richard On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 7:11 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 April 2014 23:44, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:00 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? A boring explanation for this sort of thing is that the set of possible coincidences is so large that it is likely that we find one once in a while. Yes, I realise that. Another one is that our brain is so good at detecting patterns that we realize subconsciously that something is likely to happen, by pinking on subtle clues from the environment. If I realised a religious person was going to turn up several hours later, that sounds rather ... clairvoyant! But of course, who knows? My favourite personal experience: once I was bored waiting on the subway station. I entertained myself by imagining a mysterious story that involved empty trains passing by the station without stopping, with the lights turned off. The next train passed by without stopping, with the lights turned off. That is, however, quite common. My dream was a one off and the guy was a one-in-several-years. (Do the maths! :) Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
Bruno, Is French your first language? If so, you can download the original French book by Dr Maurice Bucaille from the following link: http://www.islamic-invitation.com/downloads/Bible-Quran-Science_fr.pdf This study was made many years ago. If this inspires you, perhaps you can give a fresh look at the scripture with modern scientific knowledge. I'm sure that would explain many more verses in terms we can comprehend in this day and age. Regards, Samiya On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Apr 2014, at 19:05, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Apr 2014, at 11:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 4 April 2014 20:33, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit, rather than 'what it might mean' thus removing all constructs and myths surrounding it. Dr. Maurice Bucaille did something similar when he examined the scriptures in the light of scientific knowledge. Online translation: https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf To be fair, you have to allow that if there is a scientific inaccuracy in a holy book which is considered the word of God then, unless God got the science wrong, that would be evidence against the holy book being the word of God. The problem is that even if a believer says they are open-minded in this way they don't really mean it because that would be an admission that they are willing to test God, which is contrary to faith and therefore bad. What are you called if you are willing to test god? A believer? Rational. Yes. And as long the test does not contradict his theory, he can develop a rational belief, which is basically a positive attitude about some assumption. In the case of God, there is one more difficulty, which is the difficulty to agree on some non trivial definition which should be precise enough to make a test meaningful and interesting. With some definition, God can also been disproved, or proved, in mathematical theories. Gödel's formalization of St-Anselmus' notion of God makes its existence provable in the modal logic S5 (the Leibnizian theory). About Bucaille I will take a second look, but from I read quickly, it seems to me to take for granted Aristotle's God (the creation, the universe), and well, I have some doubt. It is very hard to interpret such texts. It is too much easy to reinterpret favorably some paragraph, and for a neoplatonist, this would mean that the author of the sacred text did just have some insight/intuition, which for a neoplatonist is always divine. In that case, both the existence of the work of ramanujan, but also the existence of arithmetic in high school are evidence for some God. Alice in Wonderland too. Why Alice in Wonderland? You might read the annotated Alice by Martin Gardner. Lewis Carroll perturbed classical logic, and found everything: relativity, the quantum, Gödel, He is better than Plotinus. Unfortunately, he was completely rejected by Charles Ludwig Dodgson, who was quite reactionary---an aspect made quasi explicit in his longer Sylvie Bruno. Is Mr Dodgson equal to Lewis Carroll? The rabbit hole in Wonderland is very deep. For example, it illustrates the hardness to reason with a relativist nitpicker. From memory: Alice: I explore the garden ... The queen: Oh! you can call that a garden, if you want, but I know garden in comparison with which this one is more like a desert. Alice: ... and want to see that hill. The queen: Oh! you can call that a hill, if you want, but I know hills in comparison with which this one is more like a valley. Alice: That is not possible, a hill cannot be a valley, that would be a nonsense! The queen: Oh, you can call that a nonsense, if you want, but I know nonsense in comparison with which this one is as meaningful than a dictionary! :) Bruno I am uneasy with a priori sacralization of books, as it looks to me like an encouragement to authoritative arguments. Any one is free to feel some text divine, but to put divine on the front looks close to blasphemous to me (doubly so when true). Bruno -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You
Re: Video of VCR
On 05 Apr 2014, at 19:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, April 4, 2014 2:07:47 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Apr 2014, at 03:40, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, April 3, 2014 2:34:06 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm not confusing them, I'm saying that []~comp is not untrue this means you say []~comp is true. Yes. Nice. Or that you confuse, like you did already truth and knowledge, but in that case you keep saying that you know []~comp, yet your argument above was only for ~[]comp, on which I already agree, as it is a consequence of comp. I'm not saying that I know it, I'm saying that it makes more sense. But then why are we discussing? Then, as I said, comp makes no sense from the 1p, which in comp is the sense-maker, which makes your point logically in favor of comp. just because it is outside of logic. When you arbitrarily begin from the 3p perspective, you can only see the flatland version of 1p intuition. You would have to consider the possibility that numbers can come from this kind of intuition and not the other way around. If you put your fingers in your ears, and only listen to formalism, then you can only hear what formalism has to say about intuition, which is... not much. Why? Because of the incompleteness of all formal systems. But this is based on arithmetic. comp implies that ~comp has the benefits of the doubt. I told you this many times. As I just repeated above, this does not refute comp. What does it mean to give it the benefit of the doubt but then deny it? You are the only one who deny a theory here. By saying that ~comp is only what seems true from the machine's 1p perspective, you are denying ~comp can be more true than comp. I am just saying that the non comp feeling is normal with comp, and cannot be used to refute logically comp. I am not denying non-comp. Not at all. I never said that comp is true, or that comp is false. I say only that comp leads to a Plato/aristotle reversal, to be short. We agree on this from the start, but what I am saying is that Plato also can be reversed on the lower level, so that the ideal/ arithmetic is generated statistically by aesthetics. Derive 1 = 1 in your theory. Show me the theory first. But *you* say that comp is false, and that is why we ask you an argument. The argument has to be understandable, and not of the type let us abandon logic and ..., which is like God told me ..., and has zero argumentative value. We don't have to abandon logic, but we have to understand that the source of logic is not necessarily going to be logical. This is what most people get from Godel. We knew this already. The choice of theories are not 100% logical. We don't need Gödel for this. The truth does not require argumentation value. Very plausibly. That part can be related to Tarski or Gödel limitation theorem, although very often the arguments are not valid, but sometimes it is. If I said that I have a theory that horses pull carts rather than the other way around, does its lack of argumentative value make it less true? Lack of justfication can make it less plausible, compared to a theory with more justification. That is a very contextual questions, depending on many things. Comp is Gödelian. It behaves like consistency (~[]f, t), which entails the consistency of its negation: t - []f. Not sure what you mean. Maybe if you wrote it out without symbols. If I am consistent then it is consistent that I am not consistent. (I = the 3p notion of self). How is I a 3p notion of self? It is not. Only here. I was just saying that I was using I in the 3p sense of the self. In that case, the I is given by the body or the code of the entity saying I (by definition). The decision to say yes to the doctor. What would a UM say to the doctor? The 1-I will say no, and the 3-I might say yes. The UM will live a conflict, and only its education might help to decide, in one or the other direction. The machine's decision to add a self-consistency axiom and become another machine. The direct introspection of the machine, when she feels what is out of any possible justification. That is formalized by the the annuli Z* \ Z, X* \ X, etc. Yes, mathematical logic provides tools to meta-formalizes some non formalizable, by the machine, predicate which are still applying on the machine. Whether it is formal or meta-formal, it's still logic. Not really. Logic is applied, but is not the subject of the inquiry. As you said above, arithmetic is not entirely logical. It remains a view of consciousness that lacks aesthetic presence That is the statement I am quite skeptical about, and that you should justify, at least the day you pretend that comp is false (not today). and is limited to programmatic states of figuring and configuring. It concerns both the 1p,
Re: Climate models
Dear Friends, Is there a single objective definition of damage to the environment? On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Apr 2014, at 19:32, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:03, LizR wrote: On 3 April 2014 05:56, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of smi...@zonnet.nl It is the belief that the scentists can be trusted to do the research they are supposed to do in a scientifically responsible way, vs. the belief in the conspiracy theory that the entire scientific field has been hijacked by ultra left wing environmental pressure groups. Saibal A conspiracy theory that has become spread through massive funding by the big holders of fossil carbon reserves -- seeking to protect the future valuation of those reserves, which has a large impact on the current valuation of their carbon holdings. An eminently rational (if cynical) motive, for these narrow carbon interests, but one that has sowed confusion and doubt, using the same junk science (and left wing hijacked science) accusations that were perfected by Big Tobacco in the preceding decades. It worked then for Big Tobacco and this same strategy of sowing falsehoods, is working now for the big carbon interests. Exactly. It's even been making some headway in the interests of denying evolution, for God (as it were) knows what reason. That is why I don't think politics is possible as long as prohibition continue. It has been used as a sort of Trojan horse for bandits, and they will sell you what they want. Stopping prohibition will not be enough. We must separate politics from money. Agreed, but I think there's a subtly here -- politics in necessarily about money, because money is the fundamental tool that we have to manage resources, unless someone figures out a way to make communism work. There's nothing fundamentally good or evil about money, it's just a neutral tool that can be used both ways. I agree, the problem is black money only, and grey money. But I still believe that lobbying should be without money. If not you get big pharma, and big tobacco, voting for you. Electoral campaign should be payed with taxes, and be minimal, and equal for all party/politicians. I see the problem as more one of managing incentives. People react to incentives. I strongly believe that the pollution problem could be mitigated quickly if the free market had the incentive to do so. Carbon credits are a horrible idea, because they reinforce bad behaviours without creating the incentives that can actually solve the problem. If an objective cost can be calculated for the damage that certain companies cause to the environment, then let's charge them for this and re-distribute this money directly to the people, with no special rules or distinctions. Just a simple division. None of this money should ever fall under the control of politicians. Then the companies have an incentive to solve the problem, and less people have an incentive to lie. I am not sure that this is really realist, especially if the problem are big, mundial, and unaffordable by most companies responsible. Then if you have the (black) money, you can dilute the responsibility efficaciously. But again, my point was concerned with the origin of bad dishonest politics and its maintenance by special corporate interests. If a politicians can be proved to have lied on technical matter should be fired. Perhaps. This should be purely handed by the police and the courts, in the same way that they are used to place a cost on other undesirable behaviours. If instead this money falls under the control of politicians, we now have two problems. OK. Bruno Best, Telmo. We should vote on ideas and not humans. We should find a way to prevent democracies against propaganda, if not corporatism. The green should be ally with the antiprohibitionists. I do think that prohibition is the deep reason of possible climate perturbation, and economy. Like the abandon of rationality in the spiritual is the deep reason of why the non-sensical prohibition has seem conceivable today. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To
Re: Video of VCR
On 05 Apr 2014, at 19:40, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, April 4, 2014 2:07:47 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Apr 2014, at 03:40, Craig Weinberg wrote: Logic is just required to be able to argue with others, and you do use it, it seems to me, except that you seem to decide opportunistically to not apply it to refute comp. Comp can't be refuted logically. Sorry, but the whole point is that it might be. It can be refuted logically, arithmetically, and empirically. It's a mirage. It seems like it could be refuted, but the built in bias of logic overlooks the stacked deck. Just as emotions and ego have their biases that warp our thinking, so too does logical thinking have an agenda which undersignifies its competition. You are so wrong here that I have to pause. You talk in a way which empties the dialog of any sense. You tell me in advance you need to be illogical to refute my agnosticism in the matter. You don't have to be 'illogical', you just have to transcend strict logic...break the fourth wall...use some of that courage you were talking about. All that I am saying is that incompleteness supports the limits of logic, so that we cannot presume to hold sense to that standard if my view is true. Incompleteness does not supports the limit of logics, but the limits of theories and machines. Then it shows how theories and machines can access to those limitations and how they can transcend them in some local sense, and exploit them to nuance their view on themselves. Ideally correct and simple machines do have already a rich and complex theology, including a physics. We have to listen to them, before judging them, I think. (Here I gave the programs). How could that conversation have sense? I put my hypotheses on the table, but here you put a gun on the table. Haha, yes, that's the thing, sense is tyrannical and violent. It acts like it is following laws but it cheats and then blames something else. At least I'm telling you it's a gun, you've convinced yourself that your gun is just a polite hypothesis. Confusion between ~[]comp and []~comp. I don't pretend that my assumption are true. And sometimes you do, forgetting that you have put ~comp in your assumption, and so that you beg the question when using your theory to refute comp. In your last post, it seemed to me you progress on it, but the progress seem fragile here. The choice is between logic, which is basically the most common part of common sense, and war or violence. It's precisely because logic is the most common part of common sense that it cannot parse the germ of sense, You are right, it cannot. But from this it does not follow that machines, which are not purely logical, as they have a non trivial arithmetical (non logical) components, cannot parse the germ of sense. You still believe that arithmetic comes from logic? which is absolutely unprecedented. Identity is not just uncommon, but the opposite - unrepeatable, proprietary, anti-mechnical. There is no choice at all. There is the illusion of logic and the reality of having to carve some kind of genuine sanity out of this thing, moment by moment. If we wait for logic to give us permission, we lose the moment. I can relate, but you don't provide an argument why machines or number cannot relate too. You keep thinking in term of simple logic, or simple non universal machine, but then you miss the key notion which makes computationalism consistent with know facts, including the experience of consciousness. That does not prove comp, but that disprove your type of argument against comp. Your theory is don't ask, but I realize also don't argue. Asking and arguing is great, but you can't get away from the fact that it doesn't make sense for the one who asks and argues to be a logical machine. It is comp which ultimately makes asking and arguing irrelevant, but it does so like a vampire - obligating us to invite us in..be fair to the imposter and let him take your brain. Comp insists that you have the right to say no to the doctor. But your type of philosophy would entail a segregation among people with and without prostheses. Tell me, can my sun-in-law vote? That might be correct, and provable in your non-comp theory, but that is not an argument against comp. (And this is no more an argument in favor of comp of course). It is an argument against comp in my non-comp theory. That is trivial then. If it comes down to choosing between the certainty of life and awareness as you know it and taking a gamble on logic and computation, do you say yes to the farmer? If we aren't being faced with death with a mad doctor as our only hope, would we gamble with our lives? Would a machine say yes to the farmer? It will not be like that. It will be more like 2060 working artificial hippocampus, 2090 artificial limbic
Re: Climate models
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: Shall we do the math now . Yes lets. 150GW * 8670 (hours/year) Actually 24 times 365 is 8760 not 8670; and if you want to get technical a year is a little more than 365 days so it's really 8766 hours, but never mind. Typically nuclear power plants operate at 80% capacity so 1 GW * 8670 (hours in a year) * 80% = Annual expected output = 6936 GW hours / year OK, Gigawatt is a unit of power and Gigawatt-hour is a unit of energy, and so the plant produces .8 Gigawatts of power and .8 Gigawatt-hours of energy every hour or 7008 (not 6936) Gigawatt-hours of energy every year. * 20% (capacity factor) = 260TW of annual electric output. This yields: 0.0017. A number that is 2,000 times larger than the number you erroneously produced. What the hell? You're confusing the difference between power and energy, they are not the same thing and if you insist on multiplying the capacity of your solar cells by a factor of 8670 (or even a 8760 ) then I can multiply what's needed to run human technology by that same 8670 factor and the percentages would remain the same. The Watt is a unit of power and the watt-hour is a unit of energy. So if a 1.5* 10^11 watt solar instillation runs at 20% capacity as you say then on average it produces 3 *10^10 watts of power and in one hour it produces 3 *10^10 watt hours of energy. But the POWER required to operate human technology on this planet is the equivalent of 1.5*10^17 watts, and to operate it for one hour you'd need 1.5*10^17 watt-hours of ENERGY and to operate it for one year you'd need 8760 times as much energy. Therefore I was incorrect when I said photovoltaics provides .0001% of what is needed to run the world, the true figure is less than that because I didn't take into account the 20% capacity figure that you mentioned; so photovoltaics actually provide .2% of the power needed to run human technology, or to put it another way, photovoltaics provide .2% of the energy needed to run things for one hour, or 2% of the energy needed to run things for one day, or .2% of the energy needed to run things for one second, or When you think about it this very low figure really shouldn't be a big surprise because I would guess that of all the large machines you have ever seen in your life (with your own eyes and not on YouTube) photovoltaic powered ones comprise about .2% of them. let's stop all this idiotic talk about recoverable Thorium reserves. Only if you stop the idiotic talk of counting the Thorium in your garden dirt as being part of some hypothetical future Thorium reserve. As I've said several times nobody is going to bother with the Thorium in your garden dirt until ores of much much greater Thorium concentration have run out, and at current energy consumption that won't happen for over a billion years. And when dealing with technology a billion years in advance of ours it would be ridiculous to say what sort of ore is recoverable and what sort is not. and in order to bring it [LFTR} into existence would require a large scale concerted multi-decadal effort. A keen grasp of the obvious. A changeover of the way human civilization is powered from fossil fuel to ANYTHING elsewould require a large scale concerted multi-decade effort. Brilliant deduction Sherlock I believe the expression you were looking for is No Shit Sherlock. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 06 Apr 2014, at 13:00, Kim Jones wrote: On 6 Apr 2014, at 5:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: So do you classify religion as a conspiracy? Do you think clergy are really all atheists and are just conspiring to fool others? I am pretty sure of this. Do you think that a christian believer of the top would protect the children molester, and this in a way making them continue the misdoing for 20 years? Bruno Organised, public religion is quite simply the biggest conspiracy theory of all time. OK, for some religion. It is complex, because the sorcerer in the village is not always dishonest. But it is a weakness of the field, that being so much fundamental, it is easily perverted in the tradition, and it is worse when it becomes an instrument to get power, like with the catholic Church, the ayatollah, some academies, etc. It has been a front for power play ever since someone realised that you can simply tout a personal set of revelations in public and people will swoon and fall into line behind you. Church + Education + Politics = The Holy Trinity of Conformity. These three groups, each individually and in concert with each other, make me feel very disturbed about the future most of the time. Particularly since you have one, (The Catholic Church) which has moved into and colonised another, (Education) and is currently being evaluated for all the damage it has caused there with the growing scandal involving the shielding of child-abusing priests and pedophilic clergy generally. Roman Catholicism is revealed today as about pretty much nothing more than a creche for kiddy abusers. I partially agree, but that should be an object of detailed inquiry. And certainly the catholic church has some reform to do, even it want survive. But in theology, the subject is still taboo, probably less for believers than disbelievers which easily fight the rational agnostic in the name of rationalism! Jesus said suffer the Iittle children to come unto me. Really? Where? What does that mean? Each of the members of The Holy Trinity of Conformity worships its own past and its history to excess. Each promotes the mistaken belief that to study the lessons of History is the only way that mistakes will be avoided in the future. It is necessary, but not sufficient, alas. There is a lack of generative, creative thinking skills in The Holy Trinity of Conformity. I am not sure. I am far more conservative. In a sense. Perhaps Xeusippes was right. Plato should have banish Aristotle. In theology, modernity was in the past, and we have not yet come back to it. Every day we hear of the lapse of taste or the outright corruption and fall from grace of people sitting in and between these 3 very special and very powerfully self-serving groups. Each of these power groups assists the other as a real tri-une force for social control. One can only hold the greatest fear for the production of honest and audacious priests, teachers and politicians, since everyone must submit to the HToC. A priest who was married in secret was thrown out of his parish by the Catholic Church. Decades of sexual abuse of students by religious people has gone unreported and undealt-with. Politicians reveal their lack of vision, their misogyny, their sycophancy for religion and all manner of horrific prejudices and fascist- tendencies on a daily basis on the floor of the parliament - and children are meant to derive some kind of role-model from these people. I could go on, but I think you may have the gist of it by now. When you let people using god as an argument per authority, you can expect the worst. Bruno Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 4/6/2014 12:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Apr 2014, at 06:47, meekerdb wrote: On 4/5/2014 4:18 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/5/2014 3:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Sure, I also find it quite likely that powerful fossil fuel companies are lobbying or using even dirtier tricks to discredit AGW theory. On the other hand, this says nothing about the truth status of AGW theory. Doesn't it? If it weren't true, then dirty tricks wouldn't be needed to discredit it, would they? It could be discredited like the flat earth, creationism, and cigarettes-are-good-for-you theories. If that was true, the world would be free from religious superstition So do you classify religion as a conspiracy? Do you think clergy are really all atheists and are just conspiring to fool others? I am pretty sure of this. Do you think that a christian believer of the top would protect the children molester, and this in a way making them continue the misdoing for 20 years? Yes, they might very well do that because they think that maintaining the reputation of the church is essential to saving souls from hell, which is obviously more important than some transient earthly transgressions. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 4/6/2014 1:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Prohibition seems to me to have been planned in advance by bandits to get power, with the complicity of some special interest. They failed with alcohol, but succeeded with marijuana. Your reasoning would imply that prohibiting anything is a secret plot to gain power. What do you think about banning heroin? assault rifles? biological warfare? poison gas? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
Hi Samiya, On 06 Apr 2014, at 15:41, Samiya Illias wrote: Bruno, Is French your first language? Not really. (Born in Germany, german/polish nurse). If so, you can download the original French book by Dr Maurice Bucaille from the following link: http://www.islamic-invitation.com/downloads/Bible-Quran-Science_fr.pdf This study was made many years ago. If this inspires you, perhaps you can give a fresh look at the scripture with modern scientific knowledge. I know you are wise enough to not fear my frank attitude, but the more I look at it, the less I am convinced, even by the very enterprise. An Alien might suggests scientific knowledge, or some one just introspect itself correctly, for a change, and get the scientific insight, in which case the author was just quite well inspired, but that cannot be seen as an evidence for God r the divine. I am not sure there can be any 3p evidences, and certainly not a human text. This does not mean that some text are not very deep, and you know my respect for text like the Milinda, or the Theaetetus, or even Alice I'm sure that would explain many more verses in terms we can comprehend in this day and age. Modern scientific knowledge, despite Godel and QM, are still basically and in the mainstream deeply wrong about theology, so what does it mean to compare a text and reinterpret it with that non- modern-at-all respect? How would you compare Bucaille and the old (almost lost, except still present but obscured in the Sufi) neoplatonist muslims? In theology my best reference are still in the greeks, the indians, the chinese. In occident religion has been mixed to much with the terrestrial goals, and the use of authority and violence, which betrays the simplest modest conception I can access of the divine. Bruno On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Apr 2014, at 19:05, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Apr 2014, at 11:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 4 April 2014 20:33, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit, rather than 'what it might mean' thus removing all constructs and myths surrounding it. Dr. Maurice Bucaille did something similar when he examined the scriptures in the light of scientific knowledge. Online translation: https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf To be fair, you have to allow that if there is a scientific inaccuracy in a holy book which is considered the word of God then, unless God got the science wrong, that would be evidence against the holy book being the word of God. The problem is that even if a believer says they are open-minded in this way they don't really mean it because that would be an admission that they are willing to test God, which is contrary to faith and therefore bad. What are you called if you are willing to test god? A believer? Rational. Yes. And as long the test does not contradict his theory, he can develop a rational belief, which is basically a positive attitude about some assumption. In the case of God, there is one more difficulty, which is the difficulty to agree on some non trivial definition which should be precise enough to make a test meaningful and interesting. With some definition, God can also been disproved, or proved, in mathematical theories. Gödel's formalization of St-Anselmus' notion of God makes its existence provable in the modal logic S5 (the Leibnizian theory). About Bucaille I will take a second look, but from I read quickly, it seems to me to take for granted Aristotle's God (the creation, the universe), and well, I have some doubt. It is very hard to interpret such texts. It is too much easy to reinterpret favorably some paragraph, and for a neoplatonist, this would mean that the author of the sacred text did just have some insight/ intuition, which for a neoplatonist is always divine. In that case, both the existence of the work of ramanujan, but also the existence of arithmetic in high school are evidence for some God. Alice in Wonderland too. Why Alice in Wonderland? You might read the annotated Alice by Martin Gardner. Lewis Carroll perturbed classical logic, and found everything: relativity, the quantum, Gödel, He is better than Plotinus. Unfortunately, he was completely rejected by Charles Ludwig Dodgson, who was quite reactionary---an aspect made quasi explicit in his longer Sylvie Bruno. Is Mr Dodgson equal to Lewis Carroll? The rabbit hole in Wonderland is very deep. For example, it illustrates the hardness to reason
RE: Climate models
Good question. There are so many metrics. A given environments bio-diversity for example (although bio-diversity ranges widely from place to place - a single valley in a bio-diversity hot spot in some place like Costa Rica can have a greater variety of species than an entire region of arboreal forest for example) But if one has good base line measurements of bio-diversity over time and can graph a collapse in this for some region then that is a pretty good indicator that something very disruptive of the ecosystem is happening. Biomass is another good metric - the estimated annual production of total biomass per unit area will often also collapse when an ecosystem gets into serious trouble. A related yardstick that is pretty good is the organic matter content in top soil; good healthy soil is full of living things and organic matter. A damaged environment typically is one that is rapidly losing its topsoil - for land environmental niches only and not oceanic ecosystems, of course . Denuded land also loses its ability for water retention. An area that is in ecological trouble is often losing bio-diversity, and the ability to support a biomass without the addition of chemical inputs. and is also often characterized by the presence of invasive species. I am sure there are other important measurements - for example water quality, rates of mutation, sperm count, disease and parasite statistics and many other metrics I have missed. Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2014 10:18 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Climate models Dear Friends, Is there a single objective definition of damage to the environment? On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Apr 2014, at 19:32, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:03, LizR wrote: On 3 April 2014 05:56, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of smi...@zonnet.nl It is the belief that the scentists can be trusted to do the research they are supposed to do in a scientifically responsible way, vs. the belief in the conspiracy theory that the entire scientific field has been hijacked by ultra left wing environmental pressure groups. Saibal A conspiracy theory that has become spread through massive funding by the big holders of fossil carbon reserves -- seeking to protect the future valuation of those reserves, which has a large impact on the current valuation of their carbon holdings. An eminently rational (if cynical) motive, for these narrow carbon interests, but one that has sowed confusion and doubt, using the same junk science (and left wing hijacked science) accusations that were perfected by Big Tobacco in the preceding decades. It worked then for Big Tobacco and this same strategy of sowing falsehoods, is working now for the big carbon interests. Exactly. It's even been making some headway in the interests of denying evolution, for God (as it were) knows what reason. That is why I don't think politics is possible as long as prohibition continue. It has been used as a sort of Trojan horse for bandits, and they will sell you what they want. Stopping prohibition will not be enough. We must separate politics from money. Agreed, but I think there's a subtly here -- politics in necessarily about money, because money is the fundamental tool that we have to manage resources, unless someone figures out a way to make communism work. There's nothing fundamentally good or evil about money, it's just a neutral tool that can be used both ways. I agree, the problem is black money only, and grey money. But I still believe that lobbying should be without money. If not you get big pharma, and big tobacco, voting for you. Electoral campaign should be payed with taxes, and be minimal, and equal for all party/politicians. I see the problem as more one of managing incentives. People react to incentives. I strongly believe that the pollution problem could be mitigated quickly if the free market had the incentive to do so. Carbon credits are a horrible idea, because they reinforce bad behaviours without creating the incentives that can actually solve the problem. If an objective cost can be calculated for the damage that certain companies cause to the environment, then let's charge them for this and re-distribute this money directly to the people, with no special rules or distinctions. Just a simple division. None of this money should ever fall under the control of politicians. Then the companies have an incentive to solve the problem, and less people have an incentive to lie. I am not sure that this is really realist, especially if the
Re: Climate models
What do all these have in common? Boil it down to the essence. On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: Good question. There are so many metrics. A given environments bio-diversity for example (although bio-diversity ranges widely from place to place - a single valley in a bio-diversity hot spot in some place like Costa Rica can have a greater variety of species than an entire region of arboreal forest for example) But if one has good base line measurements of bio-diversity over time and can graph a collapse in this for some region then that is a pretty good indicator that something very disruptive of the ecosystem is happening. Biomass is another good metric - the estimated annual production of total biomass per unit area will often also collapse when an ecosystem gets into serious trouble. A related yardstick that is pretty good is the organic matter content in top soil; good healthy soil is full of living things and organic matter. A damaged environment typically is one that is rapidly losing its topsoil - for land environmental niches only and not oceanic ecosystems, of course . Denuded land also loses its ability for water retention. An area that is in ecological trouble is often losing bio-diversity, and the ability to support a biomass without the addition of chemical inputs... and is also often characterized by the presence of invasive species. I am sure there are other important measurements - for example water quality, rates of mutation, sperm count, disease and parasite statistics and many other metrics I have missed. Chris *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King *Sent:* Sunday, April 06, 2014 10:18 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Climate models Dear Friends, Is there a single objective definition of damage to the environment? On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Apr 2014, at 19:32, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:03, LizR wrote: On 3 April 2014 05:56, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of smi...@zonnet.nl It is the belief that the scentists can be trusted to do the research they are supposed to do in a scientifically responsible way, vs. the belief in the conspiracy theory that the entire scientific field has been hijacked by ultra left wing environmental pressure groups. Saibal A conspiracy theory that has become spread through massive funding by the big holders of fossil carbon reserves -- seeking to protect the future valuation of those reserves, which has a large impact on the current valuation of their carbon holdings. An eminently rational (if cynical) motive, for these narrow carbon interests, but one that has sowed confusion and doubt, using the same junk science (and left wing hijacked science) accusations that were perfected by Big Tobacco in the preceding decades. It worked then for Big Tobacco and this same strategy of sowing falsehoods, is working now for the big carbon interests. Exactly. It's even been making some headway in the interests of denying evolution, for God (as it were) knows what reason. That is why I don't think politics is possible as long as prohibition continue. It has been used as a sort of Trojan horse for bandits, and they will sell you what they want. Stopping prohibition will not be enough. We must separate politics from money. Agreed, but I think there's a subtly here -- politics in necessarily about money, because money is the fundamental tool that we have to manage resources, unless someone figures out a way to make communism work. There's nothing fundamentally good or evil about money, it's just a neutral tool that can be used both ways. I agree, the problem is black money only, and grey money. But I still believe that lobbying should be without money. If not you get big pharma, and big tobacco, voting for you. Electoral campaign should be payed with taxes, and be minimal, and equal for all party/politicians. I see the problem as more one of managing incentives. People react to incentives. I strongly believe that the pollution problem could be mitigated quickly if the free market had the incentive to do so. Carbon credits are a horrible idea, because they reinforce bad behaviours without creating the incentives that can actually solve the problem. If an objective cost can be calculated for the damage that certain companies cause to the environment, then let's charge them for this and re-distribute this money directly to the people, with no special rules or distinctions. Just a simple division. None of this money should
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:47 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/5/2014 4:18 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/5/2014 3:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Sure, I also find it quite likely that powerful fossil fuel companies are lobbying or using even dirtier tricks to discredit AGW theory. On the other hand, this says nothing about the truth status of AGW theory. Doesn't it? If it weren't true, then dirty tricks wouldn't be needed to discredit it, would they? It could be discredited like the flat earth, creationism, and cigarettes-are-good-for-you theories. If that was true, the world would be free from religious superstition So do you classify religion as a conspiracy? Do you think clergy are really all atheists and are just conspiring to fool others? I subscribe Bruno's and Kim's replies. But this is besides the point here. You claimed that, if AGW was false, then oil companies would only need to falsify the models to affect political change. If that were true, then it wouldn't be the case that the majority of the world population is religious, because most religious claims are trivially and publicly falsified by the many fields of modern science, from cosmology to archeology. Telmo. Brent and electing a president that claims to believe in a book of old desert myths would be unthinkable. Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Climate models
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2014 10:48 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Climate models On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: Shall we do the math now . Yes lets. 150GW * 8670 (hours/year) Actually 24 times 365 is 8760 not 8670; and if you want to get technical a year is a little more than 365 days so it's really 8766 hours, but never mind. Okay. get picky about very small details dude, but that does not alter the fact that your result was off by a factor of two thousand times! Typically nuclear power plants operate at 80% capacity so 1 GW * 8670 (hours in a year) * 80% = Annual expected output = 6936 GW hours / year OK, Gigawatt is a unit of power and Gigawatt-hour is a unit of energy, and so the plant produces .8 Gigawatts of power and .8 Gigawatt-hours of energy every hour or 7008 (not 6936) Gigawatt-hours of energy every year. You are so very picky for someone whose calculations produced results that were wrong by a factor of two thousand times. A GW of capacity is the nameplate measurement of capacity to produce power; a GW-hour is a measurement of actual output. You multiply the capacity by a capacity factor, which for big thermo-electric plants (both nuclear and coal) is around 80% and then multiply that by the number of hours in a year to get the estimated annual output. * 20% (capacity factor) = 260TW of annual electric output. This yields: 0.0017. A number that is 2,000 times larger than the number you erroneously produced. What the hell? You're confusing the difference between power and energy, they are not the same thing and if you insist on multiplying the capacity of your solar cells by a factor of 8670 (or even a 8760 ) then I can multiply what's needed to run human technology by that same 8670 factor and the percentages would remain the same. You really don't get it do you. Are you dense or just argumentative? Capacity measures the nameplate potential to produce power - a solar panel with a 1kw capacity can produce a kilowatt of power if the sun is shining on it at full flux. Actual annual electric output is a very different, but related metric. You get that by multiplying the capacity by the number of hours in a year and then applying a capacity factor adjustment to the result. The sun does not shine at night so right there solar PV capacity factor goes down to 50%. It also Is not always sunny and so it goes down even more. In the end what you have left - and the average figure that is most widely accepted (it does of course vary from place to place - some areas are better for solar than others) is 20% I did my calculations correctly; you were off by 2000 times dude. The 8670 = 365*24 - that is the number of hours in a year. To get annual electric output from a measure of a energy systems capacity this is what you do.. Does not matter if it is solar, wind, nuclear, coal, gas or whatever, dude - and now I really am beginning to question your intelligence John. This is basic math dude. You can certainly multiply a figure that is representing the annual total amount of energy consumed in a year expressed in terms of watt hours by any number that pops out of your brain, but to what end? The annual energy produced is already a measure of annual energy produced so multiplying that figure by the number of hours in a year is stupid. Are you stupid John? On the one hand there is a measure of capacity and on the other hand there is a measure of annual output. In order to compare these numbers an annual output number needs to be computed from the capacity number; otherwise it is comparing apples and oranges. Please don't be so dense; this is simple. The Watt is a unit of power and the watt-hour is a unit of energy. So if a 1.5* 10^11 watt solar instillation runs at 20% capacity as you say then on average it produces 3 *10^10 watts of power and in one hour it produces 3 *10^10 watt hours of energy. But the POWER required to operate human technology on this planet is the equivalent of 1.5*10^17 watts, and to operate it for one hour you'd need 1.5*10^17 watt-hours of ENERGY and to operate it for one year you'd need 8760 times as much energy. Therefore I was incorrect when I said photovoltaics provides .0001% of what is needed to run the world, the true figure is less than that because I didn't take into account the 20% capacity figure that you mentioned; so photovoltaics actually provide .2% of the power needed to run human technology, or to put it another way, photovoltaics provide .2% of the energy needed to run things for one hour, or 2% of the energy needed to run things for one day, or .2% of the energy needed to run things for one second, or When you think about it this very low figure really shouldn't be a big surprise because I would
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 4/6/2014 11:36 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:47 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/5/2014 4:18 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/5/2014 3:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Sure, I also find it quite likely that powerful fossil fuel companies are lobbying or using even dirtier tricks to discredit AGW theory. On the other hand, this says nothing about the truth status of AGW theory. Doesn't it? If it weren't true, then dirty tricks wouldn't be needed to discredit it, would they? It could be discredited like the flat earth, creationism, and cigarettes-are-good-for-you theories. If that was true, the world would be free from religious superstition So do you classify religion as a conspiracy? Do you think clergy are really all atheists and are just conspiring to fool others? I subscribe Bruno's and Kim's replies. But this is besides the point here. You claimed that, if AGW was false, then oil companies would only need to falsify the models to affect political change. If that were true, then it wouldn't be the case that the majority of the world population is religious, because most religious claims are trivially and publicly falsified by the many fields of modern science, from cosmology to archeology. Religions make vague claims which are 'interpreted' and so cannot be falsified - notice that even Bruno believes in a God and refers to angels (of course he 'interprets' them very differently). But the oil companies don't offer any corrections to the absorbtion spectrum of CO2 or the insolation power or the measurements of temperature... They just attempt to obfuscate the problem of climate prediction by pointing to minor gaps in knowledge and saying, What about THIS?: Maybe cosmic rays make clouds. Why is the stratosphere cooler in the equatorial zone? Maybe weather stations have been moved. Didn't temperatures rise before CO2 did in prehistoric times? ... Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
Samiya Illias, you took up an honorable position and will be rewarded for it in the afterlife - if there is an afterlife. A friend (almost reaching the title of Catholic Priest) said in a similar discussion: It means so little mental investment to BELIVE and the reward is so great (eternal bliss) that it wood be foolish not to go it's way. Unfortunately the list-arguments in this topic are very questionable: is the Script falsifiable by science? Well, science is DOUBT in everything until proven - by what? by science, of course. Which is unsure. So I would not ask for justification (or rejection) by science: an unsure basis. I would ask my agnosticism: where did God come from? (I mean: the idea and the concept (call it: 'Person'?) itself). A Pre-World with a 'Pre-God'? or is the same God and why must the believers believe? Why must they adore and praise a God who is in much higher standing than anything 'natural'? Why is an offense by a lowly mortal punishable eternally (in Hell?) and btw: who made Hell, and it's inhabitants? How did Inuits follow God's rules in a climate so different from the Sunny desert? Is their disobedience punished? Who are the slaves of the Scripture today? How should one handle the differences between the three consecutive Scripts in a changing world? It is good to be agnostic and keep away from such questions. Peace! John M On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.comwrote: Qur'an Chapter 5, Verse 31: Then Allah sent a raven scratching up the ground, to show him how to hide his brother's naked corpse. He said: Woe unto me! Am I not able to be as this raven and so hide my brother's naked corpse? And he became repentant. (Translator: Pickthal) http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=5translator=4#31 Samiya On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:17 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows_2.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
The real story here is that a peer reviewed journal was intimidated into withdrawing a paper that had passed through the proper review channels. That the internet is full of conspiracy theory isn't news. And to the extent that climate science denial is correlated with beliefs in conspiracy theories, so is climate science acceptance. You don't have to read blog rows for long to see that climate science acceptors are the lackeys of communist Illuminati hell bent on denying the world freedom and that climate science deniers are in bed with the oil barons attempting in a capitalist frenzy to do pretty much the same thing. What gets lost on both sides is the actual science. A fact that I think is illustrated perfectly when climate science acceptors demand capitulation on the basis that 97% of climate scientists agree there is human caused problem. That 97% of scientists agree is an empirical fact, presumably, but it is also an irrelevant one. Not a single fact about the climate is true on the basis of a 97% agreement between scientists. Its an argument from authority writ large. its the kind of fact which if persuasive would have kept us believing the earth was flat. Yet every time I see blog rows on climate change it gets trotted out as if it is informative. I think what this paper really shows is just that part and parcel of debate is to weave a narrative about your opponent: 'Obviously', if you are not convinced by my water tight arguments then there must be something wrong with you. Unfortunately the paper shows it by doing it. Thats not to say that it shouldn't have been published, it should have. But the shame is that by not publishing it, it has somehow earnt respect and currency. Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 12:15:26 -0700 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing On 4/6/2014 11:36 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:47 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/5/2014 4:18 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/5/2014 3:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Sure, I also find it quite likely that powerful fossil fuel companies are lobbying or using even dirtier tricks to discredit AGW theory. On the other hand, this says nothing about the truth status of AGW theory. Doesn't it? If it weren't true, then dirty tricks wouldn't be needed to discredit it, would they? It could be discredited like the flat earth, creationism, and cigarettes-are-good-for-you theories. If that was true, the world would be free from religious superstition So do you classify religion as a conspiracy? Do you think clergy are really all atheists and are just conspiring to fool others? I subscribe Bruno's and Kim's replies. But this is besides the point here. You claimed that, if AGW was false, then oil companies would only need to falsify the models to affect political change. If that were true, then it wouldn't be the case that the majority of the world population is religious, because most religious claims are trivially and publicly falsified by the many fields of modern science, from cosmology to archeology. Religions make vague claims which are 'interpreted' and so cannot be falsified - notice that even Bruno believes in a God and refers to
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
On 4/6/2014 3:18 PM, John Mikes wrote: Samiya Illias, you took up an honorable position and will be rewarded for it in the afterlife - if there is an afterlife. A friend (almost reaching the title of Catholic Priest) said in a similar discussion: It means so little mental investment to BELIVE and the reward is so great (eternal bliss) that it wood be foolish not to go it's way. Hmmm? Eternal bliss while singing hymns and worshipping a despotic egomanical superbeing, for eternity... Sounds like being drugged. I think I'll pass. Brent Now then in Earth these people cannot stand much church - an hour and a quarter is the limit and they draw the line at once a week. That is to say, Sunday. One day in seven; and even then they do not look forward to it with longing. And so - consider what their heaven provides for them: church that lasts forever, and Sabbath that has not end! They quickly weary of this brief hebdomadal Sabbath here, yet they long for that eternal one; they dream of it, they talk about it, they think they think they are going to enjoy it - with all their simple hearts they think they think they are going to be happy in it! It is because they do not think at all; they only think they think. --- Mark Twain, Letters from Earth -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 4/6/2014 4:08 PM, chris peck wrote: The real story here is that a peer reviewed journal was intimidated into withdrawing a paper that had passed through the proper review channels. That the internet is full of conspiracy theory isn't news. And to the extent that climate science denial is correlated with beliefs in conspiracy theories, so is climate science acceptance. You don't have to read blog rows for long to see that climate science acceptors are the lackeys of communist Illuminati hell bent on denying the world freedom and that climate science deniers are in bed with the oil barons attempting in a capitalist frenzy to do pretty much the same thing. What gets lost on both sides is the actual science. A fact that I think is illustrated perfectly when climate science acceptors demand capitulation on the basis that 97% of climate scientists agree there is human caused problem. That 97% of scientists agree is an empirical fact, presumably, but it is also an irrelevant one. Not a single fact about the climate is true on the basis of a 97% agreement between scientists. Its an argument from authority writ large. its the kind of fact which if persuasive would have kept us believing the earth was flat. Yet every time I see blog rows on climate change it gets trotted out as if it is informative. But it is informative. It means that if you disagree, you need to show why the published papers of these people who have spent a lot of time and energy studying and measuring are wrong. After all you probably never did an experiment to prove the Earth is spherical. You accepted it because you were told it (If you dont' already know it, you might find it instructive to read the story of Alfred Wallace and John Hampden's bet http://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2010/08/the-flat-earth-fiasco.html ). You probably didn't test the germ theory of disease or conservation of energy either. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Climate models
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King What do all these have in common? Boil it down to the essence. If it were that easy J An ecosystem is an emergent phenomena. a whole that is more than and cannot be understood just by looking at its parts. Just as there are thousands upon thousands of different pathways by which a single organism can become ill so it is with ecosystems. Just as it is hard - without a careful medical examination - to know if an individual is healthy or not. thus it is with ecosystems. Complex multi-variant, multi-systemic, co-effective systems are not simple single dimensional problem domains. Just like a person requires a thorough medical exam (and even that is no guarantee, often diseases - or systemic ill health -- are missed by medical exams) - so it is with the complex inter-acting web of life that we represent with the term ecosystem. There are many orthogonal dimensions of complexity, of resource and energy flows in and through an ecosystem, which in some ways acts like in its locale as a dysentropy engine, exploiting for the most part the solar flux as the energy gradient, but also using chemical gradients in rock and cold deep water gas seeps, the hot smokers where life gets right up to the edge of those very hot mineral saturated vents and makes a living. Each single organism - at least large ones - which would be anything bigger than the smallest microscopic flea really -- should also be understood as a kind of ecosystem itself (for example: By census - Not mass -- 90% of the living microorganisms, including human cells -- in a typical human do not have human DNA . or that for example there are fifty types (or so.. whose counting) of micro-organism species that have specialized in making a living on human tooth enamel alone. and we have not even gotten to the gum line yet! ) It is a highly dynamic web of life - even within a single animal or plant. We barely begin to get it and it is only by understanding the dynamic whole system of systems that we can understand the emergent phenomena. One thing that as I have come to understand that my own living being is a community of organisms, some parasitical no doubt, but as science is increasingly discovering many that have ancient and important roles in the meta-entity that is the emergent animal. I used to see a monkey and see a monkey, now I see a monkey community and have come around to the understanding that the ecosystem does not stop at the level of the individual organism, but that we are sieves most intimately bathed and connected to our environments. that the ecosystem extends right on into the individual organism at the scale of the cell and the even much smaller scale of the bacterium or virus. The ecosystem is the organisms in it and like a rivers extends into ever smaller tributaries and streams, into little creeks and trickles of water the ecosystem extends right on into you. it is alive now in your gut (and all throughout your body) and it is helping keep you alive. We are discovering organisms that do nothing in terms of digesting food in our gut for example that eat off our table so to speak, but that we now are finding are active participating agents working with our body's immune system at the gut interface - which is where the digested food enters the body, which also makes it the prime vector for disease organisms as well and is hence the front line of our immune system. These microorganisms signal to our body's immune system the presence and perhaps even type of pathogen from the other side of the gut barrier - on the inside of the tube. This is active cooperation between species at the cellular level and it seems to me like there si a lot of this going on all the time in every kind of life form. Where does the ecosystem begin and were does it end? Chris On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: Good question. There are so many metrics. A given environments bio-diversity for example (although bio-diversity ranges widely from place to place - a single valley in a bio-diversity hot spot in some place like Costa Rica can have a greater variety of species than an entire region of arboreal forest for example) But if one has good base line measurements of bio-diversity over time and can graph a collapse in this for some region then that is a pretty good indicator that something very disruptive of the ecosystem is happening. Biomass is another good metric - the estimated annual production of total biomass per unit area will often also collapse when an ecosystem gets into serious trouble. A related yardstick that is pretty good is the organic matter content in top soil; good healthy soil is full of living things and organic matter. A damaged environment typically is one that is rapidly losing its topsoil - for land environmental niches only and not oceanic ecosystems, of
RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
Brent If 100% of scientists were in agreement about climate change, that fact alone, tells me nothing about the truth of the claims they actually make. You probably didn't test the germ theory of disease or conservation of energy either. Yes, and my great great great great great grand parents didn't test the theory that disease was caused by sin. They knew it was sin because so many experts told them it was. The superiority of my view over theirs can not be established by an appeal to a consensus because in this regard me and my ancestors are equivalent. They have their consensus and I have mine. If I am to convince them I will have an easier time drawing their attention to the actual science. Whenever we're on the verge of a scientific revolution we're usually in a situation where 99.999% of scientists disagree with what happens to be more accurate. Those 99% have as much responsibility to show why the 1% are wrong as vica versa. Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 16:51:34 -0700 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing On 4/6/2014 4:08 PM, chris peck wrote: The real story here is that a peer reviewed journal was intimidated into withdrawing a paper that had passed through the proper review channels. That the internet is full of conspiracy theory isn't news. And to the extent that climate science denial is correlated with beliefs in conspiracy theories, so is climate science acceptance. You don't have to read blog rows for long to see that climate science acceptors are the lackeys of communist Illuminati hell bent on denying the world freedom and that climate science deniers are in bed with the oil barons attempting in a capitalist frenzy to do pretty much the same thing. What gets lost on both sides is the actual science. A fact that I think is illustrated perfectly when climate science acceptors demand capitulation on the basis that 97% of climate scientists agree there is human caused problem. That 97% of scientists agree is an empirical fact, presumably, but it is also an irrelevant one. Not a single fact about the climate is true on the basis of a 97% agreement between scientists. Its an argument from authority writ large. its the kind of fact which if persuasive would have kept us believing the earth was flat. Yet every time I see blog rows on climate change it gets trotted out as if it is informative. But it is informative. It means that if you disagree, you need to show why the published papers of these people who have spent a lot of time and energy studying and measuring are wrong. After all you probably never did an experiment to prove the Earth is spherical. You accepted it because you were told it (If you dont' already know it, you might find it instructive to read the story of Alfred Wallace and John Hampden's bet http://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2010/08/the-flat-earth-fiasco.html ). You probably didn't test the germ theory of disease or conservation of energy either. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
Hi Chris, Given the complexity that you have pointed out, is it a legitimate expectation to assume that it is even possible to define regulations that are not disruptive and themselves harmful? My point is that we should be very careful in our thinking about environmental issues to be sure that our understanding is in line with facts. Sometimes regulations and policies can cause more harm then good. On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King What do all these have in common? Boil it down to the essence. If it were that easy J An ecosystem is an emergent phenomena... a whole that is more than and cannot be understood just by looking at its parts. Just as there are thousands upon thousands of different pathways by which a single organism can become ill so it is with ecosystems. Just as it is hard - without a careful medical examination - to know if an individual is healthy or not... thus it is with ecosystems. Complex multi-variant, multi-systemic, co-effective systems are not simple single dimensional problem domains. Just like a person requires a thorough medical exam (and even that is no guarantee, often diseases - or systemic ill health -- are missed by medical exams) - so it is with the complex inter-acting web of life that we represent with the term ecosystem. There are many orthogonal dimensions of complexity, of resource and energy flows in and through an ecosystem, which in some ways acts like in its locale as a dysentropy engine, exploiting for the most part the solar flux as the energy gradient, but also using chemical gradients in rock and cold deep water gas seeps, the hot smokers where life gets right up to the edge of those very hot mineral saturated vents and makes a living. Each single organism - at least large ones - which would be anything bigger than the smallest microscopic flea really -- should also be understood as a kind of ecosystem itself (for example: By census - Not mass -- 90% of the living microorganisms, including human cells -- in a typical human do not have human DNA ... or that for example there are fifty types (or so.. whose counting) of micro-organism species that have specialized in making a living on human tooth enamel alone... and we have not even gotten to the gum line yet! ) It is a highly dynamic web of life - even within a single animal or plant. We barely begin to get it and it is only by understanding the dynamic whole system of systems that we can understand the emergent phenomena. One thing that as I have come to understand that my own living being is a community of organisms, some parasitical no doubt, but as science is increasingly discovering many that have ancient and important roles in the meta-entity that is the emergent animal. I used to see a monkey and see a monkey, now I see a monkey community and have come around to the understanding that the ecosystem does not stop at the level of the individual organism, but that we are sieves most intimately bathed and connected to our environments... that the ecosystem extends right on into the individual organism at the scale of the cell and the even much smaller scale of the bacterium or virus. The ecosystem is the organisms in it and like a rivers extends into ever smaller tributaries and streams, into little creeks and trickles of water the ecosystem extends right on into you... it is alive now in your gut (and all throughout your body) and it is helping keep you alive. We are discovering organisms that do nothing in terms of digesting food in our gut for example that eat off our table so to speak, but that we now are finding are active participating agents working with our body's immune system at the gut interface - which is where the digested food enters the body, which also makes it the prime vector for disease organisms as well and is hence the front line of our immune system. These microorganisms signal to our body's immune system the presence and perhaps even type of pathogen from the other side of the gut barrier - on the inside of the tube. This is active cooperation between species at the cellular level and it seems to me like there si a lot of this going on all the time in every kind of life form. Where does the ecosystem begin and were does it end? Chris On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: Good question. There are so many metrics. A given environments bio-diversity for example (although bio-diversity ranges widely from place to place - a single valley in a bio-diversity hot spot in some place like Costa Rica can have a greater variety of species than an entire region of arboreal forest for example) But if one has good base line measurements of bio-diversity over time and can graph a collapse in this for some
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 4/6/2014 5:35 PM, chris peck wrote: Brent If 100% of scientists were in agreement about climate change, that fact alone, tells me nothing about the truth of the claims they actually make. So does the agreement of physicists at CERN tell you nothing about whether the Higgs boson exists? You probably didn't test the germ theory of disease or conservation of energy either. Yes, and my great great great great great grand parents didn't test the theory that disease was caused by sin. They knew it was sin because so many experts told them it was. The superiority of my view over theirs can not be established by an appeal to a consensus because in this regard me and my ancestors are equivalent. They have their consensus and I have mine. If I am to convince them I will have an easier time drawing their attention to the actual science. How do you know that - did you take someone's word for it? Was it a scientist? Whenever we're on the verge of a scientific revolution we're usually in a situation where 99.999% of scientists disagree with what happens to be more accurate. That's not really true. Of course scientific revolutions start with one or two scientists - but it's not that case that all the others disagree with the better theory; they just haven't heard it yet. Look how quickly special relativity, matrix mechanics, Schodinger's equation, and Dirac's theory of the electron were accepted. Resistance to a new and better theory arises when there is a lot of investment in old theories. But to get back to AGW, there was no old theory. The increase of temperatures due to CO2 from fossil fuel was predicted over a hundred years ago and everybody who knew anything about it agreed - UNTIL it appeared to be something we needed to act on. THEN there were all kinds of wacky alternate 'explanations' proposed. Those 99% have as much responsibility to show why the 1% are wrong as vica versa. Indeed, and they have. Every objection: heat island, cosmic rays, increased insolation, measurement error, miscalibration of proxies,...has been studied and answered. You apparently didn't read about Alfred Russell's experience with John Hampden. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
So does the agreement of physicists at CERN tell you nothing about whether the Higgs boson exists? It tells me absolutely nothing. Im interested in why they agree not that they agree. How do you know that - did you take someone's word for it? Was it a scientist? Assuming you are asking how do I know the germ theory is a superior theory. My point is that whether it is superior or not can not be decided by appeals to consensus. Maybe its sin. Maybe its not. That's not really true. It often is true. Of course scientific revolutions start with one or two scientists not a consensus then. You appear to agree then, are you just being argumentative? Or are you really persuaded by consensus? - but it's not that case that all the others disagree with the better theory; they just haven't heard it yet. Look how quickly special relativity, matrix mechanics, Schodinger's equation, and Dirac's theory of the electron were accepted. Resistance to a new and better theory arises when there is a lot of investment in old theories. The speed with which people came to accept relativity is irrelevant. There was a consensus against relativity initially because it was not derived from experiment. Relativity was eventually convincing because it was confirmed by experiment, not because lots of physicists accepted it. Perhaps you accept relativity because you've been told about a consensus. I accept it because I've read about the experimental confirmations. Indeed, and they have. Every objection: heat island, cosmic rays, increased insolation, measurement error, miscalibration of proxies,...has been studied and answered. And did they answer those objections by appealing to a consensus? Did they go 'Its not cosmic rays because 76% of scientists believe otherwise'? You apparently didn't read about Alfred Russell's experience with John Hampden. No I didn't. Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:09:41 -0700 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing On 4/6/2014 5:35 PM, chris peck wrote: Brent If 100% of scientists were in agreement about climate change, that fact alone, tells me nothing about the truth of the claims they actually make. So does the agreement of physicists at CERN tell you nothing about whether the Higgs boson exists? You probably didn't test the germ theory of disease or conservation of energy either. Yes, and my great great great great great grand parents didn't test the theory that disease was caused by sin. They knew it was sin because so many experts told them it was. The superiority of my view over theirs can not be established by an appeal to a consensus because in this regard me and my ancestors are equivalent. They have their consensus and I have mine. If I am to convince them I will have an easier time drawing their attention to the actual science. How do you know that - did you take someone's word for it? Was it a scientist? Whenever we're on the verge of a scientific revolution we're usually in a situation where 99.999% of scientists disagree with what happens to be more accurate. That's not really true. Of course scientific revolutions start with one or two scientists - but it's not that case that all the others disagree with the better theory; they just haven't heard it yet. Look how quickly special relativity, matrix mechanics, Schodinger's equation, and Dirac's theory of the electron were accepted. Resistance to a new and better theory arises when there is a lot of investment in old theories. But to get back to AGW, there was no old theory. The increase of temperatures due to CO2 from fossil fuel was predicted over a hundred years ago and everybody who knew anything about it agreed - UNTIL it appeared to be something we needed to act on. THEN there were all kinds of wacky alternate 'explanations' proposed. Those 99% have as much responsibility to show why the 1% are wrong as vica versa. Indeed, and they have. Every objection: heat island, cosmic rays, increased insolation, measurement error, miscalibration of proxies,...has been studied and answered. You apparently didn't read about Alfred Russell's experience with John Hampden. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
I'm not sure what I did wrong that led to this thread being immediately hijacked by religion - surely the possibility of crows exhibiting a similar type of intelligence to humans (albeit in a lesser degree) is a more interesting subject than some ideas people made up millennia ago in an attempt to explain a universe they had no comprehension of? Just in case anyone's interested, this was the article. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows_2.html I'm sure my friend here likes it! [image: Inline images 1] On 7 April 2014 11:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/6/2014 3:18 PM, John Mikes wrote: Samiya Illias, you took up an honorable position and will be rewarded for it in the afterlife - if there is an afterlife. A friend (almost reaching the title of Catholic Priest) said in a similar discussion: It means so little mental investment to BELIVE and the reward is so great (eternal bliss) that it wood be foolish not to go it's way. Hmmm? Eternal bliss while singing hymns and worshipping a despotic egomanical superbeing, for eternity... Sounds like being drugged. I think I'll pass. Brent Now then in Earth these people cannot stand much church - an hour and a quarter is the limit and they draw the line at once a week. That is to say, Sunday. One day in seven; and even then they do not look forward to it with longing. And so - consider what their heaven provides for them: church that lasts forever, and Sabbath that has not end! They quickly weary of this brief hebdomadal Sabbath here, yet they long for that eternal one; they dream of it, they talk about it, they think they think they are going to enjoy it - with all their simple hearts they think they think they are going to be happy in it! It is because they do not think at all; they only think they think. --- Mark Twain, Letters from Earth -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Shale unconventional oil play is just a bubble (and one that is about to burst) -- reserves have been wildly overstated.
On 5 April 2014 09:43, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hear, Hear! Sadly, we (collectively speaking) keep buying the smooth talk and shiny baubles they promise and keep electing them. Trouble is they only give us a few choices (or only two if you don't have proportional representation). So it's a bit like Green Eggs and Ham... [image: Inline images 1] To oppose it we must think for ourselves. Form opinions from facts we collect and examine them to our best ability and collaborate with each other. It's hard work, very hard. Most people simply would rather be blissfully ignorant... Certainly it's hard work to overthrow tyrants (and even harder to install something better!) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 7 April 2014 14:32, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: So does the agreement of physicists at CERN tell you nothing about whether the Higgs boson exists? It tells me absolutely nothing. Im interested in why they agree not that they agree. They agree because the equipment they used produced a signal they interpreted using their best available theories as indicating the existence of the Higgs. Hence if you're interested in why they agree, you have to take into account how the experiment works, how the confidence levels were assessed, and so on. It's no good just saying I'm only interested in why they agree as though you're privy to some extraordinary psychological insight, because that's just wilfully ignoring the real facts of the matter. Otherwise you're just like the postmodernists who used to claim that all views are equivalent but still preferred to fly to conferences by jet rather than broomstick for reasons they could never quite explain (well, not without showing themselves up to be pompous idiots, which I guess - dipping my toes into the world of extraordinary psychological insight myself for a moment - they wanted to avoid). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
They agree because the equipment they used produced a signal they interpreted using their best available theories as indicating the existence of the Higgs. Right I see. So the physicists at cern don't count the number of people who are in agreement, they actually do look at equipment now and again. Thats a relief because Brent had me worried that they didn't think they had to do much of that. Hence if you're interested in why they agree, you have to take into account how the experiment works, how the confidence levels were assessed, and so on. It's no good just saying I'm only interested in why they agree as though you're privy to some extraordinary psychological insight, because that's just wilfully ignoring the real facts of the matter. eh? Otherwise you're just like the postmodernists who used to claim that all views are equivalent but still preferred to fly to conferences by jet rather than broomstick for reasons they could never quite explain (well, not without showing themselves up to be pompous idiots, which I guess - dipping my toes into the world of extraordinary psychological insight myself for a moment - they wanted to avoid). Im sure you know what you're talking about but I haven't got a clue. Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 14:47:42 +1200 Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 7 April 2014 14:32, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: So does the agreement of physicists at CERN tell you nothing about whether the Higgs boson exists? It tells me absolutely nothing. Im interested in why they agree not that they agree. They agree because the equipment they used produced a signal they interpreted using their best available theories as indicating the existence of the Higgs. Hence if you're interested in why they agree, you have to take into account how the experiment works, how the confidence levels were assessed, and so on. It's no good just saying I'm only interested in why they agree as though you're privy to some extraordinary psychological insight, because that's just wilfully ignoring the real facts of the matter. Otherwise you're just like the postmodernists who used to claim that all views are equivalent but still preferred to fly to conferences by jet rather than broomstick for reasons they could never quite explain (well, not without showing themselves up to be pompous idiots, which I guess - dipping my toes into the world of extraordinary psychological insight myself for a moment - they wanted to avoid). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 7 April 2014 05:18, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Friends, Is there a single objective definition of damage to the environment? Given the complexity of the environment, I very much doubt it. There are some proxies for it, of course, e.g. rate of species extinctions, amount of ice cap melting, proportion of rainforest cut down, amount of plastic floating in the ocean, amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, etc... All of these are certainly *part* of the damage to the environment, but they can't be said to constitute a single objective definition. And of course our environmental damage goes back thousands of years. We don't necessarily know what constitutes a natural pre-human environment, and it may not be something we'd want in any case. Personally I doubt it. (What we *do* want is an environment that won't kill most of us, which is what we've had in the recent historical past, i.e. one that supports agriculture and keeps some of the sea locked up in ice, but not so much that the ice caps start covering half the planet. A human-friendly environment, in other words - which is what we appear to be in danger of throwing away.) Of course if we were stupid enough to wait around for a single objective definition before we tried to do anything about preventing environmental destruction, by the time we get one we wouldn't have much of an environment to apply it to. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 7 April 2014 05:47, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: What the hell? You're confusing the difference between power and energy, they are not the same thing and if you insist on multiplying the capacity of your solar cells by a factor of 8670 (or even a 8760 ) then I can multiply what's needed to run human technology by that same 8670 factor and the percentages would remain the same. Sadly this happened in a school physics exam my son sat a few months back. If physics teachers can't get this one right, what chance have the rest of us? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 7 April 2014 12:45, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Chris, Given the complexity that you have pointed out, is it a legitimate expectation to assume that it is even possible to define regulations that are not disruptive and themselves harmful? My point is that we should be very careful in our thinking about environmental issues to be sure that our understanding is in line with facts. Sometimes regulations and policies can cause more harm then good. Hence our best bet is to produce energy and food in ways which cause as little disruption as possible to the environment we still have. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
Hey Liz, I was simply trying to point out that some truths that science is discovering now we have already known through our scripture since centuries. And that the scripture is also a credible source for taking hints and clues about the world and then using intelligence and research to explore and understand. Thought quoting directly from the scripture would be more credible than using a lot of my own words to explain. I'm sorry if it caused any offence. Samiya On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:33 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure what I did wrong that led to this thread being immediately hijacked by religion - surely the possibility of crows exhibiting a similar type of intelligence to humans (albeit in a lesser degree) is a more interesting subject than some ideas people made up millennia ago in an attempt to explain a universe they had no comprehension of? Just in case anyone's interested, this was the article. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows_2.html I'm sure my friend here likes it! [image: Inline images 1] On 7 April 2014 11:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/6/2014 3:18 PM, John Mikes wrote: Samiya Illias, you took up an honorable position and will be rewarded for it in the afterlife - if there is an afterlife. A friend (almost reaching the title of Catholic Priest) said in a similar discussion: It means so little mental investment to BELIVE and the reward is so great (eternal bliss) that it wood be foolish not to go it's way. Hmmm? Eternal bliss while singing hymns and worshipping a despotic egomanical superbeing, for eternity... Sounds like being drugged. I think I'll pass. Brent Now then in Earth these people cannot stand much church - an hour and a quarter is the limit and they draw the line at once a week. That is to say, Sunday. One day in seven; and even then they do not look forward to it with longing. And so - consider what their heaven provides for them: church that lasts forever, and Sabbath that has not end! They quickly weary of this brief hebdomadal Sabbath here, yet they long for that eternal one; they dream of it, they talk about it, they think they think they are going to enjoy it - with all their simple hearts they think they think they are going to be happy in it! It is because they do not think at all; they only think they think. --- Mark Twain, Letters from Earth -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
John, your friend's position sounds almost like Pascal's wager: personally I think its a poor reason to believe, if it can at all be considered belief. I know it would be 'the smart thing to do', 'playing it safe', etc, but I think faith and belief require a major mental investment: its requires an innermost conviction based upon all a person can draw upon. Choosing to be agnostic is also a personal decision... after all there is no compulsion in religion! Samiya - Samiya Illias, you took up an honorable position and will be rewarded for it in the afterlife - if there is an afterlife. A friend (almost reaching the title of Catholic Priest) said in a similar discussion: It means so little mental investment to BELIVE and the reward is so great (eternal bliss) that it wood be foolish not to go it's way. Unfortunately the list-arguments in this topic are very questionable: is the Script falsifiable by science? Well, science is DOUBT in everything until proven - by what? by science, of course. Which is unsure. So I would not ask for justification (or rejection) by science: an unsure basis. I would ask my agnosticism: where did God come from? (I mean: the idea and the concept (call it: 'Person'?) itself). A Pre-World with a 'Pre-God'? or is the same God and why must the believers believe? Why must they adore and praise a God who is in much higher standing than anything 'natural'? Why is an offense by a lowly mortal punishable eternally (in Hell?) and btw: who made Hell, and it's inhabitants? How did Inuits follow God's rules in a climate so different from the Sunny desert? Is their disobedience punished? Who are the slaves of the Scripture today? How should one handle the differences between the three consecutive Scripts in a changing world? It is good to be agnostic and keep away from such questions. Peace! John M On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:18 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Samiya Illias, you took up an honorable position and will be rewarded for it in the afterlife - if there is an afterlife. A friend (almost reaching the title of Catholic Priest) said in a similar discussion: It means so little mental investment to BELIVE and the reward is so great (eternal bliss) that it wood be foolish not to go it's way. Unfortunately the list-arguments in this topic are very questionable: is the Script falsifiable by science? Well, science is DOUBT in everything until proven - by what? by science, of course. Which is unsure. So I would not ask for justification (or rejection) by science: an unsure basis. I would ask my agnosticism: where did God come from? (I mean: the idea and the concept (call it: 'Person'?) itself). A Pre-World with a 'Pre-God'? or is the same God and why must the believers believe? Why must they adore and praise a God who is in much higher standing than anything 'natural'? Why is an offense by a lowly mortal punishable eternally (in Hell?) and btw: who made Hell, and it's inhabitants? How did Inuits follow God's rules in a climate so different from the Sunny desert? Is their disobedience punished? Who are the slaves of the Scripture today? How should one handle the differences between the three consecutive Scripts in a changing world? It is good to be agnostic and keep away from such questions. Peace! John M On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.comwrote: Qur'an Chapter 5, Verse 31: Then Allah sent a raven scratching up the ground, to show him how to hide his brother's naked corpse. He said: Woe unto me! Am I not able to be as this raven and so hide my brother's naked corpse? And he became repentant. (Translator: Pickthal) http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=5translator=4#31 Samiya On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:17 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows_2.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 4/6/2014 7:32 PM, chris peck wrote: So does the agreement of physicists at CERN tell you nothing about whether the Higgs boson exists? It tells me absolutely nothing. Im interested in why they agree not that they agree. How do you know that - did you take someone's word for it? Was it a scientist? Assuming you are asking how do I know the germ theory is a superior theory. My point is that whether it is superior or not can not be decided by appeals to consensus. Maybe its sin. Maybe its not. But that isn't how you decided it, is it? That's not really true. It often is true. Of course scientific revolutions start with one or two scientists not a consensus then. You appear to agree then, are you just being argumentative? Or are you really persuaded by consensus? There's a difference between being persuaded and considering evidence. If most scientists in a field agree on something, I count that as evidence in favor of their position. - but it's not that case that all the others disagree with the better theory; they just haven't heard it yet. Look how quickly special relativity, matrix mechanics, Schodinger's equation, and Dirac's theory of the electron were accepted. Resistance to a new and better theory arises when there is a lot of investment in old theories. The speed with which people came to accept relativity is irrelevant. There was a consensus against relativity initially because it was not derived from experiment. Relativity was eventually convincing because it was confirmed by experiment, not because lots of physicists accepted it. Of course that's a chicken-and-egg problem. Physicists accepted it because it agreed with experiment. Perhaps you accept relativity because you've been told about a consensus. I accept it because I've read about the experimental confirmations. In which case you must have read that Michelson and Morley showed that the speed of light was independent of the state of motion in 1897 - long before Lorenz, Fitzgerald, and Einstein. Indeed, and they have. Every objection: heat island, cosmic rays, increased insolation, measurement error, miscalibration of proxies,...has been studied and answered. And did they answer those objections by appealing to a consensus? Did they go 'Its not cosmic rays because 76% of scientists believe otherwise'? No, of course not. But I didn't repeat their calculations and measurements and neither did the deniers. You apparently didn't read about Alfred Russell's experience with John Hampden. No I didn't. Too bad. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
On 4/6/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote: I'm not sure what I did wrong that led to this thread being immediately hijacked by religion - surely the possibility of crows exhibiting a similar type of intelligence to humans (albeit in a lesser degree) is a more interesting subject than some ideas people made up millennia ago in an attempt to explain a universe they had no comprehension of? Careful - you may be insulting Plotinus or Plato. :-) Just in case anyone's interested, this was the article. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows_2.html I'm sure my friend here likes it! Inline images 1 I remember in the '60s there was an experiment that showed crows could count to five but probably not seven. Experimenters put out corn to attract a flock of crows to a blind. Then X number of men would walk out into the blind, which of course scared the crows and caused them to fly up into the trees. Then the men would leave one-at-a-time. If X was five or fewer, then the last man left the crows would come back down and start eating the corn again. If X was six or higher they sometimes lost count. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
Dear Liz, My concern is that almost all of the discussion of environmental damage seems to assume that Humanity is somehow a foreign present in the environment, as if we are invaders form space. AFAIK, humans are part of the Earth just as much as rainforests and ants. Why are human activities focused upon in ways that seem to be completely motivated toward some goal of control and management? I don't like to be treated as a child that needs to be told what to do and when for my own good. Why is it that those in the Green movement, like Chris, seem so bound and determined to do exactly that? At the rate we are going, it looks like we will be back to a techo-feudalism where a few elite humans control most of the land and resources and the rest of us will be allowed to live out our lives according to strict sustainability laws. On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:00 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 April 2014 05:18, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear Friends, Is there a single objective definition of damage to the environment? Given the complexity of the environment, I very much doubt it. There are some proxies for it, of course, e.g. rate of species extinctions, amount of ice cap melting, proportion of rainforest cut down, amount of plastic floating in the ocean, amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, etc... All of these are certainly *part* of the damage to the environment, but they can't be said to constitute a single objective definition. And of course our environmental damage goes back thousands of years. We don't necessarily know what constitutes a natural pre-human environment, and it may not be something we'd want in any case. Personally I doubt it. (What we *do*want is an environment that won't kill most of us, which is what we've had in the recent historical past, i.e. one that supports agriculture and keeps some of the sea locked up in ice, but not so much that the ice caps start covering half the planet. A human-friendly environment, in other words - which is what we appear to be in danger of throwing away.) Of course if we were stupid enough to wait around for a single objective definition before we tried to do anything about preventing environmental destruction, by the time we get one we wouldn't have much of an environment to apply it to. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/-LyjqBLxxFY/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
Hi Liz, Why is there no interest in developing tech to get us off the planet? Why is there a retreat into a bunker mentality? On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 April 2014 12:45, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Hi Chris, Given the complexity that you have pointed out, is it a legitimate expectation to assume that it is even possible to define regulations that are not disruptive and themselves harmful? My point is that we should be very careful in our thinking about environmental issues to be sure that our understanding is in line with facts. Sometimes regulations and policies can cause more harm then good. Hence our best bet is to produce energy and food in ways which cause as little disruption as possible to the environment we still have. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/-LyjqBLxxFY/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
On 4/6/2014 8:34 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: John, your friend's position sounds almost like Pascal's wager: personally I think its a poor reason to believe, if it can at all be considered belief. I know it would be 'the smart thing to do', 'playing it safe', etc, but I think faith and belief require a major mental investment: its requires an innermost conviction based upon all a person can draw upon. Choosing to be agnostic is also a personal decision... after all there is no compulsion in religion! Unless you live in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or some other fundamentalist muslim country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
On 7 April 2014 15:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/6/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote: I'm not sure what I did wrong that led to this thread being immediately hijacked by religion - surely the possibility of crows exhibiting a similar type of intelligence to humans (albeit in a lesser degree) is a more interesting subject than some ideas people made up millennia ago in an attempt to explain a universe they had no comprehension of? Careful - you may be insulting Plotinus or Plato. :-) Touche, my dear! Perhaps some people had better ideas than others, though? (Atoms, geometry, mathematics, democracy...) Just in case anyone's interested, this was the article. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows_2.html I'm sure my friend here likes it! [image: Inline images 1] I remember in the '60s there was an experiment that showed crows could count to five but probably not seven. Experimenters put out corn to attract a flock of crows to a blind. Then X number of men would walk out into the blind, which of course scared the crows and caused them to fly up into the trees. Then the men would leave one-at-a-time. If X was five or fewer, then the last man left the crows would come back down and start eating the corn again. If X was six or higher they sometimes lost count. Interesting. That seems like quite a complicated thing in itself. I don't know if crows would have the abstract idea of counting, or if they had to do it some other way (we've had the guy with the hat, the short one, the one with glasses, the other one with glasses ... hm, maybe there's some way I could lump those together somehow... did we have the one with the tweed jacket yet?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
On 7 April 2014 15:24, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Liz, I was simply trying to point out that some truths that science is discovering now we have already known through our scripture since centuries. And that the scripture is also a credible source for taking hints and clues about the world and then using intelligence and research to explore and understand. Thought quoting directly from the scripture would be more credible than using a lot of my own words to explain. I'm sorry if it caused any offence. Perhaps a few quotes with comments explaining their relevance to the article would have been better? All I saw was a single quote taken out of context about a raven scratching the ground and someone's brother being dead, with no explanation as to how it was supposed to relate to the article. I did look it up on the web in the hope that I would find something helpful, but there wasn't any explanation that helped me understand why you would have thought it was worth quoting, apart from the fact that it mentioned a raven - which was, however, only doing what God told it to, anyway, as far as I could tell, so not exhibiting any intelligence of its own. I, at least, just found your post confusing. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
On 7 April 2014 15:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/6/2014 8:34 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: John, your friend's position sounds almost like Pascal's wager: personally I think its a poor reason to believe, if it can at all be considered belief. I know it would be 'the smart thing to do', 'playing it safe', etc, but I think faith and belief require a major mental investment: its requires an innermost conviction based upon all a person can draw upon. Choosing to be agnostic is also a personal decision... after all there is no compulsion in religion! Unless you live in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or some other fundamentalist muslim country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy Or if you had been born just about anywhere before a couple of centuries ago (if that). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 7 April 2014 15:45, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Liz, My concern is that almost all of the discussion of environmental damage seems to assume that Humanity is somehow a foreign present in the environment, as if we are invaders form space. AFAIK, humans are part of the Earth just as much as rainforests and ants. Why are human activities focused upon in ways that seem to be completely motivated toward some goal of control and management? Well that isn't how I see it. I want to protect the environment so that humanity can survive and thrive. For example I'm happy that we killed off all the saber tooth tigers and so on, and I wouldn't be devastated if we killed off all the current animals that are potentially threats to humanity, like Bengal tigers, although I think it would be a damn shame because basically they've lost the evolutionary game (for now at least) and I wouldn't want to be ungenerous in victory. And I wouldn't mind cutting down trees so much if it didn't mean we're likely to choke on our own emissions that much sooner. I am, I hope, a purely pragmatic environmentalist. I don't like to be treated as a child that needs to be told what to do and when for my own good. Why is it that those in the Green movement, like Chris, seem so bound and determined to do exactly that? At the rate we are going, it looks like we will be back to a techo-feudalism where a few elite humans control most of the land and resources and the rest of us will be allowed to live out our lives according to strict sustainability laws. We're heading in that direction without any help from the Greens. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
Yes, according to my understanding, the text is certainly inspired by higher intelligence (with Divine permission). The study of the Qur'an reveals many 1p and 3p statements. The 1p statements are also of two categories: the singular 1p which we understand largely to be God being quoted, whereas the plural 1p is of the higher intelligences deputed to compose and reveal the Qur'an to Muhammad. These higher intelligences or 'aliens' as you refer to them insist on the Unity, Majesty, Immanence and Transcendence of the Divine. They do not reveal themselves nor ask that they be thanked, praised or worshipped, they are just a part of the government, and are carrying out their duty. Another fascinating aspect of the Qur'an (the recitation) is the preservation of it as is since the time of its revelation, not only in written form, but also in the memory of millions of people since then till this day. That ensures that the arabic text of the Qur'an we are dealing with has not suffered human philosophy and interpretation, and can be examined in its pristine, original form. Bucaille put Quran to the test of science, not philosophy. That is the essential difference in approach. To quote some verses: Chapter 96: The Clot 1 Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created- 2 Created human, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood: 3 Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,- 4 He Who taught (the use of) the pen,- 5 Taught human that which he knew not. 6 Nay, but human doth transgress all bounds, 7 In that he looketh upon himself as self-sufficient. 8 Verily, to thy Lord is the return (of all). Samiya Bruno wrote: Hi Samiya, On 06 Apr 2014, at 15:41, Samiya Illias wrote: Bruno, Is French your first language? Not really. (Born in Germany, german/polish nurse). If so, you can download the original French book by Dr Maurice Bucaille from the following link: http://www.islamic-invitation.com/downloads/Bible-Quran-Science_fr.pdf This study was made many years ago. If this inspires you, perhaps you can give a fresh look at the scripture with modern scientific knowledge. I know you are wise enough to not fear my frank attitude, but the more I look at it, the less I am convinced, even by the very enterprise. An Alien might suggests scientific knowledge, or some one just introspect itself correctly, for a change, and get the scientific insight, in which case the author was just quite well inspired, but that cannot be seen as an evidence for God r the divine. I am not sure there can be any 3p evidences, and certainly not a human text. This does not mean that some text are not very deep, and you know my respect for text like the Milinda, or the Theaetetus, or even Alice I'm sure that would explain many more verses in terms we can comprehend in this day and age. Modern scientific knowledge, despite Godel and QM, are still basically and in the mainstream deeply wrong about theology, so what does it mean to compare a text and reinterpret it with that non-modern-at-all respect? How would you compare Bucaille and the old (almost lost, except still present but obscured in the Sufi) neoplatonist muslims? In theology my best reference are still in the greeks, the indians, the chinese. In occident religion has been mixed to much with the terrestrial goals, and the use of authority and violence, which betrays the simplest modest conception I can access of the divine. Bruno On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi Samiya, On 06 Apr 2014, at 15:41, Samiya Illias wrote: Bruno, Is French your first language? Not really. (Born in Germany, german/polish nurse). If so, you can download the original French book by Dr Maurice Bucaille from the following link: http://www.islamic-invitation.com/downloads/Bible-Quran-Science_fr.pdf This study was made many years ago. If this inspires you, perhaps you can give a fresh look at the scripture with modern scientific knowledge. I know you are wise enough to not fear my frank attitude, but the more I look at it, the less I am convinced, even by the very enterprise. An Alien might suggests scientific knowledge, or some one just introspect itself correctly, for a change, and get the scientific insight, in which case the author was just quite well inspired, but that cannot be seen as an evidence for God r the divine. I am not sure there can be any 3p evidences, and certainly not a human text. This does not mean that some text are not very deep, and you know my respect for text like the Milinda, or the Theaetetus, or even Alice I'm sure that would explain many more verses in terms we can comprehend in this day and age. Modern scientific knowledge, despite Godel and QM, are still basically and in the mainstream deeply wrong about theology, so what does it mean to compare a text and reinterpret it with that non-modern-at-all respect? How would you compare Bucaille and the old (almost
Re: Climate models
On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Liz, Why is there no interest in developing tech to get us off the planet? Why is there a retreat into a bunker mentality? I wouldn't say there is no interest - but getting anyone or anything off the planet isn't easy, to quote Robert Heinlein when you reach low Earth orbit you're half way to anywhere in the solar system, which indicates how hard it is to get into even LEO. We haven't got the capability to get large amounts of mass into space, nor have we got the ability to survive outside the biosphere in great numbers and for long perionds. (We really should have had a self-sufficient Moon colony by now, dammit...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
I live in Pakistan. I've published my take on Blasphemy in my blog: http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2011/01/blasphemy.html - Unless you live in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or some other fundamentalist muslim country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy Brent On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:48 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/6/2014 8:34 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: John, your friend's position sounds almost like Pascal's wager: personally I think its a poor reason to believe, if it can at all be considered belief. I know it would be 'the smart thing to do', 'playing it safe', etc, but I think faith and belief require a major mental investment: its requires an innermost conviction based upon all a person can draw upon. Choosing to be agnostic is also a personal decision... after all there is no compulsion in religion! Unless you live in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or some other fundamentalist muslim country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
On 4/6/2014 9:14 PM, LizR wrote: On 7 April 2014 15:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/6/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote: I'm not sure what I did wrong that led to this thread being immediately hijacked by religion - surely the possibility of crows exhibiting a similar type of intelligence to humans (albeit in a lesser degree) is a more interesting subject than some ideas people made up millennia ago in an attempt to explain a universe they had no comprehension of? Careful - you may be insulting Plotinus or Plato. :-) Touche, my dear! Perhaps some people had better ideas than others, though? (Atoms, geometry, mathematics, democracy...) Just in case anyone's interested, this was the article. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows_2.html I'm sure my friend here likes it! Inline images 1 I remember in the '60s there was an experiment that showed crows could count to five but probably not seven. Experimenters put out corn to attract a flock of crows to a blind. Then X number of men would walk out into the blind, which of course scared the crows and caused them to fly up into the trees. Then the men would leave one-at-a-time. If X was five or fewer, then the last man left the crows would come back down and start eating the corn again. If X was six or higher they sometimes lost count. Interesting. That seems like quite a complicated thing in itself. I don't know if crows would have the abstract idea of counting, or if they had to do it some other way (we've had the guy with the hat, the short one, the one with glasses, the other one with glasses ... hm, maybe there's some way I could lump those together somehow... did we have the one with the tweed jacket yet?) As I recall they tried changing jackets and hats, etc, in order to make sure it was counting. Of course the crows probably weren't subvocalizing one, two, three,... like a human would. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 4/6/2014 9:56 PM, LizR wrote: On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Liz, Why is there no interest in developing tech to get us off the planet? Why is there a retreat into a bunker mentality? I wouldn't say there is no interest - but getting anyone or anything off the planet isn't easy, to quote Robert Heinlein when you reach low Earth orbit you're half way to anywhere in the solar system, which indicates how hard it is to get into even LEO. We haven't got the capability to get large amounts of mass into space, nor have we got the ability to survive outside the biosphere in great numbers and for long perionds. (We really should have had a self-sufficient Moon colony by now, dammit...) It's not only difficult and expensive, it's not very useful. In case of a asteroid hitting Earth, it would be a way for the human race to survive for a while longer. But it would be much cheaper and more effective to make Earth self-sufficient. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
