Sunday, June 26, 2011
Inerrency and authority discussions.
Rev. 22:18-19 DOES NOT refer to books of the bible apart from the book of Revelations. To suggest it does, does violence to the principles of hermeneutics that we use to interpret the rest of the entire scripture. However, that said, the... word of God (all scripture) is no less THE inspired word of God, it is simply wrong to make those verses say anything beyond the book as John originally wrote the Book of R. This is crucial, because if the fact the NT was written in Koine greek, was written that way so EVERYONE could understand it. I am reminded of a translator's challenge translating into a Peruvian dialect. There was no word for paper or book in the entire language. The natives however, when the minister opened the bible and disclosed God to them, called the book: the skin of God. So the term "skin of God" is still used to this day to translate book or page. This is the dilemma of the translator, and I would not be quick to pick up stones on this one.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Terrorism by the Numbers.
Because I have been accused of preaching hatred with sloppy statistics, here are statistics directly from Chicago University. There may be a more accurate source in the world but I don't know it.
http://cpost.uchicago.edu/
Some people have had trouble with the direct link.
Choose Suicide Attack Data Base.
Some people have had trouble with the direct link.
Choose Suicide Attack Data Base.
I used these data base filters.
Data base filters: 2008,9; all weapon types except airline bombings, all locations, no filter on group name.
I think the rationale for these choices is rather obvious .
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
A Vital CO2 Discussion on Facebook:
Chilian Volcano Has Belched more Carbon Dioxide Than all Humans Have in Last two Decades. | Hypocris
hypocrisy.comThere ought to be a law against volcanic pollution. Did this frighteningly political documentary mention volcanoes? A volcano in southern Chili is
Dustin LacosseInconvenient perhaps, truth however? The comments on that post are ridiculous. This Richard bloke comes off as a complete fool that can't cite any references other than a documentary (Seriously, he just says, "Google it"... my god), then go...es on to simply quote his detractors asking for honest citation of his sources a stupid Confucius quote (Basically calling them fools), and he doesn't even take the time to exert proper spelling and grammar in his responses. To a scientific crowd that's quite the smack in the face.
I really, really, dislike that post. Regardless of my beliefs, I cannot take a guy who answers his comments like that seriously. No respect.
gbeauregard, on the other hand, gets a +1.See More
about an hour ago ·
Owen AbreyDustin, I don't know the volume of C02 that volcano has spewed. I certainly have no way of proving the veracity of the statement, most of the people who could don't want to. Here is a letter from an old friend of mine from Hi-school. He ...has a grad degree in Meteorology. He works for Environment Canada. I know him personally. I have to leave his name confidential because this is so politicized there could well be witch-hunts: http://paradoxicalx3.blogspot.com/2011/06/grad-scientist-speaks.html And here is Rex Murphy's recent article:See More
about an hour ago ·
Owen Abrey **http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/Inviting+into+henhouse/4968242/story.html**
about an hour ago ·
Owen Abrey The column of ash is 18 cubic miles in volume or 40.96 cu kilometres. This translates into 22,960,000 cubic metres of CO2 in suspension in the column at any one time. I am not certain of the velocity of the ejectile so I can't calculate rate at this time. **http://paradoxicalx3.blogspot.com/** has the basic calculation according to current scientific measurment of the gasses.
15 minutes ago ·
O.j. AbreyI dislike seeing people using anti-AGW arguments as justification to continue environmentally unsafe practices such as offshore drilling. Really reflects badly on scientific arguments that should be given more credibility. Sounds to me like... "HAH! CO2 emissions don't matter, so we can pollute as much as we want!" Commentators like that are one of the reasons, when you mention you're not entirely convinced about the validity of anthropogenic global warming, most people accuse you of being in the pockets of the oil companies.
CO2 emissions aside, we've seen multiple occasions where oil drilling has had severe environmental effects. And regardless of whether or not we're causing global warming via carbon emissions, I believe we should be focusing more on developing cleaner, more sustainable energy sources; in that, I agree with the AGW crowd.See More
9 minutes ago ·
Owen Abrey It is a profound error to mix up the topic of a debate. This debate was not about off-shore drilling. It was about the comparable contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere. The moment you go there, you have ducked the question and conceded defeat. There is no shame in being wrong...
4 minutes ago ·
Owen Abrey Oj, the issue regarding CO2, is its relative significance. We have been fed alarm bells and called upon to pay hundreds of billions of dollars based on a false and corrupt stream of dogma. Read my recent articles in my blog for detail.
about a minute ago ·
Owen Abrey Now, if we were to have a different debate, there is a vast common ground between me and environmentalists when it comes to global pollution. It is far more dire than CO2 production.
Chilean Gas Volumes
The volcanic cloud volume is 1.6 km x 3.14926 x 16 km =
Volume x 5.6% CO2**= 2.296 cubic kilometres of CO2
converted into cubic metres = 22,960,000 The volume of CO2 suspended in the column at any one time.
**As per:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CFcQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchpublications.qmul.ac.uk%2Fpublications%2Fstaff%2F25573.html&rct=j&q=Chilean%20Volcano%20gas%20volume&ei=FAcBTo3mFMzSiAK6o_WnCA&usg=AFQjCNGPzfSZ7VeAvYl2AxgM1gaFe0nn7A&cad=rja
Volume x 5.6% CO2**= 2.296 cubic kilometres of CO2
converted into cubic metres = 22,960,000 The volume of CO2 suspended in the column at any one time.
**As per:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CFcQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchpublications.qmul.ac.uk%2Fpublications%2Fstaff%2F25573.html&rct=j&q=Chilean%20Volcano%20gas%20volume&ei=FAcBTo3mFMzSiAK6o_WnCA&usg=AFQjCNGPzfSZ7VeAvYl2AxgM1gaFe0nn7A&cad=rja
ON Book Burnings
Book burning is an attempt as squashing a competing ideology you cannot refute.
That said, how many copies of Saloman Rushdie's "Satanc Verses" can you find? What happened to them? Quietly disposed of in a politically correct way. Silent shipments to incinerators from the warehouses of book companies... Much more out of sight and there for certainly out of mind...
That said, how many copies of Saloman Rushdie's "Satanc Verses" can you find? What happened to them? Quietly disposed of in a politically correct way. Silent shipments to incinerators from the warehouses of book companies... Much more out of sight and there for certainly out of mind...
A New RCMP Commissioner?
We need a new Sam Steele: Who was never appropriately recognized for the profound legacy he invested in Canada. Respected by 1st Nations people, concerned for justice and fairness, there raises the question whether we would have the RCMP today with out him.
Please find us one of those!
Please find us one of those!
Rex Murphy on Climate Change:
Inviting the fox into the henhouse
Rex Murphy, National Post · Jun. 18, 2011 | Last Updated: Jun. 18, 2011 4:07 AM ETOne of the disturbing practices revealed by the great cache of emails out of the University of East Anglia -the so-called Climategate emails -was the attempted shortcutting or corruption of the oh-so precious peer-review process. The emails contained clear declarations of how the grand viziers of climate science would lean on journals and reporters to make sure certain critics did not get the validation, the laying on of peer-reviewed hands, so critical to full participation in the great climate debate. This was most succinctly expressed by the beautiful quote from Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia that, "We will keep them out somehow -even if we have to redefine what peer-review literature is."
Much of what the world bizarrely allows to be called climate "science" is a closetgame, an in-group referring to and reinforcing its own members. The insiders keep out those seen as interlopers and critics, vilify dissenters and labour to maintain a proprietary hold on the entire vast subject. It has been described very precisely as a "climate-assessment oligarchy." Less examined, or certainly less known to the general public, is how this in-group loops around itself. How the outside advocates buttress the inside scientists, and even -this is particularly noxious -how the outside advocates, the non-scientists, themselves become inside authorities.
It's the perfect propaganda circle. Advocates find themselves in government offices, or on panels appointed by politicians disposed towards the hyper-alarmism of global warming. On the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) boards and panels, like seeks out like. And when the IPCC issues one of its state-of-the-global-warming-world reports, legions of environmentalists, and their maddeningly sympathetic and uninquisitive friends in most of the press, shout out the latest dire warnings as if they were coming from the very mouth of Disinterested Science itself.
An early and particularly graphic illustration of this vicious circle came when the IPCC 2007 report warned that most the great Himalayan glaciers would melt by the year 2035. Not only was the claim of a massive melt the very height of ignorant nonsense -the sun would have to drop on the Earth to provoke a melt of this proportion -it was also plucked from a seven-year-old publication of the ever busy World Wildlife Federation (WWF). As the Times of London put it, the claim itself was "inherently ludicrous" culled from a "campaigning report" rather than "an academic paper," was not "subject of any scientific review" and despite all these shortcomings became "a key source for the IPCC ... [for] the section on the Himalayas."
A scare report, seven years old, from the an environmental advocacy group, became the key document for a major report released under the authority of the IPCC, the world's best and brightest global warming minds. Sir Isaac Newton would be so proud.
Now we have an even more telling illustration of this same sad, vicious circle. It was first reported on by Steven McIntyre on his blog, Climate Audit (and was run on the FP Comment page of Friday's National Post). McIntyre revealed that the IPCC used a Greenpeace campaigner to write a key part of its report on renewable energy and to make the astonishing claim that "close to 80% of the world's energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies." He further revealed that the claim arose from a "joint publication of Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC)." And it turns out that while working for the IPCC, the Greenpeace campaigner approvingly cited a Greenpeace report that he himself was the lead author of. He peer-reviewed himself.
A report on renewables, by the Renewable Energy Council of Europe, and Greenpeace, peer-reviewd by the man who wrote it. All they need add is a citation from the Suzuki Foundation and an endorsement from Elizabeth May and "the science will be settled" forever.
This is not just letting the fox into the hen house. This is giving him the keys, passing him the barbeque sauce and pointing his way to the broiler. Or, as McIntyre put it in plainer terms: "A lead author of the IPCC report, and of the hyped 80% scenario, is Sven Teske of Greenpeace International, whose official contribution is essentially based on a Greenpeace report cooked up with Europe's renewable energy industry."
Kind people may put this down to pure sloppiness on the part of the IPCC. Coming after its disastrous handling of the Himalayan glacier melt, however, it looks to me more like deliberate mischief. The IPCC cannot be that stupid by chance. Why these stories, and others of comparable magnitude, have not worked their way into the consciousness of the world's politicians despite such clear demonstrations of the IPCC's ramshackle processes is a mystery. But thanks to Steve McIntyre and others of nearequal courage, standing firm against the rage and mockery of the alarmist warming establishment, at least some of the IPCC's dubious and chillingly erroneous practices are revealed.
- Rex Murphy offers commentary weekly on CBC TV's The National, and is host of CBC Radio's Cross Country Checkup.
Much of what the world bizarrely allows to be called climate "science" is a closetgame, an in-group referring to and reinforcing its own members. The insiders keep out those seen as interlopers and critics, vilify dissenters and labour to maintain a proprietary hold on the entire vast subject. It has been described very precisely as a "climate-assessment oligarchy." Less examined, or certainly less known to the general public, is how this in-group loops around itself. How the outside advocates buttress the inside scientists, and even -this is particularly noxious -how the outside advocates, the non-scientists, themselves become inside authorities.
It's the perfect propaganda circle. Advocates find themselves in government offices, or on panels appointed by politicians disposed towards the hyper-alarmism of global warming. On the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) boards and panels, like seeks out like. And when the IPCC issues one of its state-of-the-global-warming-world reports, legions of environmentalists, and their maddeningly sympathetic and uninquisitive friends in most of the press, shout out the latest dire warnings as if they were coming from the very mouth of Disinterested Science itself.
An early and particularly graphic illustration of this vicious circle came when the IPCC 2007 report warned that most the great Himalayan glaciers would melt by the year 2035. Not only was the claim of a massive melt the very height of ignorant nonsense -the sun would have to drop on the Earth to provoke a melt of this proportion -it was also plucked from a seven-year-old publication of the ever busy World Wildlife Federation (WWF). As the Times of London put it, the claim itself was "inherently ludicrous" culled from a "campaigning report" rather than "an academic paper," was not "subject of any scientific review" and despite all these shortcomings became "a key source for the IPCC ... [for] the section on the Himalayas."
A scare report, seven years old, from the an environmental advocacy group, became the key document for a major report released under the authority of the IPCC, the world's best and brightest global warming minds. Sir Isaac Newton would be so proud.
Now we have an even more telling illustration of this same sad, vicious circle. It was first reported on by Steven McIntyre on his blog, Climate Audit (and was run on the FP Comment page of Friday's National Post). McIntyre revealed that the IPCC used a Greenpeace campaigner to write a key part of its report on renewable energy and to make the astonishing claim that "close to 80% of the world's energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies." He further revealed that the claim arose from a "joint publication of Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC)." And it turns out that while working for the IPCC, the Greenpeace campaigner approvingly cited a Greenpeace report that he himself was the lead author of. He peer-reviewed himself.
A report on renewables, by the Renewable Energy Council of Europe, and Greenpeace, peer-reviewd by the man who wrote it. All they need add is a citation from the Suzuki Foundation and an endorsement from Elizabeth May and "the science will be settled" forever.
This is not just letting the fox into the hen house. This is giving him the keys, passing him the barbeque sauce and pointing his way to the broiler. Or, as McIntyre put it in plainer terms: "A lead author of the IPCC report, and of the hyped 80% scenario, is Sven Teske of Greenpeace International, whose official contribution is essentially based on a Greenpeace report cooked up with Europe's renewable energy industry."
Kind people may put this down to pure sloppiness on the part of the IPCC. Coming after its disastrous handling of the Himalayan glacier melt, however, it looks to me more like deliberate mischief. The IPCC cannot be that stupid by chance. Why these stories, and others of comparable magnitude, have not worked their way into the consciousness of the world's politicians despite such clear demonstrations of the IPCC's ramshackle processes is a mystery. But thanks to Steve McIntyre and others of nearequal courage, standing firm against the rage and mockery of the alarmist warming establishment, at least some of the IPCC's dubious and chillingly erroneous practices are revealed.
- Rex Murphy offers commentary weekly on CBC TV's The National, and is host of CBC Radio's Cross Country Checkup.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Fascits comebacks
Oh Puuleese! Not the Fascist label again. That has to be the attribution of last resort to the loser of any debate--underscoring the profound his ignorance.
The mechanics of the Senate
Anyone who thinks of the Senate as a non-partisan place has been sleeping at the switch or knows nothing of Canadian history. From a pragmatic point of view the senate has existed to restrain the next political parties agenda. So if you can create a majority for your party, and lose the next election, true power is held off until the next election, which you better win, or the same will happen to you.
This is exactly what happened over the course of the last 8 years. Even thought the Conservatives were in the government and had the power to appoint, it took them until this spring to capture the majority in the senate.
All senates are partisan. Look any where it the world and you will see that it is true. Our senate could be bi-partisan, or even multi-partisan, if there was any good will at all built up. But there wasn't. For 6 years bills could be passed in the house but stalled by the Liberals in the Senate. And it was. What ever senate reform might look like, we probably won't really see it for another 3 years--after a significant amount of conservative law/bills are passed. If Harper is given a 2nd majority mandate, and he was still appointing senators, he might install an NDP person like Jack Layton for a Liberal seat vacated.
This is exactly what happened over the course of the last 8 years. Even thought the Conservatives were in the government and had the power to appoint, it took them until this spring to capture the majority in the senate.
All senates are partisan. Look any where it the world and you will see that it is true. Our senate could be bi-partisan, or even multi-partisan, if there was any good will at all built up. But there wasn't. For 6 years bills could be passed in the house but stalled by the Liberals in the Senate. And it was. What ever senate reform might look like, we probably won't really see it for another 3 years--after a significant amount of conservative law/bills are passed. If Harper is given a 2nd majority mandate, and he was still appointing senators, he might install an NDP person like Jack Layton for a Liberal seat vacated.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Creationism that fits.
- Well, for 25 years I have been considering the idea I first read by Charles Hummel who wrote "The Galileo Connection". I think it plausible because it fits both scientific and biblical world views. It begins by posing a question, what if the creation of man as we know him, in the image of God, was indeed the pinnacle of creation that also included pre-anthropomorphic forms. Maybe 10,000 years ago. It is interesting that I have read something by anthropologist who say something significant happened to the Human brain 7-10,000 years ago.
38 minutes agoOwen Abrey- Such newly created creatures, humans as we know them, were different from any other pre-anthro forms especially because they were spiritual beings in the flesh. Could such people be called the "son's of God" for this reason? I have done intense work in the Hebrew, and studied the archaeological perspectives of ancient near-eastern texts. The term "sons of God" was employed by Chaldean and Babylonian 1 texts. We can tell that often a king may be called the "son of god".
- 30 minutes agoOwen Abrey
- The Genesis 1 passage of the days of creation, from a hermeneutical perspective is Hebrew Poetry. There is no doubt. Other cultures refer to a creation similar, but also using days as a structure for the poetic forms. Days, 1+4, 2+5, 3+6 are obvious parallelisms. I am convinced by what we learned in hermeneutics together, Christians have misread the text because if failed to recognize the genre in which it was written. If you will recall, it was genre that gave Stronstad his perspective on Acts. Narrative. If you don't get that, you see know problem keeping Acts as a history instead of Luke II.
- 7 day creationists misread Gen 1. In a way they conveniently forget that Genesis was always a collection of texts. It is the fact that Genesis was compiled this way that makes interpreting it so difficult.
- 21 minutes agoOwen Abrey
- If you recall, we learned in hermeneutics is to interpret the text literally when it was meant to be taken literally; and interpret it figuratively when it was meant to be taken figuratively. In 1987, I took an archaeology course from Regent--especially because it was a lecture series given by DJ Wiseman. Who was the general editor for that 3 volume set The Encyclopedia of Biblical Archaeology. We also studied him in Hermeneutics and Stronstad's Arch course--if you took it in.
- 13 minutes agoOwen Abrey
- I say all this because it was Wiseman's lectures that detailed among other things, the Genealogies of the OT. There was only a passing reference that the Sons of God could refer to people of OT faith. There is a later passage that said to whom the word of God comes, they are the sons of God. He used that as an OT example of employing the term. It has some interesting implications on many passages where the term is employed.
- You see why I avoided replying? Any shorter a position would be too easy to dismiss without a 2nd thought.
- So what does that do? It makes a huge reconciliation with science. It untangles the text from the modernist approach that treats it not as was meant to be understood, but tries a form of revisionism that rewrites it as some sort of scientific work.
- Therefore, it fits for me to accept old earth creationism as a theory where theology and science *might* over lap without each trying to become an authority in the other's domain. Science stays talking about science--but backs off trying be some sort of theological interpreter.
- And visa versa.
- 3 minutes agoOwen Abrey
- Adam and Eve were created among other forms--say even Neanderthals, their sons married them, the forms changed over time to be anthropic as we know ourselves to be today. They were called the "sons of God". They would be brilliant with 140 plus IQs amidst a population of "men" who's iq's were closer to 50 or 60. They would easily be seen as giants, men of renown who built cities... easily be devolved into polytheistic deities. These, people the off-spring of Adam would carry a lineage now dilute, but was exceptional in their day.
- a few seconds agoOwen Abrey
- OT genealogies have been accepted by serious OT theologians to possibly refer to dynasties. If you had an hour or two I could relay that line of thinking... but I have typed enough. I refuse to go along with theological constructs that break all the rules of hermeneutics thinking themselves to be justified in doing so. Remember Dr. Lim's discussion of Isogesis vs Exegesis?
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Vancouver in the shadows of the 2011 riots.
Is there a city in the world more urbane? More humanistic? More Liberal? More on the cutting edge of moral relativism? With explicit goals to socially engineer a society like this, I lay it at the feet of the BCTF, and the morass that spawned it.
How many of these kids were in diapers when their parents were there in 1994? How many of them actually had a real good spanking? Hpw many of their parents? Nature or Nurture, is there any other choice?
How many of these kids were in diapers when their parents were there in 1994? How many of them actually had a real good spanking? Hpw many of their parents? Nature or Nurture, is there any other choice?
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
A Grad Scientist speaks:
A grad-level Meteorologist speaks. He is a professional scientist with Environment Canada:
- Owen,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8578014/New-Little-Ice-Age-in-store.html
I've assembled a "brief" reading list for you, consisting of two parts,
A. Climate science, AGW.
B. Physics, cosmology, philosophy of science.
Nils
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Climate science
i. Cosmic rays and clouds - the real agents of climate change?
http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf
- fascinating science that has been ignored, for the most part, I think, because it has the potential to substantially alter the priorities of the climate change issue.
ii. A short(?) rant on climate modelling
Recall the conflict of ~120 years ago between old-earth geologists and the 'establishment' physicists, 'led' by Lord Kelvin. The mechanism of nuclear fusion was not known, and physicists tried to explain a young age of 20M yr for the sun using known physics. Their weakness was a lack of full understanding of the relevant mechanism(s). The geologists had facts - i.e. the rock record - on their side. Fortunately the physicists were honest enough to admit their shortcomings after the discovery of radioactivity.
Today, one major weakness of the climate modelers is Cloud Physics. Clouds cover scales from microns to many kilometers. Clouds are undeniably a HUGE feedback mechanism in climate, but that mechanism has been eclipsed by the relatively MINOR effect of the so-called greenhouse gas CO2.
Current and atmospheric models do not precisely model the formation of clouds. They assume that if the air is sufficiently humid and the air motions are so-and-so, there will be clouds and/or precipitation. This works reasonably well for short-range weather forecasts (<5 days). But the small systematic errors will over longer time scales, lead to large errors in, among other things, the energy budget.
It is possible to 'tune' the model so that it appears to simulate the 'known' climate. But how well is the state of atmosphere known? Are the observations reliable? And even if we objectively assimilate and analyze reliable weather observations, can we be certain that we haven't introduced some bias or error into the analyses? After all , the analysis model is essentially the climate model. How modellers have tuned their models may and does depend on their own biases. You can get the "right" answer for one problem using the wrong method, but is it correct for other problems?
Knowing what I know from my education in science, and after years of working with atmospheric models, my view is this:
Climate has been changing at all scales - global, regional, local - since the beginning of the earth. To insist that the most recent observed changes are solely the result of modern western civilization's activities is simplistic and just plain wrong.
Regardless of what the models may indicate, and what the climate is doing now, insisting that CO2 reduction measures are the solution - or even that we must do something to 'stop' climate change at all - is about as rational as throwing sacrificial virgins into a volcano to stop it from erupting.
Unfortunately for us all, the AGW proposition has become a racket-state-religion. Either you are a "believer" or a heretic, to be ridiculed and condemned. Everyone is subject to the tithe (taxes used to subsidize unprofitable "green" energies). Those who 'sin' too much can purchase indulgences (carbon credits). Companies can either get on board and try to soak up some of that green subsidy, money, or relocate...
iii. "The Deniers"
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/pages/the-deniers.aspx
B. Physics, cosmology, philosophy of science
There are some writings by Frank J. Tipler that I have read and found thought-provoking. See his entry at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler.
An intriguing professor of mathematical physics, he is criticized for his "unorthodox" conclusions. His writing style can be brusk and dismissive. He himself admits that many of his peers have dismissed him as a crank, although he claims they can't actually prove that he is wrong.
From what I can tell, Tipler's most vehement opponents - those who actually make the effort to 'logically' criticize his work - are usually working from their own 'faith-premises', e.g. infidels.org.
Occasionally he points out some of his own errors that he made in previous work, none of which, however, seem to demolish his basic conclusions. At the very least, it is entertaining reading for anyone interested and capable of following his arguments.
Articles
i. Tipler, F.J. (2003). "Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?" :
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf
- Einstein probably wouldn't have been able to publish his early classic articles if he'd had to go through peer review.
- Interestingly, Tipler refers to the issue of Intelligent Design versus evolutionary biology orthodoxy, but his points apply also to the AGW question.
ii. Tipler, F.J. (2008). "The Obama-Tribe 'Curvature of Constitutional Space' Paper is Crackpot Physics". Social Science Research Network.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1271310
- the above web address gives the abstract and links to a pdf of the full article.
- This article has many sections that touch on a number of topics. For example a section on logic that I found extremely interesting, which criticizes the philosophers David Hume, Karl Popper.
- Tipler writes that to follow his argument in this article requires no more than "high school" math and physics. Either he's out of touch with high-school curricula, or I guess RDPC was deficient; in order to really follow his math, I was luckily able to resort to my rather rusty 4th year mathphys from Univ of Alberta.
iii. Tipler, F.J. (2003). "Intelligent life in cosmology". International Journal of Astrobiology, 2:141-148.
http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/intelligentlife.pdf
- refers extensively to his early work.... especially books (a) and (b) below.
- brings up intriguing questions on the origins and "goals" of life.
iv. Books I've read (a,c) or started reading(b). Can be bought cheaply at www.abebooks.com
a) Barrow, J.D. and Tipler, F.J. (1986). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford Univ. Press.
b) Tipler, F.J. (1994). The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead. Doubleday.
c) Tipler, F.J. (2007). The Physics of Christianity. Doubleday
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Foreign Policies
Americans see this in the context of their own revolution. Nato sees this in the context of Kosovo, Rwanda, Tienanmen square & Iraqi genocides. The direction of the Arab spring is a concern. If these societies move to freedom and democracy, these democracies want to support it. If this turns out to be another Islamic revolution that has come as a wolf in sheep's clothing, it could potentially create many Afghanistans. Who would want that?
Monday, June 13, 2011
Owen Abrey Don't you donate to the NDP? If you gave 1k last year, then we paid 750 to you via tax credit. So you aren't actually paying for my donation, you are paying for yours. In my austere career, we had our 4th child while earning 270.00 per week. I know poverty first hand. I know that in Canada we are wealthy enough to afford to be a card-carrying member of a political party. If we value something enough, we will scrape the dollars together to buy it, even if it means you will never need the tax credit
- Owen AbreyOwen Abrey Don't you donate to the NDP? If you gave 1k last year, then we paid 750 to you via tax credit. So you aren't actually paying for my donation, you are paying for yours. In my austere career, we had our 4th child while earning 270....00 per week. I know poverty first hand. I know that in Canada we are wealthy enough to afford to be a card-carrying member of a political party. If we value something enough, we will scrape the dollars together to buy it, even if it means you will never need the tax creditSee More2 hours ago ·
Michael. Ryan Perhaps this should go another step. In middle Europe, I have seen advertising places for political parties during campaigns. You put all of your literature in the designated spot .... and that is it. However, I am not sure how you control the party-in-power from producing self-serving advertising campaigns telling you how well they have done with your money. Sigh.about an hour ago ·- Owen AbreyI hear you Michael, it is very hard not to become cynical. So much about politics is spin, deflection, and the avoidance of truth. I am not sure what the alternative really can be. I can't see that abandoning freedom of speech to put it ...all in one place on one wall helps democracy. Surely certain parties attract wealthier individuals. But 16 million people who ready to put their money where there mouth is behind a political party, will not be daunted by fancy advertising. People convinced that a certain direction is right for a country will not be swayed by opposition. Surely this is the political lesson that was learned from the Reform-Alliance movement. Love or hate their politics, it was a tectonic shift in a country run by Red Tories and Liberals since Diefenbaker. The ideology, the belief system comes first, the money follows after. When a belief becomes bankrupt, its not long before that is reflected by their bottom line. People vote with their dollars. They spend them on their deeply held values, not intellectual acrobatics. It in itself is a kind of democracy. One that costs more than an x on a page.See More4 minutes ago ·
- Owen Abrey The $2.00 subsidy was the life line for the bloc. And let me tell you I would rather have Jack representing the people of Quebec than them. If by some extraordinary circumstance the bloc falls, never to rise again because the Canadian tax payer is not providing them the hind teat, it is time to celebrate this sort of democracy over the other.
350 + propane kit for sale
My wife has been mad at me for a few years. It was an ugly old girl I had since 87. I loved my Jimmy. She has refused to drive it for 15 years, but I thought I needed a hunting vehicle. I gave her mechanical parts lots of love, but the body just fell apart. My wife has hated the lawn ornament who's plates were only renewed for hunting season, and carefully kept off-highway.
I payed 3k to have the Engine rebuilt 5k miles ago. It is especially modified to run on propane, so there is no power loss if you want to run propane. I will include a propane heat exchanger, (add new tanks). For a no-quibble 1850.00 A propane kit now goes for about 3k tanks included. Tanks are usually less than 500.00 depending on the type and size.
In addition, a year after rebuilding my motor, I had my 205 new process tranny and transfer case rebuilt. The tranny was fine, but I was showing the old girl lots of love, thinking I would restore her one day. It was built at EK transmission and cost me 2500.00.
Then I have a pair of especially sweet 4-11 difs for sale, (matched) Ready to go for some serious off-roading. New hubs. Give me a call, and we can negotiate a reasonable price.
I can't tell you how hard it was to part the old girl out. Maybe the grass will come back where she was parked the last 2 years...
Email me and we can set up a call... my answering machine is gross.
I payed 3k to have the Engine rebuilt 5k miles ago. It is especially modified to run on propane, so there is no power loss if you want to run propane. I will include a propane heat exchanger, (add new tanks). For a no-quibble 1850.00 A propane kit now goes for about 3k tanks included. Tanks are usually less than 500.00 depending on the type and size.
In addition, a year after rebuilding my motor, I had my 205 new process tranny and transfer case rebuilt. The tranny was fine, but I was showing the old girl lots of love, thinking I would restore her one day. It was built at EK transmission and cost me 2500.00.
Then I have a pair of especially sweet 4-11 difs for sale, (matched) Ready to go for some serious off-roading. New hubs. Give me a call, and we can negotiate a reasonable price.
I can't tell you how hard it was to part the old girl out. Maybe the grass will come back where she was parked the last 2 years...
Email me and we can set up a call... my answering machine is gross.
Morality and Law
So should thievery, and murder laws be extinguished as well? The laws that forbid those are based on morals. If one studies how our legal system arose, arising after the black plague in about 1360, the intent was to structure law that was in sync with fundamental morality.
Certainly times have changed. But it is foolish to contend that morality is some sort of problem that needs to be abandoned. To expect to have a society, that has no morals--not to degenerate, is simply foolishness.
Certainly times have changed. But it is foolish to contend that morality is some sort of problem that needs to be abandoned. To expect to have a society, that has no morals--not to degenerate, is simply foolishness.
Opinion on Prostitution and Drug Addiction.
We want to keep this simple: Kill the laws that forbid prostitution. If all of society were a machine, eliminating one gear, or lever *may make the machine run better. But humans are very complex, so our society faces complex problems.
No commentators so far have raise the important question as to why prostitution exists at all?
Once upon not so long ago, I worked on the streets of Vancouver providing exit opportunities for prostitutes. What I concluded is that a person becomes a prostitute as a last resort. Human slavery directly forces women from far away countries to do it. If they could survive doing anything else they would. Secondly, prostitution is related to drug addiction in many cases. When the addiction demands a fix, and you have no money, as a woman this otherwise untenable idea becomes a way to feed the need.
I am a social conservative some might say, but I think society needs a shift in their paradigm, see these women as the victims they are and provide viable ways out. It may astound some of you liberals, but I think drugs need to be legalized, and even dispensed in drug stores by prescription. For many heroin has had a grip on them for years. Because it is an illegal drug, illegal activity must occur to feed the habit. If it flows through the existing drug-store industry, dying as a result of impure or extra-strength heroin would become far less frequent. The actual cost of heroin is a few pennies. Canada could set prices far below the street, kill a major source of funds for organized crime, all forced prostitutes may even get to go back to school. If we treated prostitutes and addicts as a health issue rather than a crime issue it would make a huge difference in the lives of these victims.
Sure there are exceptions: There are prostitutes who brazenly say this is a career profession they enjoy. We need understand they really aren't representative of the majority of the industry. With proper regulation, instead of paying johns the majority of their income, a far smaller proportion of their income can contribute to taxation.
I see this as the only viable solution. I wish we could legally make these industries vanish, but by refusing to admit the only way to deal with this is with compassion we are bound to keep some rendition of the current drama in play.
No commentators so far have raise the important question as to why prostitution exists at all?
Once upon not so long ago, I worked on the streets of Vancouver providing exit opportunities for prostitutes. What I concluded is that a person becomes a prostitute as a last resort. Human slavery directly forces women from far away countries to do it. If they could survive doing anything else they would. Secondly, prostitution is related to drug addiction in many cases. When the addiction demands a fix, and you have no money, as a woman this otherwise untenable idea becomes a way to feed the need.
I am a social conservative some might say, but I think society needs a shift in their paradigm, see these women as the victims they are and provide viable ways out. It may astound some of you liberals, but I think drugs need to be legalized, and even dispensed in drug stores by prescription. For many heroin has had a grip on them for years. Because it is an illegal drug, illegal activity must occur to feed the habit. If it flows through the existing drug-store industry, dying as a result of impure or extra-strength heroin would become far less frequent. The actual cost of heroin is a few pennies. Canada could set prices far below the street, kill a major source of funds for organized crime, all forced prostitutes may even get to go back to school. If we treated prostitutes and addicts as a health issue rather than a crime issue it would make a huge difference in the lives of these victims.
Sure there are exceptions: There are prostitutes who brazenly say this is a career profession they enjoy. We need understand they really aren't representative of the majority of the industry. With proper regulation, instead of paying johns the majority of their income, a far smaller proportion of their income can contribute to taxation.
I see this as the only viable solution. I wish we could legally make these industries vanish, but by refusing to admit the only way to deal with this is with compassion we are bound to keep some rendition of the current drama in play.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Iceage or Warming? Two sides of one "scientific" face.
And here we have a site where so many experts predicted the coming ice age, and below is one who just can't seem to know exactly what he thinks.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsheet-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims
Professor Stephen Schneider converted from warning of a coming ice age in the 1970s to promoting of man-made global warming fears today. In the 1970s Professor Stephen Schneider was one of the leading voices warning the Earth was going to experience a catastrophic man made ice-age. However he is now a member of the UN IPCC and is a leading advocate warning that the Earth is facing catastrophic global warming. In 1971, Schneider co-authored a paper warning of a man-made "ice age." See: Rasool S., & Schneider S."Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141 – Excerpt: 'The rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age." Schneider was still promoting the coming "ice age" in 1978. (See: Unearthed 1970's video: Global warming activist Stephen Schneider caught on 1978 TV show 'In Search Of...The Coming Ice Age' – September 20, 2009) By the 1980's, Schneider reversed himself and began touting man-made global warming. See: "The rate of [global warming] change is so fast that I don't hesitate to call it potentially catastrophic for ecosystems," Schneider said on UK TV in 1990
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsheet-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims
Professor Stephen Schneider converted from warning of a coming ice age in the 1970s to promoting of man-made global warming fears today. In the 1970s Professor Stephen Schneider was one of the leading voices warning the Earth was going to experience a catastrophic man made ice-age. However he is now a member of the UN IPCC and is a leading advocate warning that the Earth is facing catastrophic global warming. In 1971, Schneider co-authored a paper warning of a man-made "ice age." See: Rasool S., & Schneider S."Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141 – Excerpt: 'The rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age." Schneider was still promoting the coming "ice age" in 1978. (See: Unearthed 1970's video: Global warming activist Stephen Schneider caught on 1978 TV show 'In Search Of...The Coming Ice Age' – September 20, 2009) By the 1980's, Schneider reversed himself and began touting man-made global warming. See: "The rate of [global warming] change is so fast that I don't hesitate to call it potentially catastrophic for ecosystems," Schneider said on UK TV in 1990
Where has Science gone?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/06/09/science-rocky-mountains-snowpack-water.html
CogitatusPrimus, We agree that extrapolating data to theories, to accepted theory is tried and true. Complex theory that is built upon accepted theory is a different thing.
With few exceptions, any extrapolated theory must withstand scrutiny. Abiogenisists had an extrapolated theory, that botulism spontaneously occurred given the right conditions. At the time, it was a widely accepted theory until it was confounded by Pasteur's experiment. Pasteur demonstrated that high temperature kills microbes, a major break through in science. Pasteur's experiment was easily repeatable, and was so convincing that his opponents conceded defeat before it was concluded.
If factors of a theory can proved to be wrong, then it is falsifiable. Any theory is technically considered true, until it is proven false. Obviously, the world hires scientists and consider their theories more credible than a kindergaarten student. But in theory some savant or super genius 10 year old, could produce data that falsifies, or discovers new information that invalidates standing theory. Unless, of course it is AGW, This theory has become so politicized, it is akin to the days before Galileo, or Pasteur. Accepted science must be open to falsifiability. The fact that those who's salaries are paid by tax payers and universities to perpetuate the theory has placed the field in moral jeopardy. Anyone who loves science and bring hypothesis that disagrees is construed to be in the pocket of big oil, thereby neutralizing their counter theory. This might be acceptable if they could produce no data that falsifies, or brings theory into question. There is no excuse for the way this question has been handled by "the establishment"
CogitatusPrimus, We agree that extrapolating data to theories, to accepted theory is tried and true. Complex theory that is built upon accepted theory is a different thing.
With few exceptions, any extrapolated theory must withstand scrutiny. Abiogenisists had an extrapolated theory, that botulism spontaneously occurred given the right conditions. At the time, it was a widely accepted theory until it was confounded by Pasteur's experiment. Pasteur demonstrated that high temperature kills microbes, a major break through in science. Pasteur's experiment was easily repeatable, and was so convincing that his opponents conceded defeat before it was concluded.
If factors of a theory can proved to be wrong, then it is falsifiable. Any theory is technically considered true, until it is proven false. Obviously, the world hires scientists and consider their theories more credible than a kindergaarten student. But in theory some savant or super genius 10 year old, could produce data that falsifies, or discovers new information that invalidates standing theory. Unless, of course it is AGW, This theory has become so politicized, it is akin to the days before Galileo, or Pasteur. Accepted science must be open to falsifiability. The fact that those who's salaries are paid by tax payers and universities to perpetuate the theory has placed the field in moral jeopardy. Anyone who loves science and bring hypothesis that disagrees is construed to be in the pocket of big oil, thereby neutralizing their counter theory. This might be acceptable if they could produce no data that falsifies, or brings theory into question. There is no excuse for the way this question has been handled by "the establishment"
- A theory is supported by data derived from repeatable experiments that result in the same conclusions.'
Some would suggest that since there is no 2nd Earth to run repeatable experiments on, then anthropogenic climate change can never be 'accepted'.
However, the theory that CO2 and other infrared-active gases do absorb and emit longwave radiation has been proven by lab experiments. Reduced outgoing LW radiation and increased downward LW radiation have been measured.
The effects of various natural forcings have been examined.
Is that approach sufficient?
_____________
In short, no. The data that shows Co2 gasses absorb infrared light, and the determination it does so is good science. It is experimentally repeatable. However to take that determination and extrapolate it to global climate systems is hugely problematic. The global warming advocates refuse to admit that. There are other experimental results that reinforce the AGW theory. For example the experimental fact that CO2 measured in Hawaii is now 392 ppm, compared to 358.4 ppm 20 years ago.
This is good science. Various experiments verify that measurement repeatedly within appropriate margins of error. It is valid and is empirically supported to say atmospheric CO2 levels have increased over the past 20 years. The scientific methodology for both of these understandings is broadly accepted and repeatable. The error margins and conclusions have been accepted by peer review, and are not falsifiable.
The problem is when we erect complex theories around these conclusions. Erecting theories is fine, but to suggest that they are accepted without further study is disingenuous. The problem is multiplied by the way scrutiny is handled, the way questions are shouted down, the way that equally valid measurement is discounted. To say the science is settled on complex theory and anthropogenic global warming is established fact does irreparable damage to the discipline and seriously undermines scientific credibility.
No other field is as intolerant to criticism, skeptical questioning, and scrutiny of datum. - Nice try 77Alethia77 but you are slyly trying to confound an hypothesis and a theory. Other deniers have tried to do this in the past. It is the old 'as soon as some observation that doesn't fit the theory is found the whole thing must be chucked' argument used to dismiss climate change theory by treating it like an hypothesis. Much of what you say is correct, but it is correct about an hypothesis, not a theory, and no, they are not nearly the same thing.
A theory is an intellectual framework which explains as best possible a series of observations of the natural world. As such, a theory may subsume many individual hypotheses which may be tested, and provisionally pass, or fail on their own without necessarily invalidating the entire theory. Almost every theory made has been subject to failure of some aspect of it, followed by closer examination of that failure, followed by further refinement of the theory. Theories are discarded not when they fail to predict and explain all subsequent tests and observations, but when these failures are explained better by a new theory. Even then some aspects of the old theory have their merits, which is why newtonian physics is still taught in school although Newton has been superseded by better theories.
A couple of other points:
Climate change advocates understand very well that extrapolating physics experiments to a global scale is hugely problematic. That is why they have devised methods to check their results.
Questions are not shouted down. The basic open and fair debates happened three decades ago. Your side lost.
Every example of 'equally valid measurements' posted here have turned out to be fraudulent.
I guess you are right about the sad state of education today.
Oh yes, I might add:
There is an entire industry dedicated to bringing on a new dark age. In service to their corporate masters they spread disinformation and confusion about things which interfere with the continued accumulation of wealth and power by the elites, such as science which supports consciousness of environmental damage, climate change, evolution, the link between fast foods and disease, etc. The contrarians who post on these websites post links to the 'shock troops' of this industry (websites of conservative and corporate-funded 'think tanks' with high-sounding names and unscrupulous personnel) all the time, like the Heartland Institute and the ironically-named American Council on Science and Health (which promotes misinformation that will degrade your knowledge of the first and prevent your maintenance of the second) - There is data publicly available that demonstrates fraud in the collecting and graphic evidence that is known to be used by the scientists under the employ of the IPCC, the International Panel for Climate Change. Skeptics, labeled nay-sayers, doubters, stupid, unintellectual, poor scientists, obstructionists, religious, right wing, conservatives, fascists, the list goes on. Giving you the benefit of the doubt cog, I will posit that your baseless charges of fraud were spoken naively. Especially since, with greatest Irony, climate scientists in New Zealand have been declared Fraudsters by the court of law! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/ The court ruled that temperatures data were manipulated to agree with IPCC opinion.
If the global warming theorists would recognize that their theories must be open to critique, they might have some shred of veracity. But, to lie, commit fraud, manipulate editorial boards of major science publications to agree with "established science" makes the whole matter look all the worse. When ever someone says the jury's out, its all settled now, or this was disproven in the past, and in any other way stifles inquiry, then we are back to the days of Galileo with the New Church: The IPCC calling the shots.
Legal evidence of fraud in climate science.
Legal Defeat for Global Warming in Kiwigate Scandal
Suite 101
October 6, 2010
In the climate controversy dubbed Kiwigate,New Zealand skeptics inflict shock courtroom defeat on climatologists implicated in temperature data fraud.
New Zealand’s government via its National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has announced it has nothing to do with the country’s “official” climate record in what commentators are calling a capitulation from the tainted climate reconstruction. The story is also covered on web news aggregator site, icecap.com.
NIWA’s statement of defense claims they were never responsible for the national temperature record (NZTR).The climb down is seen as a legal triumph for skeptics of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) who had initiated their challenge last August when petitioning the high court of New Zealand to invalidate the weather service’s reconstruction of antipodean temperatures. The NZCSC Petition may be read here.
According to the August official statement of the claim from NZCSC, climate scientists cooked the books by using the same alleged ‘trick’ employed by British and American scientists. This involves subtly imposing a warming bias during what is known as the ‘homogenisation’ process that occurs when climate data needs to be adjusted.
The specific charge brought against the Kiwi government was that its climate scientists had taken the raw temperature records of the country and then adjusted them artificially with the result that a steeper warming trend was created than would otherwise exist by examination of the raw data alone.
Indeed, the original Kiwi records show no warming during the 20th century, but after government sponsored climatologists had manipulated the data a warming trend of 1C appeared.
New Zealand Government Abandons ‘Official’ Climate Record
The NZCSC story reports that the NZ authorities, “formally stated that, in their opinion, they are not required to use the best available information nor to apply the best scientific practices and techniques available at any given time. They don’t think that forms any part of their statutory obligation to pursue “excellence.”
NIWA now denies there was any such thing as an “official” NZ Temperature Record, although there was an official acronym for it (NZTR). However, the position now taken by the NZ government is that all such records are now to be deemed as unofficial and strictly for internal research purposes.
The article urges that if the government will not affirm that their temperature reconstruction is official then, “Nobody else should rely on it.”
Researcher from Climategate University Implicated in Data Fraud
As reported in a Suite101 article by the same writer of April 2010 'Kiwigate is a Carbon Copy of Climategate' it was shown that the scientist who made the controversial “bold adjustments” is none other than Jim Salinger who is also a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Because very few temperature records exist for the Pacific Ocean, the NIWA record is given extra weight by the UN’s IPCC for determining multi-decadal trends in global average temperatures.
Salinger was dismissed by NIWA earlier this year for speaking without authorization to the media. The researcher originally worked at Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), the institution at the center of the Climategate scandal.
Salinger was also among the inner circle of climate scientists whose leaked emails precipitated the original climate controversy in November 2009. In an email (August 4, 2003) to fellow American climate professor, Michael Mann, Salinger stated he was “extremely concerned about academic standards” among climate skeptics.
Data Destroyed Before it Could be Independently Verified
In circumstances strangely similar to those witnessed in the Climategate controversy, Kiwigate appears to match Climategate in three key facets. First, climate scientists declined to submit their data for independent analysis. Second, when backed into a corner the scientists claimed their adjustments had been ‘lost’. Third, the raw data itself proves no warming trend.
Downloadable pdf files of letters between Coalition chairman and barrister Barry Brill and NIWA chairman Chris Mace may be read here.
References:
Dunleavy MBE, T.,'High Court asked to invalidate NIWA’s official NZ temperature record,' (August 13,2010); climatescience.org.nz, (accessed online: October 6, 2010)
Atkins, Holm, Joseph & Majurey., [Solicitors],’Statement of Defence on Behalf of the Defendant,’ [On behalf of NIWA], (September 14, 2010)
Costa, A.C. and A. Soares, ‘Homogenization of Climate Data: Review and New Perspectives Using Geostatistics,’ Mathematical Geoscience, Volume 41, Number 3 / April, 2009.
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, ‘NIWA Challenged to Show Why and How Temperature Records Were Adjusted’ (February 7, 2010), accessed online April 26, 2010.
NZCSC & Climate Science Conversation Group; Press Statement of December 18, 2009; accessed online ( April 26, 2010).
Salinger, J. Climategate email Filename: 1060002347.txt. (August 4, 2003)
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Dialogue on AGW continued...
(Question): A theory is supported by data derived from repeatable experiments that result in the same conclusions.'
Some would suggest that since there is no 2nd Earth to run repeatable experiments on, then anthropogenic climate change can never be 'accepted'.
However, the theory that CO2 and other infrared-active gases do absorb and emit longwave radiation has been proven by lab experiments. Reduced outgoing LW radiation and increased downward LW radiation have been measured.
The effects of various natural forcings have been examined.
Is that approach sufficient?
______
Owen
In short, no. The data that shows Co2 gasses absorb infrared light, and the determination it does so is good science. It is experimentally repeatable. However to take that determination and extrapolate it to global climate systems is hugely problematic. The global warming advocates refuse to admit that. There are other experimental results that reinforce the AGW theory. For example the experimental fact that CO2 measured in Hawaii is now 392 ppm, compared to 358.4 ppm 20 years ago.
This is good science. Various experiments verify that measurement repeatedly within appropriate margins of error. It is valid and is empirically supported to say atmospheric CO2 levels have increased over the past 20 years. The scientific methodology for both of these understandings is broadly accepted and repeatable. The error margins and conclusions have been accepted by peer review, and are not falsifiable.
The problem is when we erect complex theories around these conclusions. Erecting theories is fine, but to suggest that they are accepted without further study is disingenuous. The problem is multiplied by the way scrutiny is handled, the way questions are shouted down, the way that equally valid measurement is discounted. To say the science is settled on complex theory and anthropogenic global warming is established fact does irreparable damage to the discipline and seriously undermines scientific credibility.
No other field is as intolerant to criticism, skeptical questioning, and scrutiny of datum.
Some would suggest that since there is no 2nd Earth to run repeatable experiments on, then anthropogenic climate change can never be 'accepted'.
However, the theory that CO2 and other infrared-active gases do absorb and emit longwave radiation has been proven by lab experiments. Reduced outgoing LW radiation and increased downward LW radiation have been measured.
The effects of various natural forcings have been examined.
Is that approach sufficient?
______
Owen
In short, no. The data that shows Co2 gasses absorb infrared light, and the determination it does so is good science. It is experimentally repeatable. However to take that determination and extrapolate it to global climate systems is hugely problematic. The global warming advocates refuse to admit that. There are other experimental results that reinforce the AGW theory. For example the experimental fact that CO2 measured in Hawaii is now 392 ppm, compared to 358.4 ppm 20 years ago.
This is good science. Various experiments verify that measurement repeatedly within appropriate margins of error. It is valid and is empirically supported to say atmospheric CO2 levels have increased over the past 20 years. The scientific methodology for both of these understandings is broadly accepted and repeatable. The error margins and conclusions have been accepted by peer review, and are not falsifiable.
The problem is when we erect complex theories around these conclusions. Erecting theories is fine, but to suggest that they are accepted without further study is disingenuous. The problem is multiplied by the way scrutiny is handled, the way questions are shouted down, the way that equally valid measurement is discounted. To say the science is settled on complex theory and anthropogenic global warming is established fact does irreparable damage to the discipline and seriously undermines scientific credibility.
No other field is as intolerant to criticism, skeptical questioning, and scrutiny of datum.
Science
Science is about empiricism, skepticism, and falsifiability. "Laws" of science are very rare. Newton's laws are an example of this. They are the closest thing to fact available to skepticism and scientific theory. They are not perceived to be falsifiable--at least to the quantum threshold. A law is the closest thing to scientific fact, as it has never been disproved, withstands the most vigorous skeptical attack, and direct observable repeatability.
A theory is different. It is only accepted as vaild when the evidence is not found to be false. A theory is supported by data derived from repeatable experiments that result in the same conclusions. A theory has not been falsified, but may exist amidst data and conclusions that raise doubt. A theory is set aside only when it is falsified by empirical evidence that withstands skeptic scrutiny. This scrutiny is supposed to be provided today by the peer-review process that precedes publication in scientific journals.
I am not sure why these important distinctions appear not to be taught anymore. It is very troubling and a root problem in the various scientific debates of our day. I don't know where our educational system is falling down. These differences should be well understood before highschool graduation. It appears however that we are graduating students from universities and colleges no clue about them at all. These people now teach our children causing hope for science to dim. This problem is reflected broadly in these commentaries. I can't believe that most of these posters are ignorant, uneducated people.
There is no such thing as a settled theory, or established scientific fact beyond refute. If that were to occur science would cease and a new dark age loom.
A theory is different. It is only accepted as vaild when the evidence is not found to be false. A theory is supported by data derived from repeatable experiments that result in the same conclusions. A theory has not been falsified, but may exist amidst data and conclusions that raise doubt. A theory is set aside only when it is falsified by empirical evidence that withstands skeptic scrutiny. This scrutiny is supposed to be provided today by the peer-review process that precedes publication in scientific journals.
I am not sure why these important distinctions appear not to be taught anymore. It is very troubling and a root problem in the various scientific debates of our day. I don't know where our educational system is falling down. These differences should be well understood before highschool graduation. It appears however that we are graduating students from universities and colleges no clue about them at all. These people now teach our children causing hope for science to dim. This problem is reflected broadly in these commentaries. I can't believe that most of these posters are ignorant, uneducated people.
There is no such thing as a settled theory, or established scientific fact beyond refute. If that were to occur science would cease and a new dark age loom.
Creationist/evolutionist debates.
Religion and Science need not be fighting with one another. They ask different questions. Science asks how was it made: Religion asks why was it made? When the religious perspective attempts to comment on the "hows/the process of creation," it really does violence to the texts, and is akin to philosophy commenting on the scientific aspects astro-biology. Or the biological community becoming upset with physicists making biological constructs. (Roger Penrose, Hawkings equal in Oxford, got into a spot of trouble in exactly this way as a result of his book: "The Large, The Small, and the Human Mind")
Poaching in other's back yard happens in all disciplines. Biblical texts were never intended to convey How God created, the process by which he did it--the stuff of empirical observation, but drives forward asking why He would do such a thing.
For humans it is natural to desire that their world view can explain all things, but is that a realistic pursuit? Its when science leaves science to play with faith that it gets itself into trouble, just as religion does by accepting that its pursuit is about the tangibles, the empirical evidences of God. That isn't to say one field cannot inform the other, so long as each has a proper understanding and appreciation of their own limits.
Poaching in other's back yard happens in all disciplines. Biblical texts were never intended to convey How God created, the process by which he did it--the stuff of empirical observation, but drives forward asking why He would do such a thing.
For humans it is natural to desire that their world view can explain all things, but is that a realistic pursuit? Its when science leaves science to play with faith that it gets itself into trouble, just as religion does by accepting that its pursuit is about the tangibles, the empirical evidences of God. That isn't to say one field cannot inform the other, so long as each has a proper understanding and appreciation of their own limits.
Friday, June 10, 2011
ArthurPalidenstandard2011/06/09
at 9:20 PM ETHide ArthurPaliden's
commentsGo into a field. Find a lump of clay. Put said lump of clay in a glass of distilled water. Wait a couple of days the glass will be full of life. Of course you may need a microscope to see most of it.
________________
At ArthurPaladin:
And your point would be? Are you aware this is almost exactly the experiment put to Pasteur prior to his famous experiment against abiogenists? So questions arise: Did you not learn this in your educational experience? If not, why not? How far did your education take you? Did you graduate from highschool? Did you graduate with an undergraduate degree? If so, what institution would grant a degree without instilling that major scientific advancement? If you have no idea about these things, why are you posting on this topic? Have you no shame?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/06/09/science-asteroids-meteorite-organic-amino.html
at 9:20 PM ETHide ArthurPaliden's
commentsGo into a field. Find a lump of clay. Put said lump of clay in a glass of distilled water. Wait a couple of days the glass will be full of life. Of course you may need a microscope to see most of it.
________________
At ArthurPaladin:
And your point would be? Are you aware this is almost exactly the experiment put to Pasteur prior to his famous experiment against abiogenists? So questions arise: Did you not learn this in your educational experience? If not, why not? How far did your education take you? Did you graduate from highschool? Did you graduate with an undergraduate degree? If so, what institution would grant a degree without instilling that major scientific advancement? If you have no idea about these things, why are you posting on this topic? Have you no shame?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/06/09/science-asteroids-meteorite-organic-amino.html
To my Math Genius friends...
Today CBC http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/06/09/science-asteroids-meteorite-organic-amino.html This statement is made: @Ainulindale I find it fascinating that you can sit there pontificating that it is statistically impossible for humans to exist today with out a creator to create them. I know it may be hard for someone who's world view is grounded in faith to understand, but just because you say something it doesn't make it true.
You have to fulfill a very specific set of criteria to say that something a statically unlikely. You have to to show that the probability of something happening is significantly bellow some threshold. To do this you have to be able to calculate the probability have ending up with a human through nature process, with no intelligence behind them. I would be very interested in seeing your calculations for this seeing as we do not know a lot of the factors that would effect this. Even for things that we think life does need to form and grow, like a planet with the correct make up and temperature, we don't have a good handle on their frequency in the universe.
So please regale all us math deficient people with you superior skills and prove to us that it is statistically unlikely for humans to form without the assistance of a creator or stop using a sciency sounding arguments to justify your faith. I wish I could say, I have a grad degree in math, or a PhD in mathematcs, and leave a resounding response!
You have to fulfill a very specific set of criteria to say that something a statically unlikely. You have to to show that the probability of something happening is significantly bellow some threshold. To do this you have to be able to calculate the probability have ending up with a human through nature process, with no intelligence behind them. I would be very interested in seeing your calculations for this seeing as we do not know a lot of the factors that would effect this. Even for things that we think life does need to form and grow, like a planet with the correct make up and temperature, we don't have a good handle on their frequency in the universe.
So please regale all us math deficient people with you superior skills and prove to us that it is statistically unlikely for humans to form without the assistance of a creator or stop using a sciency sounding arguments to justify your faith. I wish I could say, I have a grad degree in math, or a PhD in mathematcs, and leave a resounding response!
This message is too long. Your chat was
not sent. Use Messages instead.
not sent. Use Messages instead.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Alethia
I don't know, if the situation were reversed, I would rather have a perimeter fence with the US filtering out terrorists Canada bound... wait a minute...
______________________
Alethia
Perhaps you weren't taught a fundamental principle of democracy: Abstaining, is absolutely voting for the majority.
I know, it isn't very well understood. No doubt many abstained because they didn't care... that's ok--the rest of did.
Some abstained in protest trying for "none of the above" that's ok its a free country. It wouldn't be a real democracy if everyone was forced to vote...
But if our "liberal" education system failed to teach you this fundamental truth, it is no surprise--it has failed a lot of us for a long time. If you are teacher who deals with democracy and haven't taught this, shame on you! If you are an "educated elite" with one or more degrees, and haven't been taught this, well..
I know, it isn't very well understood. No doubt many abstained because they didn't care... that's ok--the rest of did.
Some abstained in protest trying for "none of the above" that's ok its a free country. It wouldn't be a real democracy if everyone was forced to vote...
But if our "liberal" education system failed to teach you this fundamental truth, it is no surprise--it has failed a lot of us for a long time. If you are teacher who deals with democracy and haven't taught this, shame on you! If you are an "educated elite" with one or more degrees, and haven't been taught this, well..
_________________________
Would that be the same "left wing base" the G&M played to when they endorsed the Harper Conservatives in the last three elections?
Which "MSM" would be continually slagging the "Cons and Harper"?
Would that be the G&M owned by those socialists, the Thomson Family?
Perhaps you meant CTV run by the lefties in the executives Bell Media?
Maybe you meant MacLeans magazine owned by the Leninist Rogers family?
How about the Sun newspaper chain and Sun TV owned by that Trotskyite Karl Peladeau that attacks Harper and the Cons non-stop?
Or the stalinists at Corus?
The maoists in the Shaw family?
Or how about that bastion of pinkism, the CBC TV newtwork where their foremost political commentators are almost exclusively conservatives - Rex Murphy, Alan Gregg and Andrew Coyne?
Or how about The National Post, they're continually slagging Harper and the Cons, aren't they?
You know what I think baeto?
I think you've been unconscious for the last five years and just came out of your coma.
_______________
sirencall
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore sirencall. Show Details
"Follow the money" of our media franchises and scare yourself silly.
The NDP don't have a hope of getting reasonable press.
The NDP don't have a hope of getting reasonable press.
Alethia
You know Thomas, on this I have to agree. As a conservative, I have a thing about pulling your own weight, and not living on the taxpayer's dime. So the CBC and its billions of tax dollars it has spent over the years has irked me. It irked me especially because it sold a brand of liberalism that undermined our country.
But since 1994, and the rise of the reform, western right, the CBC obviously has seen the writing on the wall. They aren't stupid. They can point to Rex, and the others to suggest they have a balanced point of view. Yes they have a few icons, but is balanced the right term to use? Since the CBC has been undertaking social engineering in Canada for 50 years, they now have a healthy base of followers. If those Canadians want to fund the CBC let them do so. If the CBC doesn't want to include advertisements from commercial/non-political entities, let them raise their money directly from Canadians that like the CBC spin.
Instantly, the hew and the cry from the right will calm down, because they won't be paying for ideology that attacks their family, and their country.
But since 1994, and the rise of the reform, western right, the CBC obviously has seen the writing on the wall. They aren't stupid. They can point to Rex, and the others to suggest they have a balanced point of view. Yes they have a few icons, but is balanced the right term to use? Since the CBC has been undertaking social engineering in Canada for 50 years, they now have a healthy base of followers. If those Canadians want to fund the CBC let them do so. If the CBC doesn't want to include advertisements from commercial/non-political entities, let them raise their money directly from Canadians that like the CBC spin.
Instantly, the hew and the cry from the right will calm down, because they won't be paying for ideology that attacks their family, and their country.
____________
sirencall
Alethia - how on earth does the CBC attack our country?
You do know the CBC was initiated by a Conservative government in order to increase nationalism, right?
You do know the CBC was initiated by a Conservative government in order to increase nationalism, right?
Alethia
Alethia. Show DetailsSince Trudeau declared all the evils of the world sprang from nationalism, the CBC ceased its original mandate. It has been on the fore-front of every attack on Canadian values for the past 40 years. Its mandate ceased to be nationalism, instead, it became the organ of social engineering that has undermined the country in countless ways.
__________________
Barry.T
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Barry.T. Show Details
IF HARPER WAS A SMALL-C CONSERVATIVE HIS THRONE SPEECH WOLD SAY:
Our alleged conservative PM has demonstrated an eagerness to enhance the already immense and excessively expensive powers of the nanny state, to increase his government’s capacity and enthusiasm for intruding into our private life, to absolutely discount any serious spending discipline, to promulgate a distressing protectionist message to the world that Canada isn’t open to foreign investment,
and an eagerness also to reject any right-of–centre social restructuring notwithstanding how sagacious it would be.
If Canadians had elected a legitimate small-c fiscal conservative he would not pretending to “restrain spending increases”, but would initiate a spending slashing program review that would eliminate the $30 billion dollar deficit in two years. He would therefore:
Cut overall program spending by 20% bringing expenditures back to pre-stimulus 2008 levels;
Lay-off 20% of overpaid, redundant bureaucrats within the next 2 years, and freeze the salary and benefits for as long as it takes to bring them in line with private sector workers.
A genuine conservative government would abolish federal employee’s unions;
Privatize the CBC, Canada Post, Via Rail, and Federal prisons;
Sell government assets such as some government jets, and some crown timber land;
Eliminate downsize and/or assimilate departments, and hundreds of worthless crown corporations such as the CRTC and CMHC;
Delay starting both the combat and non combat $25 billion ships contracts;
“Cut-as-you-Go that would oblige the government to sever equal value from existing programs when implementing any new expenditure;
Op out of the Climate Change Fund;
Purge most specific tax credits that are really costly expenditures;
Abolish most corporate welfare;
Get rid of Regional Development Programs;
Eliminate the majority of arts subsidies, all language subsidies, festivals grants, NGO’s subsidies, as well as nearly all other grants and contributions;
Re-write the Canada Health Act that currently places control of our top-down, government-rationed system in hands bureaucrats rather than the more efficient, cost-beneficial private sector
Reduce the rate of increase to provincial transfers;
Reform the current welfare-state social assistance system;
Abolish all marketing boards like the dairy board, and the wheat board;
Radically transform the infinitely expensive immigrant/refugee policies;
Why would a fiscally responsible PM, with a $30 billion dollar deficit and a debt of $800 billion, borrow billions of dollars to increase foreign aid by 8% annually?;
Phase out the concept of “universality”, and expedite “means testing”, at least for the COLA clause in some programs;
Gradually increase the retirement age to 70 by 2025, and reduce cost-of-living increases for higher earners;
Our alleged conservative PM has demonstrated an eagerness to enhance the already immense and excessively expensive powers of the nanny state, to increase his government’s capacity and enthusiasm for intruding into our private life, to absolutely discount any serious spending discipline, to promulgate a distressing protectionist message to the world that Canada isn’t open to foreign investment,
and an eagerness also to reject any right-of–centre social restructuring notwithstanding how sagacious it would be.
If Canadians had elected a legitimate small-c fiscal conservative he would not pretending to “restrain spending increases”, but would initiate a spending slashing program review that would eliminate the $30 billion dollar deficit in two years. He would therefore:
Cut overall program spending by 20% bringing expenditures back to pre-stimulus 2008 levels;
Lay-off 20% of overpaid, redundant bureaucrats within the next 2 years, and freeze the salary and benefits for as long as it takes to bring them in line with private sector workers.
A genuine conservative government would abolish federal employee’s unions;
Privatize the CBC, Canada Post, Via Rail, and Federal prisons;
Sell government assets such as some government jets, and some crown timber land;
Eliminate downsize and/or assimilate departments, and hundreds of worthless crown corporations such as the CRTC and CMHC;
Delay starting both the combat and non combat $25 billion ships contracts;
“Cut-as-you-Go that would oblige the government to sever equal value from existing programs when implementing any new expenditure;
Op out of the Climate Change Fund;
Purge most specific tax credits that are really costly expenditures;
Abolish most corporate welfare;
Get rid of Regional Development Programs;
Eliminate the majority of arts subsidies, all language subsidies, festivals grants, NGO’s subsidies, as well as nearly all other grants and contributions;
Re-write the Canada Health Act that currently places control of our top-down, government-rationed system in hands bureaucrats rather than the more efficient, cost-beneficial private sector
Reduce the rate of increase to provincial transfers;
Reform the current welfare-state social assistance system;
Abolish all marketing boards like the dairy board, and the wheat board;
Radically transform the infinitely expensive immigrant/refugee policies;
Why would a fiscally responsible PM, with a $30 billion dollar deficit and a debt of $800 billion, borrow billions of dollars to increase foreign aid by 8% annually?;
Phase out the concept of “universality”, and expedite “means testing”, at least for the COLA clause in some programs;
Gradually increase the retirement age to 70 by 2025, and reduce cost-of-living increases for higher earners;
Please wait while we perform your request. You voted
Score: 0
Name withheld
w blazejewski
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore w blazejewski. Show Details
You are full of it!
Please wait while we perform your request.
This will remove the comment from our system.
This comment has been removed from our system.
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Alethia. Show Details
I consider myself small-c and I can't go along with most of this. I think this is Big C, where most Canadians don't want to go.
I don't want slashing in spending to be so aggressive it undermines the economy. Being conservative doesn't mean abandoning compassion. Health care is an expression of that. --as are things like the Canada pension program, or foreign aid. If the poorest of the countries of the world can live without malaria, there will be fewer thinking they need to move to Canada, as they create wealth instead of orphans, they will eventually trade with us. That is a good conservative strategy.
I don't want slashing in spending to be so aggressive it undermines the economy. Being conservative doesn't mean abandoning compassion. Health care is an expression of that. --as are things like the Canada pension program, or foreign aid. If the poorest of the countries of the world can live without malaria, there will be fewer thinking they need to move to Canada, as they create wealth instead of orphans, they will eventually trade with us. That is a good conservative strategy.
Delete
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
There for Hamas is in a defacto state of war with a cease fire putting battle off to some inevitable point in the future. There isn't a nation in the world who would not use a blockade in the same circumstances. It is one of the few bloodless tactics of war.