Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling
Without addressing anything else in this s message, I'll merely stay that all reference to Islam and Muhammad is no sensual and reflects a degree of ignorance that exceeds expectations. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 19, 2012, at 1:32 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: He he he. yeah I'm all you label me. I'm all that and more. And yes, I have a repressed childhood. You can believe whatever it is that tickles your fancy. Yes, I'm a turd; but whose more pathetic? The turd or the man playing with the turd knowing it's a turd? The turd has no choice, but the man playing with a turd has got to be some maladjusted retard. LOL... But at least. at least I am smart enough to graduate with a engineering degree; but sensible enough not to boast that I am some kind of expert.. And I am wise enough not to worship a 2nd rate moon god preached by a sex-perverted 9 year-old child molesting prophet. Somebody doing this must be some maladjusted individual. The sexual pervert prophet would have tipped any sensible man to stay away from that moon god; but our expert worships him. LOL OH my, I've really done it this time. I'm done for.. You will now really call for my banning. Since I just insulted your great moon god and his holey loving prophet. I'm done for; you will now go to your imam and issue a fatwah against me and have me killed. LOL BTW, for those of you just reading this. I have done nothing more than tell the truth. Allah is the moon god of muhammed's tribe; and muhammed is a sex-perverted prophet with dozens of wives and concubines including a 9 year-old little girl barely out of diapers. And muslim imams do indeed issue a fatwah for the assasination of anyone who they consider have insulted their prophet. I speak the truth if you care to research it yourself. Even muslims acknowledge these truths and this is a source of great embarassment for many a moon god worshipper; and you will see our expert trying to spin this away. Jojo PS, Don't even pretend that you don't read what I write. Everyone know that you read it. LOL. But, as for me, I honestly only read the first part of your posts. It's tiresome to read your verbal diarrhea. So, if you really really really want to insult me; make sure you do so in the first few sentences. That would really be effective in getting me and hurting me with your insults. LOL So, Go ahead, continue the insults. I will give as much and much more than I can get. Christmas period is a slow time for me so I'll play along with your games. But come January, you can play with yourself. - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 12:13 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling Hah! I see that when I added the tag to the subject, I mispelled Jojo Jaro At 04:14 AM 12/8/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: So, this libtard from Wisconsin claims that I do not have emotional maturity and that I am 10 or that I did not get feedback and all that crap. O well, if I am a turd, what do you call somebody who keeps playing with a turd knowing full well its a turd. Someone who is not willing to give up on the idea that a turd is a human being. Foolish, perhaps. Jojo is giving us plenty of evidence that he wants us to think he's a turd. Libtard claims that I am emotionally volatile, so why does he keep on provoking me other than to elicit a strong reaction from me. Jojo would not understand the reason, but there are many possibilities. 1. It's so much fun. 2. We like watching Jojo make an idiot out of himself. 3. We have a hope (foolish?) that the pimple will finally pop. 4. We have nothing better to do at the time we write the post. 5. We have something better to do and we are avoiding doing it. 6. Just because. 7. We care. 8. ??? This behavior from libtard seems to be what is classically defined as trolling. It could be, were it not clearly provoked. Responding to trolling is not trolling. However, not all insult is trolling. The essence of trolling is an attempt to provoke outraged response. The sequence here began with something other than that, but Jojo responded to it as an insult. It could be argued that it was mildly insulting, but it clearly was not, from context, trolling. It was just a comment on what had just happened, and it did not insult, beyond calling Jojo a bible fanatic. Is that an insult? It can be so. Am I a cold fusion fanatic? Someone who said so would not necessarily be insulting me. They might just be describing how my behavior looks to them. It is a clear pattern with this individual that he would say something to provoke me for the fun of it. And then we might need to look at what fun means. Why would it be fun to poke
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling
Which part of what I said do you think is untrue? Note, I am willing to discuss it as long as you do not throw insults. If you are so convinced that I am wrong and find it necessary to insult me to prove a point, then it is best that we stop the discussion. I stand 1000% behind what I said about allah and muhammed. Allah is the moon god of the tribe of muhammed; and muhammed did indeed have dozens of wives and concubines. And he did indeed have a 9 year-old little girl that also served as his concubine. Heck, modern islamic countries today condone the marriage of even 3 year-old girls as long as sex is postponned until puberty. That means 10-12 years-old. So, in modern islamic countries, you can marry a 3 year-old little girl and postpone sex until she is 10. That my friend is also true. Many people find it offensive and insulting and many muslims are quite embarrassed by it but it is a true part of their heritage. I believe, islam is the only religion that has this practice. Somebody may correct me on this. But, you don't have to believe me. Research it for yourself. Jojo PS, Note that I have not insulted you in any way. If you think that I am insulting because I am speaking the truth; then tell me how I can say these truths without being insulting. There is just no way. The truth is offensive to muslims; but it is the truth. - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling Without addressing anything else in this s message, I'll merely stay that all reference to Islam and Muhammad is no sensual and reflects a degree of ignorance that exceeds expectations. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 19, 2012, at 1:32 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: He he he. yeah I'm all you label me. I'm all that and more. And yes, I have a repressed childhood. You can believe whatever it is that tickles your fancy. Yes, I'm a turd; but whose more pathetic? The turd or the man playing with the turd knowing it's a turd? The turd has no choice, but the man playing with a turd has got to be some maladjusted retard. LOL... But at least. at least I am smart enough to graduate with a engineering degree; but sensible enough not to boast that I am some kind of expert.. And I am wise enough not to worship a 2nd rate moon god preached by a sex-perverted 9 year-old child molesting prophet. Somebody doing this must be some maladjusted individual. The sexual pervert prophet would have tipped any sensible man to stay away from that moon god; but our expert worships him. LOL OH my, I've really done it this time. I'm done for.. You will now really call for my banning. Since I just insulted your great moon god and his holey loving prophet. I'm done for; you will now go to your imam and issue a fatwah against me and have me killed. LOL BTW, for those of you just reading this. I have done nothing more than tell the truth. Allah is the moon god of muhammed's tribe; and muhammed is a sex-perverted prophet with dozens of wives and concubines including a 9 year-old little girl barely out of diapers. And muslim imams do indeed issue a fatwah for the assasination of anyone who they consider have insulted their prophet. I speak the truth if you care to research it yourself. Even muslims acknowledge these truths and this is a source of great embarassment for many a moon god worshipper; and you will see our expert trying to spin this away. Jojo PS, Don't even pretend that you don't read what I write. Everyone know that you read it. LOL. But, as for me, I honestly only read the first part of your posts. It's tiresome to read your verbal diarrhea. So, if you really really really want to insult me; make sure you do so in the first few sentences. That would really be effective in getting me and hurting me with your insults. LOL So, Go ahead, continue the insults. I will give as much and much more than I can get. Christmas period is a slow time for me so I'll play along with your games. But come January, you can play with yourself. - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 12:13 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling Hah! I see that when I added the tag to the subject, I mispelled Jojo Jaro At 04:14 AM 12/8/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: So, this libtard from Wisconsin claims that I do not have emotional maturity and that I am 10 or that I did not get feedback and all that crap. O well, if I am a turd, what do you call somebody who keeps playing with a turd knowing full well its a turd. Someone who is not willing to give up on the idea that a turd is a human being. Foolish, perhaps. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling
He he he. yeah I'm all you label me. I'm all that and more. And yes, I have a repressed childhood. You can believe whatever it is that tickles your fancy. Yes, I'm a turd; but whose more pathetic? The turd or the man playing with the turd knowing it's a turd? The turd has no choice, but the man playing with a turd has got to be some maladjusted retard. LOL... But at least. at least I am smart enough to graduate with a engineering degree; but sensible enough not to boast that I am some kind of expert.. And I am wise enough not to worship a 2nd rate moon god preached by a sex-perverted 9 year-old child molesting prophet. Somebody doing this must be some maladjusted individual. The sexual pervert prophet would have tipped any sensible man to stay away from that moon god; but our expert worships him. LOL OH my, I've really done it this time. I'm done for.. You will now really call for my banning. Since I just insulted your great moon god and his holey loving prophet. I'm done for; you will now go to your imam and issue a fatwah against me and have me killed. LOL BTW, for those of you just reading this. I have done nothing more than tell the truth. Allah is the moon god of muhammed's tribe; and muhammed is a sex-perverted prophet with dozens of wives and concubines including a 9 year-old little girl barely out of diapers. And muslim imams do indeed issue a fatwah for the assasination of anyone who they consider have insulted their prophet. I speak the truth if you care to research it yourself. Even muslims acknowledge these truths and this is a source of great embarassment for many a moon god worshipper; and you will see our expert trying to spin this away. Jojo PS, Don't even pretend that you don't read what I write. Everyone know that you read it. LOL. But, as for me, I honestly only read the first part of your posts. It's tiresome to read your verbal diarrhea. So, if you really really really want to insult me; make sure you do so in the first few sentences. That would really be effective in getting me and hurting me with your insults. LOL So, Go ahead, continue the insults. I will give as much and much more than I can get. Christmas period is a slow time for me so I'll play along with your games. But come January, you can play with yourself. - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 12:13 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling Hah! I see that when I added the tag to the subject, I mispelled Jojo Jaro At 04:14 AM 12/8/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:  So, this libtard from Wisconsin claims that I do not have emotional maturity and that I am 10 or that I did not get feedback and all that crap. O well, if I am a turd, what do you call somebody who keeps playing with a turd knowing full well its a turd. Someone who is not willing to give up on the idea that a turd is a human being. Foolish, perhaps. Jojo is giving us plenty of evidence that he wants us to think he's a turd. Libtard claims that I am emotionally volatile, so why does he keep on provoking me other than to elicit a strong reaction from me. Jojo would not understand the reason, but there are many possibilities. 1. It's so much fun. 2. We like watching Jojo make an idiot out of himself. 3. We have a hope (foolish?) that the pimple will finally pop. 4. We have nothing better to do at the time we write the post. 5. We have something better to do and we are avoiding doing it. 6. Just because. 7. We care. 8. ??? This behavior from libtard seems to be what is classically defined as trolling. It could be, were it not clearly provoked. Responding to trolling is not trolling. However, not all insult is trolling. The essence of trolling is an attempt to provoke outraged response. The sequence here began with something other than that, but Jojo responded to it as an insult. It could be argued that it was mildly insulting, but it clearly was not, from context, trolling. It was just a comment on what had just happened, and it did not insult, beyond calling Jojo a bible fanatic. Is that an insult? It can be so. Am I a cold fusion fanatic? Someone who said so would not necessarily be insulting me. They might just be describing how my behavior looks to them. It is a clear pattern with this individual that he would say something to provoke me for the fun of it. And then we might need to look at what fun means. Why would it be fun to poke at a bear in a cage? What I can say is that boys do this. It's juvenile human behavor. Some of us never grow up. Occasionally we poke the wrong bear, and we don't survive. Jojo seems to want us to think that he is that bear, because he threatens eye for an eye, or two eyes for an eye. That's why I don't agree with characterizations of Jojo as a Christian. His behavior
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling
So, this libtard from Wisconsin claims that I do not have emotional maturity and that I am 10 or that I did not get feedback and all that crap. O well, if I am a turd, what do you call somebody who keeps playing with a turd knowing full well its a turd. Libtard claims that I am emotionally volatile, so why does he keep on provoking me other than to elicit a strong reaction from me. This behavior from libtard seems to be what is classically defined as trolling. It is a clear pattern with this individual that he would say something to provoke me for the fun of it. But it costs me little to throw an insult back so I indulge this retard, cause obviously, only a retard would continually provoke an attack dog knowing he'll be bitten each time he does. One will clearly notice that I did not insult him in this thread until such time as he started insulting me. It is quite easy to go back the archive record and see that every insult I've directed at this libtard is always a response to a recent insult to me from him. No need to argue and spin it. The archive records speak for itself in this matter. Moreover, not only did he make an insult with dog; he made it racists by calling it black. What is the difference between a black dog and a dog of any other color. Alll dogs generally behave the same. So the post qualifying black to dog is clearly a racists attempt to paint me as some radical and stereotype all black people as violent uncontrollable dogs. The intent was obvious. This trolling from libtard needs to be stopped by banning him. Banning him would solve two problems - his trolling and his repeated and blatant disregard for the rules with his incessant off-topic posting. Jojo - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 2:57 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling From Dave, ... Jojo has strong Christian beliefs that we all should respect. I am sure there are other religions represented here that should be equally treated. Just to be clear, it is not Jojo's religious beliefs that I am challenging. It is Jojo's inappropriate posting behavior that needs to be addressed. Some time ago I realized I that had had enough of Mr. Jaro's philosophy on life. As others have already done I chose to route his email into my kill file. Nevertheless, I continue to get snippets of diatribes when others repeat portions of his text within their own replies. The latest conversation, this one concerning what I presume are hidden meanings behind the word Allah, as discussed between Mr. Jaro and Mr. Lomax, seem to indicate that at least from Mr. Jaro's perspective there exists some unsavory meanings attributed to the name Allah. However… I suspect the true meaning of Allah has very little to do with what is really upsetting Jojo, but I'll get to that later. After pondering Lomax’s post I found myself wondering what would happen if I decided to perform some intentionally creative research of my own on the name of Jojo. Eventually, I came up with a couple of definitions that suited my objectives of intentionally and with pre-thought, implying that the name Jojo could possibly mean something less respectful than that of a human being. It seems to me that if Jojo felt justified in casting doubt over the meanings of the word Allah, then surely the name of Jojo ought to be fair game as well. I proceeded to assemble a collection of definitions that I made sure anyone could readily go out to the Internet and confirm, as well as challenge. The point being, however creative or misleading my personal interpretations might have been, I didn't pluck the meanings definitions completely out of my own ass. My exercise in name-definitions was to show how easy it is to assemble and misconstrue a collection of meanings attributed to a name. It was also to show how idiotic it can be to come up with a ridiculous bunch of misleading definitions. I suspected Jojo would not let my exercise of stand without comment so I made sure to watch for his response. Indeed, I found his response. It was of little concern to me that I was called me a retard. (I've been called worse, as has Mr. Obama.) What interested me was the fact that Mr. Jaro did not seem to pick up on the fact that my exercise was an attempt to show how moronic it is for anyone to assemble a bunch of definitions that had been blithely pulled out of the Internet in order to support a personally contrived meaning behind the name of Jojo. This may be a subtle point that some on this list may not have gotten, so let me once again clarify my objective. I attempted to show how idiotic it would be for anyone to assemble a mish-mash of definitions in an effort to support one's personal pet definitions
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling
The pattern is obvious with this spinmiester. It's always elevating some irrelevant aspect of the debate as if it were that important to the discussion. A classic debate strategy I am aware of and quite franky, being employed by lomax with great skill. In the matter of Obama qualifications. Lomax throws in irrelevant facts to confuse the matter. But one thing is clear. If Obama has a valid Birth Certificate, why doesn't he simply release it. Not a faked scanned copy on the net. Lomax likes to argue that based on his expertise in computer compression algorithm, (notice that lomax claims to be an expert in a lot of things.) the scanned BC was not fake. If he is so confident about that, why doesn't he call for the release of the vault record from Hawaii. Clearly, if it exists since they proportedly made a scan of it and presented it, they should present it since there is no other information in there worth hiding if they did in fact scan it as they claim. The messiah-in-chief can quickly end the birther movement with one stroke, yet he persist on letting it linger. What kind of leader is that? Instead of healing the nation, he continually pokes the wound to keep it raw and sore. Some great leader eh? In the matter of Allah being a moon god. Lomax expertly and deftly attempted to deflect this true criticism by employing irrelevant name meanings. The name of someone has very little to do with what that person really is. But lomax expertly claims that because allah does not mean moon god that he is not the mood god. Like I said, a simple study of islamic history will show that allah was muhammed's tribe moon god that was promoted to be the universal god. Lomax criticizes me for not providing references. That is deliberate on my part. I do not provide references precisely for the reason that I want people to do their own research. Any reference I cite will be rejected as biased anyways, so why bother. But do your own research and you will see that I speak the truth. Allah is the mood god of muhammed's tribe. In the matter of muhammed's dozens of wives, lomax once again attempts to divert the attention to what really is the crux of this argument. When a man has intercourse with a woman, the marriage is completed and consumated whether on not there was a cermony or not. Clearly this was illustrated clearly in the marriage of Isaac with Rebekkah and the marriage of Adam with Eve. None of these involved any ceremony. In fact, if you look at Jacob. Jacob had 2 wives Leah and Rachel, but he also had 2 of what we would call concubines - Bilhah and Zilphah. He had children with these 2 concubines and were always considered part of his family. The Bible treated Bilhah and Ziphah as proper wives though no ceremony was involved. Even our modern laws recognize intercourse as the definition of marriage. In our laws, a person is not officially marriage to another until such time as the marriage is consumated. Similary, If a man cohabitates with a woman, they are recognized as married even without any ceremony. We call it common law wives. The record is clear. Muhammed's appetite for women as sex toys, even girls as young as 9 years old, is both legendary and well documented even by muslim scholars. This is a source of great embarassment to muslims and people like lomax always try to spin it away with lengthy esasys to confuse the issue. Frankly, I don't see the appeal of worshipping a second rate moon god with a pedophile prophet as the leader. But, that's just me. LOL Jojo BTW, the koran teaches that a man should only have 4 wives. This great leader can't even follow his own propaganda. Some great leader eh? And, anybody can confirm everything I've said here, if you don't consider Wikipedia as your final authoritative source. LOL ... - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 10:21 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling At 03:49 PM 12/7/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: 10 for effort there spinmiester, self-appointed physics expert who do not have a physics degree or any degree for that matter; and now self-appointed arabic etymology expert. Well, in physics I state the obvious, and I do as well so with respect to Arabic etymology. Generally, when I'm in the company of experts, literally or on a mailing list, they correct me when I'm wrong, and they can tell me exactly where I err. Now, Jojo Jaro might think he has a better physics education than I, though I did sit with Richard P. Feymnan for two years at Caltech. He is correct that I don't have a degree. However, it's totally irrelevant. I don't assert authority from degrees or superior knowledge. I just say what I see and understand. I do the same with everything, including the behavior of writers
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling
Hah! I see that when I added the tag to the subject, I mispelled Jojo Jaro At 04:14 AM 12/8/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:  So, this libtard from Wisconsin claims that I do not have emotional maturity and that I am 10 or that I did not get feedback and all that crap. O well, if I am a turd, what do you call somebody who keeps playing with a turd knowing full well its a turd. Someone who is not willing to give up on the idea that a turd is a human being. Foolish, perhaps. Jojo is giving us plenty of evidence that he wants us to think he's a turd. Libtard claims that I am emotionally volatile, so why does he keep on provoking me other than to elicit a strong reaction from me. Jojo would not understand the reason, but there are many possibilities. 1. It's so much fun. 2. We like watching Jojo make an idiot out of himself. 3. We have a hope (foolish?) that the pimple will finally pop. 4. We have nothing better to do at the time we write the post. 5. We have something better to do and we are avoiding doing it. 6. Just because. 7. We care. 8. ??? This behavior from libtard seems to be what is classically defined as trolling. It could be, were it not clearly provoked. Responding to trolling is not trolling. However, not all insult is trolling. The essence of trolling is an attempt to provoke outraged response. The sequence here began with something other than that, but Jojo responded to it as an insult. It could be argued that it was mildly insulting, but it clearly was not, from context, trolling. It was just a comment on what had just happened, and it did not insult, beyond calling Jojo a bible fanatic. Is that an insult? It can be so. Am I a cold fusion fanatic? Someone who said so would not necessarily be insulting me. They might just be describing how my behavior looks to them. It is a clear pattern with this individual that he would say something to provoke me for the fun of it. And then we might need to look at what fun means. Why would it be fun to poke at a bear in a cage? What I can say is that boys do this. It's juvenile human behavor. Some of us never grow up. Occasionally we poke the wrong bear, and we don't survive. Jojo seems to want us to think that he is that bear, because he threatens eye for an eye, or two eyes for an eye. That's why I don't agree with characterizations of Jojo as a Christian. His behavior is quite distinct from Christian behavior. He's hostile, pugnacious, and he retaliates, quickly and readily. If he does really think he's a Christian, he is then the kind that his Lord will reject on the Day of Judgment; he might well read his Bible on that topic. The idea that believing in Jesus will wipe all sin, even sin continually committed after supposedly trusting Jesus, even defiant sin that attacks everyone and refuses to surrender to love, is surely naive or worse. It's actually evil. But it costs me little to throw an insult back so I indulge this retard, cause obviously, only a retard would continually provoke an attack dog knowing he'll be bitten each time he does. So if you do it back, Jojo, surely, then, you understand it. Answer your own question. Why do *you* do it? One will clearly notice that I did not insult him in this thread until such time as he started insulting me. Actually, he explored the implications of your logic, and tested your response. Jojo's claim to only be responding to others does not match the record. With regard to one sequence, I just posted an examination of that history. I just saw more. Basically, a speculation that wasn't aimed at Jojo was posted. And then Joho showed up and commented, with what had the effect of trolling, and matching the speculation. Jojo explicitly promised to give back what he gets, but he gives back, always, more. Many times, I've directly examined his factual claims, and he responds with insults. He's very ready to claim that the posts of others are insults directed at him, but this much should be clear: he *deliberately* insults others. He's been quite explicit about that. Here is what I wrote last night about Jojo's behavior, with links, contradicting his claim that he stops when others stop. Quite simply, he doesn't. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg73717.html He takes everything written about him as an insult, if it isn't positive. Steven's exercise with the name Jojo was obviously not serious, he was simply applying the kind of logic Jojo uses in his claims about truth. He found evidence that Jojo was an African name, and other evidence that it was the name of a pet, so ... he wrote that Jojo was obviously a black dog. And then he cited the cartoon about, On the internet, nobody knows that you are a dog, with a very interesting exchange being present on the site hosting the cartoon, about net behavior. People have written things about me, like that. Enemies have done it. The sane response
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling
At 06:23 AM 12/8/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: The pattern is obvious with this spinmiester. It's always elevating some irrelevant aspect of the debate as if it were that important to the discussion. A classic debate strategy I am aware of and quite franky, being employed by lomax with great skill. Thanks. Indeed, we are covering irrelevant aspects of the debate, and the whole debate is irrelevant to the purpose of this list. These topics were brought up by Jojo, not by me. Jojo is demonstrating what I've called paranoid thinking. That is, the paranoid thinks something is True. They have developed ten reasons why it is true, why it must be true. If, in debate, one of these reasons is shown, clearly, to be spurious, his opinion does not change; after all, he has nine other reasons. If another reason is shown to be spurious, no problem. He has, after all, nine other reasons. The number of reasons does not decline. It demonstrates a certain way of thinking, where the weight of evidence is based on the number of arguments, and there is no turning off of individual arguments. It doesn't matter how silly they are. They stand. And so when one of Jojo's tropes is exposed, he doesn't say, oops! that was a mistake, he holds on to all of it, they are an arsenal, and he's not about to give up any ammunition. So, later, he brings it up again, as if *nothing had been said.* It truly is a waste of time to argue with him, if the purpose is to convince him of anything. The only sane purpose would be something other than that, to juxtapose better arguments with weaker ones, for example, for future generations of readers. So, here we go with the birther claim. In the matter of Obama qualifications. Lomax throws in irrelevant facts to confuse the matter. Notice: no irrelevant fact is cited. It's just a trope, a standard argument: call your opponent's arguments irrelevant. Maybe it will irritate him. But one thing is clear. Okay, let's see if he states something clear. If Obama has a valid Birth Certificate, why doesn't he simply release it. That is far from a clear statement. It's a how come argument. And it rests on an assumption that is false. Not a faked scanned copy on the net. Does Jojo expect to open up a file, and the original birth certificate falls out? What does he expect to be on the net other than a scanned copy? As far as anything actually possible, the original Birth Certificate has been released. That is, original birth certificates never leave the archive. If someone asks me for my birth certificate, I don't go to the Registry of Births and ask for it, I ask for a certified copy. That is legally equivalent. I have copies of my birth certificate (from Los Angeles in the 40s). It was always a photocopy, and those were real photocopies. However, what made this a legal birth certificate was the seal and certification on it, testimony of the official that it was a true copy. As to the facts about Obama's certificate, I researched all this previously, and reported it all. That had zero impacdt on Jojo. He's still making the same misleading claims and asking the same misleading question, How come? Originally, Obama was asked to provide a copy of his birth certificate. So Hawaii issued him a certified copy. But Hawaii had gone to a computer system that prints a summary certificate, it omits some of the original information that is legally irrelevant. I think they don't want to touch the originals. But you can, with special permission, get a copy of the vault certificate. That is the original, real paper, real ink on the signatures, etc. After the birther drumbeat did not cease with the release of the certified copy (and note: if that certified copy was falsified in some way, there would be felonies being committed), Obama obtained a certified copy of the vault certificate. Printed. But, of course, printed from a scan. That's how copiers work nowadays. However, hopefully, that scan was not compressed. I lose track of some details here. However, at the press conference, the original print was viewed by the press. And a scanned copy was released onto the internet. That scanned copy was, *by necessity* -- or the server would have crashed -- compressed. The compression algorithm creates certain artifacts, which amateur sleuths on the internet detected and used to claim that the document was forged. However, bottom line: this whole debate was very public. If somehow the real copy were altered to show false information, the officials that certified the copy would see it. Do we think they'd keep quiet about this? No, if they were going to participate in a conspiracy, they'd do it in a much less detectable way: they would create an *original* that resembled a real certificate, and they would substitute it for the actual original, which would disappear. Difficult, but, remember, I'm not thinking conspiracy theory. If you put
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling
Hi, On 7-12-2012 0:43, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: http://nameberry.com/babyname/Jojo ...full name for pet. Sounds logical for someone who thinks he is god or it's delegate, as it is also of course an anagram for dog ;-) . Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling
I would like to make a suggestion. Everyone do their very best to be on good behavior and stop tossing insults over the wall. It does not help to achieve our goals by wasting precious bandwidth being intolerant toward each other. Jojo has strong Christian beliefs that we all should respect. I am sure there are other religions represented here that should be equally treated. If this behavior is some form of warped game, then I would hope that it ends soon since it certainly does not reflect well upon the members of vortex. Try hard folks. Dave -Original Message- From: Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2012 1:02 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling Hi, On 7-12-2012 0:43, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: http://nameberry.com/babyname/Jojo …fullname for pet. Sounds logical for someone who thinks he is god or it's delegate,as it is also of course an anagram for dog ;-) . Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling
Since this is your first insult to me, I'll let it slide. Don't get used to it unless you want me to be your enemy. And trust me, I know and remember who my enemies are. Jojo - Original Message - From: Rob Dingemans To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 2:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling Hi, On 7-12-2012 0:43, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: http://nameberry.com/babyname/Jojo .full name for pet. Sounds logical for someone who thinks he is god or it's delegate, as it is also of course an anagram for dog ;-) . Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling
From Nature: On 1 January 2013, the world can go back to emitting greenhouse gases with abandon. The pollution-reduction commitments that nations made as part of the Kyoto Protocol will expire, leaving the planet without any international climate regulation and uncertain prospects for a future treaty.
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling
Terry, does this surprise you? No one knows for sure whether or not anything can or should be done about carbon dioxide emissions. I can not imagine the leader of any one country committing suicide by tying his peoples industrial capacity into knots while others dash forward. If man's emissions of carbon dioxide and other gasses are proven to be dangerous to our existence, then something will happen. Perhaps it is up to the LENR community to bring the world back from this potential brink. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2012 2:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling From Nature: On 1 January 2013, the world can go back to emitting greenhouse gases with abandon. The pollution-reduction commitments that nations made as part of the Kyoto Protocol will expire, leaving the planet without any international climate regulation and uncertain prospects for a future treaty.
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling
As I've always said. Insults from me stop the moment insults do not come my way. I am not the problem. I am the solution to the childish pranks of libtards here. I want nothing more than for this forum to regain its prominence and importance by the lowering and moderation of useless and off-topic posts. I resent how a handful of individuals have turned this useful forum into an outlet to gab with friends and make up the rules as we go; because they are old members here; and ostracize those who are not liberals; instead of concentrating on how to solve an urgent need for our society. You will notice that those who have little to contribute to the scientific advancement of this field, those who do not do their own research and simply regurgitate irrelevancy ad nauseam, are the most notorious violatiors and posters of off-topic posts. I joined this forum with high hopes of it being helpful to my research. Shortly after ejecting MY, the very persons most loudly complaining about MY have taken her place and totally hijacked this forum and made it irrelevant with useless banter and irrelevant topics hashed over and over again.. I could no longer feel free to post progress in my carbon nanohorn research because of the hostile environment created by these violators. Bill has got to do something about these ongoing violations of his rules. Either change the rules, or eject the violators or pretend nothing's wrong or simply say I don't care. He needs to do something. If Bill decides that he wants off-topic and irrelevant posts to flood this forum, then he needs to ban the loudest complainer of off-topic posts - me. If he wants his forum to remain as the premier site for exchanging bleeding edge ideas, he needs to increase the S/N ratio. He needs to proactively guide this forum with strong policies and usage rules. One way or another. I don't care if I'm banned. Small price to pay for fighting to keep this important forum relevant. Do I sound angry? Yes, I am angry at how this forum has been marginalized. This has always been my issue with a handful of violators here; more than my philosophical, political or religious disagreement with them. Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 2:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling I would like to make a suggestion. Everyone do their very best to be on good behavior and stop tossing insults over the wall. It does not help to achieve our goals by wasting precious bandwidth being intolerant toward each other. Jojo has strong Christian beliefs that we all should respect. I am sure there are other religions represented here that should be equally treated. If this behavior is some form of warped game, then I would hope that it ends soon since it certainly does not reflect well upon the members of vortex. Try hard folks. Dave -Original Message- From: Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2012 1:02 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling Hi, On 7-12-2012 0:43, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: http://nameberry.com/babyname/Jojo …full name for pet. Sounds logical for someone who thinks he is god or it's delegate, as it is also of course an anagram for dog ;-) . Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling
10 for effort there spinmiester, self-appointed physics expert who do not have a physics degree or any degree for that matter; and now self-appointed arabic etymology expert. I can see that you've taken up Wikipedia as your authoritative research material. When I said, study I did not mean wikipedia. LOL Now on to correcting your disinformation again. Tell me one thing spinmiester, what is the name of the moon god of muhammed's bebuin tribe. Anybody can find that out from multiple non-Christian sources. If you believe this spinmeister's spin, you only have yourself to blame for being ignorant. Al-Ilyah or al-ilah or allah never was and still is not the same as the Universal Jewish God or Christian God. Allah has always been the second rate moon god of muhammed's tribe aspiring to be like the Most High God. Study it up. (I mean study, not wikipedia. LOL...) Now to your spinning of the definition of marriage. Marriage is an institution started by the Jewish God. Hence, we need to study how God defines a marriage and a wife. Not some spin from the moon god bible. Gen 24 contains the definition of what constitutes a wife. Look at verse 67. And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death. You will notice that there was no ceremony or anything to make Rebekah Isaac's wife. The mere act of taking her into his tent (his bed) and knowing her (sex) automatically made Rebekah his wife. What this means my friends, is that every woman you've ever had sex with is considered in God's eyes to be your wife. And this includes all the sex toys concubines of muhammed whether there was a ceremony or not; they were all wives. You need to study the truth instead of some disinformation. So, my friends, muhammed did have dozens of wives and I spoke the truth. And to find out how many dozens, look it up yourself and have fun finding out the truth. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 3:48 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling At 04:00 PM 12/5/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: A simple study that anyone can undertake will clearly reveal that Al-Ilyah is the name of the moon god of muhammed's bediun tribe. Well, I'd only seen this idea coming from wing nuts, but I took a look. First of all, the idea is that the Al-Ilyah was elided to Allah. From my knowledge of Arabic, that's very unlikely, especially given the easy elision from al-ilah, which would be pronounced almost exactly like Allah, and, in fact, the middle ll of Allah has a special pronunciation that emphasizes it, it's called lam jalalah, strong-L. It's a pretty clear sign of the elided short vowel i., leading to a doubled L. Yah, though, the y, isn't going to disappear like that. It is strongly pronounced. To English speakers, we think of the y being pronounced with a short i, but it's a letter of emphasis, and would be pronounced long, al-ileeyah, most likely. Anyway, I looked up the word in Lane's Lexicon, which is thorough about classical Arabic. alyah (or ilyah, that initial vowel can vary) means buttock or rump or posterior. No cheese down that rathole. The spelling as Al-Ilyah may be idiosyncratic. so I looked up the word. I found a Wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah_as_Moon-god Yeah. A claim put forth by some Evangelical Christian groups. Not terribly surprising, eh? Well, some obvious implications. As the Wikipedia article points out, Allah can be read as al-ilah, and I suggest that the reverse is actually the etymology of Allah. The more-or-less official position is that Allah is a name, and the etymology of names is not terribly relevant, it's actual usage that counts. Anyone who is worshipping some god and believes that this is the only god, or the main god, or the important god, may refer to this god using the definite article, the god. I.e., al-ilah. Al- is the definite article. So is it possible that moon-worshippers called their god al-ilah? Of course it is! But so would the worshippers of any god, or the One God. The writer here consistently, believes that his highly idiosyncratic theories are proven, that anyone who studies will, of course, agree with him, so Right is he, in more ways than one. Obama, of course, is not an American citizen, there is a massive conspiracy to cover up his true birth circumstances, and, I'm sure, I could go on and on, but *I have not been reading Jaro Jaro for a long time.* I found no even reasonably credible sources proposing Al-Ilyah as a name. What seems credible is Al-ilah, in fact. That *might* have been applied to the Moon god, or to any god. To really address this would require expertise; it's claimed that old
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling
At 03:49 PM 12/7/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: 10 for effort there spinmiester, self-appointed physics expert who do not have a physics degree or any degree for that matter; and now self-appointed arabic etymology expert. Well, in physics I state the obvious, and I do as well so with respect to Arabic etymology. Generally, when I'm in the company of experts, literally or on a mailing list, they correct me when I'm wrong, and they can tell me exactly where I err. Now, Jojo Jaro might think he has a better physics education than I, though I did sit with Richard P. Feymnan for two years at Caltech. He is correct that I don't have a degree. However, it's totally irrelevant. I don't assert authority from degrees or superior knowledge. I just say what I see and understand. I do the same with everything, including the behavior of writers on mailing lists. And I cite evidence, I don't just make accusations, when it's important. Last week I spoke frequently at a conference of cold fusion experts, including physicists, and was able to make positive contributions; mostly that was about interpreting what physicists and other researchers were saying, for businesspeople who were there and who might have misinterpreted some of it. I'm quite sure that if I'd erred, the physicists would have corrected me, it was their work I was explaining, and this was important, much of this is ultimately about funding for research. As to Arabic, I do read the Qur'an in that language, and, again, I've often discussed matters with real experts. I'm not wrong very often, though it happens. As to al-ilah as the source of the personal name Allah, that was obvious, but it also is supported in sources. I also mentioned that there is argument against this, which amounts to Allah is a personal name and etymology is irrelevant, which is *also* reasonable. I did review sources, including Lane's Lexicon -- which is one heavy dictionary -- for Jaro's Al-Ilyah, which allegedly means moon god. I found no support for it. Again, maybe I missed something. I can see that you've taken up Wikipedia as your authoritative research material. When I said, study I did not mean wikipedia. LOL Wikipedia is a double-edged sword. But it's often good for finding sources. In this case I cited Wikipedia because it, right out, attributes this moon god theory to Evangelical Christians. Wikipedia will not normally do that unless there is a basis for it. Realize, and notice, that Jojo Jaro does not cite actual sources for his claims. Instead he claims that anyone saying anything different is lying. For that to be true, as a reasonable accusation, the evidence would certainly need to be well-known, but I haven't been able to find it in anything approaching a reliable source. Except: From the Wikipedia article: In 2009 anthropologist Gregory Starrett wrote, a recent survey by the Council for American Islamic Relations reports that as many as 10% of Americans believe Muslims are pagans who worship a moon god or goddess, a belief energetically disseminated by some Christian activists. I also looked back at history. This is a fairly recent article, the orignal version was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allah_as_Moon-godoldid=469092937 This version does not support Al-Ilyah, but Al-ilah. It ascribes the shortening to pre-Islamic times. The article, though, originally, seemed fairly naive about the point that ilah does carry the meaning of god, even though it mentions El. I found a source which examines some of the research behind the moon-god idea, it was cited in the original Wikipedia article, but this kind of source is not generally allowed on Wikipedia, self-published. http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongods.html It's useful if one wants to look behind the claims. Note that I'm not confirming the author's scholarship, but he's quoting original sources, if this really mattered, it could be researched. But it doesn't. Muslims do not worship a moon-god, no matter what the etymology of Allah might be as to the past. That is to confuse the names of things with things. Jajo Jaro purports to believe many such tropes, such as the belief that President Obama was not born in the United States, which then necessarily becomes a story of conspiracy and forgery involving many allegedly corrupt officials, and reliance on discredited image analysis that supposedly proves this or that. I wasted days of research tracking down Jojo Jaro's claims earlier this year. Waste of time, except I did learn about what birthers believe and precisely how some of them have been led astray. Like by assuming that repeated exact patterns of pixels in images proves that parts of the image were copied to other parts, i.e., to alter letters. Yes. The coincident pixels prove that parts were copied, all right, but this is a normal artifact of image compression. That is exactly what
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling
At 02:37 PM 12/7/2012, you wrote:  As I've always said. Insults from me stop the moment insults do not come my way. He's said that, it's part of his don't you dare mess with me approach. Below, I examine the history here to see if Jojo actually does stop as he claims. He doesn't. Instead, he re-introduces conflict, repeatedly, and appears to be trolling for it. Here, the exchange started with discusson of global warming, which is of marginal relevance for this list, but falls within the kind of chit-chat that is not considered *too* offensive. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg73501.html Daniel Rocha, in the above post, noted the appearance of Jojo Jaro in the discussion. His comment, not the soul of propriety, but mildly sarcastic, quoted Jojo Jaro. Jojo had, in this appearance -- the post is quoted by Daniel --, gone beyond limits in attacking Jed Rothwell. Jojo had been absent from the list for almost a month, and his last previous post, November 6, is cited below because it does continue the moon god conflict. At the end of that post, he says, PS, don't bother banning me. I would have unsubscibed when you get to it. So he appears to have expected to be banned right then But it seems he was not. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg73485.html Jojo began, Dec. 4, with a senseless attack on old mild sarcasm from Jed Rothwell, from a month before. He then posted the comment to which Daniel had replied. Jojo responded immediately to Daniel's post: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg73502.html Typical Jojo Jaro. Mild insult (Daniel effectively referred to Jojo as a bible fanatic) receives a deeply and personally insulting response. I responded to Daniel Rocha's post. I deliberately did not include Jojo Jaro's name, nor his quoted post, and nothing in my post could be read as an insult. If I don't want to read someone's postings, and I put them in a kill file, this is not an insult. It certainly is not an attack. I was simply suggesting that if one doesn't like reading someone's posts, quoting them in their entirety, with no specific relevant content, was not necessarily considerate. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg73539.html was dated December 4, and it contained no insult of Jojo. I had made *no* reference to Jojo since my Final response dated August 19, linked below, and this was still not a direct reference, but I see that I inadvertently left his email address in place I'd thought I didn't do that Daniel eventually responded with a suggestion that it would be easier to ban him. Jojo responded with this, December 4: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg73556.html That post included his moon god and muhammad had dozens of wives tropes. This was irrelevant to *any* of the discussion. It's pure trolling. No, by now Jojo knew I might be watching the thread. So, it's obvious. He tossed in material that he thought would be offensive to me as a Muslim. Actually, it was just silly. I've debated Islam/Christianity issues for something like fifteen years. I formed friendships with some very strong and well-known Christian apologists, who sometimes wrote what could be read as attacks on Islam. I've met them in person, often found common ground, and met one fellow, had dinner with his family, who had converted from Islam to Christianity, long story. I have no problem with interfaith dialog. But Jojo Jaro is not like these people. He's an attack dog, after anyone who insults him. He does not behave like a real Christian, as others have pointed out. Indeed, his positions are so strong that it's easy to suspect he's simply looking for a rise out of people. And real trolls very properly get banned, because ignore them doesn't work, long-term. A real troll will search for people's vulnerabilities, and attack them. Newcomers will be suckered into engaging in dialog, sometimes wasting hours upon hours in research, imagining that simply informing this person of facts will quiet things. It won't. Jojo pays no attention to fact, when he's got a position he is pushing. He made blatant errors in his comments in what proceeded, and never acknowledges them. He lies about what others have said to him, or interprets it to mean the opposite of what they actually wrote. It was almost four months ago when I set a filter for Jojo's posts to Vortex, to lessen my temptation to respond to him. However, I do also read my Vortex mail on my i-Phone, and that is not filtered. I noticed some of his posts that kept up his drumbeat. I'm looking here only at where I might consider Jojo Jaro's trolling to be directed at me. In fact, he triggers distracting responses from many, which I saw reviewing his comments, he's pushing all kinds of buttons, not just about religion. Here I am only looking at this claim of his that he stops
RE: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling
From Dave, ... Jojo has strong Christian beliefs that we all should respect. I am sure there are other religions represented here that should be equally treated. Just to be clear, it is not Jojo's religious beliefs that I am challenging. It is Jojo's inappropriate posting behavior that needs to be addressed. Some time ago I realized I that had had enough of Mr. Jaro's philosophy on life. As others have already done I chose to route his email into my kill file. Nevertheless, I continue to get snippets of diatribes when others repeat portions of his text within their own replies. The latest conversation, this one concerning what I presume are hidden meanings behind the word Allah, as discussed between Mr. Jaro and Mr. Lomax, seem to indicate that at least from Mr. Jaro's perspective there exists some unsavory meanings attributed to the name Allah. However… I suspect the true meaning of Allah has very little to do with what is really upsetting Jojo, but I'll get to that later. After pondering Lomax’s post I found myself wondering what would happen if I decided to perform some intentionally creative research of my own on the name of Jojo. Eventually, I came up with a couple of definitions that suited my objectives of intentionally and with pre-thought, implying that the name Jojo could possibly mean something less respectful than that of a human being. It seems to me that if Jojo felt justified in casting doubt over the meanings of the word Allah, then surely the name of Jojo ought to be fair game as well. I proceeded to assemble a collection of definitions that I made sure anyone could readily go out to the Internet and confirm, as well as challenge. The point being, however creative or misleading my personal interpretations might have been, I didn't pluck the meanings definitions completely out of my own ass. My exercise in name-definitions was to show how easy it is to assemble and misconstrue a collection of meanings attributed to a name. It was also to show how idiotic it can be to come up with a ridiculous bunch of misleading definitions. I suspected Jojo would not let my exercise of stand without comment so I made sure to watch for his response. Indeed, I found his response. It was of little concern to me that I was called me a retard. (I've been called worse, as has Mr. Obama.) What interested me was the fact that Mr. Jaro did not seem to pick up on the fact that my exercise was an attempt to show how moronic it is for anyone to assemble a bunch of definitions that had been blithely pulled out of the Internet in order to support a personally contrived meaning behind the name of Jojo. This may be a subtle point that some on this list may not have gotten, so let me once again clarify my objective. I attempted to show how idiotic it would be for anyone to assemble a mish-mash of definitions in an effort to support one's personal pet definitions. I was deliberately played the role of an idiot in my previous reply to Mr. Lomax. It was intentional. But instead of Mr. Jaro picking up on my intentions, Jojo needed to personify me personally AS an idiot, or to use his definition: a retard... It would seem that from Mr. Jaro's POV a retard, meaning me, doesn’t realize the fact that he has assembled a misconstrued mish-mash of misleading meanings. Ok... such a perception tells me a lot of things. Since I suspect it's likely that Mr. Jaro will read this post I would like to make a couple of comments that I hope Mr. Jaro's will be able to hear. It comes from my heart: Jojo, I do not question your intellectual development. It's possible your intellect and intelligence is much more developed than mine. It is your emotional development that I'm very concerned about. The last person I ran across who used the derogatory term retard to label another person was someone who was under the age of 10. I assume you are a lot older than a 10 year old... (Well, I assume that's is the case, but who really knows.) With that said, much of your posting behavior indicates someone who appears to be emotionally arrested at an age under that of a 10 year old. That is a tragedy. It also angers me deeply because it is so unfair to you. It makes me suspect there were others in your life, probably certain caretakers who I suspect screwed with your emotional development during your upbringing. Perhaps some of them got off by diminishing your sense of self-image by constantly making you feel worthless. That kind of damage has now left you behaving in incredibly defensive ways as revealed in some of your posting behavior. You show such defensiveness such as by posting hollow bravado, and warnings not to cross certain lines of behavior, and by attempting to label me a retard. Such learned behaviors appear to be the only way you've learned how to defend yourself or to get back at others you feel are hurting you. Jojo, it is
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling
At 04:00 PM 12/5/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: A simple study that anyone can undertake will clearly reveal that Al-Ilyah is the name of the moon god of muhammed's bediun tribe. Well, I'd only seen this idea coming from wing nuts, but I took a look. First of all, the idea is that the Al-Ilyah was elided to Allah. From my knowledge of Arabic, that's very unlikely, especially given the easy elision from al-ilah, which would be pronounced almost exactly like Allah, and, in fact, the middle ll of Allah has a special pronunciation that emphasizes it, it's called lam jalalah, strong-L. It's a pretty clear sign of the elided short vowel i., leading to a doubled L. Yah, though, the y, isn't going to disappear like that. It is strongly pronounced. To English speakers, we think of the y being pronounced with a short i, but it's a letter of emphasis, and would be pronounced long, al-ileeyah, most likely. Anyway, I looked up the word in Lane's Lexicon, which is thorough about classical Arabic. alyah (or ilyah, that initial vowel can vary) means buttock or rump or posterior. No cheese down that rathole. The spelling as Al-Ilyah may be idiosyncratic. so I looked up the word. I found a Wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah_as_Moon-god Yeah. A claim put forth by some Evangelical Christian groups. Not terribly surprising, eh? Well, some obvious implications. As the Wikipedia article points out, Allah can be read as al-ilah, and I suggest that the reverse is actually the etymology of Allah. The more-or-less official position is that Allah is a name, and the etymology of names is not terribly relevant, it's actual usage that counts. Anyone who is worshipping some god and believes that this is the only god, or the main god, or the important god, may refer to this god using the definite article, the god. I.e., al-ilah. Al- is the definite article. So is it possible that moon-worshippers called their god al-ilah? Of course it is! But so would the worshippers of any god, or the One God. The writer here consistently, believes that his highly idiosyncratic theories are proven, that anyone who studies will, of course, agree with him, so Right is he, in more ways than one. Obama, of course, is not an American citizen, there is a massive conspiracy to cover up his true birth circumstances, and, I'm sure, I could go on and on, but *I have not been reading Jaro Jaro for a long time.* I found no even reasonably credible sources proposing Al-Ilyah as a name. What seems credible is Al-ilah, in fact. That *might* have been applied to the Moon god, or to any god. To really address this would require expertise; it's claimed that old inscriptions, pre-Islamic, used ALLH, i.e., the way Allah is written without vowels. The truth, I don't know. He wanted to unify the various arab tribes, so he promoted his moon god as the equivalent of the Jewish God. When islam became widespread, the word allah was then used synomymously with GOD. That is why Christian arabs today use the generic word allah to mean God. In the beginning, allah or al-ilyah has always been the moon god of muhammed's tribe, not the universal Jewish God, or the Christian God. Stop lying to the uninitiated in this forum. And anyone who suggests that there might be some truth to the *widely established and practically universal opinion among scholars, Muslims, and Christians who speak Arabic,* is a liar. He's insane or simply trolling. He says that he will meet bias with bias, so maybe he doesn't believe what he writes. But it doesn't matter. He's trolling, as to effect. If he actually believes what he writes, he's insane. As for your second spin; let me get this straight. Muhammed married a dozen women after his first wife died but for some twisted reason, they are not considered wives. No, I didn't say that. They were wives. They were open, declared marriages. Jaro doesn't know how to read. You are actually arguing that these dozen women he took were not his wives? Have I not spoken the truth when I said Muhammend had dozens of wives. No, not the truth. He had one wife, she died, and then he, ultimately, had a dozen more. Not dozens. If someone marries multiple women, after death or divorce, we do not say, in English, that this person had multiple wives, unless they were wives at the same time. So he had a dozen, probably at the most (were they all alive at the same time, I don't know), and I used the total count in Wikipedia, I don't know if that's authoritative. As to what Jaro Jaro goes on to mention, possible concubinage, which involves slaves, not wives, I'm not entering that debate. We were talking about wives, which means known, publicly established, socially-recognized relationships, it would not include relationships with women in other categories. There will be no end if I track down every one of Jaro Jaro's shotgun threads. (by the way, he did have
RE: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling
Abd, Regarding the sacred meaning behind certain names I recently performed scholarly work on the origins of the name Jojo. My source was the Internet where I get all of my facts. I want you to know that I employed a considerable amount of personal discrimination in the pursuit of my scholarly efforts. For example, when I came across sources whose content I did not like or that I felt was wrong I immediately discarded the information as unreliable. Finally, after meticulously combing through a number of highly respected websites I eventually I uncovered the shocking truth. Jojo: http://babynamesworld.parentsconnect.com/meaning_of_Jojo.html Origin: African http://nameberry.com/babyname/Jojo .full name for pet. * * * * * * * * The inescapable conclusion that any reasonable individual would be forced to draw from the combination of these two shocking facts is that Jojo is a black dog. Want proof? I give you proof! http://goo.gl/DxsG9 I hope Jojo has his papers. Nuff said. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling
LOL... I'm in a good mood so I found this rather amusing if that were in fact what the web site said. This is what the first site said about the meaning of Jojo Jojo Meaning: Monday born This is what the second site said Jojo Sprightly and engaging nickname for human, full name for pet. He he he the poor retard doesn't even know how to read. How did Monday born become black dog? Oh... I get it. Too much kissing donkeykong's ass caused excessive inhalation of his flatulence causing brain damage. Poor retard. I don't know what to feel. Angry and sorry. Jojo BTW, are you that white dog looking up at me (black dog)? From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 7:43 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling Abd, Regarding the sacred meaning behind certain names I recently performed scholarly work on the origins of the name Jojo. My source was the Internet where I get all of my facts. I want you to know that I employed a considerable amount of personal discrimination in the pursuit of my scholarly efforts. For example, when I came across sources whose content I did not like or that I felt was wrong I immediately discarded the information as unreliable. Finally, after meticulously combing through a number of highly respected websites I eventually I uncovered the shocking truth. Jojo: http://babynamesworld.parentsconnect.com/meaning_of_Jojo.html Origin: African http://nameberry.com/babyname/Jojo .full name for pet. * * * * * * * * The inescapable conclusion that any reasonable individual would be forced to draw from the combination of these two shocking facts is that Jojo is a black dog. Want proof? I give you proof! http://goo.gl/DxsG9 I hope Jojo has his papers. Nuff said. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Peter, Daniel openned his contribution to this thread with an insult to me and you are getting on my case? This was also the way you treated me when James Bowery told me to F*** myself. Am I supposed to respect people like this? Such a clear display of bias does not become an individual of your supposed educational stature. I always say, I never start it, but I will finish it. An insult will be responded with an insult. A ridicule with a ridicule. This bias will be responded with bias from me. And for your Bias, I will treat you the same way I treat Daniel. Do not expect civilized behavior from me when the first post you make is an uncivilized insult directed in my direction. That goes for both Daniel and you. Discuss the issue and direct proper questions to me in a civilized manner and I will respond accordingly. I never insult Axil even when I vehemently disagree with some of his beliefs. The discussion while heated remains civilized. With all you education and letters behind your name, you can't seem to understand this basic rule of civilized behavior. Remember, I joined this forum with absolute respect for you. Now, you have shown your bias and contempt for me several times. I have lost all semblance of respect I have for you. And henceforth, you will be treated the same way I treat cow decorations. Jojo - Original Message - From: Peter Gluck To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell Jojo, please moderate your wording and do not insult any member of this rather old community. Wording has to be raised above the kindergarten level, please try! Please understand this is a New Energies forum, any other adjacent, related or remote subject can be discussed only friendly in a civilized manner by people who e-know each other. . Differences in opinion attract only smart and good people and repel all the others I will not judge if you are smart or not, you are here a CV-less individual with no known merits, but it is obvious that you are far from being good, despite your much advertised spirituality- you have disturbing sadistic traits typical for trolls. Peter. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: What a piece of work you are. Your mother must have really screwed you up raising you. First, you initiate the insult and then call for a banning when those you insulted respond IN KIND. I guess I'm fortunate you don't own this list. Tell me exactly, what list rule have I violated deserving to be banned like you advocate; other than the fact that you do not like the truth of what I speak of. Are you still dwelling on the moon god worshippers comment I made. So, you want me banned for telling the truth that allah is a moon god of some arab tribe of muhammed? Are you also going to ban me for saying muhammed had dozens of wives? Hey, instead of just banning me, why don't you just issue a fatwah against me to have me killed, since I insulted both allah and muhammed? Yes, I've insulted both of them by telling the truth about each of them. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell I think it is more practical to just ban Jojo. 2012/12/5 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com I'm sorry. This is rather annoying anyway since I'd have to keep a list of the enmities. 2012/12/4 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com At 11:48 AM 12/4/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote: Oh, damn! I talk about a possible correlation between bible fanatics and AGW denial and guess who appears 1 minute later! HA! Daniel, did you really need to quote him? I've got the fellow in a kill file (i.e, filter) so I don't read his mail normally. I still see it sometimes on my iPhone if I check the mail there before running the filter in my desktop mail program. But here you reposted his entire post. I'd rather not filter *your* mail! 2012/12/4 Jojo Jaro mailto:jth...@hotmail.comjth...@hotmail.com [deleted] -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Hi, On 4-12-2012 23:51, Jed Rothwell wrote: It is not enough. You would have to show that hundreds of professional climatologists are being threatened or harassed by these vested interests the way McGuire was. Is that happening? There is no need for them to be threatened at all. It is just a matter of what they are being told, taught and are believing into something like the way a religious person does and the workings of the human mind and clever use of psychology and media. For example see what happened during the 30s in Germany, which resulted in world war II. Most citizens were actually truely believing what they were told by their nazi leaders; there were only few people who were able and willing to understand what really was going on. Those few who openly opposed were quickly identified and exterminated. And nowadays this principle has still not changed. Kind regards, Rob
RE: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Like others on this list, I filtered JoJo out of my Vortex-l account long ago. I have my limitations. However if Jojo was recorded to have recently posted phrases like: What a piece of work you are. Your mother must have really screwed up raising you. For whatever reason JoJo may have had to be upset this time around, and it seems to me that it doesn't take much to Upset JoJo, to have felt justified in lobbing such insults towards another Vortex member... this strikes me as having completely crossed the line of proper Vortex-l etiquette. This is precisely the kind of deliberately insulting behavior that got Grok, (he-who-shall-remain-nameless) banned. IMO, some of the posting behavior of Jojo, particularly when he feels both defensive and upset at others for which he seems to feel have slighted his personal sensibilities, often strikes me as someone who is on a suicide mission. To me it's as if Jojo has been for quite some time now deliberately trying to evoke Mr. Beaty's ire into banning him. Why? It's as if Jojo's wants to prove to everybody that he has been unjustifiably singled out as the bad guy on the Vortex-l list. If he can get Mr. Beaty to ban him, Jojo can then feel that he has proved to himself that the Vortex-l list is really is out to get him. ...the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Circuitous behavior is often difficult to break out of, particularly when one is hell-bent on hosting a pity party. My two cents. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Hi, On 5-12-2012 14:49, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Like others on this list, I filtered JoJo out of my Vortex-l account long ago. I have my limitations. Am not filtering anyone at all and sometimes see and read the postings of such a lost soul ;-) as Jojo with lots of amusement and then decide to ignore his demand to get continuous childish attention, as any good parent should do with undesired behaviour. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
I seem to recall that Jojo has been called a 'bible fanatic' and worse. Do you expect him to quietly put up with that kind of insult? If you don't like what he says, killfile him, but don't call for his banning because of his less than gentlemanly language; it makes those who do sound like hypocrites.
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
From Vorl: I seem to recall that Jojo has been called a 'bible fanatic' and worse. Do you expect him to quietly put up with that kind of insult? If you don't like what he says, killfile him, but don't call for his banning because of his less than gentlemanly language; it makes those who do sound like hypocrites. Vor, if you wish to justify the content of some of Jojo’s recent postings, that is your right to do so. But let me be clear on this point. I have not personally suggesting banning Jojo for being a ‘bible fanatic’ – those are your words. My point was that Jojo has recently posted deliberately insulting phrases towards another vortex member, specifically phrases like: What a piece of work you are. Your mother must have really screwed up raising you. I don’t care who started the current tit-for-tat with Jojo. It doesn’t matter. Someone’s got to have the balls to simply say, this is enuf of this childish behavior. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Hi, On 5-12-2012 15:27, Vorl Bek wrote: I seem to recall that Jojo has been called a 'bible fanatic' and worse. Do you expect him to quietly put up with that kind of insult? What's wrong with calling somebody a bible fanatic? It's just an opinion like any other and should not be treated as an insult. Isn't it also the bible that says turn the other cheek? Some people are taking things way much too personal, my advise please chill down and relax, it's not worth it. And as I said before stop demanding to get continuous childish attention. Any good parent would ignore this undesired behaviour anway. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
I recently sed: ... Someone’s got to have the balls to simply say, this is enuf of this childish behavior. This could be misconstrued as an indirect demand on my part directed at Mr. Beaty to ban Jojo. My apologies to Mr. Beaty. That's not what I meant when I uttered the above statement. I meant to implly that we all must have enough balls to break the circuit. I suggest we try to put a stop to fanning the flames of contributing to what strikes me as Jojo's desire to luxiriate in his own sense of personal outrage. Just stop fanning the flames. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
At 06:46 AM 12/5/2012, Rob Dingemans wrote: There is no need for them to be threatened at all. It is just a matter of what they are being told, taught and are believing into something like the way a religious person does and the workings of the human mind and clever use of psychology and media. For example see what happened during the 30s in Germany, which resulted in world war II. Most citizens were actually truely believing what they were told by their nazi leaders; there were only few people who were able and willing to understand what really was going on. Those few who openly opposed were quickly identified and exterminated. And nowadays this principle has still not changed. A possiblility is being asserted as if it were an established truth. Rob is technically correct, the principle has not changed. Science is not established by majority vote of some broad body of experts, who are sample for opinion regardless of whether or not they have actually studied an issue. *However*, it is also true that AGW skepticism, not ordinary skepticism, which is essential to science, but extreme skepticism that rejects an entire field or broad conclusion, is rare among experts who *have* studied the issue, though it does exist. So, certainly, non-experts can point to experts with opinions that somewhat confirm their own. To the extent that it is true that skeptical papers cannot get published, this is a serious problem. However, that problem must be addressed directly, not by attacking the majority view as somehow a matter of religious belief. The suppression problem arises easily when people believe that critical issues are involved. When AGW becomes a political issue, people with a certain point of view, comfortable with it as the majority opinion (whether it actually is or not), may believe that allowing publication of unconfirmed research that seems to contradict their view will cause political harm, which could be extremely serious. It goes back to a belief that the ends justify the means. If the end is protecting humanity from some huge disaster, then some minor level of censorship can be justified. Right? Wrong. Censoring contrary views damages the process by which humanity makes collective decisions. It creates a kind of rigidity that is unresponsive to new research. It makes it impossible to correct errors. A political process which is vulnerable to, say, isolated and unconfirmed research results, is a defective political process, and, again, that is an issue of great importance in itself. We tend to assume that our political processes are a given, that they can't be improved, hence political activists will, again, take pragmatic positions that are inimical to genuine consensus formation. And we see this, certainly, at the extremes on many issues. But the more we are, collectively, seeking clarity, seeking to resolve confusion with consensus (internal and external), the less effective will be such polemic. A position does not become false because it is advanced with improper arguments, that is actually the responsibility of those debating. On cold fusion, Jed Rothwell is correct about the conspiracy. As far as I can tell, there is no conspiracy to suppress the truth. There are people and agencies who have openly and privately acted to suppress research, but they do not believe that they are suppressing truth. They believe that they already know the truth, i.e., that cold fusion is a complete mistake. They are ignorant, but they are also unprincipled, they are willing to damage research, to prevent the resolution of issues around cold fusion, in the name of preventing error and waste of money. They have no care that they have damaged reputations and careers. And they have become closed, impervious to evidence. Cold fusion is often, by pseudoskeptics, compared to N-rays and polywater, as allegedly pathological science. While a few parallels might have seemed legitimate at one time, cold fusion was never identified as artifact by controlled experiment, in ways that should be possible if it *is* artifact, and in any way similar to what happened with N-rays and polywater. All that happened was that the main discovery, anomalous heat, was initially difficult to confirm, and that it was also found that cold fusion did not produce *major* radiation, as would be expected from fusion, even though some possible fusion reaction mechanisms would not produce that radiation -- or might not produce it, plus, at the time, cold fusion was *not known to be fusion.* That took more evidence. At the time of the formation of the bogus cascade, it was really only a finding of anomalous heat, with many varying and often unconfirmed additional possible characteristics, dangling like a warehouse full of red herring.
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell -- Jaro Jaro announces intention to violate list rules
At 06:43 AM 12/5/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: I always say, I never start it, but I will finish it. An insult will be responded with an insult. A ridicule with a ridicule. This bias will be responded with bias from me. From his other posts, finish it includes continuing the response long after other parties stopped. Above, he declares an intention to violate list rules, justified by the perceived violations of others. If someone else consistently violates list rules, and does not respond to warning, banning is utterly appropriate, even necessary. Jaro Jaro knows what he's doing, and above he shows that it's deliberate. He merely considers it justified. They did it, so I'll do it back. And he's shown that what he does back is taken to extremes, a slight perceived insult becomes a diatribe and an attempt to find whatever insult he can imagine; he typically attempts to outrage whatever group he thinks his enemy belongs to. There is no redeeming value to his participation here.
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell - about Jaro Jaro trolling
It is up to the list owner whether or not to tolerate the continued intense trolling for outraged response. Jaro Jaro has acknowledged, in other posts, that he's going to give back what he gets, and he readily exaggerates what he gets, and dredges up whatever he thinks might offend everyone who has *ever* pointed out what he does, seriously or in jest. Most mailing lists would have long ago banned him. That's just a fact, not an insult. At 12:58 AM 12/5/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: What a piece of work you are. Your mother must have really screwed you up raising you. First, you initiate the insult and then call for a banning when those you insulted respond IN KIND. I guess I'm fortunate you don't own this list. No, Jaro Jaro is *unfortunate*, because if Daniel owned the list, he'd be prevented from wasting more time -- his own as well as that of others -- frothing at the mouth. Tell me exactly, what list rule have I violated deserving to be banned like you advocate; other than the fact that you do not like the truth of what I speak of. Are you still dwelling on the moon god worshippers comment I made. So, you want me banned for telling the truth that allah is a moon god of some arab tribe of muhammed? Are you also going to ban me for saying muhammed had dozens of wives? Hey, instead of just banning me, why don't you just issue a fatwah against me to have me killed, since I insulted both allah and muhammed? Yes, I've insulted both of them by telling the truth about each of them. Jaro Jaro is anonymous, one wonders if he would be so foolishly brave if he were a known person, as are many of us on this list. There are idiot Muslims just as there are idiot Christians, idiot atheists, etc., and if you poke them, indeed, they will kill you if they can, and make them angry enough, they will make sure they can. Some of them are high functioning. And they may kill innocents along with you. If Jaro Jaro were telling the truth, it would be, at least, some level of justification, though telling the truth in some contexts is morally reprehensible. But Jaro Jaro picks whatever topic seems to him to be sufficiently outrageous to the majority, to assert as truth. Allah is a word, and it has an etymology. It is pretty clearly a contraction of al-ilah, literally, the god, or the object of worship. The use of the definite article al- implies that the referent is clear, Allah is not merely a god, but the god, i.e, the source, the One God, and that's how the word is used, by Arabs, including Christian Arabs. Jaro Jaro's view would be at best pedantic, but it's much worse than that. He's taking some assertion as to religious history and claiming that *this is what people actually believe.* It's not an insult, though he intends it as one. It's entirely too stupid. But because of the intention, in some jurisdictions, his speech would be illegal, probably because it could incite idiots to murder. Muhammad did not have dozens of wives, that's again, merely stupid. Muhammad had one wife, until she died. He then married about a dozen women. This was actually, it appears, a common tribal pattern at the time. A widow would marry a young man, and when she died, if he had the means, he would then marry multiple wives, and when he dies, they each would marry a young man, giving him his start in life, etc. But so what? The real point here is that this is all totally irrelevant to the purposes of this list. Another pointed out that we allow friendly banter that is off-topic. That does not extend to allowing trolling for outraged response. And that's what Jaro Jaro has been doing for a long time. People have been banned from this list for much less.
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell -- Jaro Jaro announces intention to violate list rules
It is easy to see how wars are waged over religious beliefs... On Wednesday, December 5, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 06:43 AM 12/5/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: I always say, I never start it, but I will finish it. An insult will be responded with an insult. A ridicule with a ridicule. This bias will be responded with bias from me. From his other posts, finish it includes continuing the response long after other parties stopped. Above, he declares an intention to violate list rules, justified by the perceived violations of others. If someone else consistently violates list rules, and does not respond to warning, banning is utterly appropriate, even necessary. Jaro Jaro knows what he's doing, and above he shows that it's deliberate. He merely considers it justified. They did it, so I'll do it back. And he's shown that what he does back is taken to extremes, a slight perceived insult becomes a diatribe and an attempt to find whatever insult he can imagine; he typically attempts to outrage whatever group he thinks his enemy belongs to. There is no redeeming value to his participation here.
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Hi, On 5-12-2012 17:04, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: The suppression problem arises easily ... On cold fusion ... That took more evidence. Well said, and therefore free speech and support for it is so important. If you see this (independent of your own political views) also as being important then please support the important work of Jed Rothwell and donate for the work he is doing via this link: http://www.infinite-energy.com/whoarewe/lenr_donate.html Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Well, it seems at least two people other than myself are objective enough to see the truth for what it is. You are absolutely right Vorl. I am only giving out what I receive and you are objective enough to see that. An insult for an insult. A Ridicule for a ridicule. A stupid word for every stupid word. Jojo - Original Message - From: Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 10:27 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell I seem to recall that Jojo has been called a 'bible fanatic' and worse. Do you expect him to quietly put up with that kind of insult? If you don't like what he says, killfile him, but don't call for his banning because of his less than gentlemanly language; it makes those who do sound like hypocrites.
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell -- Jaro Jaro announces intention to violate list rules
What religious belief? This argument started because danny body felt he can insult me and my beliefs and not suffer a response. This is not about religion, this is about common civilized decency. Jojo - Original Message - From: ChemE Stewart To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 12:38 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell -- Jaro Jaro announces intention to violate list rules It is easy to see how wars are waged over religious beliefs... On Wednesday, December 5, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 06:43 AM 12/5/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: I always say, I never start it, but I will finish it. An insult will be responded with an insult. A ridicule with a ridicule. This bias will be responded with bias from me. From his other posts, finish it includes continuing the response long after other parties stopped. Above, he declares an intention to violate list rules, justified by the perceived violations of others. If someone else consistently violates list rules, and does not respond to warning, banning is utterly appropriate, even necessary. Jaro Jaro knows what he's doing, and above he shows that it's deliberate. He merely considers it justified. They did it, so I'll do it back. And he's shown that what he does back is taken to extremes, a slight perceived insult becomes a diatribe and an attempt to find whatever insult he can imagine; he typically attempts to outrage whatever group he thinks his enemy belongs to. There is no redeeming value to his participation here.
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Herein lies the problem Rob. You remain oblivious and biased to see the problem. That's why you fail to understand why it is a problem. People feel that they can freely and liberally insult a Christian without consequence. Try insulting a muslim and see how far you get. Try putting the islam crescent in a bowl of urine and call it art and see how much tolerance you will get. (For those of you who are uninformed, an artist received government grant money for his art. His art was a sculpture of a cross inside a big glass bowl which he filled with his own urine.) Why shouldn't I take it personally? when my beliefs have been ridiculed, insulted, made fun of, called a fairy tale, and I have been told to go F*** myself and called a fanatic. Would you be as tolerant if you suffered this level of abuse at every turn? Jojo - Original Message - From: Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 11:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell Hi, On 5-12-2012 15:27, Vorl Bek wrote: I seem to recall that Jojo has been called a 'bible fanatic' and worse. Do you expect him to quietly put up with that kind of insult? What's wrong with calling somebody a bible fanatic? It's just an opinion like any other and should not be treated as an insult. Isn't it also the bible that says turn the other cheek? Some people are taking things way much too personal, my advise please chill down and relax, it's not worth it. And as I said before stop demanding to get continuous childish attention. Any good parent would ignore this undesired behaviour anway. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek Scriptural reference The phrase originates from the Sermon on the Mount in the New Testament. In the Gospel of Matthew, an alternative for an eye for an eye is given by Jesus: 38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. —Matthew 5:38–5:42 KJV In the Sermon on the Plain[1] in the Gospel of Luke, as part of his command to love your enemies, Jesus says: 27 ¶ But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, 28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. 29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. 30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. 31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. —Luke 6:27–31 KJV Harry
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:02:33 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: I will grant that in some cases, experts are blinded by their own professional knowledge and by the bias of the field as a whole. That is why many physicists do not believe in cold fusion. But the key That's pretty much exactly the problem with climatologists- they only believe in global warming (sorry climate change) because that's what they do.. as you say the field as a whole is biased. IMO you don't need to know anything about climate science to understand global warming - it's all about politics and banking (imagine a global economy underpinned by financial products where the only underlaying deliverable is itself an intangible book keeping entry). The powers that be have decided that co2 trading is the way forward and are determined to ram it down everyone's throats. It doesn't matter if it's a pack of lies or not, they're already too invested in the idea to do anything else at this point. Rob
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Robert McKay rob...@mckay.com wrote: I will grant that in some cases, experts are blinded by their own professional knowledge and by the bias of the field as a whole. That is why many physicists do not believe in cold fusion. But the key That's pretty much exactly the problem with climatologists- they only believe in global warming (sorry climate change) because that's what they do.. as you say the field as a whole is biased. I have never heard of an entire field of physical science being biased with regard to the topic of that field itself. Plasma fusion scientists are biased against cold fusion because they know nothing about it. Many top physicists were biased against the maser and laser, and they tried to stop Townes from developing it, but again, that was because they had not studied the problem and they knew nothing about it. People in a given field are sometimes biased against new ideas proposed by outsiders. That is not because they are mistaken about their own ideas. Their own ideas are valid, but the outsider's ideas are an improvement. They oppose the ideas because -- again as I said -- they know nothing about them. I think the scientific method ensures that when a large group of people study physical phenomena for a long time, most of their data will be good, and their conclusions correct. If that were not true, the scientific method would fail. Our textbooks and technology would be far less reliable than they actually are. I am sure that climatologists and weather forecasters are good at what they do because weather forecasts are remarkably accurate these days. I realize that short term weather forecasting is different from long term climate studies, but they are both based on deep knowledge of the atmosphere. This knowledge is manifestly correct in many ways. It is not perfect or complete. Nothing in science ever is. I am talking about physics, chemistry and other hard science. It may be that historians or psychologists stick to nonsensical notions. Before the discovery of DNA, there were a small number of biologists trying to explain cellular reproduction with theories that turned out to be nonsense. Again they thought they were experts, but spinning a theory does not make you an expert unless you have experimental proof, and these people had none. IMO you don't need to know anything about climate science to understand global warming - it's all about politics and banking (imagine a global economy underpinned by financial products where the only underlaying deliverable . . . Frankly, that's silly. That reminds me of assertions that oil companies are suppressing cold fusion. Or the counter-assertions by opponents that cold fusion researchers are only in it for the grant money. Believe me, there is no grant money in cold fusion! I know enough climatologists to know they are not living high on the hog. They do not rake in the dollars. They work long hours on tedious, demanding, boring science. Life is not a conspiracy or a potboiler made-for-TV movie. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 09:36:50 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: IMO you dont need to know anything about climate science to understand global warming - its all about politics and banking (imagine a global economy underpinned by financial products where the only underlaying deliverable . . . Frankly, thats silly. That reminds me of assertions that oil companies are suppressing cold fusion. Or the counter-assertions by opponents that cold fusion researchers are only in it for the grant money. Believe me, there is no grant money in cold fusion! But there is for doing climate science.. maybe they're not getting rich off it, but it's better than doing cold fusion anyway ;) I know enough climatologists to know they are not living high on the hog. They do not rake in the dollars. They work long hours on tedious, demanding, boring science. I don't doubt that.. the climatologists themselves aren't going to benefit much either way (although I'm sure many of them make a modest livings out of it - and that's not nothing these days). They're merely needed to produce those tedious reports.. they just need to keep churning out talking points to keep the issue alive. The profits and power will be made by the international carbon financiers. Anticipation of these profits is what drives the global warming agenda, the climate science just a necessary part of the set. Life is not a conspiracy or a potboiler made-for-TV movie. No, it's even stranger. Rob
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Jed, I don't have a PhD in LENR either, but I believe it exists even though the mainstream doesn't. Possibly my opinion is worth little. The IPCC forecast has been falsified. It doesn't take a genius to understand that. The link I gave to Lucia's site The Blackboard has covered that in excruciating detail over the last couple of months. Lucia Liljegren classes herself as a lukewarmer and is highly regarded for her statistical ability amongst other things. Her opinion is worth more than mine on statistics. You are of course welcome to your opinion on mainstream climate scientists. I find they are more near sighted than the community commenting negatively on LENR. I recommend reading On certainty: Truth is the Daughter of Time by Dr. Robert Brown here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/03/on-certainty-truth-is-the-daughter-of-time/ The original quote by Francis Bacon circa 1600, was “Truth is the Daughter of Time, not of Authority” I think Akasofu is worth reading too. The piece is long but mainly graphs, so a quick read. Note Fig. 2b. http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Robert McKay rob...@mckay.com wrote: I don't doubt that.. the climatologists themselves aren't going to benefit much either way (although I'm sure many of them make a modest livings out of it - and that's not nothing these days). They're merely needed to produce those tedious reports.. they just need to keep churning out talking points to keep the issue alive. Look, that is ridiculous. People do not act that way! A person does not spend 5 or 10 years slaving away to get a PhD without being in love with the subject. You don't do that just to get some meaningless, dead-end job churning out fake data for corporations for 60 hours a week. Scientists are not paid well. They do not have high status jobs. They do not have any prospect of sudden wealth, the way programmers sometimes do. The only reason most of them do what they do is out of curiosity, and for love of learning. They will NOT spend the 50 years of their working career promoting what they know to be a lie. If they saw problems with global warming data, they would say so. There is no unity among them, in my experience. Cold fusion scientists love attacking one another as much as the skeptics love doing that. Furthermore, they are engaged in rigorous, evidence-based, hard science. You cannot fake results in physics for long. If anyone bothers to look at the results at all, someone will soon catch you. Unimportant results may lie around untested and unreplicated, but global warming data is important. There are a zillion well paid skeptical opponents itching to prove it is wrong. If they could have, they would have by now. There are also many well-paid skeptical opponents of cold fusion. If they could have found an error in the data presented by McKubre, Miles or Fleischmann, they would have, long LONG ago. Not a single paper has been published showing a real error. By now we must assume the skeptics have nothing. The same goes for the climate skeptics. They have published nonsensical accusations that the data was fudged in the UK. I can read. I can see that is not the case. With this 16 year claim it is clear they tried the same trick that the NHE project used to hide the excess heat in Miles' data: picking an unusually high moment close to the start. Look here; you can see at a glance that is what they did: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/03/climate_change_deniers_write_another_fact_free_op_ed.html They used the red portion, an absurdly biased sample. That's a joke, is what that is. These are stupid, cheap tricks. No one should fall for them. If they had a valid case, they would have made it by now. The fact that they use stupid tricks like this shows they have nothing real to present. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:43:59 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: Robert McKay wrote: I dont doubt that.. the climatologists themselves arent going to benefit much either way (although Im sure many of them make a modest livings out of it - and thats not nothing these days). Theyre merely needed to produce those tedious reports.. they just need to keep churning out talking points to keep the issue alive. Look, that is ridiculous. People do not act that way! A person does not spend 5 or 10 years slaving away to get a PhD without being in love with the subject. You dont do that just to get some meaningless, dead-end job churning out fake data for corporations for 60 hours a week. I'm not saying they don't believe in what they're doing.. there must be lots of legitimate data showing climate change.. the climate does change after all. The point I was making that is that the climate science is simply irrelevant to understanding global warming / the climate change issue which is better understood as a political and financial phenomenon. I'm already regreting entering the discussion.. so I'll drop it, it doesn't seem like we'll be reaching any kind of concensus. :) Rob
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Weak anthropic principal at work. Nobody complained during last major ice age because we were not around. We live at a privileged time. Luckily, black holes suffer from indigestion which is why we are alive today. Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Tuesday, December 4, 2012, Robert McKay wrote: On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:43:59 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: Robert McKay wrote: I dont doubt that.. the climatologists themselves arent going to benefit much either way (although Im sure many of them make a modest livings out of it - and thats not nothing these days). Theyre merely needed to produce those tedious reports.. they just need to keep churning out talking points to keep the issue alive. Look, that is ridiculous. People do not act that way! A person does not spend 5 or 10 years slaving away to get a PhD without being in love with the subject. You dont do that just to get some meaningless, dead-end job churning out fake data for corporations for 60 hours a week. I'm not saying they don't believe in what they're doing.. there must be lots of legitimate data showing climate change.. the climate does change after all. The point I was making that is that the climate science is simply irrelevant to understanding global warming / the climate change issue which is better understood as a political and financial phenomenon. I'm already regreting entering the discussion.. so I'll drop it, it doesn't seem like we'll be reaching any kind of concensus. :) Rob
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Jed, the argument from authority approach with regard to climate change doesn't work because there are so many highly educated dissenting voices, so many examples of deficient analysis work in Climatology (check out Climate Audit), and yet seemingly so little interest in improving woefully bad scientific practices amongst climatologists. No one (with a brain) disputes that we have experienced warming during the 20th century, and most agree that CO2 increases are causing some warming, but there is way too much evidence that chalking it all up to increases in CO2 is wrong. Predictions of several degrees of future temperature rise are based on extrapolations of a temperature increase from 1980-2000 that has since halted, but that rise was similar in size and speed to the 1920-1940's - which was before CO2 took off. The projections of catastrophe are further founded on assumed large positive water vapour feedbacks multiplying the impact of CO2 by 2-8 times that are looking less and less tenable as more data is collected. A rather nice summary of uncertainty in that at: http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/ Amongst the many holes: - CO2 started rising sharply in the mid 40's, yet the world then cooled for 30 years till the mid 70's. - world has not warmed in the last 15 years (how much longer does that trend need to continue before IPCC acknowledges their model predictions are wrong?) - missing tropospheric hot spot that is a central prediction of CAGW climate modelling (in other branches of science failed predictions = failed theory/model, but apparently not so in climatology) - lack of acceleration in sea level rise during last few decades - the rate is basically unchanged for 80 years (since before significant CO2 rise) - temperatures that have varied by 3°C during the current interglacial (holocene) for unknown reasons. - temperatures getting colder as CO2 level rose during last 7000 years of holocene (since holocene climate optimum that was a lot warmer than today) : http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif - unexplained 1100 year periodicity in historical warming (Minoan Warm period, Roman Warm period, Medieval warm period, next one in that series would be ... now, but no, this time it's definitely all CO2. - no explanation as to why 18th century little ice age (basically the coldest period in last 8000 years) occurred. - claims of worse storms, droughts, heat waves, floods etc in disagreement with historical data. - Global Climate Models do not account for very long period ocean and thermo-haline circulation processes that appear to dominate climate as evidenced by the well known 60 year PDO and AMO cycles. - GCM's do not account for noted correlation between sun-spot cycle and temperature. - GCM's not even remotely capable of modelling cloud physics (and quite probably never will be given difficulties of modelling cloud nucleation, and associated convective circulation process on a grid that is fine enough to be useful, turbulence modelling on a mind numbing scale). You cannot hope to get modelling right if you can't accurately model cloud formation, as even a 1% change in cloud cover has more effect than CO2. - GCM's tuned in post-hoc manner by fudge factors like aerosols when the the historical concentration and distribution of aerosols is not known, and even if they were known their actual influence on climate is not known (being tied up with cloud nucleation physics and some really hairy light propagation physics). Exceptionally poor practice that is more augury than science. Most educated people, particularly anyone with a background in STEM find that the more they look into catastrophic CAGW the less convinced they are. In fact you could say that it is a perfect example of a positive feedback system in human terms when the proponents (Climatologists, Activists, Politicians, Corporates involved in carbon trading) of CAGW get ever more power and money for creating and promulgating bigger and badder scare stories. It's naive to think that the IPCC could ever let the message be a balanced one of scientific uncertainty in the face of such powerful and venal motivating factors. On 4 December 2012 12:25, Robert McKay rob...@mckay.com wrote: On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:02:33 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: I will grant that in some cases, experts are blinded by their own professional knowledge and by the bias of the field as a whole. That is why many physicists do not believe in cold fusion. But the key That's pretty much exactly the problem with climatologists- they only believe in global warming (sorry climate change) because that's what they do.. as you say the field as a whole is biased. IMO you don't need to know anything about climate science to understand global warming - it's all about politics and banking (imagine a global economy
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
It's interesting that AGW denial and Christian creationism are cultural phenomena which is more intensely seen among USA citizens than elsewhere in the world, with a reasonably educated population. I wonder if there is correlation between those.
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
NO no no ... please don't drop off from this discussion. I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion. Robert L and Robert M, please continue this discussion and continue putting out facts. It's about time somebody knowledgeable took the time to correct all these anthropic global warming crap that keeps on cropping up out of nowhere. It's like cockroaches, you can't seem to kill them all. Like cockroaches, there're persistent, yucky and totally useless. Jed, is one of those people who complain loudly about the bias in the Hot Fusion community against cold fusion, but he himself remains oblivious to the fact that he suffers the same malady when it comes to his pet theories. And he appeals to majority authority as vehemently as hot fusion researchers appeal to their majority status. One big difference though, these Hot fusion scientists probably know that they are being biased but continue in it for finanacial reasons (ie. Research grants), but Jed is simply deluded, blind and biased for no reason at all. No amount of facts, statistics and/or sound experiments will convince a person like Jed, It a religion to these people. Jojo - Original Message - From: Robert McKay rob...@mckay.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:43:59 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: Robert McKay wrote: I dont doubt that.. the climatologists themselves arent going to benefit much either way (although Im sure many of them make a modest livings out of it - and thats not nothing these days). Theyre merely needed to produce those tedious reports.. they just need to keep churning out talking points to keep the issue alive. Look, that is ridiculous. People do not act that way! A person does not spend 5 or 10 years slaving away to get a PhD without being in love with the subject. You dont do that just to get some meaningless, dead-end job churning out fake data for corporations for 60 hours a week. I'm not saying they don't believe in what they're doing.. there must be lots of legitimate data showing climate change.. the climate does change after all. The point I was making that is that the climate science is simply irrelevant to understanding global warming / the climate change issue which is better understood as a political and financial phenomenon. I'm already regreting entering the discussion.. so I'll drop it, it doesn't seem like we'll be reaching any kind of concensus. :) Rob
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
It should be obvious that there is politics involved in climate science. There is just too much money and urgency involved. This means also corruption, because science is not clear and it is very difficult and everyone wants to see what the wish most. However, Jed is very right that overall ideas behind climate change are very solid. Of course there is lots of room for criticism as there are big uncertainties, however basic are on very solid ground. Best way to measure the climate change would be to measure the total heat content of oceans. This gives reliable result, if there is net warming or cooling or random fluctuations. Too bad that there is very little data available from Ocean heat content. However we have good data set from the last 10 years and thus we could see the trend in climate with very good accuracy within the next 10 years. As I have previously personally pointed out, that I prefer geoengineering over cutting carbon emissions. This is because, if Europeans would buy their food from Africa where there are the most fertile untouched farm lands, the regrown temperate European forests would absorb all European carbon emissions. Forests have very favorable effect on water cycle so regrowing forests is the best way to geoengineer the planet. Later in 2020's and early 30's vertical farming will bring food production back to Europe. And when vertical farming is the major way to grow food, there is no more environmental worries, because 98 % of all environmental degradation is caused by traditional agriculture. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Oh, damn! I talk about a possible correlation between bible fanatics and AGW denial and guess who appears 1 minute later! HA! 2012/12/4 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com NO no no ... please don't drop off from this discussion. I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion. Robert L and Robert M, please continue this discussion and continue putting out facts. It's about time somebody knowledgeable took the time to correct all these anthropic global warming crap that keeps on cropping up out of nowhere. It's like cockroaches, you can't seem to kill them all. Like cockroaches, there're persistent, yucky and totally useless. Jed, is one of those people who complain loudly about the bias in the Hot Fusion community against cold fusion, but he himself remains oblivious to the fact that he suffers the same malady when it comes to his pet theories. And he appeals to majority authority as vehemently as hot fusion researchers appeal to their majority status. One big difference though, these Hot fusion scientists probably know that they are being biased but continue in it for finanacial reasons (ie. Research grants), but Jed is simply deluded, blind and biased for no reason at all. No amount of facts, statistics and/or sound experiments will convince a person like Jed, It a religion to these people. Jojo - Original Message - From: Robert McKay rob...@mckay.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:43:59 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: Robert McKay wrote: I dont doubt that.. the climatologists themselves arent going to benefit much either way (although Im sure many of them make a modest livings out of it - and thats not nothing these days). Theyre merely needed to produce those tedious reports.. they just need to keep churning out talking points to keep the issue alive. Look, that is ridiculous. People do not act that way! A person does not spend 5 or 10 years slaving away to get a PhD without being in love with the subject. You dont do that just to get some meaningless, dead-end job churning out fake data for corporations for 60 hours a week. I'm not saying they don't believe in what they're doing.. there must be lots of legitimate data showing climate change.. the climate does change after all. The point I was making that is that the climate science is simply irrelevant to understanding global warming / the climate change issue which is better understood as a political and financial phenomenon. I'm already regreting entering the discussion.. so I'll drop it, it doesn't seem like we'll be reaching any kind of concensus. :) Rob -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Ha Ha Ha, you give yourself too much credit as if the world revolves around you. I respond to your posts like I respond to those cow decorations I find in my farm, as there is no difference between the two. LOL ... All that hot air is inflating your bubble head. Tell you what, let make use of all that hot air from your mouth and patent a stirling engine to free us of arab oil, shall we? Jojo PS. thanks for the entertainment though. - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 12:48 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell Oh, damn! I talk about a possible correlation between bible fanatics and AGW denial and guess who appears 1 minute later! HA! 2012/12/4 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com NO no no ... please don't drop off from this discussion. I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion. Robert L and Robert M, please continue this discussion and continue putting out facts. It's about time somebody knowledgeable took the time to correct all these anthropic global warming crap that keeps on cropping up out of nowhere. It's like cockroaches, you can't seem to kill them all. Like cockroaches, there're persistent, yucky and totally useless. Jed, is one of those people who complain loudly about the bias in the Hot Fusion community against cold fusion, but he himself remains oblivious to the fact that he suffers the same malady when it comes to his pet theories. And he appeals to majority authority as vehemently as hot fusion researchers appeal to their majority status. One big difference though, these Hot fusion scientists probably know that they are being biased but continue in it for finanacial reasons (ie. Research grants), but Jed is simply deluded, blind and biased for no reason at all. No amount of facts, statistics and/or sound experiments will convince a person like Jed, It a religion to these people. Jojo - Original Message - From: Robert McKay rob...@mckay.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:43:59 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: Robert McKay wrote: I dont doubt that.. the climatologists themselves arent going to benefit much either way (although Im sure many of them make a modest livings out of it - and thats not nothing these days). Theyre merely needed to produce those tedious reports.. they just need to keep churning out talking points to keep the issue alive. Look, that is ridiculous. People do not act that way! A person does not spend 5 or 10 years slaving away to get a PhD without being in love with the subject. You dont do that just to get some meaningless, dead-end job churning out fake data for corporations for 60 hours a week. I'm not saying they don't believe in what they're doing.. there must be lots of legitimate data showing climate change.. the climate does change after all. The point I was making that is that the climate science is simply irrelevant to understanding global warming / the climate change issue which is better understood as a political and financial phenomenon. I'm already regreting entering the discussion.. so I'll drop it, it doesn't seem like we'll be reaching any kind of concensus. :) Rob -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
JoJo, Always the charmer... On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Ha Ha Ha, you give yourself too much credit as if the world revolves around you. I respond to your posts like I respond to those cow decorations I find in my farm, as there is no difference between the two. LOL ... All that hot air is inflating your bubble head. Tell you what, let make use of all that hot air from your mouth and patent a stirling engine to free us of arab oil, shall we? Jojo PS. thanks for the entertainment though. - Original Message - *From:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com *To:* John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2012 12:48 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell Oh, damn! I talk about a possible correlation between bible fanatics and AGW denial and guess who appears 1 minute later! HA! 2012/12/4 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com NO no no ... please don't drop off from this discussion. I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion. Robert L and Robert M, please continue this discussion and continue putting out facts. It's about time somebody knowledgeable took the time to correct all these anthropic global warming crap that keeps on cropping up out of nowhere. It's like cockroaches, you can't seem to kill them all. Like cockroaches, there're persistent, yucky and totally useless. Jed, is one of those people who complain loudly about the bias in the Hot Fusion community against cold fusion, but he himself remains oblivious to the fact that he suffers the same malady when it comes to his pet theories. And he appeals to majority authority as vehemently as hot fusion researchers appeal to their majority status. One big difference though, these Hot fusion scientists probably know that they are being biased but continue in it for finanacial reasons (ie. Research grants), but Jed is simply deluded, blind and biased for no reason at all. No amount of facts, statistics and/or sound experiments will convince a person like Jed, It a religion to these people. Jojo - Original Message - From: Robert McKay rob...@mckay.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:43:59 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: Robert McKay wrote: I dont doubt that.. the climatologists themselves arent going to benefit much either way (although Im sure many of them make a modest livings out of it - and thats not nothing these days). Theyre merely needed to produce those tedious reports.. they just need to keep churning out talking points to keep the issue alive. Look, that is ridiculous. People do not act that way! A person does not spend 5 or 10 years slaving away to get a PhD without being in love with the subject. You dont do that just to get some meaningless, dead-end job churning out fake data for corporations for 60 hours a week. I'm not saying they don't believe in what they're doing.. there must be lots of legitimate data showing climate change.. the climate does change after all. The point I was making that is that the climate science is simply irrelevant to understanding global warming / the climate change issue which is better understood as a political and financial phenomenon. I'm already regreting entering the discussion.. so I'll drop it, it doesn't seem like we'll be reaching any kind of concensus. :) Rob -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
The primary reasons why the climate is not heating up faster than it has been include oceanic thermal inertia and industrial negative aerosol forcing. There is a lot of water in the ocean and there still is loads of ice spread around the world that can cool that water. In the case of oceanic thermal inertia, the good news is that because the oceans are so large, and take so much time to absorb the thermal energy, we are warming more slowly than would otherwise occur. The bad news is that the oceans not only take up heat slowly, the also dissipate heat slowly. So even if we are able to reduce the greenhouse gases in the earth atmosphere to reasonable levels (closer to 300ppm CO2) the thermal inertia of the oceans will still take quite some time to respond and cooling down the earth will take considerable time. On the bright side, We still have some time to get LENR and zero point energy(ZPE) extraction developed and deployed to replace fossil fuel burning before all the ice is gone. Cheers:Axil On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 9:07 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Jed, I have been following the subject fairly closely. I'm not about to start yet another discussion on AGW. I've written hundreds of posts on that already. That the IPCC forecast has been falsified for the average of the models and most of the individual models you can read about on Lucia's blog at http://rankexploits.com/**musings/ http://rankexploits.com/musings/ I'm not at all sure that global temperature is even a very meaningful number when you think about it. I lean towards what Prof. Syun-Ichi Akasofu writes here: http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~**sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_** components_recent_climate_**change.pdfhttp://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf At least his forecast is a lot closer than IPCC's.
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
It does not take a bible fanatic to question the global warming train wreck. Some of us have worked with complex systems before and realize just how difficult it is to separate out the various important parameters. The climate system of the Earth is most likely one of the most complex ones that anyone has ever attempted to model. I have stood by and watched over the years as the modelers continue to improve their models as more variables are added and manipulated. For a very long time ocean currents were not even considered. The omission of many similar variables shout out that these guys are over their heads. I would assume that the models will improve over time as the many current problems are uncovered and compensated for. Should the people of the world destroy their futures by spending enormous sums on alternate energy sources if it ultimately is resolved that nature, not man is the driving force behind the climate? Does anyone ever ask themselves why there is such a rush to tax carbon emission when it will be many years before the changes take effect? Perhaps it is because there are many groups that will benefit quickly from the proposed system and they do not want to see too many years pass before their investments mature. I know of a hot place where these guys should be interred if they are acting only in self interest. So all I can say is:Calm down, relax, get the science right, take enough time to understand the problem, they find the best path forward. This will take many years as it should. Do not fall prey to those that want quick action as it is generally in their best interests to do so. Under no circumstances allow the UN or any other power hungry association to obtain taxing powers over all of us as this will be the foot in the door that they always seek. We are an intelligent species and will eventually make the correct choices. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Dec 4, 2012 11:48 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell Oh, damn! I talk about a possible correlation between bible fanatics and AGW denial and guess who appears 1 minute later! HA!
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Warmth is better short term than ice ages and dead crops like during the dark ages. Let's focus on keeping the lights on in 2013 Stewart darkmattersalot.com On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 2:28 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It does not take a bible fanatic to question the global warming train wreck. Some of us have worked with complex systems before and realize just how difficult it is to separate out the various important parameters. The climate system of the Earth is most likely one of the most complex ones that anyone has ever attempted to model. I have stood by and watched over the years as the modelers continue to improve their models as more variables are added and manipulated. For a very long time ocean currents were not even considered. The omission of many similar variables shout out that these guys are over their heads. I would assume that the models will improve over time as the many current problems are uncovered and compensated for. Should the people of the world destroy their futures by spending enormous sums on alternate energy sources if it ultimately is resolved that nature, not man is the driving force behind the climate? Does anyone ever ask themselves why there is such a rush to tax carbon emission when it will be many years before the changes take effect? Perhaps it is because there are many groups that will benefit quickly from the proposed system and they do not want to see too many years pass before their investments mature. I know of a hot place where these guys should be interred if they are acting only in self interest. So all I can say is:Calm down, relax, get the science right, take enough time to understand the problem, they find the best path forward. This will take many years as it should. Do not fall prey to those that want quick action as it is generally in their best interests to do so. Under no circumstances allow the UN or any other power hungry association to obtain taxing powers over all of us as this will be the foot in the door that they always seek. We are an intelligent species and will eventually make the correct choices. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Dec 4, 2012 11:48 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell Oh, damn! I talk about a possible correlation between bible fanatics and AGW denial and guess who appears 1 minute later! HA!
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, the argument from authority approach with regard to climate change doesn't work because there are so many highly educated dissenting voices . . . No, there are not many. Sorry, but that is not the case. I have read enough about the controversy to ascertain this. There are many people outside the field who mistakenly believe themselves to be experts, who claim they have discovered mistakes. But they are wrong. This is exactly the situation we have with cold fusion. Self-appointed experts who know nothing about the research, and who have no relevant qualifications or experience have attacked it again and again, for bogus reasons. These are often scientists, but being a scientist does not give you a magic ability to understand subjects you have not studied. I am sensitive about this because of what I have seen in cold fusion. Let me add a minor note about terminology. You have confused the issue slightly by saying argument from authority. Usually, argument from authority is used to mean fallacious appeal to authority (Misuse of Authority), which is what I described before: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html Like the word inflammable this means the opposite of what it sounds like it means. If you can show that the authorities you are cite are actually legitimate authorities in the proper area, then your argument is valid by definition, albeit weak. If I show that Dr. X is a valid authority and he says cold fusion is real, and you show that Prof. Y is also a valid authority and she says cold fusion is not real, then we must conclude that legitimate experts disagree. We cannot depend on authority. You are saying that is the situation with global warming. However, you are wrong. There are very few actual, accredited experts in that field who disagree. There will always be SOME experts who disagree. Some people claim there are only a few accredited experts because the majority of climatologists purge the ones who disagree with them. This is unlikely. The fact that there are a few proves they are ignored, not purged. That would be the pattern in other fields. The scientists I know don't care what other scientists think. There are many individuals in cold fusion who disagree with the majority. No one listens to them, but no one tries to purge them either. Even in biology there are few creationists. They are considered eccentric but no one cares what they say. Here is some text from the nizkor.org definition of appeal to authority: This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious. This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true. . . . Determining whether or not a person has the needed degree of expertise can often be very difficult. In academic fields (such as philosophy, engineering, history, etc.), the person's formal education, academic performance, publications, membership in professional societies, papers presented, awards won and so forth can all be reliable indicators of expertise. . . . . . . It should be noted that being an expert does not always require having a university degree. Many people have high degrees of expertise in sophisticated subjects without having ever attended a university. Further, it should not be simply assumed that a person with a degree is an expert. Of course, what is required to be an expert is often a matter of great debate. . . . That last point is true, but not so much for hard science. There is a world of difference between someone who has done the work it takes to get a PhD versus an amateur. I have met some very stupid PhD scientists such as Nate Hoffman and David Lindley. They make elementary logical errors. However, their technical knowledge is miles above mine. I would never challenge their judgement regarding their expertise (mass spectroscopy in Hoffman's case). In my review of Hoffman's book, I criticized him because he thought Ontario Hydro sells used moderator water in bottles. I suspected this was wrong, and quickly confirmed this water is 100 million times too radioactive to sell. I criticized him because he lacked common sense and over the two years he was writing the book, he did not bother to do what any newspaper reporter would do in the first half-hour: call Ontario Hydro on the phone. That's stupid, but it has nothing to do with spectroscopy. It is not technical stupidity. It is ordinary, garden variety stupidity. An expert outside his field is likely to be as prone to
RE: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
I sincerely hope that our civilization is prepared for a possible Carrington event - that could dwarf any global warming effects. Another point, not often admitted is the possible influence of the TBTJ banks - which largely control governments. They want to profit from running carbon tax/permit exchanges. JP Morgan already profits from running food stamp programs for the US government. It is reported that Lloyd Blankfein now has Secret Service protection against 'aggressive' questioners/reporters. When the Occupy movement was in the headlines, Big Banks gave spontaneous donations to NYC police causes to keep protesting riffraff away from their private mansions.
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It does not take a bible fanatic to question the global warming train wreck. Some of us have worked with complex systems before and realize just how difficult it is to separate out the various important parameters. Unless you have worked with this particular complex system, day in and day out, for many years, you are not qualified to render a valid professional opinion of it. Not even slightly qualified. I worked with extremely complex computer programs for 20 years. I know a lot about software. In some ways, I know more than programmers trained nowadays, since I had to deal with hardware limitations, assembly language and so on. I also have a degree in language and linguistics, so I know a lot about translation, text processing and so on. I read Chomsky, and I studied with professors who thought Chomsky is a fool. I have translated papers and books. I can read and understand some of the complicated papers published by Google about their machine translation. I can probably understand those papers better than 99% of the reading public. HOWEVER, I would not -- in a million years -- show up at a conference and claim that I know better than the experts at Google. I am a knowledgeable amateur in that field. Since you have worked with complex systems, you are entitled to an opinion. No doubt you are better at evaluating climatology claims than 99% of the reading public. But that still does not mean you are anything more than a gifted amateur. You really have no business claiming you know better the experts, or asserting that the research is a train wreck. At best, you can say you have some doubts. Why not? After all, many aspects of the research are doubtful. There are many open questions. You are probably well qualified to discuss them. Many aspects of machine translation are doubtful or unresolved. If you want to know how and why they are doubtful you could do worse than to ask me. I probably know better than most science journalists. But that does not begin to make me an expert! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
The experts say that a temp rise of more than two degrees will be really bad. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Dec 4, 2012 2:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It does not take a bible fanatic to question the global warming train wreck. Some of us have worked with complex systems before and realize just how difficult it is to separate out the various important parameters. Unless you have worked with this particular complex system, day in and day out, for many years, you are not qualified to render a valid professional opinion of it. Not even slightly qualified. I worked with extremely complex computer programs for 20 years. I know a lot about software. In some ways, I know more than programmers trained nowadays, since I had to deal with hardware limitations, assembly language and so on. I also have a degree in language and linguistics, so I know a lot about translation, text processing and so on. I read Chomsky, and I studied with professors who thought Chomsky is a fool. I have translated papers and books. I can read and understand some of the complicated papers published by Google about their machine translation. I can probably understand those papers better than 99% of the reading public. HOWEVER, I would not -- in a million years -- show up at a conference and claim that I know better than the experts at Google. I am a knowledgeable amateur in that field. Since you have worked with complex systems, you are entitled to an opinion. No doubt you are better at evaluating climatology claims than 99% of the reading public. But that still does not mean you are anything more than a gifted amateur. You really have no business claiming you know better the experts, or asserting that the research is a train wreck. At best, you can say you have some doubts. Why not? After all, many aspects of the research are doubtful. There are many open questions. You are probably well qualified to discuss them. Many aspects of machine translation are doubtful or unresolved. If you want to know how and why they are doubtful you could do worse than to ask me. I probably know better than most science journalists. But that does not begin to make me an expert! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
ONE CAN ONLY HOPE. That is, one can only hope that money and profit is the only goal these AGW mongerers have. But sadly, these people, run our government, control every aspect of our lives and they already have all the money they know what to do with. Remember, these people control the Federal Reserve and they can print out profits anytime they want. And they also control every other Central Bank in every country of the world. One country tried to oppose their plans of Centralized monetary control, just for the African continent; and look at what happened to him. No, one thing people must understand that this debate is more than just about AGW or climate change. This is about promoting an occultic worship of the environment to help ease the coming about of an occultic worshipping world government. These Illuminati satan worshippers want occultic beliefs to prevade every aspect of our lives so that we will be desentisized when their real identity and agenda is reveal. The more occultic activities people are into, the easier their subjugation will be. Why is donkeykong destroying our economy and replacing it with communism? It is because they want to destroy every remnant of opposition by American Christians to their plans. American Christians are the most educated and sensitive to their plans and they need this group of people brought to their knees with economic hardship. Soften the enemy with large scale artillery bombardment - so to speak. Yes, Jed, the debate about AGW is a debate about an occultic religion. Man has to be blamed for harming the environment to create guilt to cause them to more readily accept this occultic paradigm of environmental worship. Truth is, there is no significant global warming caused by man. Jojo - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: 'vortex-l@eskimo.com' Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 3:53 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell I sincerely hope that our civilization is prepared for a possible Carrington event - that could dwarf any global warming effects. Another point, not often admitted is the possible influence of the TBTJ banks - which largely control governments. They want to profit from running carbon tax/permit exchanges. JP Morgan already profits from running food stamp programs for the US government. It is reported that Lloyd Blankfein now has Secret Service protection against 'aggressive' questioners/reporters. When the Occupy movement was in the headlines, Big Banks gave spontaneous donations to NYC police causes to keep protesting riffraff away from their private mansions.
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
At 10:02 PM 12/3/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: I do not know enough about climatology to place any bets, but based on what I know about cold fusion and many other difficult areas of science and technology, if I have to bet, I'll stick with the people who do this for a living and who have been looking at the data every day for decades. Basically, I'm with Jed on this. However, it's worth looking closer at this expert thing, and at what have been called cascades. Here is an article about a cascade that continues to have major effects: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html?pagewanted=all_r=0 Remarkably, this is an example where Gary Taubes has *exposed* the cascade. Taubes was involved, in the 1990s, in solidifying the cold fusion cascade. Because Taubes is actually interested in real science (besides his career), I see it as possible that he might take another look. It would be a great opportunity for him if he did Be that as it may, on Wikipedia, the cabal that was so oppressive wrt cold fusion first came into conflict with me on ... global warming. William M. Connolley, the administrator who first banned me from cold fusion, was actually a climate scientist. I had noticed this group of people sitting on the global warming article. One incident that I remember was when I attempted to insert, in the article, the definitions used by the IPCC in describing its *degree of certainty* as to anthropogenic global warming. Basically, the IPCC reports were very carefully crafted, and they were essentially conservative. But the terms they used were easily misunderstood by the lay reader, so I believed that the text should define terms like probably, or likely. The cabal absolutely didn't want to allow that. It would be confusing, and too much detail. Right. They wanted to convey an impression, their own point of view, which was that global warming was a severe emergency. I actually happened to agree with them, at least as to possibilities. It might be an emergency. But we need science and we need sober examination, and what happens with cascades is that a group consensus forms without a solid basis in science. They are social phenomena. The article I cited above from John Tierney gives a good explanation of how cascades can form. It's important to understand that a cascade forming doesn't mean that the group is wrong. They might be right. It means, though, that the position taken isn't necessarily scientifically established. Opposing cascades can form. That is there can be a pro-AGW cascade and a cascade that dismisses the whole thing as nonsense. Once people buy into a cascade, their opinions can be very difficult to dislodge with mere facts. After all, we already know the truth. And so every new fact is fitted into place in that picture, with whatever made-up explanations are necessary for this. There is a review on cold fusion in a major mainstream multidisciplinary journal? There must be something wrong with this, since we already know that cold fusion is totally bogus, wasn't that shown conclusively twenty years ago? So we look, and, indeed, we find stuff to bring up: 1. Nothing new has been discovered in the last ten years. Or at least it looks like that, at first glance. (We can easily dismiss new stuff like Rossi, since his claims have not been verified.) 2. Naturwissenschaften is a biology journal. (Actually, it's multidisciplinary, but most articles involve the life sciences in some way.) 3. Edmund Storms, the review author, is on the editorial board of Naturwissenschaften. (Yes, he is, and the pseudoskeptics somehow never notice that this fact, in itself, indicates that cold fusion has turned the corner. He did not review and approve his own paper. It was solicited by the managing editor, and who else would write that paper? Some physicists who has no clue about the field?) 4. He mentions biological transmutation. Obviously, he's a wing nut. (If cold fusion is real, it would not be surprising if there are examples where proteins can set up the catalytic conditions. That work (Vysotskii) has not been confirmed, but replication *should* be attempted.) 5. The review hasn't been cited. (It's a review, and what it reveals is actually old news, the evidence was in place a decade ago. This review would likely only be cited in an attempt to contradict it, and it appears that, while it's likely attempts have been made, counter-reviews have not been accepted at any mainstream journal.) That's how cascades persist. Through rationalizations. With the dietary fat cascade, for years, contrary research had great difficulty getting published, it was claimed that it would be dangerous, people might draw premature conclusions from it and ... die! Then, as research showed that a low-carb, high fat diet (Atkins) actually produced lower cardiac risk factors than recommended low-fat diets, it was said that these diets
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
At 07:25 AM 12/4/2012, Robert McKay wrote: On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:02:33 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: I will grant that in some cases, experts are blinded by their own professional knowledge and by the bias of the field as a whole. That is why many physicists do not believe in cold fusion. But the key That's pretty much exactly the problem with climatologists- they only believe in global warming (sorry climate change) because that's what they do.. as you say the field as a whole is biased. This might be true for some, but it's an error as applied to the whole field. Someone who studies climate may be involved in that regardless of any prior opinion about global warming. Climates do change, and the issue is how and why. IMO you don't need to know anything about climate science to understand global warming - it's all about politics and banking (imagine a global economy underpinned by financial products where the only underlaying deliverable is itself an intangible book keeping entry). The powers that be have decided that co2 trading is the way forward and are determined to ram it down everyone's throats. It doesn't matter if it's a pack of lies or not, they're already too invested in the idea to do anything else at this point. The explanation is making an assumption. It's all about politics. Certainly politics has become involved. But if human activity and increased CO2 release into the atmosphere is changing climate, that has nothing to do with politics, per se. It's a physical effect, if it's real. It's plausible that it would cause change, and it's also plausible that these changes could cause substantial disruption. So, my view, it's important to find out the reality of this, and our attachment to one side or the other, based on politics, simply confuses the issue. The climate doesn't care about our politics. It will not warm because every climatologist thinks it will, and it will not cool because every libertarian or contrarian thinks climate change is bogus. It's correct that you don't need to know anything about climate science itself to understand some of the political forces, but we *do* need to understand climate science to understand how serious the problem is, and to understand if expensive measures should be taken. Some economic forces will very understandably try to make a profit from environmental measures. That is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether these measures are necessary or advisable or not. Generally, the interest of this list is science. At this point, the majority scientific opinion seems to be that AGW is real and dangerous. I'm fully aware that majority scientific opinion can be defective -- cold fusion demonstrates that, as did the fat/cholesterol hypothesis. If, however, one looks closely at these issues, one can find what Jed proposed. Those who actually were doing the research, and whose opinions were based on that research, who were following the scientific method, were generally correct, and those who didn't follow the scientific method were fooling themselves. Cargo cult science. Keep your eyes open. Don't fool yourself.
RE: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
It is sad indeed to realize that politics and entrenched financial interests dominate science - or what passes for it- but the notion that global warming denial is just triggered by oil companies and the like is naïve. There are powerful interests on the other side - and, in addition, because of regulatory perversions, even oil companies can come to embrace global warming as a deceptive means to beat down competitors or draw benefits from the public trough. Don't laugh. Tobacco companies have done a very good job of this sort of shenanigans.
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Axil, this thermal Inertia argument is untenable and does not fit the facts. In order for your thermal Inertia argument to be correct, you need to show steady temperatures over the years as the extra heat is supposedly being absorbed by the ocean waters. Fact is, global temperatures were increasing for serveral years starting in the 70s up to approx 2000, then temps remained steady. Thermal Inertia can not explain why this is happenning. But, instead of acknowledging that there may be something seriously and fatally wrong with their models, these supposed experts continue with the charade and claim the settled science argument and continue pushing the lie of AGW. And we have lackeys in this forum arguing that these experts must be right because they spend their days and nights studying this subject and they undertstand it more fully and more correctly even though their explanation does not fit the observed facts. And it has never occured to this lackey that these supposed experts might be LYING. What sort of logical fallacy argument is this? Yea ... our experimental data do not fit our models but we are still right because we have PhDs and we've been studying this problem for decades. This is the argument Jed wants you to swallow. Does this sound like the scientific method to anyone in this forum? Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 3:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell The primary reasons why the climate is not heating up faster than it has been include oceanic thermal inertia and industrial negative aerosol forcing. There is a lot of water in the ocean and there still is loads of ice spread around the world that can cool that water. In the case of oceanic thermal inertia, the good news is that because the oceans are so large, and take so much time to absorb the thermal energy, we are warming more slowly than would otherwise occur. The bad news is that the oceans not only take up heat slowly, the also dissipate heat slowly. So even if we are able to reduce the greenhouse gases in the earth atmosphere to reasonable levels (closer to 300ppm CO2) the thermal inertia of the oceans will still take quite some time to respond and cooling down the earth will take considerable time. On the bright side, We still have some time to get LENR and zero point energy(ZPE) extraction developed and deployed to replace fossil fuel burning before all the ice is gone. Cheers:Axil On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 9:07 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Jed, I have been following the subject fairly closely. I'm not about to start yet another discussion on AGW. I've written hundreds of posts on that already. That the IPCC forecast has been falsified for the average of the models and most of the individual models you can read about on Lucia's blog at http://rankexploits.com/musings/ I'm not at all sure that global temperature is even a very meaningful number when you think about it. I lean towards what Prof. Syun-Ichi Akasofu writes here: http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf At least his forecast is a lot closer than IPCC's.
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Jed, I do not pretend to be an expert on global warming. I do have quite a bit of experience in solving difficult problems and in modeling unusual behaviors. You seem to be a guy that likes to think through issues that are of importance as well. Perhaps you might want to consider the complexity of the global warming models for a moment. Do you honestly believe that the software guys have included all of the variables that influence the future climate in their models? If you answer yes, then you are going to be in for a major surprise in the near future. All you need to do is to realize that there are several different models that are consulted as these scientists predict the future. Why several? If each one is suspect, then one would expect that the average prediction is also suspect. And if you takes a peek at the Earth's past climate, it is apparent that forces are at work that are far more influential and complex than the relatively simple carbon dioxide driver. Now I have read, but not confirmed that the current models do a poor job of predicting backwards. This does not surprise me at all since I can generate a relatively simple multivariable curve fit from existing data that does a marvelous job of matching the source data during the source period. You tend to disregard the 16 year heating pause, dismissing it offhand because it is not possible according to your beliefs. What of the cooling period between 1940 and upwards until just before the recent critical rise that is so discussed? Do you recall talk of a new Ice Age that was thought to be beginning during the 60's? May I ask you one simple question if you are planning to respond to this post. Do you honestly believe that the current climate models accurately take into account all of the important variables and their interactions that predict future climate? You answer to this one question might open your eyes to the possibilities which you have thus far avoided. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Dec 4, 2012 2:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It does not take a bible fanatic to question the global warming train wreck. Some of us have worked with complex systems before and realize just how difficult it is to separate out the various important parameters. Unless you have worked with this particular complex system, day in and day out, for many years, you are not qualified to render a valid professional opinion of it. Not even slightly qualified. I worked with extremely complex computer programs for 20 years. I know a lot about software. In some ways, I know more than programmers trained nowadays, since I had to deal with hardware limitations, assembly language and so on. I also have a degree in language and linguistics, so I know a lot about translation, text processing and so on. I read Chomsky, and I studied with professors who thought Chomsky is a fool. I have translated papers and books. I can read and understand some of the complicated papers published by Google about their machine translation. I can probably understand those papers better than 99% of the reading public. HOWEVER, I would not -- in a million years -- show up at a conference and claim that I know better than the experts at Google. I am a knowledgeable amateur in that field. Since you have worked with complex systems, you are entitled to an opinion. No doubt you are better at evaluating climatology claims than 99% of the reading public. But that still does not mean you are anything more than a gifted amateur. You really have no business claiming you know better the experts, or asserting that the research is a train wreck. At best, you can say you have some doubts. Why not? After all, many aspects of the research are doubtful. There are many open questions. You are probably well qualified to discuss them. Many aspects of machine translation are doubtful or unresolved. If you want to know how and why they are doubtful you could do worse than to ask me. I probably know better than most science journalists. But that does not begin to make me an expert! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
At 09:36 AM 12/4/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: People in a given field are sometimes biased against new ideas proposed by outsiders. That is not because they are mistaken about their own ideas. Their own ideas are valid, but the outsider's ideas are an improvement. They oppose the ideas because -- again as I said -- they know nothing about them. Yes. That happens. The cascade on cold fusion was facilitated by the claim that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect was quickly associated with fusion. I still read material, recently written, that appears to assume that Pons and Fleischmann claimed fusion, i.e., claimed the impossible. And then, of course, their claims were not reproduced. Yes, Jed, I know this drives you batty. After all, 153 Frenchmen can't be wrong. Or something like that. However, Pons and Fleischmann originally claimed substantial neutron radiation. They knew that this radiation was far below what their heat would indicate, had the reaction been d-d fusion. But even that low level was artifact. In reality, in hindsight, the FPHE generates somewhere between little to no neutron radiation. If there is anything, it's probably a secondary effect. (And that's exactly what SPAWAR claims.) *That* was never replicated, the opposite. And the heat was not a nuclear effect, in itself. By the time that the nuclear ash was identified, the cascade had fully formed and physicists were not paying attention. And why, indeed, should they pay attention? This was not a physics experiment. It was chemistry. The experts, with few exceptions, were chemists. One of the real tragedies of 1989-1990 was that chemists failed to defend their own. Nuclear be damned! These cells were generating heat, and chemistry wasn't adequate to explain it, apparently, and contrary theories -- i.e., that there was some mistake -- were *never* confirmed. And once helium was known to be generated commensurate with the heat, scientifically it was all over. The correlation showed that the measurements were not artifact, and the value of the correlation established that, very likely, the reaction was indeed some kind of fusion, mechanism unknown. So why didn't the chemists stand up for their colleagues? My view has become that it was not -- and is not -- the job of the chemists to explain the FPHE, other than through describing the chemical conditions. It was -- and remains -- the job of physicists, particularly experts in quantum field theory. And, it turns out, such people often had positive opinions about the possibility of cold fusion, going way back. They knew that the approximations of quantum mechanics used to rule out d-d fusion were just that, approximations, and they knew that we didn't know enough about the solid state to rule out unknown nuclear reactions, which is what Pons and Fleischmann actually claimed. Had the chemists stood up to be counted, well, the American Chemical Society is the largest scientific society in the world. The American Physical Society, because of the large big-science projects, had the political connections, and strong economic motives, but it was the silence of the chemists that allowed the physicists to be so effective in suppressing funding. The historians of science have begun to examine the history of cold fusion, and I expect to see much more in the future. This really was, as Huizenga called it, the Scientific Fiasco of the Century, and he didn't know the half of it. I think the scientific method ensures that when a large group of people study physical phenomena for a long time, most of their data will be good, and their conclusions correct. If that were not true, the scientific method would fail. Our textbooks and technology would be far less reliable than they actually are. A large group of scientists, some recruited by the DoE for the ERAB panel report, and some funded by the DoE, did study the phenomenon of cold fusion, but with utterly inadequate preparation and under time constraints that made their negative results inevitable. The DoE wasted a lot of money in this way, and they got nothing conclusive out of it. The research itself was useful. It established part of the parameter space for cold fusion. Basically, if you do what they did, you don't see the effect. That's important to know! The problem, though, was in the conclusions drawn from that research. Somehow, because these were reputable research groups, their negative results were presumed to negate positive results from others, which is preposterous. A failed replication is simply a failed replication; only if conditions could be *exactly controlled* could one even begin to assume that a failed replication is contrary evidence to positive reports. Once the basic FPHE had been confirmed by one or two groups, the search for cause or artifact should have become intense. Instead, the scientific community largely turned away. [...] Frankly, that's
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I'm fully aware that majority scientific opinion can be defective -- cold fusion demonstrates that, as did the fat/cholesterol hypothesis. If, however, one looks closely at these issues, one can find what Jed proposed. Those who actually were doing the research, and whose opinions were based on that research, who were following the scientific method, were generally correct, and those who didn't follow the scientific method were fooling themselves. Bingo. My point exactly. The scientific method works quite well. It does catch errors. It weeds out mistakes. You should not bet against it without a compelling reason. As Damon Runyon said (quoting the Bible): The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet. Science is an institution done by fallible human beings, so there is always a chance of a mistake. However, the bigger the mistake and the more people involved, the less likely it is to occur. This is true of most institutions, especially hard-science and engineering based ones. Take navigation on the Inland Sea in Japan: Minor shipwrecks and accidents occur every day. The other day ferryboat ran aground in my home away from home in Oshima, Yamaguchi Japan. The captain went on the wrong side of a channel marker. He was on temporary assignment and had not sailed this route. That happened even though ferryboats have been passing that spot four times a day for 100 years. Okay, mistakes happen. While it is too surprising that a captain made a small mistake, it would be astounding if he whacked into a rock and sank the ship, like the captain of the Costa Concordia did in the Mediterranean. That is a once-in-500-years event, given today's navigation technology. There are other large institutions in which unanticipated or catastrophic outcomes occur frequently. Examples include Wall Street and war. In these cases this happens because some people profit from catastrophe. In war, for example, the best way to win is to find a new strategy that causes your enemy to make a catastrophic mistake. Both sides strive to do that, by deception and various other methods. It has been pointed out that a deliberate catastrophic miscalculation in climate science might be inserted into journals because some people would profit from it, by trading CO2 futures or what-have-you. They would profit if we mistakenly spend billions of dollars trying to reduce CO2. That may be the case, but it is a dicey way to steal money. It is not likely to work; the Congress probably will not act, and the illicit profit will never come. You could spend years trying to pull that off, getting nowhere. If I were dishonest and in a position to pull strings, I would find an easier way to swindle the public, such as Medicare fraud. I would not try to do it with a bogus climate change scenario. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
In regard to the power of the international banks and their scofflaw privileges, the extreme nature of the situation is kept out of the mainstream press. It would be too frightening for most people to know just how sociopathic and immune to the law they are. Take the case of Andrew McGuire - who made the mistake of trying to expose silver trading manipulation by JP Morgan. Not only was his evidence ignored, but shortly thereafter his car was violently plowed into by another vehicle. Though reportedly caught later, the authorities did nothing. (Google his name) Or the case of the father and son who ran a website that attempted to expose who owns and controls the Federal Reserve. Their bodies were found amid the ashes of their home. They both had been shot thru the head, execution-style ( reported on the Divine Cosmos site). Or the blatant scofflaw activity of major banks, who transferred countless homes in the subprime scandal, completely ignoring any and all local and state laws across the US in regard to registering and legally transmitting mortgages. If you have ever bought a home in the US, you might wonder how large banks could simply ignore a long tradition of legal precedent that You had to go thru. The mainstream media doesn't even acknowledge the issue. Is this enough? I have more. Global warming is a legitimate concern but the hype comes from powerful people with vested interests.
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You seem to be a guy that likes to think through issues that are of importance as well. Perhaps you might want to consider the complexity of the global warming models for a moment. Do you honestly believe that the software guys have included all of the variables that influence the future climate in their models? With such a complex system, I doubt it is possible to include all the variables, even in principle. You cannot be sure you have discovered them all. You can only model the recent past and see if your computer correctly predicts things such as the weather yesterday, or climate change over the last 30 years. It can only be an approximation. That is how natural science works. All you need to do is to realize that there are several different models that are consulted as these scientists predict the future. Why several? If each one is suspect, then one would expect that the average prediction is also suspect. I would not say that. I do not know the details in this case. In biology, medicine and other natural sciences there are often different levels at which you can model something. You can look at evolution from the point of view of natural selection, which is a meta-phenomenon. Or you can go down several levels and look at it from the point of view of the gene. Different models are fruitful for different purposes. I do not know anything about this particular situation, but I doubt that the fact that there are four models is a problem for experts in the field. If it was a problem they would probably have winnowed out the three least accurate ones. If experts in the field are arguing about this issue, and trying to push three models out, then I guess there is a problem. Do they say this is an issue? Even mistaken and oversimplified models are sometimes used because they are convenient. And if you takes a peek at the Earth's past climate, it is apparent that forces are at work that are far more influential and complex than the relatively simple carbon dioxide driver. I expect this would take a great deal more than a peak to establish. Certainly I myself am not qualified to make this determination. You tend to disregard the 16 year heating pause, dismissing it offhand because it is not possible according to your beliefs. No, I dismiss it for the reasons explained by the UK MET office, and for the reasons Mel Miles was pissed off when then the NHE pulled that same stunt on him. See the the book How to Lie with Statistics for details. May I ask you one simple question if you are planning to respond to this post. Do you honestly believe that the current climate models accurately take into account all of the important variables and their interactions that predict future climate? I'm sure I made it clear that I am not qualified to judge this issue. However I am sure that current climate models are fantastically better than they were 30 years ago, because they predict the weather so well. As I said, being able to predict the weather is quite different from predicting long-term climate change, but both are grounded in deep knowledge of the atmosphere and physics. It seems unlikely to me that you can make superb short-term predictions about a system if your overall model and knowledge of the system is as defective as the climate change skeptics assert. Okay, that is just a guess, but it beats speculating about four models you don't know in detail, and you don't work with on a day-to-day basis. I think it is likely that the climatologists have good reasons for keeping four models around, and you do not know enough about the subject to judge their reasons. Programmers keep many different programming languages around, and many different methods of doing systems analysis. Carpenters show up for work with six different kinds of saws and some strange looking hammers and mallets. We have our reasons. Amateurs should not assume they know why experts do what they do, and what all those tools in the toolbox are for. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Or the illegal forceful election and reelection of an illegitimate and unqualified person as president. These people have threatened everyone who dares question their illegitimate puppet. But, like I said, the election and reelection of this donkey is part of God's judgement on America as he destroys every American institution until we are all slaves to commies and godless moon god worshippers. Jojo - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: 'vortex-l@eskimo.com' Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 5:53 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell In regard to the power of the international banks and their scofflaw privileges, the extreme nature of the situation is kept out of the mainstream press. It would be too frightening for most people to know just how sociopathic and immune to the law they are. Take the case of Andrew McGuire - who made the mistake of trying to expose silver trading manipulation by JP Morgan. Not only was his evidence ignored, but shortly thereafter his car was violently plowed into by another vehicle. Though reportedly caught later, the authorities did nothing. (Google his name) Or the case of the father and son who ran a website that attempted to expose who owns and controls the Federal Reserve. Their bodies were found amid the ashes of their home. They both had been shot thru the head, execution-style ( reported on the Divine Cosmos site). Or the blatant scofflaw activity of major banks, who transferred countless homes in the subprime scandal, completely ignoring any and all local and state laws across the US in regard to registering and legally transmitting mortgages. If you have ever bought a home in the US, you might wonder how large banks could simply ignore a long tradition of legal precedent that You had to go thru. The mainstream media doesn't even acknowledge the issue. Is this enough? I have more. Global warming is a legitimate concern but the hype comes from powerful people with vested interests.
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Zell, Chris chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** In regard to the power of the international banks and their scofflaw privileges, the extreme nature of the situation is kept out of the mainstream press. . . . Take the case of Andrew McGuire - who made the mistake of trying to expose silver trading manipulation by JP Morgan. Not only was his evidence ignored, but shortly thereafter his car was violently plowed into by another vehicle. . . . Is this enough? I have more. Global warming is a legitimate concern but the hype comes from powerful people with vested interests. It is not enough. You would have to show that hundreds of professional climatologists are being threatened or harassed by these vested interests the way McGuire was. Is that happening? Or, I suppose, you would have to show they are being bribed. I have not met them, but my guess is that they drive 20-year-old Toyotas. They probable have not been photographed with money in their mouths: http://duanegraham.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/romney-bain-capital-money-shot.jpg So if there is no harassment and no money shots . . . these researchers are doing nothing unusual. No ominous undertones or conspiracies. They are publishing papers because they believe in their data and their models. They are doing what any scientists do. It happens their conclusion have grave implications for the planet and the economy. They can't help that. Have the climatologists complained about being harassed or threatened? I have not heard that. They complained forcefully about the accusations that they were fudging the data in the UK. They are not reticent to complain about their critics. I guess they would not hesitate to report harassment or people crashing into their cars. Cold fusion researchers complain about harassment all the time. Just about every one of them has experienced this and they are never reticent to tell me about it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Jed, you're too much. Enough balonium already. First, you make two assumptions: 1. That Climatologists are NOT being threatened or harassed 2. That they are NOT being bribed, that they are driving 20 year old Toyotas and that they have not been photographed with money in their mouths. My question to you is: How do you know any of these? When you haven't met any one of them. OH OK I get it, you have not heard of this happenning to any of them so it must not be happenning. OK, I have some land in Florida that I would like to sell to you. Perfect vacation spot. LOL Then, after you've made your fallacious assumptions above, you then proceed to assume that they are true and argue that because these are not happenning, then they must be telling the truth. OK Whatever. Is anybody, other than our resident expert who studied under Feynman, buying this logic? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 6:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell Zell, Chris chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: In regard to the power of the international banks and their scofflaw privileges, the extreme nature of the situation is kept out of the mainstream press. . . . Take the case of Andrew McGuire - who made the mistake of trying to expose silver trading manipulation by JP Morgan. Not only was his evidence ignored, but shortly thereafter his car was violently plowed into by another vehicle. . . . Is this enough? I have more. Global warming is a legitimate concern but the hype comes from powerful people with vested interests. It is not enough. You would have to show that hundreds of professional climatologists are being threatened or harassed by these vested interests the way McGuire was. Is that happening? Or, I suppose, you would have to show they are being bribed. I have not met them, but my guess is that they drive 20-year-old Toyotas. They probable have not been photographed with money in their mouths: http://duanegraham.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/romney-bain-capital-money-shot.jpg So if there is no harassment and no money shots . . . these researchers are doing nothing unusual. No ominous undertones or conspiracies. They are publishing papers because they believe in their data and their models. They are doing what any scientists do. It happens their conclusion have grave implications for the planet and the economy. They can't help that. Have the climatologists complained about being harassed or threatened? I have not heard that. They complained forcefully about the accusations that they were fudging the data in the UK. They are not reticent to complain about their critics. I guess they would not hesitate to report harassment or people crashing into their cars. Cold fusion researchers complain about harassment all the time. Just about every one of them has experienced this and they are never reticent to tell me about it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: It should be obvious that there is politics involved in climate science. There is just too much money and urgency involved. This means also corruption, because science is not clear and it is very difficult and everyone wants to see what the wish most. Absolutely true! It is a political minefield. No doubt people on both sides of the dispute sometimes distort and play politics. I did not mean to suggest the researchers are all pure-heart scientists, and opponents all ignorant people or oil company shills. I expect there are smart honest people on both sides. I can only judge by looking at externalities, particularly the fact that the majority of working scientists within the field agree. Since I know so little about it, I must depend upon their professional expertise. This is weak argument compared to a direct technical argument, but I am not capable of making such a argument. But let us be realistic. We depend upon experts for 99.99% of our knowledge of the world. We assume they are right about nearly everything. We bet our lives on experts every time we fly in an airplane or undergo surgery. Or take a ferry boat in the Inland Sea. We can do this with confidence because most of the time they are right. Regarding that ferry boat, I meant to say it is *not* surprising that once in a while one captain makes a mistake. On the other hand, if next Tuesday every single ferry boat captain in the Inland Sea runs aground, that would be very surprising. The likelihood of that is effectively zero. The likelihood that ever single climate scientist is wrong, and every single cold fusion researcher is wrong, is also so close to zero I wouldn't worry about it. Here is an article about the ferry mishap, which involved a bunch of high school students. They were freaked out, according to my friends in Oshima (or Suo-oshima as it is listed here): http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/News/Tn201211150043.html - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Jed I think it is safe to assume in most cases that the climatologists are intelligent, hard working individuals. They are dedicated to doing the best job they can with the tools and knowledge at their disposal and it would be difficult to find a better group. I personally do not want anyone to think that I consider these guys to be low caliber. My problem is with the political-science mixture that is like water and oil. They should remain separate and that is what the collective we should insist upon. They do their best work when their hands are not tied by forces that attempt to use them as pawns. The current environment appears to have exactly that effect upon them where any serious climate change skepticism is met with career termination. This situation does not seem to be confined to climate science alone and we are all too aware of at least one other example. From what I understand the competing climate models are of different construct. They are each attempting to model the future climate, but all fall short. This should be a red flag to anyone who has modeled complicated systems since it implies that the model is known to be imperfect. There is no rule that implies that imperfection of model versus real life is necessary and I can point out one just for example. Suppose that Y is a function of X with the relationship of Y=k1*X*X + k2*X + K3. If you give me three exact pairs of points that fit the equation I can determine the values of k's. With this information I will be able to calculate the exact Y values associated with any and all X's. This includes the set of values of X that extend far outside of the original X values used to derive the k's. There is no need for additional equations since this one is perfectly accurate and in fact any other combination of k's would generate the wrong Y's. If a climate model were an accurate representation of the Earth's climate, only one would be needed and in fact, only one would work over a very wide range. It is simply a fact that the current models are not capable of performing in this manner. The interactions are too complex and the exterior forces are unknown. I think the butterfly effect does a fairly good job of describing the situation. I do not blame the climatologists for this problem but instead blame the Earth, Sun, Cosmic Rays and a great multitude of strange interactions. Even the best efforts fall far short of achieving the goal these poor guys have been given. You speak of experts as the ones with all the answers. That is pretty naive when you consider that even the most knowledgeable expert was not aware of the recent discoveries that have taken place in their line of knowledge until they were uncovered. How could these supermen know the relationships that exist ahead of time? This is a common issue that mars the concept of expert. If I recall, the first guys that conceived of continental drift were considered ignorant by the expert geologists. Of course, most of the experts were sure that the Wright brothers were lying about powered heavier than air flight. Remember the Japanese guy that figured out how to make cells that behave like stem cells out of skin cells? All of the experts told him it was totally impossible until he did it. It was not long ago when the experts stated that we only used, if I recall, about 5% of our brains. Why was the entire concept of relativity not understood and accepted by the experts of long ago since it is now well established? This list could go on just about forever but I think you should get the point by now. All of the experts of the past are just learning the new concepts of today. None of them have all of the answers and if you want to win many bets, just bet that they are wrong about the accepted theories of the present. I am quite confident that the same is true for the climatologists. Tomorrow they will modify their models just like they will do so indefinitely into the future as they adjust the variables so that the latest measurements match their predictions. This is as it should be. Hopefully we can trust the current model results to be accurate for the next 10 years, but all bets are off if you want to know about how the climate will be in 100 years. It is too bad we will not be around at the end of this century to laugh at the enormous difference between the currently predicted and actual environment. I am not an expert in climatology and do not claim to have the answers. It is the current experts that you admire that are lacking in future knowledge. Ask them about how confident that they are in their predictions and then insist that they use one of their models from 20 years ago to compare against the present conditions. How honest is it to allow them to use one that was corrected this year for proof of their model's accuracy? Dave
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Every single climate scientist is wrong. Every single cold fusion scientist is wrong. These statements are based upon the concept that new knowledge will become available that modifies their understanding in the future. Many of them are right as far as we know at the moment, but it would be extremely unusual if the understanding of physics is not changed in a major way in the future. This is the very nature of discovery. If you made the same statement 100 years ago, it would have been as true then as it is now Jed. They were all wrong then and they are all wrong now. Everyone thought these experts knew everything at the time just as you think now. Actually it is a good thing that scientific knowledge is advancing at the current rate, otherwise we would be stuck in the present. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Dec 4, 2012 6:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: It should be obvious that there is politics involved in climate science. There is just too much money and urgency involved. This means also corruption, because science is not clear and it is very difficult and everyone wants to see what the wish most. Absolutely true! It is a political minefield. No doubt people on both sides of the dispute sometimes distort and play politics. I did not mean to suggest the researchers are all pure-heart scientists, and opponents all ignorant people or oil company shills. I expect there are smart honest people on both sides. I can only judge by looking at externalities, particularly the fact that the majority of working scientists within the field agree. Since I know so little about it, I must depend upon their professional expertise. This is weak argument compared to a direct technical argument, but I am not capable of making such a argument. But let us be realistic. We depend upon experts for 99.99% of our knowledge of the world. We assume they are right about nearly everything. We bet our lives on experts every time we fly in an airplane or undergo surgery. Or take a ferry boat in the Inland Sea. We can do this with confidence because most of the time they are right. Regarding that ferry boat, I meant to say it is not surprising that once in a while one captain makes a mistake. On the other hand, if next Tuesday every single ferry boat captain in the Inland Sea runs aground, that would be very surprising. The likelihood of that is effectively zero. The likelihood that ever single climate scientist is wrong, and every single cold fusion researcher is wrong, is also so close to zero I wouldn't worry about it. Here is an article about the ferry mishap, which involved a bunch of high school students. They were freaked out, according to my friends in Oshima (or Suo-oshima as it is listed here): http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/News/Tn201211150043.html - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
At 11:48 AM 12/4/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote: Oh, damn! I talk about a possible correlation between bible fanatics and AGW denial and guess who appears 1 minute later! HA! Daniel, did you really need to quote him? I've got the fellow in a kill file (i.e, filter) so I don't read his mail normally. I still see it sometimes on my iPhone if I check the mail there before running the filter in my desktop mail program. But here you reposted his entire post. I'd rather not filter *your* mail! 2012/12/4 Jojo Jaro mailto:jth...@hotmail.comjth...@hotmail.com [deleted]
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
I'm sorry. This is rather annoying anyway since I'd have to keep a list of the enmities. 2012/12/4 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com At 11:48 AM 12/4/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote: Oh, damn! I talk about a possible correlation between bible fanatics and AGW denial and guess who appears 1 minute later! HA! Daniel, did you really need to quote him? I've got the fellow in a kill file (i.e, filter) so I don't read his mail normally. I still see it sometimes on my iPhone if I check the mail there before running the filter in my desktop mail program. But here you reposted his entire post. I'd rather not filter *your* mail! 2012/12/4 Jojo Jaro mailto:jth...@hotmail.comjt**h...@hotmail.comjth...@hotmail.com [deleted] -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
I think it is more practical to just ban Jojo. 2012/12/5 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com I'm sorry. This is rather annoying anyway since I'd have to keep a list of the enmities. 2012/12/4 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com At 11:48 AM 12/4/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote: Oh, damn! I talk about a possible correlation between bible fanatics and AGW denial and guess who appears 1 minute later! HA! Daniel, did you really need to quote him? I've got the fellow in a kill file (i.e, filter) so I don't read his mail normally. I still see it sometimes on my iPhone if I check the mail there before running the filter in my desktop mail program. But here you reposted his entire post. I'd rather not filter *your* mail! 2012/12/4 Jojo Jaro mailto:jth...@hotmail.comjt**h...@hotmail.comjth...@hotmail.com [deleted] -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
At 02:36 PM 12/4/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Of course, what is required to be an expert is often a matter of great debate. . . . That last point is true, but not so much for hard science. There is a world of difference between someone who has done the work it takes to get a PhD versus an amateur. I have met some very stupid PhD scientists such as Nate Hoffman and David Lindley. They make elementary logical errors. However, their technical knowledge is miles above mine. I would never challenge their judgement regarding their expertise (mass spectroscopy in Hoffman's case). In my review of Hoffman's book, I criticized him because he thought Ontario Hydro sells used moderator water in bottles. I suspected this was wrong, and quickly confirmed this water is 100 million times too radioactive to sell. I criticized him because he lacked common sense and over the two years he was writing the book, he did not bother to do what any newspaper reporter would do in the first half-hour: call Ontario Hydro on the phone. That's stupid, but it has nothing to do with spectroscopy. It is not technical stupidity. It is ordinary, garden variety stupidity. An expert outside his field is likely to be as prone to making errors is anyone else is. Jed, your general argument is very true, but with Hoffman, you are stuck in an old error of yours. You did not understand what Hoffman was doing in that book, so you concluded error. In fact, he agreed with your position on the used moderator water. The guy died some years back. I seriously recommend you simply give it up, or even better, recognize the error you fell into. This is about chapter 3 in his book, Radon and Natural Radioactivity Artifacts. He is exploring, using his device of a dialogue between an Old Metallurgist (who may generally be assumed to represent Hoffman's views) and a Young Scientist, who is very firm in his views that cold fusion is impossible. The OM is dismantling this, but he does so with the reserve and caution of a scientist, giving full expression to prosaic hypotheses before ... skewering them. There are many brilliant exchanges in the book. For example, on page 32, we have: YS: I can see that this field is no place for electrochemists to play amateur physicist. OM: Later on, I'll explain why this field of research is no place for physicists to play amateur electrochemist Anyway, OM is covering possibilities for radioactive contamination of cold fusion experiments. This entire debate is a red herring, in hindsight, because cold fusion produces *little* in the way of radiation, at least the kinds being considered. But the issue was very much alive when Hoffman was writing his book. Anyway, he writes this: OM: ... There are strong indications that commercially sold heavy water may contain variable contents of used moderator water from either CANDU-type nuclear reactors or Savannah River-type weapons production reactors. This is his offensive sentence, right, Jed?. It does not show that he thinks that Ontario Hydro sells used moderator water in bottles. He explains why one might suspect some mixing in some commercial sources, but he does not propose -- at all -- that straight moderator water would be sold, by anyone, and for the very obvious reason. He does have a reason for the suspicion, he gives it, but it really doesn't matter now. (It's what he reports as enormous variation in the tritium/deuterium ratio in different batches of heavy water. Because he doesn't really believe that heavy water contamination is an issue, he doesn't even justify this statement.) In fact, he's not seriously proposing that *any* such moderator water is *actually* being sold, even diluted as he does describe as a possibility. He is considering such contaminated heavy water as a theoretically possible source of artifact, as only a slight possibility, and he certainly doesn't point a finger at Ontario Hydro. He is, in a sense, raising a straw man argument. In the end, this is what he says: YS: Don't all these possible sources of artifact neutrons convince you that the measurements are due to artifacts and not to any anomalous nuclear effect? OM: No, because the neutrons come on with changes in experimental conditions. And these changes are conditions that vary with the chemical environment or electronic state, not the environment within the nucleus of the deuterium atom. YS: But how can you be sure that the change in chemical or electronic state isn't just altering how the radioactive impurities create artifact neutrons? OM: Now you have gotten to the heart of the matter. The scientists in this field must do clever experiments to eliminate that possibility. They go underground. They do many blanks where all is kept constant except the variable of interest. They analyze chemically all the solutions or gases used for chemical content in the parts-per-billion range and all the
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
How did this thread get so long so quickly? I'm impressed. :) After all of that, did anyone's views on the topic change? :) Eric
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20543483 Ice melt has finally been properly measured. The results show that the largest ice sheet - that of East Antarctica - has gained mass over the study period of 1992-2011 as increased snowfall added to its volume. However, Greenland, West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula were all found to be losing mass - and on a scale that more than compensates for East Antarctica's gain. The study's headline conclusion is that the polar ice sheets have overall contributed 11.1mm to sea level rise but with a give or take uncertainty of 3.8mm - meaning the contribution could be as little as 7.3mm or as much as 14.9mm. Another author, Dr Hamish Pritchard of the British Antarctic Survey, said: The next big challenge - now that we've got quite a good understanding of what's happened over the last 20 years - is to predict what will happen over the next century. And that is going to be a tough challenge with difficult processes going on in inside the glaciers and ice sheets. Cheers:Axil On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: How did this thread get so long so quickly? I'm impressed. :) After all of that, did anyone's views on the topic change? :) Eric
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
What a piece of work you are. Your mother must have really screwed you up raising you. First, you initiate the insult and then call for a banning when those you insulted respond IN KIND. I guess I'm fortunate you don't own this list. Tell me exactly, what list rule have I violated deserving to be banned like you advocate; other than the fact that you do not like the truth of what I speak of. Are you still dwelling on the moon god worshippers comment I made. So, you want me banned for telling the truth that allah is a moon god of some arab tribe of muhammed? Are you also going to ban me for saying muhammed had dozens of wives? Hey, instead of just banning me, why don't you just issue a fatwah against me to have me killed, since I insulted both allah and muhammed? Yes, I've insulted both of them by telling the truth about each of them. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell I think it is more practical to just ban Jojo. 2012/12/5 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com I'm sorry. This is rather annoying anyway since I'd have to keep a list of the enmities. 2012/12/4 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com At 11:48 AM 12/4/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote: Oh, damn! I talk about a possible correlation between bible fanatics and AGW denial and guess who appears 1 minute later! HA! Daniel, did you really need to quote him? I've got the fellow in a kill file (i.e, filter) so I don't read his mail normally. I still see it sometimes on my iPhone if I check the mail there before running the filter in my desktop mail program. But here you reposted his entire post. I'd rather not filter *your* mail! 2012/12/4 Jojo Jaro mailto:jth...@hotmail.comjth...@hotmail.com [deleted] -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Jojo, please moderate your wording and do not insult any member of this rather old community. Wording has to be raised above the kindergarten level, please try! Please understand this is a New Energies forum, any other adjacent, related or remote subject can be discussed only friendly in a civilized manner by people who e-know each other. . *Differences in opinion attract only smart and good people and repel all the others *I will not judge if you are smart or not, you are here a CV-less individual with no known merits, but it is obvious that you are far from being good, despite your much advertised spirituality- you have disturbing sadistic traits typical for trolls. Peter. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** What a piece of work you are. Your mother must have really screwed you up raising you. First, you initiate the insult and then call for a banning when those you insulted respond IN KIND. I guess I'm fortunate you don't own this list. Tell me exactly, what list rule have I violated deserving to be banned like you advocate; other than the fact that you do not like the truth of what I speak of. Are you still dwelling on the moon god worshippers comment I made. So, you want me banned for telling the truth that allah is a moon god of some arab tribe of muhammed? Are you also going to ban me for saying muhammed had dozens of wives? Hey, instead of just banning me, why don't you just issue a fatwah against me to have me killed, since I insulted both allah and muhammed? Yes, I've insulted both of them by telling the truth about each of them. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com *To:* John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2012 10:02 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell I think it is more practical to just ban Jojo. 2012/12/5 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com I'm sorry. This is rather annoying anyway since I'd have to keep a list of the enmities. 2012/12/4 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com At 11:48 AM 12/4/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote: Oh, damn! I talk about a possible correlation between bible fanatics and AGW denial and guess who appears 1 minute later! HA! Daniel, did you really need to quote him? I've got the fellow in a kill file (i.e, filter) so I don't read his mail normally. I still see it sometimes on my iPhone if I check the mail there before running the filter in my desktop mail program. But here you reposted his entire post. I'd rather not filter *your* mail! 2012/12/4 Jojo Jaro mailto:jth...@hotmail.comjt**h...@hotmail.comjth...@hotmail.com [deleted] -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
Jed, I have been following the subject fairly closely. I'm not about to start yet another discussion on AGW. I've written hundreds of posts on that already. That the IPCC forecast has been falsified for the average of the models and most of the individual models you can read about on Lucia's blog at http://rankexploits.com/musings/ I'm not at all sure that global temperature is even a very meaningful number when you think about it. I lean towards what Prof. Syun-Ichi Akasofu writes here: http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf At least his forecast is a lot closer than IPCC's.
Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: I have been following the subject fairly closely. I'm not about to start yet another discussion on AGW. I've written hundreds of posts on that already. That the IPCC forecast has been falsified for the average of the models and most of the individual models you can read about on Lucia's blog at http://rankexploits.com/**musings/ http://rankexploits.com/musings/ Yeah, well, unless you happen to have a PdD in climatology or weather, or you have published a whole series of papers comparable to a PhD thesis, I am not inclined to pay much attention to your views. Sorry. Following closely is not like getting a PhD in a subject. One of the most important lessons of cold fusion is that experts who devote their lives to a subject are usually right, and people from outside the field who kibbitz are wrong. In the case of cold fusion, that includes nitwit amateur outsiders at Wikipedia, and plasma fusion physicists at MIT. The physicists and editors at Sci. Am. who attack cold fusion know nothing about the subject. They suffer from the illusion that they know something. They are unaware of their own ignorance. Here is a good example of someone who does not know what he does not know. In 1945, Adm. William Leahy famously told President Truman that the atomic bomb: . . . is the biggest fool thing we have ever done...The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives. He may well have been an expert in conventional explosives, but he did not know much about fission. By 1945, most nuclear physicists in the world understood that a bomb was possible in principle. Japanese nuclear physicists had been cut off from U.S. and European journals for years, but when the bomb was dropped, they were not surprised. I will grant that in some cases, experts are blinded by their own professional knowledge and by the bias of the field as a whole. That is why many physicists do not believe in cold fusion. But the key thing is -- and this is terribly important! -- those people are *not actually experts*. They only imagine themselves to be. They are making a Fallacious Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. This is also called Misuse of Authority or Questionable authority error. In this case, these people themselves are the questionable authorities, just as Leahy was. See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html I have spent weeks of my life with people like Martin Fleischmann and Robert Duncan listening to them talk about the ins and outs of electrochemistry and calorimetry. I admit I can barely keep up sometimes, but it is clear to me that these people know MUCH more about these subjects than every member of the peanut gallery tied together. Seriously, it is like comparing professional athletes at the peak of their performance to couch potatoes. It is like comparing a master violinist to some kid who has a few weeks of lessons. I do not know enough about climatology to place any bets, but based on what I know about cold fusion and many other difficult areas of science and technology, if I have to bet, I'll stick with the people who do this for a living and who have been looking at the data every day for decades. - Jed