In a message dated 10/1/2006 11:14:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, in medicine (as in some other areas) people are suffering
and dying during all those years. Particularly when the "established
theory" is "stress" or "IAIYH" as it was with ulcers as well
At 04:22 PM Sunday 10/1/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 9/27/2006 5:44:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which can take years or even decades. Another example
from medicine that I am hard put to explain, except to
think that no one _wanted_ to believe
In a message dated 9/27/2006 5:44:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which can take years or even decades. Another example
from medicine that I am hard put to explain, except to
think that no one _wanted_ to believe such a thing was
so widespread, is something that I
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of pencimen
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:38 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
> is no reli
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of pencimen
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:13 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
> is no relia
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of pencimen
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:57 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
> is no reli
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 10:30 PM
> To: 'Killer Bs Discussion'
> Subject: RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
&
"Dan wrote:
> Their per capita GDP is also 75% of the US. Since we are talking
> about economic costs, let's look at energy usage per unit of GDP
Can you expand on the connection between energy use and GDP?
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman
Dan wrote:
> http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/george_monbiot/2006/09/
post_411.html
> I think this gives some idea of just how expensive it will be to
stop global warming by holding the CO2 levels steady in 25 years.
The article you cited also says:
"There are three things on which almost al
Ronn! wrote:
> What if we spend the >>$10T (Dan's figure) to reduce the
> anthropogenic component of global warming and then find out that it
> was not the primary driving cause and we still have to deal with
> the storms, floods, droughts, famines and hundreds of millions of
> refugees? Or if Ch
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of pencimen
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:58 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
> is no reliab...
>
At 09:02 PM Thursday 9/28/2006, Dan Minette wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:53 AM
> To: 'Killer Bs Discussion'
> Subject: RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we
At 11:09 AM Thursday 9/28/2006, William T Goodall wrote:
On 28 Sep 2006, at 2:51PM, Dan Minette wrote:
I have tried to accurately express the consensus by quoting sites that
should represent the consensus: i.e. the UN agency responsible for
obtaining
and publishing the best understandings of th
Dan wrote:
> If this is true, than why has world usage of fossil fuel gone up
> after a tripling of price?
Poor leadership. Can I have a cite for that BTW.
> Every indication is that a worldwide recession is the
> only thing that will stop the growth of fossil fuel usage.
I think competent lea
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:53 AM
> To: 'Killer Bs Discussion'
> Subject: RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
> >
> >If this is true, than why h
On 28 Sep 2006, at 2:51PM, Dan Minette wrote:
I have tried to accurately express the consensus by quoting sites that
should represent the consensus: i.e. the UN agency responsible for
obtaining
and publishing the best understandings of the community. The
numbers I
quote do not include "migh
At 08:51 AM Thursday 9/28/2006, Dan Minette wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of pencimen
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:53 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of pencimen
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:53 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
> is no reliab.
William wrote:
> Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years,
and
> is within 1 °C of being its hottest for a million years, says
> Hansen's team. Another decade of business-as-usual carbon
emissions
> will probably make it too late to prevent the ecosystems of the
north
> fro
> Dan Minette wrote:
> Peer review is based on the
> assumption that the scientific
> community does not operate on an inherently dogmatic
> or political basis.
> While new ideas may not initially get all the credit
> they might objectively
> deserve, the fact that additional data tends to
>
On 27 Sep 2006, at 4:20AM, Dan Minette wrote:
1) Global Warming
Our understanding of global warming is still incomplete. We have not
verified our climactic models the way, for example, we have verified
numerical models that predict responses of electromagnetic
systems. The
various models h
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 8:39 PM
> To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
> Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
> is n
On 25/09/2006, at 11:52 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that what Pinker meant was that natural selection explains the
presence of useful functions in creatures. All of the other
mechanisms exist for
sure but to get good and useful doohickeys one needs selection.
If he's using "natur
In a message dated 9/22/2006 9:39:31 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That natural
selection is *part* of the mechanism is close to certain. But there's
way more to speciation - kin selection, sexual selection, allopatric/
synpatric speciation. We're discovering so
On 23/09/2006, at 7:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
" The relationship between
fact and theory (or maybe data and hypothesis) is dynamic and not
> easily
seperated."
So is it a fact that evolution occurs because of natural selection
or is that a theory? After all the data to support nat
On 22 Sep 2006, at 10:21PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But with 9/11, autism/vaccine crankery, creationism, alternative
medicine, perpetual motion and so on, we're seeing groups that
either corrupt this relationship and the nature of science, or just
ignore or dismiss it entirely.
These
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no
reliab...
On 21/09/2006, at 12:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
The similarity is a fact.
On Sep 20, 2006, at 8:20 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 21/09/2006, at 1:13 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 9/20/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But it's often used wrongly, to state that the
probabilitical nature of "scientific proof" means we can't be
certain
of some things.
Hey, yo
On 21/09/2006, at 1:13 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 9/20/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But it's often used wrongly, to state that the
probabilitical nature of "scientific proof" means we can't be certain
of some things.
Hey, you have inspired a neologism.
Creationism is probapoli
On 9/20/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But it's often used wrongly, to state that the
probabilitical nature of "scientific proof" means we can't be certain
of some things.
Hey, you have inspired a neologism.
Creationism is probapolitically true.
Nick
--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTEC
On 21/09/2006, at 12:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure things are so simple in differentiating fact from
theory. The
facts of evolution are that there is change over time in the type
and nature
of living things.
That's the "fact" part of evolution, yep.
This implies tha
In a message dated 9/19/2006 4:45:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm fairly certain that gravity is a fact.
> >
> > How it works is a theory.
>
> Finally - that's exactly what I was saying about evolution before.
> Same thing.
No disagreement here.
I am not s
On 21/09/2006, at 11:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well according to Karl Popper there are no absolute facts in
science. All
scientific facts are in theory provisional since scientific facts
are by
definition falseafiable. Many things are so well established and
so imbedded in a
net
In a message dated 9/19/2006 1:05:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...'cause there's no such thing as something that is so well
supported it can be considered a fact. Like gravity. Just a theory.
Well according to Karl Popper there are no absolute facts in scien
In a message dated 9/18/2006 11:06:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Assuming that a large number of people can't be wrong about something
> because they are smart and well-connected is a tautology. I think
> there are many examples of large numbers of smart, well-conne
35 matches
Mail list logo
