On 08 Apr 2014, at 04:29, Pierz wrote:
I used to keep a dream diary Liz, and one day when I was looking
back through my old dreams, I came across this, from October 1998:
I am in with a crowd of people in some kind of tall building in
what I think is New York. It's one of two similar
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:38:42 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
2014-04-07 22:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com:
On Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:45:35 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
Probably
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:45 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/5/2014 4:13 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:01 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/5/2014 12:40 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 April 2014 23:30, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Oh, when it suits your prejudice
it's OK to just count votes. You suddenly no longer need to read the
papers and decide for yourself.
Eh? Why the sour face? I thought you'ld be cracking open the champagne.
There's no consensus. I give you perhaps the best news in history, ever, and
you're
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:44 AM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote:
Oh, when it suits your prejudice it's OK to just count votes. You
suddenly no longer need to read the papers and decide for yourself.
Eh? Why the sour face? I thought you'ld be cracking open the champagne.
There's
On 08 Apr 2014, at 02:20, LizR wrote:
On 7 April 2014 17:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/6/2014 9:14 PM, LizR wrote:
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
I do route for solipsism, it has a certain je ne sais quoi to it. Although,
having listened to an ebook on the subject by Alfred Benei, I'm forced to
say that if his deduction that even self is artificial and a construct of a
consciousness that is the only thing we are sure about, then it is
On 08 Apr 2014, at 14:36, aeternadei D. wrote:
I do route for solipsism, it has a certain je ne sais quoi to it.
Although, having listened to an ebook on the subject by Alfred
Benei, I'm forced to say that if his deduction that even self is
artificial and a construct of a consciousness
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
A GW is a measure of electric energy output
NO IT IS NOT!!! You utter nincompoop, GW is a measure of electric POWER not
ENERGY. You should have learned in high school if not grade school that
ENERGY and POWER are NOT
On Monday, April 7, 2014 11:03:35 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
On 8 April 2014 09:41, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:38:42 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
2014-04-07 22:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com:
On Sunday, April 6, 2014
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 9:42 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On 4/8/2014 4:44 AM, chris peck wrote:
Oh, when it suits your prejudice it's OK to just count votes. You suddenly no longer
need to read the papers and decide for yourself.
Eh? Why the sour face? I thought you'ld be cracking open the champagne. There's no
consensus. I give you perhaps the
On 4/8/2014 5:36 AM, aeternadei D. wrote:
To argue your case, you would need to come up with some physical
property that is indubitably _not_ a consequence of how we perceive
the world. I don't think you can do that. It is a very high standard
of proof. Consequently, it does not follow that
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
An empty space within which events occur does not exist.
The idea that empty space doesn't exist is entirely consistent with Quantum
Mechanics, it says that so called empty space is really a sea of virtual
particles that
Well thanks. Yes, my accusations are distasteful, but somebody has to call the
leaders of our societies to account, if we can, and get them to change the way
we are doing things. For example, if one loans 1000 units of whatever currency
you chose, to a relative, to pay the rent, only to
Not at all. Have you read the peer reviewed papers that the IPCC cites?
I've read a lot of them.
Why have you felt the need to read them?
You were just arguing that congressmen, people who unlike yourself are in a
position to take or prevent action, did not need to.
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014
On 4/8/2014 2:46 PM, chris peck wrote:
Not at all. Have you read the peer reviewed papers that the IPCC cites? I've read a
lot of them.
Why have you felt the need to read them?
To see if various denier criticisms were valid.
You were just arguing that congressmen, people who unlike
On 9 April 2014 04:58, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, April 7, 2014 11:03:35 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
There is an element of this in all evolutionary explanations, but only
until we are in a position to gather enough evidence to make a call for or
against some idea.
On 8 April 2014 13:19, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
* Hence, people who claim that scientists agree because of some reason
other than looking at the instruments and using their best theories to
interpret the readings - e.g. people who claim that they agree for some
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:06:09PM +, chris peck wrote:
To see if various denier criticisms were valid.
So you accept the claims of climate change advocates as true by default and
only read those papers which have criticisms leveled at them by deniers? That
isn't very even handed.
I have known Brent for a long time, and think this rather unlikely. He
has a string grasp of Physics and other general scientific topics, as
well as a lifetime of professional research.
Then he is hoisting himself up with his own petard. Either he needs to be a
climate scientist or he doesn't.
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:50:07PM +, chris peck wrote:
Absolutely. But people without any form of research training would find it
very difficult indeed.
All attempts to write about science for general consumption are
worthless are they, Russell? For example, you spent 5 years
Yes it seems like we can 'count something like 5 objects without thinking
(e.g. I think we can remember about five digits at a time without effort),
and this apaprently isn't anything special to humans.
However, some plants only flower every 13 or 17 (or another prime number)
of years!
So plants
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:21:36AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/8/2014 5:36 AM, aeternadei D. wrote:
To argue your case, you would need to come up with some physical
property that is indubitably _not_ a consequence of how we perceive
the world. I don't think you can do that. It is a very high
Amoeba's Secret is not a peer reviewed research article, but rather
already written for mass consumption (-ish, as my son would say). My comments
applied to research articles only, as that was the context.
Russell, I determine the context because this current row was triggered when
Brent
On 9 April 2014 12:51, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
It would still be a logical fallacy to proclaim something to be true
because of who said it, rather than what was said.
* I think Liz has clarified what is actually being claimed here.*
Liz is under the misconception that
On 4/8/2014 5:28 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:21:36AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/8/2014 5:36 AM, aeternadei D. wrote:
To argue your case, you would need to come up with some physical
property that is indubitably _not_ a consequence of how we perceive
the world. I
If in some general discussion of climate change someone says (as a
convenient shorthand) that 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is a
fact, what is the logical fallacy they are committing? I'd like to
know so I can avoid it in future myself.
if you are just pointing out that a consensus
I was never too taken with the Gaia hypothesis - maybe because I didn't
really understand it. I seem to recall Lovelock saying the human race would
end up as a few people at the poles a while ago (I think that was him) with
the rest of the world uninhabitable, or at least incapable of supporting
On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 6:07:02 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Apr 2014, at 04:29, Pierz wrote:
I used to keep a dream diary Liz, and one day when I was looking back
through my old dreams, I came across this, from October 1998:
I am in with a crowd of people in some kind of
On 4/8/2014 6:16 PM, LizR wrote:
I was never too taken with the Gaia hypothesis - maybe because I didn't really
understand it. I seem to recall Lovelock saying the human race would end up as a few
people at the poles a while ago (I think that was him) with the rest of the world
uninhabitable,
Maybe he realized that the job was such that he would have to personally
pay for some non-trivial portion of it... LOL!
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 9:21 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/8/2014 6:16 PM, LizR wrote:
I was never too taken with the Gaia hypothesis - maybe because I
On 9 April 2014 14:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Maybe he realized that the job was such that he would have to personally
pay for some non-trivial portion of it... LOL!
That's possible. He may be of an apres moi le deluge frame of mind.
--
You received this message
On 9 April 2014 13:21, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/8/2014 6:16 PM, LizR wrote:
I was never too taken with the Gaia hypothesis - maybe because I didn't
really understand it. I seem to recall Lovelock saying the human race would
end up as a few people at the poles a while ago (I
Or he is criticizing a large population of people with a apres moi, le
deluge attitude, elites that don't care at all about those around them.
Someone else will take care of them, I am too busy posting a selfie on
tumbler.
I don't see any environmentalist carrying one tiny bit their projects
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 06:05:44PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Then why claim that there is an external ontological reality at all,
if all you're banging on about is intersubjective consistency? It
doesn't buy you anything, except unanswerable questions.
It's like Bruno's 'comp', it's a model
On 4/8/2014 8:45 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 06:05:44PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Then why claim that there is an external ontological reality at all,
if all you're banging on about is intersubjective consistency? It
doesn't buy you anything, except unanswerable questions.
37 matches
Mail list logo
