date:20140404

back trace from: Merrill Lynch Information Technology Intranet & future
trading
http://www.ite.poly.edu/presentations/MLcase.pdf page 11.
"Merrill Lynch is the most active trading firm on the New York Stock
Exchange,
with a 1995 market share of 11.7%."

I rest my case.


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
>
>
>
> "are betting the destiny of planet earth that these hypothetical future
> technologies will become realized in time for the human race to cheat
> destiny again and again"
>
>
>
> Say again? What models are you trusting?
>
>
>
> I am trusting physically quantifiable data and am not assuming future
> hypothetical ways & means as you seem to be doing. What models are you
> trusting?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Chris de Morsella 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
>
>
>
> Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
> advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be
> a source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen
> off Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward.
> No challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.
>
>
>
> Here is the thing you are betting the destiny of planet earth that these
> hypothetical future technologies will become realized in time for the human
> race to cheat destiny again and again. That is putting a lot of faith in
> these hypothetical future technologies you seem to be counting on.
>
> Don't get me wrong I am actually one who wishes we already had permanent
> settlements on the Moon, L2, choice NEOs, and Mars; I see and understand
> the incredible resource potential of up there.
>
> Think of the solar capacity Alone. Even at earth orbital the solar flux
> is around 1400 w/m2; in the micro-gravity and almost constant insolation of
> high geosynchronous orbit it even begins to look attractive.
>
> But - we are not there. We are here. On earth, with the technology we do
> have and facing imminent critical energy supply peaks that will suck the
> oxygen out of any grand ideas as we burn the last of what we have in global
> conflict. Is this a sure outcome; I certainly hope not, but given how
> politics operate globally and looking at the military focused strategy the
> US has chosen to face this... well let's just say it leads me to conclude
> that the odds are high that as a species we are going to blow it.
>
> It's too bad, and I wish it were otherwise. It is how I see things - given
> my understanding of the nature of human mass behavior.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> P.S. I am still waiting for 2001 to happen and it is 2014. Point being
> that some things - like getting from earth to orbit for example - remain
> stubbornly difficult and have remained at the very limit of what we can do
> with technology (in spite of forty years of technological advancement from
> the days of the Apollo program) Same with fusion, always just fifty years
> away Maybe someday, but where will the next ITER get its funding from?
>
> In a world swallowed up by the existential need for industrial nations to
> secure their flow of petroleum supplies, and likely going to war (how many
> more wars for "Freedom" do you see in the near future?) to do so There is
> not going to be a whole lot left for every single other human activity.
>
> Do not underestimate how terribly blind the logic of power can be,
> constrained by the deadly calculus of the psychopathic mindset - that knows
> that this is what they would do if they were in the other guys shoes... so
> they do it... because they know he is surely doing it as well.
>
> Power when it is not tempered by wisdom is the most dangerous poison in
> the universe... and in us humans, it all so easily blinds us to all that is
> good.
>
> We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Chris de Morsella 
> wrote:
>
> Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
> quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
> quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be counted as part of
> global uranium reserves?
>
> Why exactly?
>
> By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why not
> include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -  after all
> who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all may be
> recoverable What have you been reading?
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
> *Sent:* Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM
>
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Climate models
>
>
>
> Hey Chris,
>
>
>
>About

Re: Climate models

This data is interesting:
http://www.indeed.com/salary/Green-Growth-Ventures-LLC.html


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
>
>
>
> "are betting the destiny of planet earth that these hypothetical future
> technologies will become realized in time for the human race to cheat
> destiny again and again"
>
>
>
> Say again? What models are you trusting?
>
>
>
> I am trusting physically quantifiable data and am not assuming future
> hypothetical ways & means as you seem to be doing. What models are you
> trusting?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Chris de Morsella 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
>
>
>
> Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
> advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be
> a source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen
> off Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward.
> No challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.
>
>
>
> Here is the thing you are betting the destiny of planet earth that these
> hypothetical future technologies will become realized in time for the human
> race to cheat destiny again and again. That is putting a lot of faith in
> these hypothetical future technologies you seem to be counting on.
>
> Don't get me wrong I am actually one who wishes we already had permanent
> settlements on the Moon, L2, choice NEOs, and Mars; I see and understand
> the incredible resource potential of up there.
>
> Think of the solar capacity Alone. Even at earth orbital the solar flux
> is around 1400 w/m2; in the micro-gravity and almost constant insolation of
> high geosynchronous orbit it even begins to look attractive.
>
> But - we are not there. We are here. On earth, with the technology we do
> have and facing imminent critical energy supply peaks that will suck the
> oxygen out of any grand ideas as we burn the last of what we have in global
> conflict. Is this a sure outcome; I certainly hope not, but given how
> politics operate globally and looking at the military focused strategy the
> US has chosen to face this... well let's just say it leads me to conclude
> that the odds are high that as a species we are going to blow it.
>
> It's too bad, and I wish it were otherwise. It is how I see things - given
> my understanding of the nature of human mass behavior.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> P.S. I am still waiting for 2001 to happen and it is 2014. Point being
> that some things - like getting from earth to orbit for example - remain
> stubbornly difficult and have remained at the very limit of what we can do
> with technology (in spite of forty years of technological advancement from
> the days of the Apollo program) Same with fusion, always just fifty years
> away Maybe someday, but where will the next ITER get its funding from?
>
> In a world swallowed up by the existential need for industrial nations to
> secure their flow of petroleum supplies, and likely going to war (how many
> more wars for "Freedom" do you see in the near future?) to do so There is
> not going to be a whole lot left for every single other human activity.
>
> Do not underestimate how terribly blind the logic of power can be,
> constrained by the deadly calculus of the psychopathic mindset - that knows
> that this is what they would do if they were in the other guys shoes... so
> they do it... because they know he is surely doing it as well.
>
> Power when it is not tempered by wisdom is the most dangerous poison in
> the universe... and in us humans, it all so easily blinds us to all that is
> good.
>
> We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Chris de Morsella 
> wrote:
>
> Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
> quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
> quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be counted as part of
> global uranium reserves?
>
> Why exactly?
>
> By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why not
> include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -  after all
> who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all may be
> recoverable What have you been reading?
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
> *Sent:* Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM
>
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Climate models
>
>
>
> Hey Chris,
>
>
>
>About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where
> I live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem
> with the radon gas that the stuff genera

RE: Climate models

 

 

>>By solar and wind its isn't.

 

Current global installed solar PV capacity is greater than 150 GW; in two
years or so this is expected to surpass 300GW of installed capacity. The
installed capacity base for Solar PV has been doubling every two years or so
for quite some time now and so far does not show signs of slowing down this
breakneck rate of growth in capacity. 

These are quantified values, what you said above what actual content does
that contain beyond the polemic content it certainly does contain?

Chris

 

 

-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Apr 2, 2014 8:13 pm
Subject: Re: Climate models

On 3 April 2014 12:17,  wrote:

We still have to possess the technology in place to replace carbon with
clean. Please note that New Delhi, or Auckland is not yet electrified, say
to 20%.  You cannot do a kidney transplant without a replacement kidney.   

 

Auckland isn't electrified??? (How am I managing to write this post?!)

-- 
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: My scepticism took a small knock today

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 7:11 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: My scepticism took a small knock today

On Friday, April 4, 2014 6:00:09 PM UTC-4, Liz R 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.

Love that response – even if from a dream – “no thanks, we don’t indulge”…. 
Perfect.

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.

I must be on some national evangelical do not visit list, because when I see 
the little groups of salvation sellers come around they knock on all the houses 
except mine. I keep waiting, but instead I see them look down at their database 
generated no go list and move on. A strange mix of technology in the service of 
medievalism. 

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?

Personally I think that you have to add in the fact that you took notice of the 
happenstance, so already it was a potential coincidence. By the time it recurs, 
it is slightly more than a coincidence. What does it mean? I think not much but 
it offers a glimpse into the larger nature of time as rooted in experience 
rather than physics.

-- 
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

ones that I built for myself.  The data is hard to get...


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
>
>
>
> "are betting the destiny of planet earth that these hypothetical future
> technologies will become realized in time for the human race to cheat
> destiny again and again"
>
>
>
> Say again? What models are you trusting?
>
>
>
> I am trusting physically quantifiable data and am not assuming future
> hypothetical ways & means as you seem to be doing. What models are you
> trusting?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Chris de Morsella 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
>
>
>
> Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
> advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be
> a source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen
> off Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward.
> No challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.
>
>
>
> Here is the thing you are betting the destiny of planet earth that these
> hypothetical future technologies will become realized in time for the human
> race to cheat destiny again and again. That is putting a lot of faith in
> these hypothetical future technologies you seem to be counting on.
>
> Don't get me wrong I am actually one who wishes we already had permanent
> settlements on the Moon, L2, choice NEOs, and Mars; I see and understand
> the incredible resource potential of up there.
>
> Think of the solar capacity Alone. Even at earth orbital the solar flux
> is around 1400 w/m2; in the micro-gravity and almost constant insolation of
> high geosynchronous orbit it even begins to look attractive.
>
> But - we are not there. We are here. On earth, with the technology we do
> have and facing imminent critical energy supply peaks that will suck the
> oxygen out of any grand ideas as we burn the last of what we have in global
> conflict. Is this a sure outcome; I certainly hope not, but given how
> politics operate globally and looking at the military focused strategy the
> US has chosen to face this... well let's just say it leads me to conclude
> that the odds are high that as a species we are going to blow it.
>
> It's too bad, and I wish it were otherwise. It is how I see things - given
> my understanding of the nature of human mass behavior.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> P.S. I am still waiting for 2001 to happen and it is 2014. Point being
> that some things - like getting from earth to orbit for example - remain
> stubbornly difficult and have remained at the very limit of what we can do
> with technology (in spite of forty years of technological advancement from
> the days of the Apollo program) Same with fusion, always just fifty years
> away Maybe someday, but where will the next ITER get its funding from?
>
> In a world swallowed up by the existential need for industrial nations to
> secure their flow of petroleum supplies, and likely going to war (how many
> more wars for "Freedom" do you see in the near future?) to do so There is
> not going to be a whole lot left for every single other human activity.
>
> Do not underestimate how terribly blind the logic of power can be,
> constrained by the deadly calculus of the psychopathic mindset - that knows
> that this is what they would do if they were in the other guys shoes... so
> they do it... because they know he is surely doing it as well.
>
> Power when it is not tempered by wisdom is the most dangerous poison in
> the universe... and in us humans, it all so easily blinds us to all that is
> good.
>
> We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Chris de Morsella 
> wrote:
>
> Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
> quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
> quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be counted as part of
> global uranium reserves?
>
> Why exactly?
>
> By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why not
> include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -  after all
> who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all may be
> recoverable What have you been reading?
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
> *Sent:* Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM
>
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Climate models
>
>
>
> Hey Chris,
>
>
>
>About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where
> I live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem
> with the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have you been re

RE: Climate models

Br

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 7:15 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models

Here's the Mountain Pass rare earth mine in Southern California: 35.48°N
115.53°W  It produced cerium, lanthanium neodymium, and europium for rare
earth magnets until the Chinese undercut the market.  It has huge piles of
tailings rich in thorium and radium which are at present just a waste
product that is hard to get rid of because it's slightly radioactive.  

Availabililty of thorium is not a problem.  Designing and building the
powerplants is.

Exactly, and never disputed that there are ready reserves of Thorium; what I
did find absurd is including the highly entropized (if I can spin it that
way) Thorium in common garden dirt as counting towards some future reserve.
Again agreed, there is no existing LFTR design. I have read proposals that
seem reasonable, but before proposals of that nature can become transfigured
into blueprint quality specifications a massive engineering and quality
control operation has to happen. Engineers cost money, and so do engineers
in test. Lots of money I might add.

LFTR seems less exotic than some of the Gen IV breeders that rely on exotic
coolants such as molten lead, and for this reason more doable. How many tens
of billions of upstream money will be needed however is something I have not
heard anyone address. And how many years as well.

How much to produce a detailed LFTR specification? That is one I which
assumptions have been verified and tested. Not a back of the envelope
specification, but a real blueprint.

· How much more to build a pilot scale facility and verify that the
designs and the plant resulting from those designs meets specifications? 

· How much ramp up will be needed in upstream supply capacities over
the entire chain of production and assembly of LFTR plants. From Thorium
mining & refining to the purity levels required; to the reactor and
re-processor facilities & all the many sub-assemblies that these complex
engineered structures contain; to the waste management, separation &
sequestration facilities (not everything is burned up in an LFTR). Perhaps
some existing infrastructure can be leveraged, but I am certain that there
exist wide gaps that would need to build capacity if LFTR reactors were ever
to be built out at scale.

· How much more time then to build the first commercial model and to
test it and ensure its operational readiness?

· Then How much more energy, capital and time before the LFTR sector
became net energy positive? 

· I am sure there are other points I missed.

Chris

Brent

On 4/4/2014 3:51 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
> 

  > Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden

  dirt is not

  > ore quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the

  > minuscule quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should

  be

  > counted as part of global uranium reserves?

  > 

  > Why exactly?

  > 

  > By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd

  - why

  > not include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire

  galaxy -

  > after all who knows maybe someday with some technology will

  it all

  > may be recoverable What have you been reading?

  > 

  > 

  > 

  > *From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com

  > [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of

  *Stephen Paul

  > King *Sent:* Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM *To:*

  > everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Climate

  models

  > 

  > 

  > 

  > Hey Chris,

  > 

  > 

  > 

  > About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt

  near

  > where I live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We

  have a

  > huge problem with the radon gas that the stuff generates...

  What have

  > you been reading?

  > 

  > 

  > 

  > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark

 > wrote:

  > 

  > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella

  > mailto:cdemorse...@yahoo.com> > wrote:

  > 

  > 

  > 

  >> Solar PV is here today

  > 

  > 

  > 

  > Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times

  more

  > money has been spent developing it than has been spent on

  LFTR R&D,

  > and yet solar PV is still just a rounding error in our total

  energy

  > budget.

  > 

  > 

  > 

  >> I see the practical technological limits that constrain

  what can

Re: Climate models

Again. One does not harness such a beast. One learns to ride it.


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
> *Sent:* Friday, April 04, 2014 7:09 PM
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Climate models
>
>
>
> We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.
>
>
>
> >>No, no problem is without a solution. Find the solution that keeps the
> current equilibria in place. Our world is a chaotic and complex system. One
> does not harness such a beast. One learns to ride it.
>
>
>
> And humans are riding the planet right over the cliff. We are burning
> through all the treasures of this planet as fast as we possibly can. I fail
> to see the wisdom in this mad rush to use everything up. Perhaps you can
> enlighten me about the wisdom in this course our civilization is on?
>
> There are many quantifiable metrics: top soil loss, organic matter loss in
> soil, rates of desertification, deforestation, bio-diversity collapse,
> rates of species extinction, collapse of oceanic eco-systems. Look at the
> real physically quantifiable metrics that we can measure about our world
> and about our effect on it and what it's constraints are upon us.
>
> I fail to see how you get all optimistic about our situation and see it as
> even remotely being describable as keeping current equilibria in place. Our
> species has had an incredibly disruptive effect on this planet; let us at
> least be honest about who we are. We truly are an invasive species... and we
> have succeeded in invading almost every niche of this planet's land surface
> and now with factory fishing we are proving we can kill the sea as well.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Chris de Morsella 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
>
>
>
> Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
> advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be
> a source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen
> off Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward.
> No challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.
>
>
>
> Here is the thing you are betting the destiny of planet earth that these
> hypothetical future technologies will become realized in time for the human
> race to cheat destiny again and again. That is putting a lot of faith in
> these hypothetical future technologies you seem to be counting on.
>
> Don't get me wrong I am actually one who wishes we already had permanent
> settlements on the Moon, L2, choice NEOs, and Mars; I see and understand
> the incredible resource potential of up there.
>
> Think of the solar capacity Alone. Even at earth orbital the solar flux
> is around 1400 w/m2; in the micro-gravity and almost constant insolation of
> high geosynchronous orbit it even begins to look attractive.
>
> But - we are not there. We are here. On earth, with the technology we do
> have and facing imminent critical energy supply peaks that will suck the
> oxygen out of any grand ideas as we burn the last of what we have in global
> conflict. Is this a sure outcome; I certainly hope not, but given how
> politics operate globally and looking at the military focused strategy the
> US has chosen to face this... well let's just say it leads me to conclude
> that the odds are high that as a species we are going to blow it.
>
> It's too bad, and I wish it were otherwise. It is how I see things - given
> my understanding of the nature of human mass behavior.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> P.S. I am still waiting for 2001 to happen and it is 2014. Point being
> that some things - like getting from earth to orbit for example - remain
> stubbornly difficult and have remained at the very limit of what we can do
> with technology (in spite of forty years of technological advancement from
> the days of the Apollo program) Same with fusion, always just fifty years
> away Maybe someday, but where will the next ITER get its funding from?
>
> In a world swallowed up by the existential need for industrial nations to
> secure their flow of petroleum supplies, and likely going to war (how many
> more wars for "Freedom" do you see in the near future?) to do so There is
> not going to be a whole lot left for every single other human activity.
>
> Do not underestimate how terribly blind the logic of power can be,
> constrained by the deadly calculus of the psychopathic mindset - that knows
> that this is what they would do if they were in the other guys shoes... so
> they do it... because they know he is surely doing it as well.
>
> Power when it is not tempered by wisdom is the most dangerous poison in
> the universe... and in us humans, it all so easily blinds us to all that is
>

Re: Climate models

Dear Brent,

   Good question. A leading question in response. How is it that we
(generically speaking) are leaving such designs and building up to
inefficient systems to perform?


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:15 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  Here's the Mountain Pass rare earth mine in Southern California: 35.48°N
> 115.53°W  It produced cerium, lanthanium neodymium, and europium for rare
> earth magnets until the Chinese undercut the market.  It has huge piles of
> tailings rich in thorium and radium which are at present just a waste
> product that is hard to get rid of because it's slightly radioactive.
>
> Availabililty of thorium is not a problem.  Designing and building the
> powerplants is.
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 4/4/2014 3:51 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
> >
> > Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not
> > ore quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the
> > minuscule quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be
> > counted as part of global uranium reserves?
> >
> > Why exactly?
> >
> > By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why
> > not include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -
> > after all who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all
> > may be recoverable What have you been reading?
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com
> > [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com]
> *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul
> > King *Sent:* Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM *To:*
> > everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Climate models
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Hey Chris,
> >
> >
> >
> > About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near
> > where I live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a
> > huge problem with the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have
> > you been reading?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark  >  > wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella
> >  > >
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Solar PV is here today
> >
> >
> >
> > Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more
> > money has been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR R&D,
> > and yet solar PV is still just a rounding error in our total energy
> > budget.
> >
> >
> >
> >> I see the practical technological limits that constrain what can
> >> actually be accomplished.
> >
> >
> >
> > Apparently not.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>> Oh for heavens sake! There is no Uranium shortage and Thorium is
> >>> 4 times as abundant and easier to separate from it's ore than
> >>> Uranium is, and we can only get energy from .7% of the Uranium
> >>> but  we can use 100% of the Thorium! So do you REALLY want to say
> >>> we shouldn't consider Thorium because we can't get enough of it??
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >> Wrong again
> >
> >
> >
> > I want to know if I really understand you correctly, are you saying
> > that a major problem (or even a minor problem) with using Thorium for
> > energy is that there isn't enough of it? Is that really your
> > position?
> >
> >
> >> the world is facing a recoverable uranium peak that will be reached
> >> within a decade or two (at current extraction rates, if nuclear is
> >> ramped up peak uranium will be reached that much sooner).
> >
> >
> > Uranium prices are the lowest they've been in  8 years. I found a
> > chart for the last 5 years:
> >
> >
> >
> > And so I would like to make a public bet with you and see if you're
> > willing to put your money where your mouth is. You say the shit will
> > hit the fan within a decade or two, so if before April 4 2024 there
> > is widespread reactor shutdowns because of Uranium shortages (and not
> > due to temper tantrums from environmentalists) then, assuming I'm
> > still alive, I will send you $1000; if there are not widespread
> > reactor shutdowns because of Uranium shortages before April 4 2024
> > then, assuming you're still alive, you only needs to send me $100. So
> > do we have a bet? Come on I'm giving you 10 to 1 odds!
> >
> >>> You are the one making the claim that extracting 12 grams of
> >>> Thorium from one meter of dirt would take more energy than the
> >>> Thorium could produce, so it is up to you to show it's true;
> >>> although nobody would be dumb enough to bother with such dirt
> >>> when there is ore that contains 50% Thorium available.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Whatever.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, whatever.
> >
> >> I do not inhabit the same magical thinking universe you seem to
> >> live in.
> >
> >
> >
> > How nice for you, therefore by accepting my bet you can make an easy
> > $1000.
> >
> > John K Clark
> >
> >
> >
> > -- 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 t

RE: Climate models

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King

 

"are betting the destiny of planet earth that these hypothetical future
technologies will become realized in time for the human race to cheat
destiny again and again"

 

Say again? What models are you trusting?

 

I am trusting physically quantifiable data and am not assuming future
hypothetical ways & means as you seem to be doing. What models are you
trusting?

 

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Chris de Morsella 
wrote:

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King

 

Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be a
source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen off
Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward. No
challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.

 

Here is the thing you are betting the destiny of planet earth that these
hypothetical future technologies will become realized in time for the human
race to cheat destiny again and again. That is putting a lot of faith in
these hypothetical future technologies you seem to be counting on. 

Don't get me wrong I am actually one who wishes we already had permanent
settlements on the Moon, L2, choice NEOs, and Mars; I see and understand the
incredible resource potential of up there. 

Think of the solar capacity.. Alone. Even at earth orbital the solar flux is
around 1400 w/m2; in the micro-gravity and almost constant insolation of
high geosynchronous orbit it even begins to look attractive.

But - we are not there. We are here. On earth, with the technology we do
have and facing imminent critical energy supply peaks that will suck the
oxygen out of any grand ideas as we burn the last of what we have in global
conflict. Is this a sure outcome; I certainly hope not, but given how
politics operate globally and looking at the military focused strategy the
US has chosen to face this. well let's just say it leads me to conclude that
the odds are high that as a species we are going to blow it.

It's too bad, and I wish it were otherwise. It is how I see things - given
my understanding of the nature of human mass behavior.

Cheers,

Chris

 

P.S. I am still waiting for 2001 to happen and it is 2014. Point being that
some things - like getting from earth to orbit for example - remain
stubbornly difficult and have remained at the very limit of what we can do
with technology (in spite of forty years of technological advancement from
the days of the Apollo program) Same with fusion, always just fifty years
away.. Maybe someday, but where will the next ITER get its funding from? 

In a world swallowed up by the existential need for industrial nations to
secure their flow of petroleum supplies, and likely going to war (how many
more wars for "Freedom" do you see in the near future?) to do so.. There is
not going to be a whole lot left for every single other human activity.

Do not underestimate how terribly blind the logic of power can be,
constrained by the deadly calculus of the psychopathic mindset - that knows
that this is what they would do if they were in the other guys shoes. so
they do it. because they know he is surely doing it as well.

Power when it is not tempered by wisdom is the most dangerous poison in the
universe. and in us humans, it all so easily blinds us to all that is good.

We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.

 

 

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Chris de Morsella 
wrote:

Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be counted as part of
global uranium reserves?

Why exactly?

By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why not
include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -  after all
who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all may be
recoverable.. What have you been reading? 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM


To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models

 

Hey Chris,

 

   About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where I
live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem with
the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have you been reading?

 

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark  wrote:

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella 
wrote:

 

> Solar PV is here today 

 

Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR R&D, and yet solar PV
is still just a rounding error in our total

RE: Climate models

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 7:09 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models

We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.

>>No, no problem is without a solution. Find the solution that keeps the
current equilibria in place. Our world is a chaotic and complex system. One
does not harness such a beast. One learns to ride it.

And humans are riding the planet right over the cliff. We are burning
through all the treasures of this planet as fast as we possibly can. I fail
to see the wisdom in this mad rush to use everything up. Perhaps you can
enlighten me about the wisdom in this course our civilization is on?

There are many quantifiable metrics: top soil loss, organic matter loss in
soil, rates of desertification, deforestation, bio-diversity collapse, rates
of species extinction, collapse of oceanic eco-systems. Look at the real
physically quantifiable metrics that we can measure about our world and
about our effect on it and what it's constraints are upon us.

I fail to see how you get all optimistic about our situation and see it as
even remotely being describable as keeping current equilibria in place. Our
species has had an incredibly disruptive effect on this planet; let us at
least be honest about who we are. We truly are an invasive species. and we
have succeeded in invading almost every niche of this planet's land surface
and now with factory fishing we are proving we can kill the sea as well.

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Chris de Morsella 
wrote:

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King

Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be a
source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen off
Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward. No
challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.

Here is the thing you are betting the destiny of planet earth that these
hypothetical future technologies will become realized in time for the human
race to cheat destiny again and again. That is putting a lot of faith in
these hypothetical future technologies you seem to be counting on. 

Don't get me wrong I am actually one who wishes we already had permanent
settlements on the Moon, L2, choice NEOs, and Mars; I see and understand the
incredible resource potential of up there. 

Think of the solar capacity.. Alone. Even at earth orbital the solar flux is
around 1400 w/m2; in the micro-gravity and almost constant insolation of
high geosynchronous orbit it even begins to look attractive.

But - we are not there. We are here. On earth, with the technology we do
have and facing imminent critical energy supply peaks that will suck the
oxygen out of any grand ideas as we burn the last of what we have in global
conflict. Is this a sure outcome; I certainly hope not, but given how
politics operate globally and looking at the military focused strategy the
US has chosen to face this. well let's just say it leads me to conclude that
the odds are high that as a species we are going to blow it.

It's too bad, and I wish it were otherwise. It is how I see things - given
my understanding of the nature of human mass behavior.

Cheers,

Chris

P.S. I am still waiting for 2001 to happen and it is 2014. Point being that
some things - like getting from earth to orbit for example - remain
stubbornly difficult and have remained at the very limit of what we can do
with technology (in spite of forty years of technological advancement from
the days of the Apollo program) Same with fusion, always just fifty years
away.. Maybe someday, but where will the next ITER get its funding from? 

In a world swallowed up by the existential need for industrial nations to
secure their flow of petroleum supplies, and likely going to war (how many
more wars for "Freedom" do you see in the near future?) to do so.. There is
not going to be a whole lot left for every single other human activity.

Do not underestimate how terribly blind the logic of power can be,
constrained by the deadly calculus of the psychopathic mindset - that knows
that this is what they would do if they were in the other guys shoes. so
they do it. because they know he is surely doing it as well.

Power when it is not tempered by wisdom is the most dangerous poison in the
universe. and in us humans, it all so easily blinds us to all that is good.

We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Chris de Morsella 
wrote:

Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt

RE: Climate models

Oh come on now - a climate change denier are you? For real?

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 7:07 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models

read this paper please and ponder its implications if applied universally.

http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/24/ajae.aau001.abstract

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Chris de Morsella 
wrote:

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King

Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be a
source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen off
Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward. No
challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.

Here is the thing you are betting the destiny of planet earth that these
hypothetical future technologies will become realized in time for the human
race to cheat destiny again and again. That is putting a lot of faith in
these hypothetical future technologies you seem to be counting on. 

Don't get me wrong I am actually one who wishes we already had permanent
settlements on the Moon, L2, choice NEOs, and Mars; I see and understand the
incredible resource potential of up there. 

Think of the solar capacity.. Alone. Even at earth orbital the solar flux is
around 1400 w/m2; in the micro-gravity and almost constant insolation of
high geosynchronous orbit it even begins to look attractive.

But - we are not there. We are here. On earth, with the technology we do
have and facing imminent critical energy supply peaks that will suck the
oxygen out of any grand ideas as we burn the last of what we have in global
conflict. Is this a sure outcome; I certainly hope not, but given how
politics operate globally and looking at the military focused strategy the
US has chosen to face this. well let's just say it leads me to conclude that
the odds are high that as a species we are going to blow it.

It's too bad, and I wish it were otherwise. It is how I see things - given
my understanding of the nature of human mass behavior.

Cheers,

Chris

P.S. I am still waiting for 2001 to happen and it is 2014. Point being that
some things - like getting from earth to orbit for example - remain
stubbornly difficult and have remained at the very limit of what we can do
with technology (in spite of forty years of technological advancement from
the days of the Apollo program) Same with fusion, always just fifty years
away.. Maybe someday, but where will the next ITER get its funding from? 

In a world swallowed up by the existential need for industrial nations to
secure their flow of petroleum supplies, and likely going to war (how many
more wars for "Freedom" do you see in the near future?) to do so.. There is
not going to be a whole lot left for every single other human activity.

Do not underestimate how terribly blind the logic of power can be,
constrained by the deadly calculus of the psychopathic mindset - that knows
that this is what they would do if they were in the other guys shoes. so
they do it. because they know he is surely doing it as well.

Power when it is not tempered by wisdom is the most dangerous poison in the
universe. and in us humans, it all so easily blinds us to all that is good.

We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Chris de Morsella 
wrote:

Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be counted as part of
global uranium reserves?

Why exactly?

By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why not
include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -  after all
who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all may be
recoverable.. What have you been reading? 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM

To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models

Hey Chris,

   About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where I
live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem with
the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have you been reading?

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark  wrote:

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella 
wrote:

> Solar PV is here today 

Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR R&D, and yet solar PV
is still just a rounding error in our total energy budget.  

> I see the practical technologic

Re: Climate models

2014-04-04 Thread meekerdb

Here's the Mountain Pass rare earth mine in Southern California: 35.48°N 115.53°W  It 
produced cerium, lanthanium neodymium, and europium for rare earth magnets until the 
Chinese undercut the market.  It has huge piles of tailings rich in thorium and radium 
which are at present just a waste product that is hard to get rid of because it's slightly 
radioactive.


Availabililty of thorium is not a problem.  Designing and building the 
powerplants is.

Brent

On 4/4/2014 3:51 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:



> Hey Stephen -- try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not
> ore quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the
> minuscule quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be
> counted as part of global uranium reserves?
>
> Why exactly?
>
> By your count the garden dirt argument -- taken to the absurd -- why
> not include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy --
> after all who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all
> may be recoverable What have you been reading?
>
>
>
> *From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul
> King *Sent:* Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM *To:*
> everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Climate models
>
>
>
> Hey Chris,
>
>
>
> About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near
> where I live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a
> huge problem with the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have
> you been reading?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark  > wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella
> mailto:cdemorse...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Solar PV is here today
>
>
>
> Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more
> money has been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR R&D,
> and yet solar PV is still just a rounding error in our total energy
> budget.
>
>
>
>> I see the practical technological limits that constrain what can
>> actually be accomplished.
>
>
>
> Apparently not.
>
>
>
>
>
>>> Oh for heavens sake! There is no Uranium shortage and Thorium is
>>> 4 times as abundant and easier to separate from it's ore than
>>> Uranium is, and we can only get energy from .7% of the Uranium
>>> but  we can use 100% of the Thorium! So do you REALLY want to say
>>> we shouldn't consider Thorium because we can't get enough of it??
>>>
>
>
>
>> Wrong again
>
>
>
> I want to know if I really understand you correctly, are you saying
> that a major problem (or even a minor problem) with using Thorium for
> energy is that there isn't enough of it? Is that really your
> position?
>
>
>> the world is facing a recoverable uranium peak that will be reached
>> within a decade or two (at current extraction rates, if nuclear is
>> ramped up peak uranium will be reached that much sooner).
>
>
> Uranium prices are the lowest they've been in  8 years. I found a
> chart for the last 5 years:
>
>
>
> And so I would like to make a public bet with you and see if you're
> willing to put your money where your mouth is. You say the shit will
> hit the fan within a decade or two, so if before April 4 2024 there
> is widespread reactor shutdowns because of Uranium shortages (and not
> due to temper tantrums from environmentalists) then, assuming I'm
> still alive, I will send you $1000; if there are not widespread
> reactor shutdowns because of Uranium shortages before April 4 2024
> then, assuming you're still alive, you only needs to send me $100. So
> do we have a bet? Come on I'm giving you 10 to 1 odds!
>
>>> You are the one making the claim that extracting 12 grams of
>>> Thorium from one meter of dirt would take more energy than the
>>> Thorium could produce, so it is up to you to show it's true;
>>> although nobody would be dumb enough to bother with such dirt
>>> when there is ore that contains 50% Thorium available.
>
>
>
>> Whatever.
>
>
>
> Yes, whatever.
>
>> I do not inhabit the same magical thinking universe you seem to
>> live in.
>
>
>
> How nice for you, therefore by accepting my bet you can make an easy
> $1000.
>
> John K Clark
>
>
>
> -- 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

Re: My scepticism took a small knock today

2014-04-04 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Friday, April 4, 2014 6:00:09 PM UTC-4, Liz R 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?
>

Personally I think that you have to add in the fact that you took notice of 
the happenstance, so already it was a potential coincidence. By the time it 
recurs, it is slightly more than a coincidence. What does it mean? I think 
not much but it offers a glimpse into the larger nature of time as rooted 
in experience rather than physics.

-- 
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

"are betting the destiny of planet earth that these hypothetical future
technologies will become realized in time for the human race to cheat
destiny again and again"

Say again? What models are you trusting?


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
>
>
>
> Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
> advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be
> a source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen
> off Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward.
> No challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.
>
>
>
> Here is the thing you are betting the destiny of planet earth that these
> hypothetical future technologies will become realized in time for the human
> race to cheat destiny again and again. That is putting a lot of faith in
> these hypothetical future technologies you seem to be counting on.
>
> Don't get me wrong I am actually one who wishes we already had permanent
> settlements on the Moon, L2, choice NEOs, and Mars; I see and understand
> the incredible resource potential of up there.
>
> Think of the solar capacity Alone. Even at earth orbital the solar flux
> is around 1400 w/m2; in the micro-gravity and almost constant insolation of
> high geosynchronous orbit it even begins to look attractive.
>
> But - we are not there. We are here. On earth, with the technology we do
> have and facing imminent critical energy supply peaks that will suck the
> oxygen out of any grand ideas as we burn the last of what we have in global
> conflict. Is this a sure outcome; I certainly hope not, but given how
> politics operate globally and looking at the military focused strategy the
> US has chosen to face this... well let's just say it leads me to conclude
> that the odds are high that as a species we are going to blow it.
>
> It's too bad, and I wish it were otherwise. It is how I see things - given
> my understanding of the nature of human mass behavior.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> P.S. I am still waiting for 2001 to happen and it is 2014. Point being
> that some things - like getting from earth to orbit for example - remain
> stubbornly difficult and have remained at the very limit of what we can do
> with technology (in spite of forty years of technological advancement from
> the days of the Apollo program) Same with fusion, always just fifty years
> away Maybe someday, but where will the next ITER get its funding from?
>
> In a world swallowed up by the existential need for industrial nations to
> secure their flow of petroleum supplies, and likely going to war (how many
> more wars for "Freedom" do you see in the near future?) to do so There is
> not going to be a whole lot left for every single other human activity.
>
> Do not underestimate how terribly blind the logic of power can be,
> constrained by the deadly calculus of the psychopathic mindset - that knows
> that this is what they would do if they were in the other guys shoes... so
> they do it... because they know he is surely doing it as well.
>
> Power when it is not tempered by wisdom is the most dangerous poison in
> the universe... and in us humans, it all so easily blinds us to all that is
> good.
>
> We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Chris de Morsella 
> wrote:
>
> Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
> quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
> quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be counted as part of
> global uranium reserves?
>
> Why exactly?
>
> By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why not
> include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -  after all
> who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all may be
> recoverable What have you been reading?
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
> *Sent:* Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM
>
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Climate models
>
>
>
> Hey Chris,
>
>
>
>About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where
> I live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem
> with the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have you been reading?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Solar PV is here today
>
>
>
> Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
> been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR R&D, and yet solar PV
> is still just a rounding error in our total energy budget.
>
>
>
> > I see the practical technological limits that

Re: Climate models

We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.

No, no problem is without a solution. Find the solution that keeps the
current equilibria in place. Our world is a chaotic and complex system. One
does not harness such a beast. One learns to ride it.


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
>
>
>
> Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
> advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be
> a source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen
> off Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward.
> No challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.
>
>
>
> Here is the thing you are betting the destiny of planet earth that these
> hypothetical future technologies will become realized in time for the human
> race to cheat destiny again and again. That is putting a lot of faith in
> these hypothetical future technologies you seem to be counting on.
>
> Don't get me wrong I am actually one who wishes we already had permanent
> settlements on the Moon, L2, choice NEOs, and Mars; I see and understand
> the incredible resource potential of up there.
>
> Think of the solar capacity Alone. Even at earth orbital the solar flux
> is around 1400 w/m2; in the micro-gravity and almost constant insolation of
> high geosynchronous orbit it even begins to look attractive.
>
> But - we are not there. We are here. On earth, with the technology we do
> have and facing imminent critical energy supply peaks that will suck the
> oxygen out of any grand ideas as we burn the last of what we have in global
> conflict. Is this a sure outcome; I certainly hope not, but given how
> politics operate globally and looking at the military focused strategy the
> US has chosen to face this... well let's just say it leads me to conclude
> that the odds are high that as a species we are going to blow it.
>
> It's too bad, and I wish it were otherwise. It is how I see things - given
> my understanding of the nature of human mass behavior.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> P.S. I am still waiting for 2001 to happen and it is 2014. Point being
> that some things - like getting from earth to orbit for example - remain
> stubbornly difficult and have remained at the very limit of what we can do
> with technology (in spite of forty years of technological advancement from
> the days of the Apollo program) Same with fusion, always just fifty years
> away Maybe someday, but where will the next ITER get its funding from?
>
> In a world swallowed up by the existential need for industrial nations to
> secure their flow of petroleum supplies, and likely going to war (how many
> more wars for "Freedom" do you see in the near future?) to do so There is
> not going to be a whole lot left for every single other human activity.
>
> Do not underestimate how terribly blind the logic of power can be,
> constrained by the deadly calculus of the psychopathic mindset - that knows
> that this is what they would do if they were in the other guys shoes... so
> they do it... because they know he is surely doing it as well.
>
> Power when it is not tempered by wisdom is the most dangerous poison in
> the universe... and in us humans, it all so easily blinds us to all that is
> good.
>
> We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Chris de Morsella 
> wrote:
>
> Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
> quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
> quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be counted as part of
> global uranium reserves?
>
> Why exactly?
>
> By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why not
> include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -  after all
> who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all may be
> recoverable What have you been reading?
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
> *Sent:* Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM
>
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Climate models
>
>
>
> Hey Chris,
>
>
>
>About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where
> I live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem
> with the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have you been reading?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Solar PV is here today
>
>
>
> Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
> been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR R&D, and yet solar PV
> is still just a rounding error in our total ener

Re: Climate models

read this paper please and ponder its implications if applied universally.
http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/24/ajae.aau001.abstract


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
>
>
>
> Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
> advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be
> a source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen
> off Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward.
> No challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.
>
>
>
> Here is the thing you are betting the destiny of planet earth that these
> hypothetical future technologies will become realized in time for the human
> race to cheat destiny again and again. That is putting a lot of faith in
> these hypothetical future technologies you seem to be counting on.
>
> Don't get me wrong I am actually one who wishes we already had permanent
> settlements on the Moon, L2, choice NEOs, and Mars; I see and understand
> the incredible resource potential of up there.
>
> Think of the solar capacity Alone. Even at earth orbital the solar flux
> is around 1400 w/m2; in the micro-gravity and almost constant insolation of
> high geosynchronous orbit it even begins to look attractive.
>
> But - we are not there. We are here. On earth, with the technology we do
> have and facing imminent critical energy supply peaks that will suck the
> oxygen out of any grand ideas as we burn the last of what we have in global
> conflict. Is this a sure outcome; I certainly hope not, but given how
> politics operate globally and looking at the military focused strategy the
> US has chosen to face this... well let's just say it leads me to conclude
> that the odds are high that as a species we are going to blow it.
>
> It's too bad, and I wish it were otherwise. It is how I see things - given
> my understanding of the nature of human mass behavior.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> P.S. I am still waiting for 2001 to happen and it is 2014. Point being
> that some things - like getting from earth to orbit for example - remain
> stubbornly difficult and have remained at the very limit of what we can do
> with technology (in spite of forty years of technological advancement from
> the days of the Apollo program) Same with fusion, always just fifty years
> away Maybe someday, but where will the next ITER get its funding from?
>
> In a world swallowed up by the existential need for industrial nations to
> secure their flow of petroleum supplies, and likely going to war (how many
> more wars for "Freedom" do you see in the near future?) to do so There is
> not going to be a whole lot left for every single other human activity.
>
> Do not underestimate how terribly blind the logic of power can be,
> constrained by the deadly calculus of the psychopathic mindset - that knows
> that this is what they would do if they were in the other guys shoes... so
> they do it... because they know he is surely doing it as well.
>
> Power when it is not tempered by wisdom is the most dangerous poison in
> the universe... and in us humans, it all so easily blinds us to all that is
> good.
>
> We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Chris de Morsella 
> wrote:
>
> Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
> quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
> quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be counted as part of
> global uranium reserves?
>
> Why exactly?
>
> By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why not
> include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -  after all
> who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all may be
> recoverable What have you been reading?
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
> *Sent:* Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM
>
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Climate models
>
>
>
> Hey Chris,
>
>
>
>About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where
> I live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem
> with the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have you been reading?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Solar PV is here today
>
>
>
> Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
> been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR R&D, and yet solar PV
> is still just a rounding error in our total energy budget.
>
>
>
> > I see the practical technological limits that constrain what can
> actually be accomplished.
>
>
>
> Ap

RE: Climate models

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King

Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be a
source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen off
Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward. No
challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.

Here is the thing you are betting the destiny of planet earth that these
hypothetical future technologies will become realized in time for the human
race to cheat destiny again and again. That is putting a lot of faith in
these hypothetical future technologies you seem to be counting on. 

Don't get me wrong I am actually one who wishes we already had permanent
settlements on the Moon, L2, choice NEOs, and Mars; I see and understand the
incredible resource potential of up there. 

Think of the solar capacity.. Alone. Even at earth orbital the solar flux is
around 1400 w/m2; in the micro-gravity and almost constant insolation of
high geosynchronous orbit it even begins to look attractive.

But - we are not there. We are here. On earth, with the technology we do
have and facing imminent critical energy supply peaks that will suck the
oxygen out of any grand ideas as we burn the last of what we have in global
conflict. Is this a sure outcome; I certainly hope not, but given how
politics operate globally and looking at the military focused strategy the
US has chosen to face this. well let's just say it leads me to conclude that
the odds are high that as a species we are going to blow it.

It's too bad, and I wish it were otherwise. It is how I see things - given
my understanding of the nature of human mass behavior.

Cheers,

Chris

P.S. I am still waiting for 2001 to happen and it is 2014. Point being that
some things - like getting from earth to orbit for example - remain
stubbornly difficult and have remained at the very limit of what we can do
with technology (in spite of forty years of technological advancement from
the days of the Apollo program) Same with fusion, always just fifty years
away.. Maybe someday, but where will the next ITER get its funding from? 

In a world swallowed up by the existential need for industrial nations to
secure their flow of petroleum supplies, and likely going to war (how many
more wars for "Freedom" do you see in the near future?) to do so.. There is
not going to be a whole lot left for every single other human activity.

Do not underestimate how terribly blind the logic of power can be,
constrained by the deadly calculus of the psychopathic mindset - that knows
that this is what they would do if they were in the other guys shoes. so
they do it. because they know he is surely doing it as well.

Power when it is not tempered by wisdom is the most dangerous poison in the
universe. and in us humans, it all so easily blinds us to all that is good.

We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Chris de Morsella 
wrote:

Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be counted as part of
global uranium reserves?

Why exactly?

By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why not
include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -  after all
who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all may be
recoverable.. What have you been reading? 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM

To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models

Hey Chris,

   About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where I
live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem with
the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have you been reading?

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark  wrote:

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella 
wrote:

> Solar PV is here today 

Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR R&D, and yet solar PV
is still just a rounding error in our total energy budget.  

> I see the practical technological limits that constrain what can actually
be accomplished. 

Apparently not.

>> Oh for heavens sake! There is no Uranium shortage and Thorium is 4 times
as abundant and easier to separate from it's ore than Uranium is, and we can
only get energy from .7% of the Uranium but  we can use 100% of the Thorium!
So do you REALLY want to say we shouldn't consider Thorium because we can't
get enough of it??  

> Wrong again 

I want to know if I really understand you correctly, are you

Re: Climate models

Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be
a source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen
off Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward.
No challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

> Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
> quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
> quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be counted as part of
> global uranium reserves?
>
> Why exactly?
>
> By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why not
> include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -  after all
> who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all may be
> recoverable What have you been reading?
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
> *Sent:* Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Climate models
>
>
>
> Hey Chris,
>
>
>
>About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where
> I live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem
> with the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have you been reading?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Solar PV is here today
>
>
>
> Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
> been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR R&D, and yet solar PV
> is still just a rounding error in our total energy budget.
>
>
>
> > I see the practical technological limits that constrain what can
> actually be accomplished.
>
>
>
> Apparently not.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Oh for heavens sake! There is no Uranium shortage and Thorium is 4
> times as abundant and easier to separate from it's ore than Uranium is, and
> we can only get energy from .7% of the Uranium but  we can use 100% of the
> Thorium! So do you REALLY want to say we shouldn't consider Thorium because
> we can't get enough of it??
>
>
>
> > Wrong again
>
>
>
> I want to know if I really understand you correctly, are you saying that a
> major problem (or even a minor problem) with using Thorium for energy is
> that there isn't enough of it? Is that really your position?
>
>
> > the world is facing a recoverable uranium peak that will be reached
> within a decade or two (at current extraction rates, if nuclear is ramped
> up peak uranium will be reached that much sooner).
>
>
> Uranium prices are the lowest they've been in  8 years. I found a chart
> for the last 5 years:
>
>
>
> And so I would like to make a public bet with you and see if you're
> willing to put your money where your mouth is. You say the shit will hit
> the fan within a decade or two, so if before April 4 2024 there is
> widespread reactor shutdowns because of Uranium shortages (and not due to
> temper tantrums from environmentalists) then, assuming I'm still alive, I
> will send you $1000; if there are not widespread reactor shutdowns because
> of Uranium shortages before April 4 2024 then, assuming you're still alive,
> you only needs to send me $100. So do we have a bet? Come on I'm giving you
> 10 to 1 odds!
>
> >> You are the one making the claim that extracting 12 grams of Thorium
> from one meter of dirt would take more energy than the Thorium could
> produce, so it is up to you to show it's true; although nobody would be
> dumb enough to bother with such dirt when there is ore that contains 50%
> Thorium available.
>
>
>
> > Whatever.
>
>
>
> Yes, whatever.
>
> > I do not inhabit the same magical thinking universe you seem to live in.
>
>
>
> How nice for you, therefore by accepting my bet you can make an easy
> $1000.
>
> John K Clark
>
>
>
> --
> 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 o

RE: Climate models

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes

 

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

 

On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:03, LizR wrote:





On 3 April 2014 05:56, Chris de Morsella  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 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 have long held a similar view. The proceeds from any disincentive tax -
say a carbon tax paid for at the pump or added to a utility bill to cover
that electricity's carbon content, but also a tax on alcohol, cigarette or
other drugs.. Whatever is being levied against  - should all go into a
general fund that gets disbursed evenly amongst all citizens, without any
interdiction on this fund, whatsoever, by the greedy lobby-beholden hands of
politicians and preferably in some spread out manner - say by paying out the
annual dividend, on a person's birthday.

However this approach does not address the need to mandate certain
standards. For example catalytic converters for cars. It can get into a grey
area, where in some cases a mandated approach is more effective than one
driven by cost disincentives.

Chris

 

 

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.

 

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 everyt

RE: [foar] Amoeba's Secret now available in paperback

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gabriel Bodeen
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 7:43 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [foar] Amoeba's Secret now available in paperback

FWIW, on a flight this weekend I read a bit of Amoeba's Secret on my kindle 
while the stranger in the seat next to me was reading Tegmark's book.  If plane 
rides didn't make me fall unconscious almost immediately, that might have been 
grounds for an interesting live discussion. :)

Funny coincidence… what are the odds of that?

And funny enough as I was reading your post on this list my copy of Bruno’s 
book Amoeba’s Secret arrived from Amazon/UPS. I am almost done reading Max 
Tegmark’s book as well. It will be interesting to read these back to back.

Cheers,

Chris

On Thursday, March 27, 2014 1:35:57 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:

Thanks Russell, just ordered a copy as well. It will dovetail in nicely with 
Max Tegmark’s book, ...

-- 
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

Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be counted as part of
global uranium reserves?

Why exactly?

By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why not
include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -  after all
who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all may be
recoverable.. What have you been reading? 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models

Hey Chris,

   About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where I
live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem with
the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have you been reading?

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark  wrote:

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella 
wrote:

> Solar PV is here today 

Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR R&D, and yet solar PV
is still just a rounding error in our total energy budget.  

> I see the practical technological limits that constrain what can actually
be accomplished. 

Apparently not.

>> Oh for heavens sake! There is no Uranium shortage and Thorium is 4 times
as abundant and easier to separate from it's ore than Uranium is, and we can
only get energy from .7% of the Uranium but  we can use 100% of the Thorium!
So do you REALLY want to say we shouldn't consider Thorium because we can't
get enough of it??  

> Wrong again 

I want to know if I really understand you correctly, are you saying that a
major problem (or even a minor problem) with using Thorium for energy is
that there isn't enough of it? Is that really your position?

> the world is facing a recoverable uranium peak that will be reached within
a decade or two (at current extraction rates, if nuclear is ramped up peak
uranium will be reached that much sooner). 

Uranium prices are the lowest they've been in  8 years. I found a chart for
the last 5 years:

And so I would like to make a public bet with you and see if you're willing
to put your money where your mouth is. You say the shit will hit the fan
within a decade or two, so if before April 4 2024 there is widespread
reactor shutdowns because of Uranium shortages (and not due to temper
tantrums from environmentalists) then, assuming I'm still alive, I will send
you $1000; if there are not widespread reactor shutdowns because of Uranium
shortages before April 4 2024 then, assuming you're still alive, you only
needs to send me $100. So do we have a bet? Come on I'm giving you 10 to 1
odds!

>> You are the one making the claim that extracting 12 grams of Thorium from
one meter of dirt would take more energy than the Thorium could produce, so
it is up to you to show it's true; although nobody would be dumb enough to
bother with such dirt when there is ore that contains 50% Thorium available.

> Whatever.

Yes, whatever.   

> I do not inhabit the same magical thinking universe you seem to live in. 

How nice for you, therefore by accepting my bet you can make an easy $1000. 

John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: Climate models

Hey Chris,

   About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where
I live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem
with the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have you been reading?


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella 
> wrote:
>
>  > Solar PV is here today
>>
>
> Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
> been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR R&D, and yet solar PV
> is still just a rounding error in our total energy budget.
>
> > I see the practical technological limits that constrain what can
>> actually be accomplished.
>>
>
> Apparently not.
>
>
> >> Oh for heavens sake! There is no Uranium shortage and Thorium is 4
>>> times as abundant and easier to separate from it's ore than Uranium is, and
>>> we can only get energy from .7% of the Uranium but  we can use 100% of the
>>> Thorium! So do you REALLY want to say we shouldn't consider Thorium because
>>> we can't get enough of it??
>>>
>>
>>  > Wrong again
>>
>
> I want to know if I really understand you correctly, are you saying that a
> major problem (or even a minor problem) with using Thorium for energy is
> that there isn't enough of it? Is that really your position?
>
>
>>  > the world is facing a recoverable uranium peak that will be reached
>> within a decade or two (at current extraction rates, if nuclear is ramped
>> up peak uranium will be reached that much sooner).
>>
>
> Uranium prices are the lowest they've been in  8 years. I found a chart
> for the last 5 years:
>
>
>
> And so I would like to make a public bet with you and see if you're
> willing to put your money where your mouth is. You say the shit will hit
> the fan within a decade or two, so if before April 4 2024 there is
> widespread reactor shutdowns because of Uranium shortages (and not due to
> temper tantrums from environmentalists) then, assuming I'm still alive, I
> will send you $1000; if there are not widespread reactor shutdowns because
> of Uranium shortages before April 4 2024 then, assuming you're still alive,
> you only needs to send me $100. So do we have a bet? Come on I'm giving you
> 10 to 1 odds!
>
> >> You are the one making the claim that extracting 12 grams of Thorium
>>> from one meter of dirt would take more energy than the Thorium could
>>> produce, so it is up to you to show it's true; although nobody would be
>>> dumb enough to bother with such dirt when there is ore that contains 50%
>>> Thorium available.
>>>
>>
>>  > Whatever.
>>
>
> Yes, whatever.
>
>  > I do not inhabit the same magical thinking universe you seem to live
>> in.
>>
>
> How nice for you, therefore by accepting my bet you can make an easy
> $1000.
>
> John K Clark
>
>
>  --
> 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.

My scepticism took a small knock today

2014-04-04 Thread LizR

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?

-- 
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

2014-04-04 Thread spudboy100


By solar and wind its isn't.


-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Apr 2, 2014 8:13 pm
Subject: Re: Climate models



On 3 April 2014 12:17,   wrote:

We still have to possess the technology in place to replace carbon with clean. 
Please note that New Delhi, or Auckland is not yet electrified, say to 20%.  
You cannot do a kidney transplant without a replacement kidney.   


Auckland isn't electrified??? (How am I managing to write this post?!)


-- 
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.

Hear, Hear! Sadly, we (collectively speaking) keep buying the smooth talk
and shiny baubles they promise and keep electing them. 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...


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR
>
>
>
> On 4 April 2014 08:16, Chris de Morsella  wrote:
>
>
>
> This article from Bloomberg delves into some detail on how the
> unconventional oil sector is actually based on unreliable numbers -- with
> reserve estimates and production curves that have proven to have been
> wildly overstated -- to the point of criminal conspiracy to defraud
> investors (I would argue)
>
>
>
> Not to mention the rest of us.
>
>
>
> It's what you get when you have rule by the gangster psychopaths
> controlling the global corridors of power. As Bruno has pointed out it is
> the drug prohibition that has given these transnational crime families a
> real leg up in penetrating then controlling institution after institution.
> But then hasn't the whole of human written history been, by and large
> characterized by rule by psychopaths.
>
> One can also say that without the sheep there would be no wolves; it is
> the ease with which us humans are corralled into social herds; the
> predictable human nature and habit of obedience to authority that makes it
> possible for psychopaths to infiltrate organizations and take power over
> them (from within) and then leverage that organizational power to control
> vast human herds.
>
>
>
> --
> 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

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 12:57 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella 
wrote:

> Solar PV is here today 

Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR R&D, and yet solar PV
is still just a rounding error in our total energy budget.  

Haha - if you call the almost 150 GW of currently installed solar PV
capacity a rounding error that is your prerogative. 150GW is however a
significant amount of energy production capacity no matter how much you
desire to minimize its importance. The global installed capacity of solar PV
has also been doubling every two or so years for quite a while now and is
projected to surpass 300GW of globally installed PV capacity by 2017. 

Just a rounding number?

In your world maybe.

Compare this capacity with the current capacity of LFTR which is 0 watts.

> I see the practical technological limits that constrain what can actually
be accomplished. 

Apparently not.

>> Oh for heavens sake! There is no Uranium shortage and Thorium is 4 times
as abundant and easier to separate from it's ore than Uranium is, and we can
only get energy from .7% of the Uranium but  we can use 100% of the Thorium!
So do you REALLY want to say we shouldn't consider Thorium because we can't
get enough of it??  

> Wrong again 

I want to know if I really understand you correctly, are you saying that a
major problem (or even a minor problem) with using Thorium for energy is
that there isn't enough of it? Is that really your position?

No it is not my position and never has been - though I take issue with your
reserve figures. The big issues with LFTR are that it simply does not exist
and in order to bring it into existence would require a large scale
concerted multi-decadal effort. The entire sector - not just the reactor
units themselves, but the entire logistical supply chain - has to be built
out from nothing.

This has always been my position, but you choose instead to frame my
position as being other than what it is for your own argumentative purposes.

> the world is facing a recoverable uranium peak that will be reached within
a decade or two (at current extraction rates, if nuclear is ramped up peak
uranium will be reached that much sooner). 

Uranium prices are the lowest they've been in  8 years. I found a chart for
the last 5 years:

So? That is a temporary effect of the highly successful ex-Soviet bombs to
reactor fuel program that the US and post-USSR Russia negotiated in the
1990s. Give it another ten years.

And so I would like to make a public bet with you and see if you're willing
to put your money where your mouth is. You say the shit will hit the fan
within a decade or two, so if before April 4 2024 there is widespread
reactor shutdowns because of Uranium shortages (and not due to temper
tantrums from environmentalists) then, assuming I'm still alive, I will send
you $1000; if there are not widespread reactor shutdowns because of Uranium
shortages before April 4 2024 then, assuming you're still alive, you only
needs to send me $100. So do we have a bet? Come on I'm giving you 10 to 1
odds!

At current rates of nuclear power production the current reserves will last
longer than ten years - but they will not if nuclear power is ramped up as
an energy generation source. When the world begins to hit peak uranium very
much depends on whether more reactors are built or not. 

>> You are the one making the claim that extracting 12 grams of Thorium from
one meter of dirt would take more energy than the Thorium could produce, so
it is up to you to show it's true; although nobody would be dumb enough to
bother with such dirt when there is ore that contains 50% Thorium available.

> Whatever.

Yes, whatever.   

Yeah whater

> I do not inhabit the same magical thinking universe you seem to live in. 

How nice for you, therefore by accepting my bet you can make an easy $1000. 

Nice polemic. what assurances do I even have that you would actually pay. It
is mere bluster on your end. As I said - and it is just common sense the
date we hit peak uranium very much depends on how many operating nuclear
power plants exist in the world. If nuclear power is ramped way up - as the
pro nuclear folks would have us do - then we will hit that wall sooner. If,
instead, as seems likely nuclear continues to get phased out then we will
not hit the uranium supply peak until a later point in time. Can you follow
this simple reasoning?

Chris de Morsella

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...@googlegro

RE: The Shale unconventional oil play is just a bubble (and one that is about to burst) -- reserves have been wildly overstated.

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR

 

On 4 April 2014 08:16, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

 

This article from Bloomberg delves into some detail on how the
unconventional oil sector is actually based on unreliable numbers -- with
reserve estimates and production curves that have proven to have been wildly
overstated -- to the point of criminal conspiracy to defraud investors (I
would argue)

 

Not to mention the rest of us.

 

It's what you get when you have rule by the gangster psychopaths controlling
the global corridors of power. As Bruno has pointed out it is the drug
prohibition that has given these transnational crime families a real leg up
in penetrating then controlling institution after institution. But then
hasn't the whole of human written history been, by and large characterized
by rule by psychopaths. 

One can also say that without the sheep there would be no wolves; it is the
ease with which us humans are corralled into social herds; the predictable
human nature and habit of obedience to authority that makes it possible for
psychopaths to infiltrate organizations and take power over them (from
within) and then leverage that organizational power to control vast human
herds.

 

-- 
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

2014-04-04 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

> Solar PV is here today
>

Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR R&D, and yet solar PV
is still just a rounding error in our total energy budget.

> I see the practical technological limits that constrain what can actually
> be accomplished.
>

Apparently not.

>> Oh for heavens sake! There is no Uranium shortage and Thorium is 4 times
>> as abundant and easier to separate from it's ore than Uranium is, and we
>> can only get energy from .7% of the Uranium but  we can use 100% of the
>> Thorium! So do you REALLY want to say we shouldn't consider Thorium because
>> we can't get enough of it??
>>
>
> > Wrong again
>

I want to know if I really understand you correctly, are you saying that a
major problem (or even a minor problem) with using Thorium for energy is
that there isn't enough of it? Is that really your position?

> > the world is facing a recoverable uranium peak that will be reached
> within a decade or two (at current extraction rates, if nuclear is ramped
> up peak uranium will be reached that much sooner).
>

Uranium prices are the lowest they've been in  8 years. I found a chart for
the last 5 years:

And so I would like to make a public bet with you and see if you're willing
to put your money where your mouth is. You say the shit will hit the fan
within a decade or two, so if before April 4 2024 there is widespread
reactor shutdowns because of Uranium shortages (and not due to temper
tantrums from environmentalists) then, assuming I'm still alive, I will
send you $1000; if there are not widespread reactor shutdowns because of
Uranium shortages before April 4 2024 then, assuming you're still alive,
you only needs to send me $100. So do we have a bet? Come on I'm giving you
10 to 1 odds!

>> You are the one making the claim that extracting 12 grams of Thorium
>> from one meter of dirt would take more energy than the Thorium could
>> produce, so it is up to you to show it's true; although nobody would be
>> dumb enough to bother with such dirt when there is ore that contains 50%
>> Thorium available.
>>
>
> > Whatever.
>

Yes, whatever.

> I do not inhabit the same magical thinking universe you seem to live in.
>

How nice for you, therefore by accepting my bet you can make an easy $1000.

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: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything

2014-04-04 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Bruno:
 

On Friday, April 4, 2014 12:36:13 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

> Hal,
>
> Yes, we might be on the same length wave for the "ultimate" TOE, 
>
 
Thank you
 

> but your terming is rather terrible.
>  
>
 
I will work on it, perhaps needing some help.
 
Today I tend to think of the current state of my model as managing to 
parachute in using a bed sheet without sustaining a fatal injury.
 
Hal
 

-- 
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: [foar] COMP => no cloning?

All of those "different versions of you" have slightly different quantum 
states, or else they would be exactly this "you" and not "a different 
version". There is no contradiction.

On Monday, March 24, 2014 5:55:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>
> According to MWI I am not unique for there are many versions of myself 
> having made different choices and now living different lives. Therefore I 
> am being cloned all the time. As I understand comp, it is consistent with 
> MWI. That in itself seems contradictory to the no-cloning theorem to me.
> Richard
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Kim Jones 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> On 25 Mar 2014, at 8:00 am, Richard Ruquist > 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Well then the question is How is cloning different from Asking the doctor 
>> to gather info from the substitution level to reproduce you at two 
>> different locations? To me at least that seems to be essentially cloning 
>> you.
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> How many number 2s are there? How many versions of 17 are there? You are 
>> a number, which surely makes you unique.
>>
>> You are unique. Just like everyone else..
>>
>> Kim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:35 PM, LizR >wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 March 2014 08:18, Richard Ruquist >> >wrote:
>>>
 Bruno,
 How does cloning differ from "asking the doctor".
 Forgive me but it seems that you are being contradictory-
 just to indicate that this is an important question.
 Richard

 If you don't mind me asking, how is Bruno being contradictory? I 
>>> thought his explanation made perfect sense (assuming comp, of course).
>>>  
>>> -- 
>>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
>>> To post to this group, send email to 
>>> everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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: Video of VCR



On 04 Apr 2014, at 03:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, April 3, 2014 2:34:06 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Apr 2014, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 1:00:54 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Apr 2014, at 21:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:

I believe you, but all of the laws and creativity can still only  
occur in the context of a sense making experience.


Did I ever said the contrary?

Yes, you are saying that multiplication and addition laws prefigure  
sense making and sense experience.


It makes the minimal sense *you* need to understand what we talk  
about. That sense has already been studied and has itself some  
mathematical representation.
Then, once you have the numbers, and the laws of + and *, you can  
prove the existence of the universal numbers and their  
computations. The universal numbers are the sense discovering  
machine.


It doesn't matter how minimal the sense is by our standards. In  
that frame of reference, before we exist, it is much sense as there  
could ever be. If there is sense to make + and *, then numbers can  
only act as conduit to shape that sense, not to create it. You're  
interested in understanding numbers, but I'm only interested in  
understanding the sense that makes everything (including, but not  
limited to numbers).


You ignore the discovery that numbers can understand and make sense  
of many things, with reasonable and understandable definitions  
(with some work).


Just as we depend our eyes to make sense of our retinal cells  
sense, so to do numbers act as lenses and filters to capture sense  
for us. That does not mean that what sense is made through numbers  
belong to numbers.



Of course. Comp might be false. ~comp, we agree on this since the  
start. But it does not add anything to your []~comp. You persist to  
confuse ~[]comp and []~comp.


I'm not confusing them, I'm saying that []~comp is not untrue


this means you say []~comp is true.

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.




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?

























All that can still make sense in the theory according to which  
sense is a gift by Santa Klaus.


And this is not an argument against your theory, nor against the  
existence of Santa Klaus.


Concerning your theory, I find it uninteresting because it abandons  
my entire field of inquiry: making sense of sense.


I don't think abandoned as much as frees it from trying to do the  
impossible. I see mathematics as being even more useful when we  
know that it is safe from gaining autonomous intent.



Comp implies that Arithmetic is not free of autonomous intent,  
trivially. But computer science provides many realities capable of  
justifying or defining autonomous intent.


I was talking about the theory of comp being over-extended to try  
to explain qualia and awareness.



It helps to formulate the problems, and provides way to test  
indirect predictions.


But again you are pursuing the confusion between ~[]comp and []~comp.

There's no confusion. If comp cannot justify actual qualia, but  
~comp can, then we should give ~comp the benefit of the doubt.



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.

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.


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.







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).





























But in logic and computer science, we do have theories relating  
formula/theories/machine and some mathematical notion senses  
(models, interpretation, valuation) usually infinite or transfinite.


But I have never said that you are wrong with your theory. Only  
th

Re: The Shale unconventional oil play is just a bubble (and one that is about to burst) -- reserves have been wildly overstated.

This article is packed full of falsehoods that a simple bit of research 
could correct. 

read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale

As to its main point, all predictions are based on models. Models are never 
the "real thing". Duh! So some "expert" has a wrong model. Big News! LOL. 
What is the point of making a big deal about this if not to spread 
uncertainty and doubt. Good job being an unpaid hack for oil future short 
sellers.

On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:16:35 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:
>
>
> This article from Bloomberg delves into some detail on how the 
> unconventional oil sector is actually based on unreliable numbers -- with 
> reserve estimates and production curves that have proven to have been 
> wildly overstated -- to the point of criminal conspiracy to defraud 
> investors (I would argue)
>
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-03/old-math-casts-doubt-on-accuracy-of-oil-reserve-estimates.html
> Old Math Casts Doubt on Accuracy of Oil Reserve Estimates
> Jan Arps is the most influential oilman you’ve never heard of.
> In 1945, Arps, then a 33-year-old petroleum engineer for British-American 
> Oil Producing Co., published a formula to predict how much crude a well 
> will produce and when it will run dry. The Arps method has become one of 
> the most widely used measures in the industry. Companies rely on it to 
> predict the profitability of drilling, secure loans and report reserves to 
> regulators. When Representative Ed 
> Royce,
>  
> a California Republican, said at a March 26 hearing in Washington that the 
> U.S. should start exporting its oil to undermine Russian influence, his 
> forecast of “increasing U.S. energy production” can be traced back to Arps.
> The problem is the Arps equation has been twisted to apply to shale 
> technology, which didn’t exist when Arps died in 1976. John Lee, a 
> University of Houston engineering professor and an authority on estimating 
> reserves, said billions of barrels of untapped shale oil in the U.S. are 
> counted by companies relying on limited drilling history and tweaks to 
> Arps’s formula that exaggerate future production. That casts doubt on how 
> close the U.S. will get to energy independence, a goal that’s nearer than 
> at any time since 1985, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information 
> Administration.
> Photographer: Ken 
> James/Bloomberg
> To replace the Arps calculation, researchers are testing new formulas with 
> names worthy... Read 
> More
> “Things could turn out more pessimistic than people project,” said Lee. 
> “The long-term production of some of those oil-rich wells may be 
> overstated.”
> Calculate Reserves
> Lee’s criticisms have opened a rift in the industry about how to measure 
> the stores of crude trapped within rock formations thousands of feet below 
> the earth’s surface. In a newsletter published this year by Houston-based 
> Ryder 
> Scott Co. , which helps 
> drillers calculate reserves, Lee called for an industry conference to 
> address what he said are inconsistent approaches. The Arps method is 
> particularly open to abuse, he said.
> U.S. oil production has increased 40 percent since the end of 2011 as 
> drillers target layers of oil-bearing rock such as the Bakken shale in North 
> Dakota , the Eagle Ford in 
> Texas , and the Mississippi 
> Lime in Kansas andOklahoma , 
> according to the EIA. The U.S. is on track to become the world’s largest 
> oil producer by next year, according to the Paris-based International 
> Energy Agency. A report from London-based consultants Wood Mackenzie said 
> that by 2020 the Bakken’s output alone will be 1.7 million barrels a day, 
> from 1.1 million now.
>
> Photographer:
>  
> Matthew Staver/Bloomberg
> U.S. oil production has increased 40 percent since the end of 2011 as 
> drillers target... Read 
> More
> U.S. crude benchmark West Texas Intermediate fell 41 cents to $99.21 a 
> barrel at 10:10 a.m London time in electronic trading on the New York 
> Mercantile Exchange. It has risen 0.8 percent this year.
> Inherently Uncertain
> Predicting the future is an inherently uncertain business, and Arps’s 
> method works as well as any other, said Scott Wilson, a senior vice 
> president in Ryder Scott’s Denv

Re: Climate models

2014-04-04 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:03, LizR wrote:
>
> On 3 April 2014 05:56, Chris de Morsella  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 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.

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.

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 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!

2014-04-04 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>
>
>
> 2014-04-04 19:05 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes :
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 04 Apr 2014, at 11:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4 April 2014 20:33, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>>



 On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou >>> > wrote:

>
>
>
> On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias  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?
>>
>
> To know that, you have to follow the white rabbit.
>

:)


>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receivin

Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!

2014-04-04 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2014-04-04 19:05 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes :

>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 04 Apr 2014, at 11:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4 April 2014 20:33, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou 
>>> wrote:
>>>



 On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias  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?
>

To know that, you have to follow the white rabbit.



>
>
>>
>> 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 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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 ht

Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!

2014-04-04 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 04 Apr 2014, at 11:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 4 April 2014 20:33, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias  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?


>
> 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 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 04 Apr 2014, at 11:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 4 April 2014 20:33, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote:

On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias 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.

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

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: Daphne du Maurier was right!

2014-04-04 Thread meekerdb


On 4/3/2014 10:47 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:

To see what I mean, please read the book by Dr Maurice Bucaille
https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf 



Oh, so you didn't mean *literally*; because that wouldn't need a book to 
explain it.

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!

2014-04-04 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>
>
>
> 2014-04-04 12:20 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias :
>
> Stathis Papaioannou asks:
>>
>> So are you saying that if a scientific error is pointed out to you in the
>> Bible or the Quran you will accept that they are not the word of God?
>>
>> Honest answer: I don't know.
>>
>> To quote from the last paragraph of General Conclusions from Dr Maurice
>> Bucaille's book:
>> 'In view of the level of knowledge in Muhammad's day, it is
>> inconceivable that many of the statements In the Qur'an which are connected
>> with science could have been the work of a man.
>>
>
> The easiest explanation is often the best... the easiest is that it came
> from men What are such "inconceivable" statements that defies men of
> the 6th century ? As they are "that many", should be easy.
>

Clearly they came from men. But my personal subjective experience leads me
to believe that the words could have come from a channel and that
channeling  is an existent phenomenon. Channels are usually women, like the
oracles.
Richard

>
> Quentin
>
>
>
>> It is, moreover, perfectly legitimate, not only to regard the Qur'an as
>> the expression of a Revelation, but also to award it a very special place,
>> on account of the guarantee of authenticity it provides and *the
>> presence in it of scientific statements which, when studied today, appear
>> as a challenge to explanation in human terms. *'
>>
>> All I ask that scientists evaluate these in the light of today's
>> discoveries. I think we all stand to benefit from it.
>>
>> Samiya
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Stathis Papaioannou 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4 April 2014 16:41, Samiya Illias  wrote:
>>>

 What is more important? Faith or Honest Faith? How can we honestly
 believe in God when we think God doesn't know what He created? I think its
 a disservice to God, to religion and to ourselves when we choose to not to
 question Faith, and not to examine it. Its not 'to test God', rather its to
 test what we accept as from God.
 If we believe in Life After Death, then the quality of our life in the
 Hereafter is dependent on the version of scripture that we took on faith.
 If Judgement is inevitable, then it is of utmost importance that we base
 our beliefs and actions upon critical inquiry and honest understanding.

>>>
>>> So are you saying that if a scientific error is pointed out to you in
>>> the Bible or the Quran you will accept that they are not the word of God?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>  --
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>
> --
> 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!

2014-04-04 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2014-04-04 12:20 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias :

> Stathis Papaioannou asks:
>
> So are you saying that if a scientific error is pointed out to you in the
> Bible or the Quran you will accept that they are not the word of God?
>
> Honest answer: I don't know.
>
> To quote from the last paragraph of General Conclusions from Dr Maurice
> Bucaille's book:
> 'In view of the level of knowledge in Muhammad's day, it is inconceivable
> that many of the statements In the Qur'an which are connected with science
> could have been the work of a man.
>

The easiest explanation is often the best... the easiest is that it came
from men What are such "inconceivable" statements that defies men of
the 6th century ? As they are "that many", should be easy.

Quentin



> It is, moreover, perfectly legitimate, not only to regard the Qur'an as
> the expression of a Revelation, but also to award it a very special place,
> on account of the guarantee of authenticity it provides and *the presence
> in it of scientific statements which, when studied today, appear as a
> challenge to explanation in human terms. *'
>
> All I ask that scientists evaluate these in the light of today's
> discoveries. I think we all stand to benefit from it.
>
> Samiya
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4 April 2014 16:41, Samiya Illias  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What is more important? Faith or Honest Faith? How can we honestly
>>> believe in God when we think God doesn't know what He created? I think its
>>> a disservice to God, to religion and to ourselves when we choose to not to
>>> question Faith, and not to examine it. Its not 'to test God', rather its to
>>> test what we accept as from God.
>>> If we believe in Life After Death, then the quality of our life in the
>>> Hereafter is dependent on the version of scripture that we took on faith.
>>> If Judgement is inevitable, then it is of utmost importance that we base
>>> our beliefs and actions upon critical inquiry and honest understanding.
>>>
>>
>> So are you saying that if a scientific error is pointed out to you in the
>> Bible or the Quran you will accept that they are not the word of God?
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>
>  --
> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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!

2014-04-04 Thread Samiya Illias

Stathis Papaioannou asks:
So are you saying that if a scientific error is pointed out to you in the
Bible or the Quran you will accept that they are not the word of God?

Honest answer: I don't know.

To quote from the last paragraph of General Conclusions from Dr Maurice
Bucaille's book:
'In view of the level of knowledge in Muhammad's day, it is inconceivable
that many of the statements In the Qur'an which are connected with science
could have been the work of a man. It is, moreover, perfectly legitimate,
not only to regard the Qur'an as the expression of a Revelation, but also
to award it a very special place, on account of the guarantee of
authenticity it provides and *the presence in it of scientific statements
which, when studied today, appear as a challenge to explanation in human
terms. *'

All I ask that scientists evaluate these in the light of today's
discoveries. I think we all stand to benefit from it.

Samiya

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>
>
>
> On 4 April 2014 16:41, Samiya Illias  wrote:
>
>>
>> What is more important? Faith or Honest Faith? How can we honestly
>> believe in God when we think God doesn't know what He created? I think its
>> a disservice to God, to religion and to ourselves when we choose to not to
>> question Faith, and not to examine it. Its not 'to test God', rather its to
>> test what we accept as from God.
>> If we believe in Life After Death, then the quality of our life in the
>> Hereafter is dependent on the version of scripture that we took on faith.
>> If Judgement is inevitable, then it is of utmost importance that we base
>> our beliefs and actions upon critical inquiry and honest understanding.
>>
>
> So are you saying that if a scientific error is pointed out to you in the
> Bible or the Quran you will accept that they are not the word of God?
>
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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!

2014-04-04 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On 4 April 2014 16:41, Samiya Illias  wrote:

>
> What is more important? Faith or Honest Faith? How can we honestly believe
> in God when we think God doesn't know what He created? I think its a
> disservice to God, to religion and to ourselves when we choose to not to
> question Faith, and not to examine it. Its not 'to test God', rather its to
> test what we accept as from God.
> If we believe in Life After Death, then the quality of our life in the
> Hereafter is dependent on the version of scripture that we took on faith.
> If Judgement is inevitable, then it is of utmost importance that we base
> our beliefs and actions upon critical inquiry and honest understanding.
>

So are you saying that if a scientific error is pointed out to you in the
Bible or the Quran you will accept that they are not the word of God?


-- 
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.

Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!

2014-04-04 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On 4 April 2014 20:33, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias  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.


-- 
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.

Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!

2014-04-04 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>
>
>
> On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias  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?

>
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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 03 Apr 2014, at 17:46, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

They're trying to find that jet that got lost on the Indian Ocean  
somewhere. But most of the objects the satellites zoom in on are  
just... trash. Ocean garbage is creating so many false positives,  
that it impedes finding a missing plane.


You don't even have to be "green" to understand that it's not  
productive or rational to keep having mountains of redundant  
material and poison keep accumulating and multiplying around us. The  
"discussion" in the total black white form displayed occasionally in  
this thread, is a U.S. phenomenon.


Everybody else has moved on from yes/no to the how-question and its  
economic, political, regulatory traps/subtleties, which, with  
prohibition background, are complex/insane enough.


For instance, people I know involved in monitoring plant species to  
assess efficacy of local measures to help biodiversity do its thing,  
are often trapped in some political game of stakeholders.  
Scientists: "It would be good to reseed those plots properly with  
local species now." Green Politics/Money: "Don't do it now! Wait  
until next year, so we have more 'devastation leverage' in our data.  
Otherwise, no contract."


So yes, prohibition/politics are very much intertwined with the  
question and hinder simple scientific common sense; even by the  
"green political conspirators". PGC


If we tolerate lies in politics, like we did with cannabis, lies can  
only spread, and we loss power, and can no more trust the politicians,  
and eventually larger and larger layer of the society.
After the watergate americans voted for a capping (limitation) of  
money that we can give for electoral campaign, but this has just been  
removed (yesterday!). That is not good news.


Yes, I think the "climate problem" is only a symptom of a bigger and  
deeper problem, about the very working of the democracies, and its  
perversion by the grey money, the fear selling, if not the  
catastrophes merchandising. Some banks invests in catastrophes,  
bankruptcy, etc.


Bruno









On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:03, LizR wrote:

On 3 April 2014 05:56, Chris de Morsella   
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. 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more optio

Re: [foar] Amoeba's Secret now available in paperback



On 03 Apr 2014, at 16:42, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:

FWIW, on a flight this weekend I read a bit of Amoeba's Secret on my  
kindle while the stranger in the seat next to me was reading  
Tegmark's book.  If plane rides didn't make me fall unconscious  
almost immediately, that might have been grounds for an interesting  
live discussion. :)


Lol.

To sleep in a plane is like to sleep when you are high! Some people do  
that. You miss the sun above the clouds! It is magic. I love plane.


Bruno




On Thursday, March 27, 2014 1:35:57 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
Thanks Russell, just ordered a copy as well. It will dovetail in  
nicely with Max Tegmark's book, ...



--
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: Max and FPI