Sunday, November 27, 2011
Separation of Church and State.
While the Canadian mind accepts the idea of separation of church and state, actually it is a concept borrowed from the US. If anyone does any research at all, they would understand Canada's entire legal system, common law, has catholic/Anglican law at its roots. Furthermore, so long as Canada has a queen or king, we are under the wing of the Anglican church. That is the fact. Obviously we don't think that way. But I do find it ironic this comes from a quote of a US document.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Curiosity
I suppose some people live life without curiosity of any sort. In the purest, simplistic sense science is about curiosity. Human beings are curious. We are interested in shifting plates, the movement of the stars, climate, physiology, chemistry, and so on... Curiosity brings about questions who's conclusions have erected the monolith called science today. You strike a false dichotomy when you say if someone has no interest in one area, he should have no interest in any area. To try to stand on that point is an exercise in futility. Why can't it be that because I am interested in temperature variations over billions of years, I can also have an interest in geology, but for some reason am not allowed to be particularly not interested in ornithology? I am perplexed at the confrontational stances we find ourselves in. I think believing someone should think or feel a different way based on *our* world view is inherently problematic. I am perplexed that this conversation has evolved this way. Do you somehow think I am not interested in temperature variations over millions of years? Where did that come from? I am trying to allow for divergent perspectives. For example, the beating of a butterfly's wing in Japan significantly effects the flight of a 747 in Laguardia--if you think of quantum cause and effect. But it is also true that from a classical perspective this is immeasurable. Both can be true. What we should avoid is being unable to ask questions with impunity. It is this sort of fear that has been the enemy of science far more than 2 people with divergent opinion.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
NY Times and Global Warming email leaks Pt. II
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/science/earth/new-trove-of-stolen-e-mails-from-climate-scientists-is-released.html
Wiki leaks are heroes for uncovering government corruption. Global Warming leaks are terrible crimes.
New Trove of Stolen E-Mails From Climate Scientists Is Released
By JUSTIN GILLIS and LESLIE KAUFMAN
Published: November 22, 2011
Recommend
Twitter
Linkedin
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Reprints
Share
The anonymous hacker who shook the world of climate science two years ago by posting a trove of stolen e-mails delivered a new batch on Tuesday, stirring up climate-change contrarians a little more than a week before global negotiations on greenhouse gases are to begin in Durban, South Africa.
Related in Opinion
Dot Earth Blog: Another Treaty Negotiation, Another Batch of Climate Science E-Mail (November 22, 2011)
Green
A blog about energy and the environment.
Go to Blog »
The new e-mails appeared remarkably similar to the ones released two years ago just ahead of a similar conference in Copenhagen. They involved the same scientists and many of the same issues, and some of them carried a similar tone: catty remarks by the scientists, often about papers written by others in the field.
Climate scientists said the release was likely intended to torpedo any potential progress in the Durban negotiations, though not much progress had been expected anyway given that countries have been reluctant to commit to binding emissions limits.
The University of East Anglia, the British institution at the middle of the previous hacking episode, confirmed that at least some of the newly released e-mails were authentic. The cache released in 2009 appeared to have come from a file someone obtained by hacking into the university’s computers, a crime for which no charges have been filed or suspects named. The new batch of more than 5,000 e-mails is evidently a fresh selection from the same set of records.
A string of investigations following the 2009 release all came to the conclusion that scientists had not manipulated data to support their findings, though some of the reports did criticize them on minor points, such as failing to share their data or to respond properly to freedom of information requests.
Myron Ebell, a climate-change skeptic who works for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank based in Washington, called the new e-mails “strong evidence that a small group of scientists centered around East Anglia were engaged in a conspiracy to provide a scientifically misleading assessment of the case for catastrophic global warming.” Senator James M. Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who is the most prominent climate-change contrarian in Congress, cited the e-mails in a statement attacking the Obama administration’s attempts to limit greenhouse gases.
But Michael E. Mann, a Pennsylvania State University scientist who wrote or received some of the e-mails, said they showed the opposite of any conspiracy, demonstrating instead that climate science is a vigorous enterprise where scientists were free to argue over conclusions. “Scientists rely on the ability to have frank, sometimes even contentious discussions with each other,” Dr. Mann said in an interview Tuesday. “Science requires that.”
In one of the e-mails, Raymond S. Bradley, director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, criticized a paper that Dr. Mann wrote with the climate scientist Phil Jones, which used tree rings and similar markers to find that today’s climatic warming had no precedent in recent natural history. Dr. Bradley, who has often collaborated with Dr. Mann, wrote that the 2003 paper “was truly pathetic and should never have been published.”
Dr. Bradley confirmed in an interview that the e-mail was his, but said his comment had no bearing on whether global warming was really happening. “I did not like that paper at all, and I stand by that, and I am sure that I told Mike that” at the time, he said. But he added that a disagreement over a single paper had little to do with the overall validity of climate science. “There is no doubt we have a big problem with human-induced warming,” Dr. Bradley said. “Mike’s paper has no bearing on the fundamental physics of the problem that we are facing.”
Some of the other e-mails involved comments about problems with the computer programs used to forecast future climate, known as climate models. For instance, a cryptic e-mail apparently sent by Dr. Jones, a researcher at East Anglia, said, “Basic problem is that all models are wrong — not got enough middle and low level clouds.”
Gavin A. Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA, said he found such exchanges unremarkable. He noted that difficulties in modeling were widely acknowledged and disclosed in the literature. Indeed, such problems are often discussed at scientific meetings in front of hundreds of people.
Of the new release of e-mails, Dr. Schmidt said, “It smacks of desperation.”
Dr. Mann said he hoped the fresh release, apparently first posted to a computer server in Russia, would provide new clues for the British police as they seek to catch the hacker or hackers.
“Who are the criminals?” he asked. “Who is funding this effort, not just to steal these materials but to promote them?”
Wiki leaks are heroes for uncovering government corruption. Global Warming leaks are terrible crimes.
New Trove of Stolen E-Mails From Climate Scientists Is Released
By JUSTIN GILLIS and LESLIE KAUFMAN
Published: November 22, 2011
Recommend
Sign In to E-Mail
Reprints
Share
The anonymous hacker who shook the world of climate science two years ago by posting a trove of stolen e-mails delivered a new batch on Tuesday, stirring up climate-change contrarians a little more than a week before global negotiations on greenhouse gases are to begin in Durban, South Africa.
Related in Opinion
Dot Earth Blog: Another Treaty Negotiation, Another Batch of Climate Science E-Mail (November 22, 2011)
Green
A blog about energy and the environment.
Go to Blog »
The new e-mails appeared remarkably similar to the ones released two years ago just ahead of a similar conference in Copenhagen. They involved the same scientists and many of the same issues, and some of them carried a similar tone: catty remarks by the scientists, often about papers written by others in the field.
Climate scientists said the release was likely intended to torpedo any potential progress in the Durban negotiations, though not much progress had been expected anyway given that countries have been reluctant to commit to binding emissions limits.
The University of East Anglia, the British institution at the middle of the previous hacking episode, confirmed that at least some of the newly released e-mails were authentic. The cache released in 2009 appeared to have come from a file someone obtained by hacking into the university’s computers, a crime for which no charges have been filed or suspects named. The new batch of more than 5,000 e-mails is evidently a fresh selection from the same set of records.
A string of investigations following the 2009 release all came to the conclusion that scientists had not manipulated data to support their findings, though some of the reports did criticize them on minor points, such as failing to share their data or to respond properly to freedom of information requests.
Myron Ebell, a climate-change skeptic who works for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank based in Washington, called the new e-mails “strong evidence that a small group of scientists centered around East Anglia were engaged in a conspiracy to provide a scientifically misleading assessment of the case for catastrophic global warming.” Senator James M. Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who is the most prominent climate-change contrarian in Congress, cited the e-mails in a statement attacking the Obama administration’s attempts to limit greenhouse gases.
But Michael E. Mann, a Pennsylvania State University scientist who wrote or received some of the e-mails, said they showed the opposite of any conspiracy, demonstrating instead that climate science is a vigorous enterprise where scientists were free to argue over conclusions. “Scientists rely on the ability to have frank, sometimes even contentious discussions with each other,” Dr. Mann said in an interview Tuesday. “Science requires that.”
In one of the e-mails, Raymond S. Bradley, director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, criticized a paper that Dr. Mann wrote with the climate scientist Phil Jones, which used tree rings and similar markers to find that today’s climatic warming had no precedent in recent natural history. Dr. Bradley, who has often collaborated with Dr. Mann, wrote that the 2003 paper “was truly pathetic and should never have been published.”
Dr. Bradley confirmed in an interview that the e-mail was his, but said his comment had no bearing on whether global warming was really happening. “I did not like that paper at all, and I stand by that, and I am sure that I told Mike that” at the time, he said. But he added that a disagreement over a single paper had little to do with the overall validity of climate science. “There is no doubt we have a big problem with human-induced warming,” Dr. Bradley said. “Mike’s paper has no bearing on the fundamental physics of the problem that we are facing.”
Some of the other e-mails involved comments about problems with the computer programs used to forecast future climate, known as climate models. For instance, a cryptic e-mail apparently sent by Dr. Jones, a researcher at East Anglia, said, “Basic problem is that all models are wrong — not got enough middle and low level clouds.”
Gavin A. Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA, said he found such exchanges unremarkable. He noted that difficulties in modeling were widely acknowledged and disclosed in the literature. Indeed, such problems are often discussed at scientific meetings in front of hundreds of people.
Of the new release of e-mails, Dr. Schmidt said, “It smacks of desperation.”
Dr. Mann said he hoped the fresh release, apparently first posted to a computer server in Russia, would provide new clues for the British police as they seek to catch the hacker or hackers.
“Who are the criminals?” he asked. “Who is funding this effort, not just to steal these materials but to promote them?”
Monday, November 21, 2011
Iran the Bomb and the NPT
It is so painfully obvious so many responders have neglected to brush up on what exactly the NPT was all about. In the heights of the cold war, there was a massive peace movement around the world. There was a near universal call for nuclear disarmament, and to find a way nations would vow not to pursue nuclear weapons. In exchange, those signatories would be granted the right, and even be aided by the world to install peaceful nuclear industries.
China, the US, France, Britain, and the USSR agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals, partially in exchange for a world in which more and more countries would not pursue Nuclear weapons. The major nuclear powers have reduced the size of their nuclear arsenals. There were follow up treaties like the START treaty that furthered this process.
Signing the treaty was OPTIONAL. To sign meant a country would be able to transfer nuclear technology from the major powers to use it for peaceful use in EXCHANGE for the promise not to pursue nuclear weapons. The IAEA has been the referee, and reports on the various levels of compliance. By signing countries could fast-track to nuclear power generation etc, without having to invent or discover nuclear theory entirely on their own. 190 countries signed on.
Countries were never required to sign, but once they did, they were bound to the terms and conditions. There were non-nuclear states who cheated, North Korea-who officially dropped out of the NPT after it had obtained that level of nuclear technology by information transfer; Pakistan and India. The last two countries were given nuclear capability by many NPT signatories including Canada. It is difficult to overstate the peril that arose from these developments.
Iran has been building nuclear weapons, secretly, while still being an NPT signatory. The IAEA has reams of evidence that Iran has been flat-out lying: That despite all the polite diplomatic ways of saying it or dancing around the issue.
But beyond the issue that they promised one thing and do another, that they lie in open offense of Allah, they are assembling the bomb. That is simply undeniable. They have broken their word, they have effectively broken the treaty, although they continue ostensibly as though they were in compliance. To make matters worse, Iran has been backing global terrorism openly and clandestinely. Funding Hamas is enough evidence, but worse are its support of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and acts upon Iraq to the point of puppetry that they openly deny. The denial of course is in keeping with their deception on the NPT.
It is the prospect of Iran passing along nuclear weapons to terrorist groups that is most serious. The risk of a nuclear attack on the west in the next 10 years, is tantamount to the early days of the Cuban missile crisis.
It really disgusts me that so many would post minimizing this reality: Especially when those would be the same voices protesting Canada's nuclear power generation.
The next issue of stupidity, is to throw Israel into the mix. It NEVER signed the NPT, and as every sovereign state, could never be required to! That's what so many people just don't get! To bring the issue up knowing this, is to deflect the issue at hand, introduce a red herring, and mire problem solving into oblivion.
This is the rub. Israel has nukes. But Iran would have pursued this in any event, don't kid yourselves. By way of the terrorist underground, their having the bomb is a direct threat to the west.
China, the US, France, Britain, and the USSR agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals, partially in exchange for a world in which more and more countries would not pursue Nuclear weapons. The major nuclear powers have reduced the size of their nuclear arsenals. There were follow up treaties like the START treaty that furthered this process.
Signing the treaty was OPTIONAL. To sign meant a country would be able to transfer nuclear technology from the major powers to use it for peaceful use in EXCHANGE for the promise not to pursue nuclear weapons. The IAEA has been the referee, and reports on the various levels of compliance. By signing countries could fast-track to nuclear power generation etc, without having to invent or discover nuclear theory entirely on their own. 190 countries signed on.
Countries were never required to sign, but once they did, they were bound to the terms and conditions. There were non-nuclear states who cheated, North Korea-who officially dropped out of the NPT after it had obtained that level of nuclear technology by information transfer; Pakistan and India. The last two countries were given nuclear capability by many NPT signatories including Canada. It is difficult to overstate the peril that arose from these developments.
Iran has been building nuclear weapons, secretly, while still being an NPT signatory. The IAEA has reams of evidence that Iran has been flat-out lying: That despite all the polite diplomatic ways of saying it or dancing around the issue.
But beyond the issue that they promised one thing and do another, that they lie in open offense of Allah, they are assembling the bomb. That is simply undeniable. They have broken their word, they have effectively broken the treaty, although they continue ostensibly as though they were in compliance. To make matters worse, Iran has been backing global terrorism openly and clandestinely. Funding Hamas is enough evidence, but worse are its support of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and acts upon Iraq to the point of puppetry that they openly deny. The denial of course is in keeping with their deception on the NPT.
It is the prospect of Iran passing along nuclear weapons to terrorist groups that is most serious. The risk of a nuclear attack on the west in the next 10 years, is tantamount to the early days of the Cuban missile crisis.
It really disgusts me that so many would post minimizing this reality: Especially when those would be the same voices protesting Canada's nuclear power generation.
The next issue of stupidity, is to throw Israel into the mix. It NEVER signed the NPT, and as every sovereign state, could never be required to! That's what so many people just don't get! To bring the issue up knowing this, is to deflect the issue at hand, introduce a red herring, and mire problem solving into oblivion.
This is the rub. Israel has nukes. But Iran would have pursued this in any event, don't kid yourselves. By way of the terrorist underground, their having the bomb is a direct threat to the west.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Reading my Mail on Climate Change....
A professor of telecommunications at the Université du Québec's Institut national de la recheche scientifique/Energy, Materials and Telecommunications Centre.
As is typical of media reports on climate, columnist Albert Nerenberg ("The legacy we leave should be interesting," Friday Voice, Nov. 4) makes interpretations that do not stand up as he joins the chorus to DO SOMETHING about climate change.
Nerenberg says that "in 50 or 100 years from now it's very possible that climate change will be at a whole new level." Climate activists tend to use the words "possible" and "may" when describing negative views of the future, but then assume such "possibilities" will come true.
As a professor who has taught stochastic signal processing for more than 30 years, I can reliably state that many people misunderstand probability and computer models. (Witness a Lotto 6/49 player who, having lost 10 times, figures his odds of winning are thus higher.)
I have read much physical evidence, including reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (set up by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization). I favour reducing pollution, but not spending to combat "climate change."
People are arrogant to think they can control climate. Humans pollute their environment and render species extinct, but evidence of climate impact is marginal. Temperatures have risen for years, but links between temperature rise and carbon dioxide emissions are tenuous.
Climate publicity rarely cites any evidence of those links besides talk of a "greenhouse" effect. Greenhouses limit the circulation of air - something that is not true of our complex atmosphere. Carbon dioxide does not form a barrier up there, trapping heat. Atmospheric experiments on how carbon dioxide may affect heat transfer are impossible, which leads to uncertainty in the models.
I am open (as all scientists should be) to evidence from proper experiments. So far, the evidence is not convincing. As has been reported elsewhere, the IPCC process has been badly distorted and political from its inception. Its reports present much science, but have highly political interpretations, saying what their funders want to see.
I love the scientific method; it is always open to new data. Science is never "settled." Physics Today recently compared climate-change theory to heliocentrism and relativity, two theories widely criticized in their day. But the sun as the centre of the solar system has vast supporting evidence, while climate-change theory is based on unreliable computer models.
Post-hoc models often suggest human impact on climate, because the model-makers seek to find such links. Scientists need to make a living too. They see much governmental funding to explore (and find) climate change. Early researchers saw that finding no carbon dioxide-climate link led to little funding. Funders, as well as researchers, are affected by politics. (I know the system quite well, my research having been supported in Canada for 33 years now; I have been on several Ottawa and Quebec funding panels.) One always has an infinite range of possible experiments to do, but it is human nature to examine those likely to give pleasing results.
My career has focused on the development and use of computer models - not in the area of climate, but IPCC models are very similar to ones I know. One starts a model from basic scientific principles, but then one tweaks the system to "fit the data," as all models are simplifications and researchers rarely understand all phenomena they are examining. Climate models "predict" past data well, in hindsight, by manual adjustment of the models' parameters. The true challenge is to predict future occurrences, and here recent climate models fail badly. Despite carbon-dioxide emissions continuing to rise, temperature has not risen in the last decade or so. Few, if any, models in the 1990s predicted this. Much work remains to be done to achieve good models. We should not rush to spend vast sums of money based on such inadequate models.
Nerenberg says, "New parts of the planet could be turning to desert, the weather will be volatile, and food and land shortages will be precipitating terrible - human conflicts." This has been happening for centuries. There is no clear link with carbon dioxide; and we cannot really do anything about it anyway. Alarmists present no practical scenario in which people will agree to forfeit major parts of their lifestyle for vague possibilities of cutting temperature increase.
Science is not settled by majority vote, but by valid experimentation. Most "climate scientists" may well support the alarmists, but just as many meteorologists and geologists do not. Just as it is too important to leave decisions about war to the military, our Earth is too important to be left to those whose careers have been largely funded supporting a popular hypothesis to the exclusion of alternatives.
Climate has always been changing. Why are we now blaming carbon dioxide? The glaciers in the Canadian Rockies have been receding since 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age. There are many factors involved in climate. Carbon dioxide is a minor one.
© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/scientific+models+behind+climate+change+data+weak/5717111/story.html#ixzz1duLNLfd4
As is typical of media reports on climate, columnist Albert Nerenberg ("The legacy we leave should be interesting," Friday Voice, Nov. 4) makes interpretations that do not stand up as he joins the chorus to DO SOMETHING about climate change.
Nerenberg says that "in 50 or 100 years from now it's very possible that climate change will be at a whole new level." Climate activists tend to use the words "possible" and "may" when describing negative views of the future, but then assume such "possibilities" will come true.
As a professor who has taught stochastic signal processing for more than 30 years, I can reliably state that many people misunderstand probability and computer models. (Witness a Lotto 6/49 player who, having lost 10 times, figures his odds of winning are thus higher.)
I have read much physical evidence, including reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (set up by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization). I favour reducing pollution, but not spending to combat "climate change."
People are arrogant to think they can control climate. Humans pollute their environment and render species extinct, but evidence of climate impact is marginal. Temperatures have risen for years, but links between temperature rise and carbon dioxide emissions are tenuous.
Climate publicity rarely cites any evidence of those links besides talk of a "greenhouse" effect. Greenhouses limit the circulation of air - something that is not true of our complex atmosphere. Carbon dioxide does not form a barrier up there, trapping heat. Atmospheric experiments on how carbon dioxide may affect heat transfer are impossible, which leads to uncertainty in the models.
I am open (as all scientists should be) to evidence from proper experiments. So far, the evidence is not convincing. As has been reported elsewhere, the IPCC process has been badly distorted and political from its inception. Its reports present much science, but have highly political interpretations, saying what their funders want to see.
I love the scientific method; it is always open to new data. Science is never "settled." Physics Today recently compared climate-change theory to heliocentrism and relativity, two theories widely criticized in their day. But the sun as the centre of the solar system has vast supporting evidence, while climate-change theory is based on unreliable computer models.
Post-hoc models often suggest human impact on climate, because the model-makers seek to find such links. Scientists need to make a living too. They see much governmental funding to explore (and find) climate change. Early researchers saw that finding no carbon dioxide-climate link led to little funding. Funders, as well as researchers, are affected by politics. (I know the system quite well, my research having been supported in Canada for 33 years now; I have been on several Ottawa and Quebec funding panels.) One always has an infinite range of possible experiments to do, but it is human nature to examine those likely to give pleasing results.
My career has focused on the development and use of computer models - not in the area of climate, but IPCC models are very similar to ones I know. One starts a model from basic scientific principles, but then one tweaks the system to "fit the data," as all models are simplifications and researchers rarely understand all phenomena they are examining. Climate models "predict" past data well, in hindsight, by manual adjustment of the models' parameters. The true challenge is to predict future occurrences, and here recent climate models fail badly. Despite carbon-dioxide emissions continuing to rise, temperature has not risen in the last decade or so. Few, if any, models in the 1990s predicted this. Much work remains to be done to achieve good models. We should not rush to spend vast sums of money based on such inadequate models.
Nerenberg says, "New parts of the planet could be turning to desert, the weather will be volatile, and food and land shortages will be precipitating terrible - human conflicts." This has been happening for centuries. There is no clear link with carbon dioxide; and we cannot really do anything about it anyway. Alarmists present no practical scenario in which people will agree to forfeit major parts of their lifestyle for vague possibilities of cutting temperature increase.
Science is not settled by majority vote, but by valid experimentation. Most "climate scientists" may well support the alarmists, but just as many meteorologists and geologists do not. Just as it is too important to leave decisions about war to the military, our Earth is too important to be left to those whose careers have been largely funded supporting a popular hypothesis to the exclusion of alternatives.
Climate has always been changing. Why are we now blaming carbon dioxide? The glaciers in the Canadian Rockies have been receding since 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age. There are many factors involved in climate. Carbon dioxide is a minor one.
© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/scientific+models+behind+climate+change+data+weak/5717111/story.html#ixzz1duLNLfd4
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Hypotheses and Science
To use the word scam: you must draw a conclusion that not only is the experiment flawed but that deception was the intent of the "scientist"
This is the mistake of the quasi-skeptic perspective. A truly unemotional skeptic must say we cannot prove this to be wrong, we can only raise doubts. One scheme for example suggested that if H202 were a large part of the inlet water, then there would be enough energy to account for the excess apparent in the demonstration. As a doubt this has validity until it can be proven otherwise, but the doubt is not conclusive proof in any way shape or form. It falls to the doubt to prove itself on infallible evidence, not the hypothesis. The hypothesis doesn't need to prove itself to be right. The criticism must prove the hypothesis wrong, or it isn't valid science at all. Remember, this is a black box experiment. All that can be monitored is what goes in and what comes out of the box over a certain time period. However, you and I did not do the monitoring, so technically this is a doubt we can never satisfy. We monitor the monitoring, but that cannot bring scientific proof at best it can only raise doubt.. The hypothesis must be FALSIFIED; to be found to be discounted, otherwise it stands among many hypotheses--some with a greater body of evidence than others.
The nature of a black box experiment is that as the observation is limited, so the conclusions must be prefaced by terms like: "it would appear (That temperatures were maintained at x over a delta t."; or "apparently (the input was in fact tap water for example). In the last experiment for example, it is valid to comment that the initiating generator ran through out the test. However, what is unknown is the degree this 3rd party was certain that power source was disconnected. (remember they supplied the switches and guages).
I share many of the doubts of this group of skeptics, but I resist drawing premature conclusions. If I were there, I would verify this and that and settle the issues in my own mind. Only if you were there to do the same things, would your skepticism stand. Otherwise, it is cynicism to jump to a conclusion when there are not enough facts to do so.
This is the mistake of the quasi-skeptic perspective. A truly unemotional skeptic must say we cannot prove this to be wrong, we can only raise doubts. One scheme for example suggested that if H202 were a large part of the inlet water, then there would be enough energy to account for the excess apparent in the demonstration. As a doubt this has validity until it can be proven otherwise, but the doubt is not conclusive proof in any way shape or form. It falls to the doubt to prove itself on infallible evidence, not the hypothesis. The hypothesis doesn't need to prove itself to be right. The criticism must prove the hypothesis wrong, or it isn't valid science at all. Remember, this is a black box experiment. All that can be monitored is what goes in and what comes out of the box over a certain time period. However, you and I did not do the monitoring, so technically this is a doubt we can never satisfy. We monitor the monitoring, but that cannot bring scientific proof at best it can only raise doubt.. The hypothesis must be FALSIFIED; to be found to be discounted, otherwise it stands among many hypotheses--some with a greater body of evidence than others.
The nature of a black box experiment is that as the observation is limited, so the conclusions must be prefaced by terms like: "it would appear (That temperatures were maintained at x over a delta t."; or "apparently (the input was in fact tap water for example). In the last experiment for example, it is valid to comment that the initiating generator ran through out the test. However, what is unknown is the degree this 3rd party was certain that power source was disconnected. (remember they supplied the switches and guages).
I share many of the doubts of this group of skeptics, but I resist drawing premature conclusions. If I were there, I would verify this and that and settle the issues in my own mind. Only if you were there to do the same things, would your skepticism stand. Otherwise, it is cynicism to jump to a conclusion when there are not enough facts to do so.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Pipelines and Protests
Who can object to a utopian dream where we live in a world with far less pollution?
Who would object to developing renewable energy technologies--especially at a price that can compete with current market rates.
People who tend to be supporters of renewable energy are probably unaware that even after 100s of billions in grants and loan guaranties, virtually every North American and European company has gone bankrupt this past year. China has produced at a price point, no one else in the world could. There are no green jobs here any more... they have disappeared here and reappeared there.
We are in this place today, despite every altruism where we need hydrocarbons for our very survival, that is a fact. So until such time as we bear down on cold fusion as an energy source, this is the way of it. Canada's synthetic crude is a premium product and will eventually be treated that way.
Unfortunately, even if 90% of all Canadians want to build a pipeline to the West Coast, there will be people lying before bull-dozers all the way across BC. I propose we simultaneously build a pipe-line to the McKenzie delta, so we can build a city there to export via the NW passage. Choosing between which pipeline would be too confusing for the dope-smoking protestors. One way or the other Canada wins.
Who would object to developing renewable energy technologies--especially at a price that can compete with current market rates.
People who tend to be supporters of renewable energy are probably unaware that even after 100s of billions in grants and loan guaranties, virtually every North American and European company has gone bankrupt this past year. China has produced at a price point, no one else in the world could. There are no green jobs here any more... they have disappeared here and reappeared there.
We are in this place today, despite every altruism where we need hydrocarbons for our very survival, that is a fact. So until such time as we bear down on cold fusion as an energy source, this is the way of it. Canada's synthetic crude is a premium product and will eventually be treated that way.
Unfortunately, even if 90% of all Canadians want to build a pipeline to the West Coast, there will be people lying before bull-dozers all the way across BC. I propose we simultaneously build a pipe-line to the McKenzie delta, so we can build a city there to export via the NW passage. Choosing between which pipeline would be too confusing for the dope-smoking protestors. One way or the other Canada wins.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Pacific Gateway Pipeline debate.
Some people in BC aren't so stupid. Some of us know the safety of modern pipelines. All of the spills were from old pipelines. The new pipelines are moly-steel. In 100 years moly steel will not rust even in the Pacific Ocean. Moly Steel is stronger, and has greater tensile strength. If BC people really care, they would educate themselves, and demand pipe-line standards be that high.
BC already has many major pipelines: Oil, and Natural gas. One is an Artery right into the city of Vancouver. Pipelines are only scary when the spin-doctors get at them. Real education, unbiased by mantras and prejudices, is important. BC has always created great wealth by way of our ports. But we have hardly scratched the surface of what is possible. The agents of fear have a hammer-lock on our brains.
_______________________________
Well, do you have a retirement pension coming? Chances are the 1% you are referring to are comprised of pension plan holders, mutual fund owners, as well as the little guy managing their own portfolios. To think derisively about share-holders is to cut your nose off to despite your face. Even Canada Pension Plan is invested, silly.
______________________________
In a generation, we could be sheikhs. When the oil sands wealth starts to flow, Canada will be the next Dubai. There will be no such thing as income taxes. Our children can go to University for free. Our medical system will never want for money.
Or, we can go back to the stone age... or rather some of you can, the rest of Canada understands pragmatism. For pragmatists are what we are. I mention to the suzukiites among us, we could export it from Prince Rupert, and create a second vibrant wealthy port, or we could pipe line it up to the McKenzie Delta, since the North West passage is opening up anyhow. People in the NWT know and appreciate the importance of jobs... Why shouldn't Northerners be wealthy?
BC already has many major pipelines: Oil, and Natural gas. One is an Artery right into the city of Vancouver. Pipelines are only scary when the spin-doctors get at them. Real education, unbiased by mantras and prejudices, is important. BC has always created great wealth by way of our ports. But we have hardly scratched the surface of what is possible. The agents of fear have a hammer-lock on our brains.
_______________________________
Well, do you have a retirement pension coming? Chances are the 1% you are referring to are comprised of pension plan holders, mutual fund owners, as well as the little guy managing their own portfolios. To think derisively about share-holders is to cut your nose off to despite your face. Even Canada Pension Plan is invested, silly.
______________________________
In a generation, we could be sheikhs. When the oil sands wealth starts to flow, Canada will be the next Dubai. There will be no such thing as income taxes. Our children can go to University for free. Our medical system will never want for money.
Or, we can go back to the stone age... or rather some of you can, the rest of Canada understands pragmatism. For pragmatists are what we are. I mention to the suzukiites among us, we could export it from Prince Rupert, and create a second vibrant wealthy port, or we could pipe line it up to the McKenzie Delta, since the North West passage is opening up anyhow. People in the NWT know and appreciate the importance of jobs... Why shouldn't Northerners be wealthy?
Friday, November 4, 2011
AGW graphs.
Owen Abrey
Home
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/10/climategate-redux-co-author-of-seminal.html
This is a graphical representation of temperature data obtained and published by BEST, a group of 4 scientists sponsored out of Berkley University.
But this picture puts it all in context...
Mike Babulic One more bit of context: It's important to remember that we, along with the other flora & fauna now inhabiting earth, are adapted for the "chilly" conditions of tthe last 12 MILLION years
Owen Abrey Agreed. All I wanted to be able to show was that climate varies. Particularly in the past million years, there have been very rapid oscillations, with pronounced temp swings.
A.j. Heinrich One cannot deny the fact that global warming is occuring...however, whether or not WE are to blame is debatable...
Owen Abrey Actually, temps have plateaued since 1999. They spin it differently. One minute they tell you climate isn't the weather, and you can't measure it in a year, then they say that 6 out of the 12 past years have been the hottest since the 1800's when we started using thermometers. The problem with pushing the fact it has been flat, is that 12 years is a very small time to project solid climate data. However when you compare the data with this: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png* The past 12,000 years, you can see we actually are in a slump, despite the temps being the warmest in 150 years.
File:Holocene Temperature Variations.png - Wikimedia Commons
commons.wikimedia.org
The main figure shows eight records of local temperature variability on multi-ce...See More
Owen Abrey Then there is this data for the past 800,000 years: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg*
File:EPICA temperature plot.svg - Wikimedia Commons
commons.wikimedia.org
·
Owen Abrey you will notice the obvious cycles, and you can plainly see the earth is the temperature we ought to be if the cycles are measured at all. In fact, it actually becomes clear that we should be on the back of a severe downward trend, and even the warming over the past 100 years is incorporated into a plateau that extends back about 10,000 years.
Owen Abrey We should be seeing a temperature collapse over the next 2,000 years that will end in an iceage. To be quite frank. The AGW nonsense will be AGCC. (Anthropogenic global Climate Cooling) Because after all man kind is to blame no matter what happens.... the collective guilt experienced over AGW keeps the masses under control...
Owen Abrey These are my opinions, cultivated apart from the other climate skeptics. I am an optimistic skeptic. I want to expect good things, but am happy to hold back judgement until all the information is accounted for. Since the IPCC in my opinion deceptively keeps the graphs since the 1800 and not before, I will keep bringing it up until it receives proper treatment.
Home
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/10/climategate-redux-co-author-of-seminal.html
This is a graphical representation of temperature data obtained and published by BEST, a group of 4 scientists sponsored out of Berkley University.
But this picture puts it all in context...
Mike Babulic One more bit of context: It's important to remember that we, along with the other flora & fauna now inhabiting earth, are adapted for the "chilly" conditions of tthe last 12 MILLION years
Owen Abrey Agreed. All I wanted to be able to show was that climate varies. Particularly in the past million years, there have been very rapid oscillations, with pronounced temp swings.
A.j. Heinrich One cannot deny the fact that global warming is occuring...however, whether or not WE are to blame is debatable...
Owen Abrey Actually, temps have plateaued since 1999. They spin it differently. One minute they tell you climate isn't the weather, and you can't measure it in a year, then they say that 6 out of the 12 past years have been the hottest since the 1800's when we started using thermometers. The problem with pushing the fact it has been flat, is that 12 years is a very small time to project solid climate data. However when you compare the data with this: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png* The past 12,000 years, you can see we actually are in a slump, despite the temps being the warmest in 150 years.
File:Holocene Temperature Variations.png - Wikimedia Commons
commons.wikimedia.org
The main figure shows eight records of local temperature variability on multi-ce...See More
Owen Abrey Then there is this data for the past 800,000 years: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg*
File:EPICA temperature plot.svg - Wikimedia Commons
commons.wikimedia.org
·
Owen Abrey you will notice the obvious cycles, and you can plainly see the earth is the temperature we ought to be if the cycles are measured at all. In fact, it actually becomes clear that we should be on the back of a severe downward trend, and even the warming over the past 100 years is incorporated into a plateau that extends back about 10,000 years.
Owen Abrey We should be seeing a temperature collapse over the next 2,000 years that will end in an iceage. To be quite frank. The AGW nonsense will be AGCC. (Anthropogenic global Climate Cooling) Because after all man kind is to blame no matter what happens.... the collective guilt experienced over AGW keeps the masses under control...
Owen Abrey These are my opinions, cultivated apart from the other climate skeptics. I am an optimistic skeptic. I want to expect good things, but am happy to hold back judgement until all the information is accounted for. Since the IPCC in my opinion deceptively keeps the graphs since the 1800 and not before, I will keep bringing it up until it receives proper treatment.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
An optimistic skeptic: Rossi's LENR
This answers a series of questions that were explicitly detailed in the Oct 28 experiment; they showed up on a forum, ignorant. The guy didn't bother to read, just spewed what he thought were intelligent caveats.
Having obtained one of the report forms, I can state that apparently there was a feed back loop to obtain any water post reactor. If I recall correctly, that loop reported something like 6 litres over 7 hours of testing. It was a feed back loop, in that the water, presumably warm was cycled back through the reactors. If I understood it correctly, this contributed to the "self sustained" mode of operation as that heat was recycled to help keep the reactor temperature above 100C. That said, it didn't seem enough to be statistically important, and the data I saw indicated a very constant temperature of 105C while the reactor was operating.
I am an optimistic skeptic. I still don't have enough to say definitively this is bona fide. But I have been studying this LENR since January, and have read the SPAWAR journal articles published over the past 15 years. I have conceded it certainly does appear that there is anomalous heat, considering the whole range of experiments that have gone on since Stanley and Pons 1989.
Having obtained one of the report forms, I can state that apparently there was a feed back loop to obtain any water post reactor. If I recall correctly, that loop reported something like 6 litres over 7 hours of testing. It was a feed back loop, in that the water, presumably warm was cycled back through the reactors. If I understood it correctly, this contributed to the "self sustained" mode of operation as that heat was recycled to help keep the reactor temperature above 100C. That said, it didn't seem enough to be statistically important, and the data I saw indicated a very constant temperature of 105C while the reactor was operating.
I am an optimistic skeptic. I still don't have enough to say definitively this is bona fide. But I have been studying this LENR since January, and have read the SPAWAR journal articles published over the past 15 years. I have conceded it certainly does appear that there is anomalous heat, considering the whole range of experiments that have gone on since Stanley and Pons 1989.
The Cold Fusion Experiment and the Generator left running:
I think it was sheer stupidity that kept that generator running, the critics are right to bring that factoid up. However, if SPAWAR was the buyer, and set up the switches and gauges, there would be 100% confidence in the amount of electricity that flows regardless of whether that generator was running. They could have simply not foreseen the stumbling block, by virtue of their over-confidence.
Cold Fusion breaks the laws of Physics? A Primer:
I have been interested in this topic since 1989. For people unfamiliar with this, the various theories would not violate the laws of physics. Hot fusion uses high energy to force particles together past the "coulomb barrier" There is a force called the weak nuclear force that keeps atom nucleolus' apart. Its the nature repellent of ++ or-- forces we learn about in 3rd grade. There is another force called the strong nuclear force. It is strong, it attracts, but its range is very short. Imagine a magnetic train. Magnets repulse stronger than gravity, but the force drops off faster than gravity, so there is this natural neutral "boyancy" that allows near frictionless movement. Well there is a point where the strong nuclear force falls off, and the weak nuclear force takes over. It is very very close to the nucleus: Between the nucleus and the places where the first electron is typically found.
The idea of cold fusion does not force particles past the coulomb barrier, rather, it "coaxes" protons to snuggle up with a nickle nucleus. That can only happen if there was a way to neutralize the positive charge of the proton. In the 1950s a study was published that saw that happen by essentially "putting" a muon onto the proton. This eliminates the weak nuclear force, and enables the proton to get close enough for the strong nuclear force to grab it.
That is one idea. It breaks no laws. There are a few others, too complex to share here. There are problems with all the theories, and the study of the phenomena is far from complete. This is partially because of the way the Ivy League Universities have shut any study down, by sheer derision. With probable obscurity, what young scientist would want to go down this path? Any published peer reviewed papers in the past 20 years have had inordinate burdens of proof placed on them. The Ivy Leagues, 100 years ago derided the Write brothers and pronounced to the world man could never fly. The inventor went before the science, and the Ivy leagues ate crow and scrambled to catch up. It is possible this is happening again...
The idea of cold fusion does not force particles past the coulomb barrier, rather, it "coaxes" protons to snuggle up with a nickle nucleus. That can only happen if there was a way to neutralize the positive charge of the proton. In the 1950s a study was published that saw that happen by essentially "putting" a muon onto the proton. This eliminates the weak nuclear force, and enables the proton to get close enough for the strong nuclear force to grab it.
That is one idea. It breaks no laws. There are a few others, too complex to share here. There are problems with all the theories, and the study of the phenomena is far from complete. This is partially because of the way the Ivy League Universities have shut any study down, by sheer derision. With probable obscurity, what young scientist would want to go down this path? Any published peer reviewed papers in the past 20 years have had inordinate burdens of proof placed on them. The Ivy Leagues, 100 years ago derided the Write brothers and pronounced to the world man could never fly. The inventor went before the science, and the Ivy leagues ate crow and scrambled to catch up. It is possible this is happening again...
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
LENR developments
I have been watching this for many years. Rossi’s first public demonstration was in January.
Since the nay sayers in the ivy leagues have been dismissive and derisive of this research, Rossi said, “well they said human flight was impossible a century ago too) This is an inventors approach that seized upon a phenomena and evolved it directly into salable technology.
Similar to many who explored scientific phenomena a century and a half ago, he did so not fully understanding the science. Much like Tesla’s early days. Many of these inventor’s technologies have actually driven science to explain it.
Since the nay sayers in the ivy leagues have been dismissive and derisive of this research, Rossi said, “well they said human flight was impossible a century ago too) This is an inventors approach that seized upon a phenomena and evolved it directly into salable technology.
Similar to many who explored scientific phenomena a century and a half ago, he did so not fully understanding the science. Much like Tesla’s early days. Many of these inventor’s technologies have actually driven science to explain it.
Rob Ford in trouble again... stick handling the hate..
Alethia
11:15 PM on November 2, 2011
First of all, thank you for taking the time to post, and post intelligently. Most Canadians feel they are centrist. Few would admit they are left or right exclusively. I wrote as a push-back to the tone and accuracy of the article. I love satire and irony, metaphor and simile. Please don't read out of this anything different.
I am merely trying to point out the meting out of the "poetry" of our day, is focused on the right, or perhaps more accurately on Mr. Ford and Mr. Harper, by this blog the 2 most hated men in Canada.
Who I might add, have just recently received majority--mandated, by the parliamentary democratic, accepted method of the day.
Both are trying to deal with a soft economy and massive debt. I know this is a quagmire. Points can be made on both sides of this assertion. But whether or not we agree on the fine points, 2 men received a mandate to try to right the ship and prevent disaster. For the fact that, while the world is in crisis, but our economy is growing most Canadians are behind Mr. Harper right now; and are prepared to accept the singing of Christmas carols once again, and other trivial right wing perspectives in order to keep it that way.
I don't live in Ontario and have but a passing interest in Mr. Ford, but I see the left has pretty much successfully ham-strung him. Margaret and Toronto stopped any library closures. But with a hundred libraries in the city would many people miss 10 if it helped balance the budget. Or 10 libraries for the sake of ding ding *reduced municipal taxes, in the highest tax/mil rate structure in Canada? Maybe I am wrong, but I don't see that as right wing, but maybe a *bit right of center: I say have fun paying that 770 million dollar deficit. Maybe it will go away with magic, or maybe Margaret would break down and write a cheque...
So I ask you does the left *get irony or satire if its directed at them at all?
Delete
11:15 PM on November 2, 2011
First of all, thank you for taking the time to post, and post intelligently. Most Canadians feel they are centrist. Few would admit they are left or right exclusively. I wrote as a push-back to the tone and accuracy of the article. I love satire and irony, metaphor and simile. Please don't read out of this anything different.
I am merely trying to point out the meting out of the "poetry" of our day, is focused on the right, or perhaps more accurately on Mr. Ford and Mr. Harper, by this blog the 2 most hated men in Canada.
Who I might add, have just recently received majority--mandated, by the parliamentary democratic, accepted method of the day.
Both are trying to deal with a soft economy and massive debt. I know this is a quagmire. Points can be made on both sides of this assertion. But whether or not we agree on the fine points, 2 men received a mandate to try to right the ship and prevent disaster. For the fact that, while the world is in crisis, but our economy is growing most Canadians are behind Mr. Harper right now; and are prepared to accept the singing of Christmas carols once again, and other trivial right wing perspectives in order to keep it that way.
I don't live in Ontario and have but a passing interest in Mr. Ford, but I see the left has pretty much successfully ham-strung him. Margaret and Toronto stopped any library closures. But with a hundred libraries in the city would many people miss 10 if it helped balance the budget. Or 10 libraries for the sake of ding ding *reduced municipal taxes, in the highest tax/mil rate structure in Canada? Maybe I am wrong, but I don't see that as right wing, but maybe a *bit right of center: I say have fun paying that 770 million dollar deficit. Maybe it will go away with magic, or maybe Margaret would break down and write a cheque...
So I ask you does the left *get irony or satire if its directed at them at all?
Delete
Flap over Israel's blocade
It would be far smarter to send it to Somalia. They are starving there, while Palestinians are fat. I am sure all the Somali pirates would provide you safe passage where Alshabaab can take over and make sure it all goes to people in need.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
The left slams the right and Rob Ford to teach us tolerance, and patience.
Of course, you are right here regarding personal space. I differ with you on your implied tolerance for media sanctioned insult, whatever the location or medium. One's home derives its sanctity from one's PERSON, not one's dignity from one's possessions
You voted
Report Abuse
Score: 1
etranger
1:59 AM on November 2, 2011
And this is why Kings had castles.....
Report Abuse
Score: 0
Alethia
2:30 AM on November 2, 2011
You see, that is whats wrong with the left. A home's sanctity comes from one's person? So because Mr. Ford is a "bad person", he has no right to privacy?
Ever hear of the Magna Carta? Or inalienable human rights? Or common law that rises as a result of hundreds of years of deliberations from those human rights?
If this is promoted as satire, why don't you stick the camera lens right into Mr. Ford's bedroom? He is the Bogey man anyhow. No body likes his *person*, so should he then should he then expect to have no sanctity of home? He was ambushed at dawn for pity sake on his very front step!
Do you think the pendulum has swung too far to the right? Ever think its because its been swung way too far to the left for a very long time? Of course not. The left seems to have no ability for introspection. If there was such a thing as satire directed to the left, the left would never know it.
The right is supposed to be properly chastened by this satire, but we are here because of the intolerable license the left has stolen from us for 40 years. I am all for good social programs (a left wing ideology), but has society gone too far? Is the left so used to pilfering everyone else's pockets, taking social license from privacy of house and home, that they no longer see?
--That no one should have the right to point out how intolerable that has become?
I like satire. But when it comes to politics, there is 1 target on the right and 3 on the left plus the BQ. When has the sneering ever been spread evenly? Were the Conservatives targets any less than now that they are *in* power? No, they are consistently the target of this class of society. As I read over these comments, what has the author whipped up? I see accusation, slurs, labels, little satire, little humor--instead of respect and tolerance, I see hatred and intolerance, and its not coming from the right.
I say this, holding back all sorts of right wing blather, I am not repeating party dogma or right wing catch phrases, to balance this swell of slurs. When someone decides to dive into the slop, why should their opponent too?
Delete
You voted
Report Abuse
Score: 1
etranger
1:59 AM on November 2, 2011
And this is why Kings had castles.....
Report Abuse
Score: 0
Alethia
2:30 AM on November 2, 2011
You see, that is whats wrong with the left. A home's sanctity comes from one's person? So because Mr. Ford is a "bad person", he has no right to privacy?
Ever hear of the Magna Carta? Or inalienable human rights? Or common law that rises as a result of hundreds of years of deliberations from those human rights?
If this is promoted as satire, why don't you stick the camera lens right into Mr. Ford's bedroom? He is the Bogey man anyhow. No body likes his *person*, so should he then should he then expect to have no sanctity of home? He was ambushed at dawn for pity sake on his very front step!
Do you think the pendulum has swung too far to the right? Ever think its because its been swung way too far to the left for a very long time? Of course not. The left seems to have no ability for introspection. If there was such a thing as satire directed to the left, the left would never know it.
The right is supposed to be properly chastened by this satire, but we are here because of the intolerable license the left has stolen from us for 40 years. I am all for good social programs (a left wing ideology), but has society gone too far? Is the left so used to pilfering everyone else's pockets, taking social license from privacy of house and home, that they no longer see?
--That no one should have the right to point out how intolerable that has become?
I like satire. But when it comes to politics, there is 1 target on the right and 3 on the left plus the BQ. When has the sneering ever been spread evenly? Were the Conservatives targets any less than now that they are *in* power? No, they are consistently the target of this class of society. As I read over these comments, what has the author whipped up? I see accusation, slurs, labels, little satire, little humor--instead of respect and tolerance, I see hatred and intolerance, and its not coming from the right.
I say this, holding back all sorts of right wing blather, I am not repeating party dogma or right wing catch phrases, to balance this swell of slurs. When someone decides to dive into the slop, why should their opponent too?
Delete
Wall Street Journal, on the US defunding UNESCO.
The Canadian government stands staunchly with the US position. It is considering withdrawing funds, although it doesn't have the legal pressure to do so. That said, sad to say, many Canadian people are at odds with the government on this. The popular myth that forgets actual history pervades its educational institutions. It has forgotten that this area of the middle east was the leavings of the collapsed Byzantine empire. Syria and Jordan and even Egypt was offered the land. They turned it down, not because there may have been some Palestinian people living there, they comprise a large part of Jordan's indigenous populations, for example. It was deemed a waste land and no one wanted it. Until the Jews did.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204528204577009791967672810.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204528204577009791967672810.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle
Monday, October 31, 2011
Discussion around the BEST controversy in AGW/climate change.
ferrett78
Re: Climate change discourse
I think BEST's greatest achievement was the detailed examination of the heat-island effect, and determined the heat-island problem had been put to rest by the 39,000 sample correlation. I say this, not because I have been able to verify this with my own eyes, but because the premise of BEST was skeptical. So I am reasonably convinced had there been a heat island effect it should have shown up in the datum.
Therefore, having put to rest that concern, its parallel information with NASA etc was certainly supportive. I (personally) have no problem conceding this, having been satisfied the data is supportive without heat island. I understand that already noted and obvious heat-island stations were *excluded from the data a priori.
The fact of late 20th century warming was never in question in my mind. It has always been the anthropological assumption. If we accept the datum with in a decade of 1939 to be statistically valid, and pin-pointing the record warm point, and if we accept the datum from 1979-1998, then the datum from 1998 to 2011 has similar weight. So if the anthropological correlation assumed in the 1st two periods were applied in exactly the same way, the problem and contention rears its ugly head again, since the rate of CO2 increase and correlation to temperature rise were applied in the same way, the 3rd period (yes only just over a decade), the cause and effect that should be expected, based on the way that it was applied decadally in 1939, and 2 decades in 1998.
I have indicated to you before that I agree counting decades is like splitting hairs when thinking about climate, but never the less the plateau is as clear as the slope from 1979 at least. The direct correlation predicted by AGW is not in the data.
A failed prediction by itself should never disqualify a theory, but it raises a flag that warrants serious analysis, and shouldn't be treated dismissively (as it is). Furthermore, in reading Dr. Currie's statement, she isn't objecting to the data, she objects to the assertion the data supports anthropological-Co2 correlation, since the plateau is quite clearly breaking from the trend. And, she is objecting to the graphing which as I pointed out earlier, was prejudicial, and suggesting a continuation of the 79-98 slope. This is a serious problem. Instead of taking it seriously, it seems to be to be treated dismissively out of hand.
I feel like I am being rather hard on you lad. But thank you for the interaction.
Re: Climate change discourse
I think BEST's greatest achievement was the detailed examination of the heat-island effect, and determined the heat-island problem had been put to rest by the 39,000 sample correlation. I say this, not because I have been able to verify this with my own eyes, but because the premise of BEST was skeptical. So I am reasonably convinced had there been a heat island effect it should have shown up in the datum.
Therefore, having put to rest that concern, its parallel information with NASA etc was certainly supportive. I (personally) have no problem conceding this, having been satisfied the data is supportive without heat island. I understand that already noted and obvious heat-island stations were *excluded from the data a priori.
The fact of late 20th century warming was never in question in my mind. It has always been the anthropological assumption. If we accept the datum with in a decade of 1939 to be statistically valid, and pin-pointing the record warm point, and if we accept the datum from 1979-1998, then the datum from 1998 to 2011 has similar weight. So if the anthropological correlation assumed in the 1st two periods were applied in exactly the same way, the problem and contention rears its ugly head again, since the rate of CO2 increase and correlation to temperature rise were applied in the same way, the 3rd period (yes only just over a decade), the cause and effect that should be expected, based on the way that it was applied decadally in 1939, and 2 decades in 1998.
I have indicated to you before that I agree counting decades is like splitting hairs when thinking about climate, but never the less the plateau is as clear as the slope from 1979 at least. The direct correlation predicted by AGW is not in the data.
A failed prediction by itself should never disqualify a theory, but it raises a flag that warrants serious analysis, and shouldn't be treated dismissively (as it is). Furthermore, in reading Dr. Currie's statement, she isn't objecting to the data, she objects to the assertion the data supports anthropological-Co2 correlation, since the plateau is quite clearly breaking from the trend. And, she is objecting to the graphing which as I pointed out earlier, was prejudicial, and suggesting a continuation of the 79-98 slope. This is a serious problem. Instead of taking it seriously, it seems to be to be treated dismissively out of hand.
I feel like I am being rather hard on you lad. But thank you for the interaction.
Private insurance, vs. Public Welfare for those who truly need it.
I consider myself a conservative. I have always believed you pull your self up by your bootstraps. If you aren't getting by work harder. With diligence and hard work anyone can become wealthy.
Well the old saying: "you don't believe it until it happens to you" applies to me. I have a crippling disability. It was interesting to watch how the insurance companies worked diligently to extricate themselves from their long term disability responsibility. Fortunately, according to them, my disability disappeared after all their tests. I was as I was before the "tests". But they clearly wanted to clear the books of me. After the humiliating denigrating experience I had with them, I was glad to be rid of them. My long term disability lasted only one year. Now I am "fine", magically changed according to their definition of disability. If you aren't dead or dying, "insurance" is just a scam. 20 years of paying into the program of course, doesn't matter.
So after bankruptcy, and devastation, proudly watching my kids struggle through college on their own. (any idea what tuition is to go to an "Art Institute for 4 years?) I have seen my son homeless trying.
I survive day to day on CPP's stipend of under 900.00 per month, and am grateful for a public-not-private Canadian support system. I am ok with private medical care, we all have it, since our GPs almost always own their own clinics and diagnostic labs. But if the criterion for who gets what care is left to insurance companies, they will find my dead body on the steps of parliament. I hang on, I think we are going in the right direction. I would do anything to feel like I wasn't on the receiving end of this. I am not worth the excellence of care I have had at the hands of these public programs.
Thank You Canada
Well the old saying: "you don't believe it until it happens to you" applies to me. I have a crippling disability. It was interesting to watch how the insurance companies worked diligently to extricate themselves from their long term disability responsibility. Fortunately, according to them, my disability disappeared after all their tests. I was as I was before the "tests". But they clearly wanted to clear the books of me. After the humiliating denigrating experience I had with them, I was glad to be rid of them. My long term disability lasted only one year. Now I am "fine", magically changed according to their definition of disability. If you aren't dead or dying, "insurance" is just a scam. 20 years of paying into the program of course, doesn't matter.
So after bankruptcy, and devastation, proudly watching my kids struggle through college on their own. (any idea what tuition is to go to an "Art Institute for 4 years?) I have seen my son homeless trying.
I survive day to day on CPP's stipend of under 900.00 per month, and am grateful for a public-not-private Canadian support system. I am ok with private medical care, we all have it, since our GPs almost always own their own clinics and diagnostic labs. But if the criterion for who gets what care is left to insurance companies, they will find my dead body on the steps of parliament. I hang on, I think we are going in the right direction. I would do anything to feel like I wasn't on the receiving end of this. I am not worth the excellence of care I have had at the hands of these public programs.
Thank You Canada
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Sigificant and Insignificant risk in Afghanistan
For those who love to Hate Harper I ask, do any of you have house insurance?
The risk of your house burning down is minimal.
The risk of your house burning down is significant.
Our troops obviously have minimal risk in comparison to being on the front lines, and in active battle, when they are trainers well behind the wire. However, each death is significant, so the risk is significant as well. This doesn't need to be framed as a polemic. Either/OR; This or That; Significant or Insignificant. Rather this is a time when both are true. Known to some as paradoxical perhaps, but sometimes one truth does not come at the dispensing of another.
The risk of your house burning down is minimal.
The risk of your house burning down is significant.
Our troops obviously have minimal risk in comparison to being on the front lines, and in active battle, when they are trainers well behind the wire. However, each death is significant, so the risk is significant as well. This doesn't need to be framed as a polemic. Either/OR; This or That; Significant or Insignificant. Rather this is a time when both are true. Known to some as paradoxical perhaps, but sometimes one truth does not come at the dispensing of another.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Cold fusion
Further information on Rossi's cold fusion (LENR) reactor test of October 28, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sZHOQ6P-Rw
It remains to be seen who is the customer, what are the constituents, how does the process work theoretically.
For those who puzzle over the background to this story see:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sZHOQ6P-Rw
It remains to be seen who is the customer, what are the constituents, how does the process work theoretically.
For those who puzzle over the background to this story see:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n
BC politics.
The problem with this debate is the tendency to frame it in terms of polemics: Business or personal taxes, good medical care vs. the cost of paying for it, public or private, rich or poor, big business vs. small business. The problem is when you frame something "either-or" a lot of truth doesn't fit. If all BC had was big business, I think everyone would admit, many of us would be unhappy. If all of BC was small business, there would be smaller wages, lower standard of living. Being resource rich does no one any good unless they can be extracted in a way that creates wealth. So we need bigger, more efficient business in the province to take on massive projects like mines and lumber industry. Clearly, governments tend not to be good business people. So by and large it is good to keep them in the public sector providing for social needs. But if we say it has to be one way or the other exclusively, that's where we get into trouble. Government should do what it does best; the private sector what it does best; and big business what it does best. The main criteria needs be what creates wealth, and I don't mean just wages or profits. I mean that place where the highest possible standard of living is afforded. Where Big Business can make a good profit, labour can make good wages, and small business can thrive. But also, that our medical care is top-notch and accessible to all, where the sick and poor are cared for, the disabled have dignity, education is excellent, etc. etc. etc.
Friday, October 28, 2011
In anticipation of Cold Fusion.
I am reminded skepticism in science needs not apology. Cynicism on the other hand can lead to the humbling experience of eating crow. If the world can have this technology rise above healthy skepticism, there will be a lot of people who owe Rossi, and Pons and Flieschman and apology. When it results in the humiliation of the "great" papered scientists of Harvard, Yale, MIT etc. Will they be driven into oblivion like Stanley Pons? Highly doubtful. But the prestige of their employers is on the line here. It is not surprising much of the main media are staying away. They live in the shadow of cynicism.
I wonder if a good healthy shake up of these universities won't be a good thing for the world. The grip of politics on science has yielded a great cynicism in the world, one that needs to be re-evaluated as much as LENR and related tech are needed in the world.
I wonder if a good healthy shake up of these universities won't be a good thing for the world. The grip of politics on science has yielded a great cynicism in the world, one that needs to be re-evaluated as much as LENR and related tech are needed in the world.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
On the LGR--this one's funny
I bought my gun before the FAC, the License and the Registry. It is one of the millions of unregistered guns in Canada. And it always will be. God forbid there is ever a Canadian "Spring", but if there is, they won't be knocking at my door taking my gun. And I won't have to stop armed criminals from coming into my home with my bare hands.
I have watched myself become one of those wild-eyed radicals on this issue over the years. Since these laws came into place, I have watched as some poor sap forgot to renew his license and had all his guns confiscated. Hey they knew where he lived, someone could have said, "Good evening sir, we notice your license has lapsed, will that be visa or mastercharge?" That will never happen to me. I refused to license. It gives too much power to the state, and disempowers me from my right to unreasonable search and seizure.
I have watched RCMP invade a home without warrant as an excuse for something else they wanted to look for. Hey buddy, once your gun is registered its only a matter of time before they come to take it away. That is plain wrong. I refuse to empower the state to erode my constitutional right. I have watched as honest men, defending their home, have been treated like criminals. That is not right.
I think when I bought my guns, I was a sane citizen. But this is drivng me crazy. I know I have had a battle with depression. Anxieties like this can create stress that drives depression. I am suicidal every day. I have a razor blade within reach right now, and a rope behind my chair. The one weapon I would not choose is my gun. I couldn't bear to give those statisticians the satisfaction. At least my kids can inherit my guns, but that will be a secret. Because they will never register their guns either.
I have watched myself become one of those wild-eyed radicals on this issue over the years. Since these laws came into place, I have watched as some poor sap forgot to renew his license and had all his guns confiscated. Hey they knew where he lived, someone could have said, "Good evening sir, we notice your license has lapsed, will that be visa or mastercharge?" That will never happen to me. I refused to license. It gives too much power to the state, and disempowers me from my right to unreasonable search and seizure.
I have watched RCMP invade a home without warrant as an excuse for something else they wanted to look for. Hey buddy, once your gun is registered its only a matter of time before they come to take it away. That is plain wrong. I refuse to empower the state to erode my constitutional right. I have watched as honest men, defending their home, have been treated like criminals. That is not right.
I think when I bought my guns, I was a sane citizen. But this is drivng me crazy. I know I have had a battle with depression. Anxieties like this can create stress that drives depression. I am suicidal every day. I have a razor blade within reach right now, and a rope behind my chair. The one weapon I would not choose is my gun. I couldn't bear to give those statisticians the satisfaction. At least my kids can inherit my guns, but that will be a secret. Because they will never register their guns either.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Nuclear Reactors in Canada vs Fukashima and Chernobyl.
Who said anything about immune? I will say again, and its too bad one of my posts was deleted in this thread, you can't compare a Candu reactor built on the Canadian Shield, to Fukashima built next to a major fault line, perched on the ring of fire. Do some reading on Candu's low temperature reactors (Fuk and Chern, were both high temperature.) before you dive in over your head. But one of the key aspects of a Candu reactor is that it can burn nuclear waste from almost every other nuclear reactor in the world. Want to reduce nuclear waste on a global scale?
A year ago, when this was being hotly debated due to Hoepner's private members bill, part of the debate was focused on the irrational fear of gun owners that registration precedes confiscation.
Surely that is not happening here. These poor gun owning saps didn't actually *register* their guns did they?
When the current gun registry goes away, can we be certain the information is deleted for all time? It better not be available for another government to pick up, dust off and carry on the ludicrous rationale of past Liberal/NDP philosophy.
Will law abiding gun owners be forced to turn in guns they obtained legally, faithfully registered, and accepted government promises, registration was *not* a prelude to confiscation after all?
Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/Part+Tighten+controls+civilianized+military+assault+weapons/5594876/story.html#ixzz1biU1l6T9
Surely that is not happening here. These poor gun owning saps didn't actually *register* their guns did they?
When the current gun registry goes away, can we be certain the information is deleted for all time? It better not be available for another government to pick up, dust off and carry on the ludicrous rationale of past Liberal/NDP philosophy.
Will law abiding gun owners be forced to turn in guns they obtained legally, faithfully registered, and accepted government promises, registration was *not* a prelude to confiscation after all?
Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/Part+Tighten+controls+civilianized+military+assault+weapons/5594876/story.html#ixzz1biU1l6T9
Look LENR needs credible spokes people. Everytime a proponant goes off on a tangent, it undermines credibility relative to that person's knowledge of LENR. I have been a person open to LENR since before Rossi's release last January. I have agrued against LENR's *opponents in the forums, because I believe it ought to have a chance to live up to its promise. So that is why I get upset, when people barge into places as though they have knowledge when they actually don't, because if they are wrong on this point, they appear more likely to be wrong on the other (lenr). There is a credibility gap. Please don't go making it deeper.
Who said anything about immune? I will say again, and its too bad one of my posts was deleted in this thread, you can't compare a Candu reactor built on the Canadian Shield, to Fukashima built next to a major fault line, perched on the ring of fire. Do some reading on Candu's low temperature reactors (Fuk and Chern, were both high temperature.) before you dive in over your head. But one of the key aspects of a Candu reactor is that it can burn nuclear waste from almost every other nuclear reactor in the world. Want to reduce nuclear waste on a global scale?
Nuclear accident fallout does not respect country borders. If an explosion at a nuclear facility happens (like Fukoshima) then the radioactivity can traverse the entire Northern or Southern hemisphere. You have just shown your ignorance of how dangerous a supposedly "safe" nuclear installation can be. Nuclear accidents are not just confined to weather phenomena.
3 hours ago · Like
Free Energy Truth
Nuclear installations don't need to be on fault lines for things to go badly wrong, take Chernobyl for example. They thought that everything was nice and safe as well, that is, until the plant melted down leaving the surrounding town and area an uninhabitable wasteland.
And can I also point out that Canada is not immune to random acts of terrorism either. Trying to push your "safe" nuclear agenda on this group is pissing into the wind
Who said anything about immune? I will say again, and its too bad one of my posts was deleted in this thread, you can't compare a Candu reactor built on the Canadian Shield, to Fukashima built next to a major fault line, perched on the ring of fire. Do some reading on Candu's low temperature reactors (Fuk and Chern, were both high temperature.) before you dive in over your head. But one of the key aspects of a Candu reactor is that it can burn nuclear waste from almost every other nuclear reactor in the world. Want to reduce nuclear waste on a global scale?
Nuclear accident fallout does not respect country borders. If an explosion at a nuclear facility happens (like Fukoshima) then the radioactivity can traverse the entire Northern or Southern hemisphere. You have just shown your ignorance of how dangerous a supposedly "safe" nuclear installation can be. Nuclear accidents are not just confined to weather phenomena.
3 hours ago · Like
Free Energy Truth
Nuclear installations don't need to be on fault lines for things to go badly wrong, take Chernobyl for example. They thought that everything was nice and safe as well, that is, until the plant melted down leaving the surrounding town and area an uninhabitable wasteland.
And can I also point out that Canada is not immune to random acts of terrorism either. Trying to push your "safe" nuclear agenda on this group is pissing into the wind
Capitalism Socialism and Ron Paul
First of all, as a Canadian, I really like Medicare. So I want to recognize that I appreciate social services. However, from an economic point of view, they are madly inefficient. There is a tension between "greedy and corrupt" and "lazy and corrupt". I don't think Free Market Principals are the be all and end all. FMP doesn't take into account luck that is behind almost all success stories. However, it does tend to count value of work efficiently. Again there certainly are exceptions to this.
The 2008 crash killed a lot of businesses that may have had the bad luck to be in a start up phase. Then I saw unbelievable events that really stopped FMP, masked under the Banking Bailout in the US. For example Washington Mutual was a bank that was in trouble. The US gov't (not fmp) finally gave it to Wells Fargo under the following conditions: Wells Fargo would accept all WM's assets but none of its liabilities. If you had a WM mortgage, and FMP allowed it to totally collapse, there would be a lot of people in the Pacific North West without a mortgage, loan payment, or over-draft. With such wealth at the bottom of the economy the housing collapse would have had a hard time happening. Capitalization of the poor/middle class was the answer to the Bank's corruption. It is too simplistic to suggest that disasterous things were not in the offing due to the fact liquidity is absolutely neccessary to move goods in the market. But this was something I saw, that I was struck by. FMP was not allowed to play out. So the US has an extra 6-7 trillion in debt on it's plate. Mind boggling.
The 2008 crash killed a lot of businesses that may have had the bad luck to be in a start up phase. Then I saw unbelievable events that really stopped FMP, masked under the Banking Bailout in the US. For example Washington Mutual was a bank that was in trouble. The US gov't (not fmp) finally gave it to Wells Fargo under the following conditions: Wells Fargo would accept all WM's assets but none of its liabilities. If you had a WM mortgage, and FMP allowed it to totally collapse, there would be a lot of people in the Pacific North West without a mortgage, loan payment, or over-draft. With such wealth at the bottom of the economy the housing collapse would have had a hard time happening. Capitalization of the poor/middle class was the answer to the Bank's corruption. It is too simplistic to suggest that disasterous things were not in the offing due to the fact liquidity is absolutely neccessary to move goods in the market. But this was something I saw, that I was struck by. FMP was not allowed to play out. So the US has an extra 6-7 trillion in debt on it's plate. Mind boggling.
On gun confiscations:
A year ago, when this was being hotly debated due to Hoepner's private members bill, part of the debate was focused on the irrational fear of gun owners that registration precedes confiscation.
Surely that is not happening here. These poor gun owning saps didn't actually *register* their guns did they?
When the current gun registry goes away, can we be certain the information is deleted for all time? It better not be available for another government to pick up, dust off and carry on the ludicrous rationale of past Liberal/NDP philosophy.
Will law abiding gun owners be forced to turn in guns they obtained legally, faithfully registered, and accepted government promises, registration was *not* a prelude to confiscation after all?
Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/Part+Tighten+controls+civilianized+military+assault+weapons/5594876/story.html#ixzz1biU1l6T9
Surely that is not happening here. These poor gun owning saps didn't actually *register* their guns did they?
When the current gun registry goes away, can we be certain the information is deleted for all time? It better not be available for another government to pick up, dust off and carry on the ludicrous rationale of past Liberal/NDP philosophy.
Will law abiding gun owners be forced to turn in guns they obtained legally, faithfully registered, and accepted government promises, registration was *not* a prelude to confiscation after all?
Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/Part+Tighten+controls+civilianized+military+assault+weapons/5594876/story.html#ixzz1biU1l6T9
Monday, October 17, 2011
Debate continued...
over simplification is not a problem for you Owen *L* BUt...If an American Bulldozer drove across the border into southern Ontario and started Bulldozing, there would be a problem..does not address the humanitarian issues of families being ...See More
24 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey Joe, I take exception to that. One of my best friends is an Arab whose grandfather was once the mayor of Bethlehem.
10 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey I can't think of how many times the bulldozer thing has been done on TV. Big Corps or Big Government making way for a hiway.
9 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey However, I was appealing to your intelligence not from the whimsy of a Television show. We all know or suspect a profound bias there. Rather, I was attempting to frame this in the context of history. Reliefs of Ashurbanipal II using his mace to crush the heads of Jews he captured when he defeated the city. He would skip every 7th one, and allow that person to live. Man, women and child it made no difference.
6 minutes ago · Like
Joe R A Wilson
Good! My point went back to a comment made by someone else, that the Arabs did not want peace. Where it is true, some Arabs want nothing to do with peace, as many Israelis want nothing to do with peace. It is not nationality or religion spe...See More
6 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey I felt like we were able to discuss this without denigrating each other.
6 minutes ago · Like
Joe R A Wilson Sorry if I used you to make my point, if or if not you see it. Nothing of any of this matters, if the one we serve, would do it different than we would.
5 minutes ago · Like
Joe R A Wilson You are a very intelligent and responsible debator Owen and I am sorry if I made you feel degraded in any way. I sometimes write faster than I think *S*
4 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey He will abolish war, and cause "swords to be made into plowshares" War is evil. Don't mistake my commentary for commendation. That would be the opposite of truth. I didn't think I had mistaken you for being closed minded. I think I will shut up here, but will enjoy you and Tom debate each other from time to time, none-the-less...
2 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey Thank you for the interaction.
about a minute ago · Like
Joe R A Wilson never be silent Owen. You make people think, on both sides or better said, all sides of the debate. My brother and I have always been hard to change the opinions of, it's in the blood.
24 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey Joe, I take exception to that. One of my best friends is an Arab whose grandfather was once the mayor of Bethlehem.
10 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey I can't think of how many times the bulldozer thing has been done on TV. Big Corps or Big Government making way for a hiway.
9 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey However, I was appealing to your intelligence not from the whimsy of a Television show. We all know or suspect a profound bias there. Rather, I was attempting to frame this in the context of history. Reliefs of Ashurbanipal II using his mace to crush the heads of Jews he captured when he defeated the city. He would skip every 7th one, and allow that person to live. Man, women and child it made no difference.
6 minutes ago · Like
Joe R A Wilson
Good! My point went back to a comment made by someone else, that the Arabs did not want peace. Where it is true, some Arabs want nothing to do with peace, as many Israelis want nothing to do with peace. It is not nationality or religion spe...See More
6 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey I felt like we were able to discuss this without denigrating each other.
6 minutes ago · Like
Joe R A Wilson Sorry if I used you to make my point, if or if not you see it. Nothing of any of this matters, if the one we serve, would do it different than we would.
5 minutes ago · Like
Joe R A Wilson You are a very intelligent and responsible debator Owen and I am sorry if I made you feel degraded in any way. I sometimes write faster than I think *S*
4 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey He will abolish war, and cause "swords to be made into plowshares" War is evil. Don't mistake my commentary for commendation. That would be the opposite of truth. I didn't think I had mistaken you for being closed minded. I think I will shut up here, but will enjoy you and Tom debate each other from time to time, none-the-less...
2 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey Thank you for the interaction.
about a minute ago · Like
Joe R A Wilson never be silent Owen. You make people think, on both sides or better said, all sides of the debate. My brother and I have always been hard to change the opinions of, it's in the blood.
On Israel and Palestine
I hate war. However, I am a student of it. Perhaps a poor student. However there has developed over hundreds a years a series of conventions and law that applies to war. Some of them familiar: Intentionally targeting and murdering innoc...See More
39 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey I certainly don't mean to offend by perhaps this over-simplification, but the examples are to lay out the conventions of war which pertain to using land concessions for peace. If Canada validly owns southern Ontario, then the convention is valid. It was the losing side which sued for peace
36 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey
What other option did they have? The American Revolution was in peril. When a side is losing, they will concede what ever they need to stop being killed, and those concessions may reflect the degree they are in trouble. And on the other ...See More
21 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey (Something we like to forget)
20 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey
They were the settlements of 3 nations whose property was conquered, and who were beaten badly. And there was an understanding that for Egypt for example, they were losing ground to the Nile. Syria lost the West Bank, East Bank, Golan, an...See More
9 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey
Forgive me if this has come across as patronizing. That was not my intent. It is so easy to get caught up in the very real human drama, that these legal conventions and a broad historical perspective is lost. War is hell. It makes even ...See More
about a minute ago
39 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey I certainly don't mean to offend by perhaps this over-simplification, but the examples are to lay out the conventions of war which pertain to using land concessions for peace. If Canada validly owns southern Ontario, then the convention is valid. It was the losing side which sued for peace
36 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey
What other option did they have? The American Revolution was in peril. When a side is losing, they will concede what ever they need to stop being killed, and those concessions may reflect the degree they are in trouble. And on the other ...See More
21 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey (Something we like to forget)
20 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey
They were the settlements of 3 nations whose property was conquered, and who were beaten badly. And there was an understanding that for Egypt for example, they were losing ground to the Nile. Syria lost the West Bank, East Bank, Golan, an...See More
9 minutes ago · Like
Owen Abrey
Forgive me if this has come across as patronizing. That was not my intent. It is so easy to get caught up in the very real human drama, that these legal conventions and a broad historical perspective is lost. War is hell. It makes even ...See More
about a minute ago
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Early 20th century developments in Palestine.
History of the Mideast conflict.
by Tom Wilson on Sunday, October 16, 2011 at 5:55pm
It started in 1917 with the Balfour Declaration. Then a few Jews immigrated to Israel (to join the few thousand who have always lived there)...
Then the UN voted to give the Jews a small portion of desert in the area that was called Palestine.
The Hitler killed many millions of Jews and drove the rest out of Europe. The NO nation in the world would accept the Jewish refugees – except the British in the land called Palestine. But then even the British tried to stop the Jews – and put them in British CONCENTRATION camps....And then the UN voted again and again gave a small portion of the land to the Jews; but the Arabs rejected this idea and swore to drive the Jews into the sea (and finish the job that Hitler started).
The the Jews declared a homeland and were willing to make major compromises just to have a land of their own. But the Arabs rejected any compromise of any kind, and swore to kill the Jews...Then x5 Arab nations invaded Palestine – and promptly got their asses kicked! Then there were some truces that lasted various lengths of time – but the Arabs always rejected Peace – attacked Israel – and got their asses kicked! And time after time these war-loving & hate-filled Arabs attacked Israel – and got their asses kicked!....So when will the Arabs give up? Never – because they hate God, and they hate God's people.
________________________________________
Owen Abrey There are some more important facts. This land belonged to the Ottoman Empire for around 800 years. Following the breakup of the empire, Syria and Jordan staked out the lands they wanted. The land that is now Israel was the land no one wanted. It was a barren waste land. Britain tried and tried to get Jordan or even Egypt to take it. They wouldn't. As the Jews emigrated to Israel, they bought their spit of desert when ever someone actually owned it.
Then came the wars. 1948 on the day the nation was recognised. The attacks were repulsed. The peace treaty both sides signed gave Israel a little more land. The populace was allowed to stay. Which is why there have always been a large Arab population in Israel to this day. The war of 1967 brought about greater areas of lands that were ceded by way of the peace agreement. After the disastrous 1973 war, Egypt lost the Siani Desert; Syria, the Golan heights; Jordan the East bank and control of Jerusalem. These were the terms of peace that stopped a war. A war that was going very badly for Syria, Jordan and Egypt.
There were lands given back to these countries. Egypt got the Sinai for example. But also the West Bank went to Syria, and areas north and east of the Golan Heights, as well as territory ceded back to Jordan. These were Israeli concessions they made of territory they conquered. We don't hear this in this debate, which is why it does not get my respect. There will be no peace ever--because Islam wants no peace with the Children of Israel.
_________________________
They were the settlements of 3 nations whose property was conquered, and who were beaten badly. And there was an understanding that for Egypt for example, they were losing ground to the Nile. Syria lost the West Bank, East Bank, Golan, and land 100 miles into Syria beyond that. Jordan lost Jerusalem, and territory beyond the dead sea. Settling the boundaries where they were settled, actually meant that they gained back a lot of territory, and got rid of land that they didn't really want in the first place. The problem is that nations are made of people, who inhabit the ground captured in war. In many wars, every inhabitant was killed. Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, all used the practice. Today that is illegal. So you might stay in your house when the soldiers over-run it, and hope other illegal things like rape and murder don't happen to you. In many cases you might be able to keep living there later even if under a different flag-but not always. If you live in a wealthy home or a castle you pretty much kiss it goodbye. Usually hovels are ignored, but not by force of law.
Forgive me if this has come across as patronizing. That was not my intent. It is so easy to get caught up in the very real human drama, that these legal conventions and a broad historical perspective is lost. War is hell. It makes even the "righteous cause" guilty of evil. Not the least of which is the evil of legal tyranny. In contrast, had Israel lost any of those 3 wars, would we be here with the shoe be on the other foot? An honest answer would say no.
Jordan, Syria, and Egypt vowed to exterminate the Jews and finish what Hitler started. I guess I am an old guy, because I remember these very threats. (not 48). There would be no land concessions. None. And the "Palestinians"? Do you really think they would have a state? No, they would be part of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, and oblivious to their fate. These wars are more than about land. Land is a diversion. This has always been about exterminating Jews. And we tolerate it.
_____________________________
Obviously books could be written about this.
_______________________________________
About bulldozers and my house. Canada is not at war. It has no concessions outstanding. If an American Bulldozer drove across the border into southern Ontario and started Bulldozing, there would be a problem. It would constitute an act of war, because it would be contrary to a treaty that defines that land as Canadian. On the other hand, if the government wants your house to build on, there actually is an expropriation act that allows them to do the same thing in the end--legally. The country and the province actually owns the land your house sits on. You are conveyed the right to be there by legal title given to you by the laws of the state. You have right of title because you are a citizen of that country. If the US invades us, we lose that title automatically. We could only hope that the US reinstates us and actually lets us own our properties instead.
by Tom Wilson on Sunday, October 16, 2011 at 5:55pm
It started in 1917 with the Balfour Declaration. Then a few Jews immigrated to Israel (to join the few thousand who have always lived there)...
Then the UN voted to give the Jews a small portion of desert in the area that was called Palestine.
The Hitler killed many millions of Jews and drove the rest out of Europe. The NO nation in the world would accept the Jewish refugees – except the British in the land called Palestine. But then even the British tried to stop the Jews – and put them in British CONCENTRATION camps....And then the UN voted again and again gave a small portion of the land to the Jews; but the Arabs rejected this idea and swore to drive the Jews into the sea (and finish the job that Hitler started).
The the Jews declared a homeland and were willing to make major compromises just to have a land of their own. But the Arabs rejected any compromise of any kind, and swore to kill the Jews...Then x5 Arab nations invaded Palestine – and promptly got their asses kicked! Then there were some truces that lasted various lengths of time – but the Arabs always rejected Peace – attacked Israel – and got their asses kicked! And time after time these war-loving & hate-filled Arabs attacked Israel – and got their asses kicked!....So when will the Arabs give up? Never – because they hate God, and they hate God's people.
________________________________________
Owen Abrey There are some more important facts. This land belonged to the Ottoman Empire for around 800 years. Following the breakup of the empire, Syria and Jordan staked out the lands they wanted. The land that is now Israel was the land no one wanted. It was a barren waste land. Britain tried and tried to get Jordan or even Egypt to take it. They wouldn't. As the Jews emigrated to Israel, they bought their spit of desert when ever someone actually owned it.
Then came the wars. 1948 on the day the nation was recognised. The attacks were repulsed. The peace treaty both sides signed gave Israel a little more land. The populace was allowed to stay. Which is why there have always been a large Arab population in Israel to this day. The war of 1967 brought about greater areas of lands that were ceded by way of the peace agreement. After the disastrous 1973 war, Egypt lost the Siani Desert; Syria, the Golan heights; Jordan the East bank and control of Jerusalem. These were the terms of peace that stopped a war. A war that was going very badly for Syria, Jordan and Egypt.
There were lands given back to these countries. Egypt got the Sinai for example. But also the West Bank went to Syria, and areas north and east of the Golan Heights, as well as territory ceded back to Jordan. These were Israeli concessions they made of territory they conquered. We don't hear this in this debate, which is why it does not get my respect. There will be no peace ever--because Islam wants no peace with the Children of Israel.
_________________________
They were the settlements of 3 nations whose property was conquered, and who were beaten badly. And there was an understanding that for Egypt for example, they were losing ground to the Nile. Syria lost the West Bank, East Bank, Golan, and land 100 miles into Syria beyond that. Jordan lost Jerusalem, and territory beyond the dead sea. Settling the boundaries where they were settled, actually meant that they gained back a lot of territory, and got rid of land that they didn't really want in the first place. The problem is that nations are made of people, who inhabit the ground captured in war. In many wars, every inhabitant was killed. Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, all used the practice. Today that is illegal. So you might stay in your house when the soldiers over-run it, and hope other illegal things like rape and murder don't happen to you. In many cases you might be able to keep living there later even if under a different flag-but not always. If you live in a wealthy home or a castle you pretty much kiss it goodbye. Usually hovels are ignored, but not by force of law.
Forgive me if this has come across as patronizing. That was not my intent. It is so easy to get caught up in the very real human drama, that these legal conventions and a broad historical perspective is lost. War is hell. It makes even the "righteous cause" guilty of evil. Not the least of which is the evil of legal tyranny. In contrast, had Israel lost any of those 3 wars, would we be here with the shoe be on the other foot? An honest answer would say no.
Jordan, Syria, and Egypt vowed to exterminate the Jews and finish what Hitler started. I guess I am an old guy, because I remember these very threats. (not 48). There would be no land concessions. None. And the "Palestinians"? Do you really think they would have a state? No, they would be part of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, and oblivious to their fate. These wars are more than about land. Land is a diversion. This has always been about exterminating Jews. And we tolerate it.
_____________________________
Obviously books could be written about this.
_______________________________________
About bulldozers and my house. Canada is not at war. It has no concessions outstanding. If an American Bulldozer drove across the border into southern Ontario and started Bulldozing, there would be a problem. It would constitute an act of war, because it would be contrary to a treaty that defines that land as Canadian. On the other hand, if the government wants your house to build on, there actually is an expropriation act that allows them to do the same thing in the end--legally. The country and the province actually owns the land your house sits on. You are conveyed the right to be there by legal title given to you by the laws of the state. You have right of title because you are a citizen of that country. If the US invades us, we lose that title automatically. We could only hope that the US reinstates us and actually lets us own our properties instead.
Friday, October 14, 2011
CPR training for all?
This story at first blush sounds very altruistic. After all, we want to save lives so that should someone near us be in Cardiac arrest, he or she might be saved. However, CPR has almost never been successful outside of a hospital setting. For good reason.
Someone in Cardiac arrest has 8 minutes. With or without CPR. In fact studies done by
everyone, ambulance services, hospitals, emergency wards, show that if that person is not DEFIBRILLATED within 8 minutes survival rates drop to 5%, and rapidly falls over time. At 10 minutes, you would probably not want to be revived, because the extensive brain damage would be something you never recover from. At 12 minutes, you probably will end up in a vegetated state.
However, all is not lost. CPR is a lousy solution, but the cost of automatic defibrillators are so cheap these days several could be purchased for the price of one CPR dummy. If you think children can be trained to do CPR, then they are certainly able to use an automatic defibrillator. It automatically detects a heart in fibrillation. It automatically employs a discharge appropriately. Kids would just have to know where to put the leads. Far less complex a task that effective CPR.
But CPR is the old stand-by for like what 100 years in various forms? Isn't it time we reassess it? The medical profession has the statistics. They actually know they have just recommended a futile action. Why? Did they need a publicity boost, so looked around for a feel-good?
Isn't it about time, in this modern age, to give kids modern tools that will actually save a life, instead of teaching children a futile action, that makes us feel good about it anyhow? 20 years from now, will they thank us for it?
Someone in Cardiac arrest has 8 minutes. With or without CPR. In fact studies done by
everyone, ambulance services, hospitals, emergency wards, show that if that person is not DEFIBRILLATED within 8 minutes survival rates drop to 5%, and rapidly falls over time. At 10 minutes, you would probably not want to be revived, because the extensive brain damage would be something you never recover from. At 12 minutes, you probably will end up in a vegetated state.
However, all is not lost. CPR is a lousy solution, but the cost of automatic defibrillators are so cheap these days several could be purchased for the price of one CPR dummy. If you think children can be trained to do CPR, then they are certainly able to use an automatic defibrillator. It automatically detects a heart in fibrillation. It automatically employs a discharge appropriately. Kids would just have to know where to put the leads. Far less complex a task that effective CPR.
But CPR is the old stand-by for like what 100 years in various forms? Isn't it time we reassess it? The medical profession has the statistics. They actually know they have just recommended a futile action. Why? Did they need a publicity boost, so looked around for a feel-good?
Isn't it about time, in this modern age, to give kids modern tools that will actually save a life, instead of teaching children a futile action, that makes us feel good about it anyhow? 20 years from now, will they thank us for it?
Friday, October 7, 2011
More debate on medical heroin
So heroin is good, and should be free to anyone. Great progress! And cocaine is okay? Sure, why not. Acid. Ecstasy? Methamphetamine? Wow. You name it, we've got your safe, free government supply. This is such a great country to live in. Lets encourage everyone to participate. Safe injection sites starting in elementary school, so no one ever needs to come down from a high. Like Reply 1 hour ago 1 Like
____________________________________
This isn't the proposal. A heroin addict has sex with a girl who has sex with a guy who has sex with your daughter. The heroin addict injected himself with a used needle, and has HIV and Hep C hiding in him, with little to no symptoms. If the community, society does not treat this as though there was an epidemic, we all better be prepared to pay. This program is for genuine addicts. Not for people to become addicts to get free drugs. With few exceptions addicts hate their habits. They don't do heroin to get high, they do it so that they don't get sick. Addicts have to fear the government, doctors, policemen etc. because these people right now represent the way to jail.An adict knows if they are thrown in jail, they will get very sick, and do unthinkable things to score hard drugs in jail.
Under a medical model these people, not recreational drug users, have a life-saving intervention, and over time, medical solutions to getting off the habit. In a medical model, the doctor and the nurse, and the counselor are there to help you get better, not to turn you in. Finally, there have been a few studies done where groups of addicts had access to medical heroine prescriptions. Crime rates plummeted: the addict didn't have to steal thousands and thousands of dollars worth of honest hard working people's stuff. And the Hells Angels were mad because they weren't getting thousands of dollars from every addict they had under their thumb.
____________________________________
This isn't the proposal. A heroin addict has sex with a girl who has sex with a guy who has sex with your daughter. The heroin addict injected himself with a used needle, and has HIV and Hep C hiding in him, with little to no symptoms. If the community, society does not treat this as though there was an epidemic, we all better be prepared to pay. This program is for genuine addicts. Not for people to become addicts to get free drugs. With few exceptions addicts hate their habits. They don't do heroin to get high, they do it so that they don't get sick. Addicts have to fear the government, doctors, policemen etc. because these people right now represent the way to jail.An adict knows if they are thrown in jail, they will get very sick, and do unthinkable things to score hard drugs in jail.
Under a medical model these people, not recreational drug users, have a life-saving intervention, and over time, medical solutions to getting off the habit. In a medical model, the doctor and the nurse, and the counselor are there to help you get better, not to turn you in. Finally, there have been a few studies done where groups of addicts had access to medical heroine prescriptions. Crime rates plummeted: the addict didn't have to steal thousands and thousands of dollars worth of honest hard working people's stuff. And the Hells Angels were mad because they weren't getting thousands of dollars from every addict they had under their thumb.
On prescribed heroin.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/10/07/are-we-ready-to-subsidize-heroin/
""Can someone clarify this for me, isn't drug use illegal? It’s
ok if it’s supervised. What moron thought that made sense. What’s next,
legalized rape as long as someone watches. Can’t believe how stupid some people
can be. You want to help the problem, arrest everyone that shows up at these
clinic to do illegal drugs. Their habits will die in prison. This is just one step towards chaos. Crime should be punished not encouraged. GC you suck.""
________________________________________
Alethia:
Suicide is illegal. In fact it is the only criminal act that the perpetrator will get away with 100% of the time. As a society, we could stand back and say: "have at er"--if you are stupid enough to do that then tough.
However, by developing a treatment model, and developing a drug regime that restores chemical balances in the brain, we have saved thousands of lives. Thousands of kids grow up with both their mom and dad, instead of with one of them. Thousands of people are set free from profound disabilities like depression, and hold down professional jobs where ever you look. Thier families do not grow up in poverty, their families don't have to cope with the burden & pain suicide places on them. And *most importantly (sic) they pay taxes. Money you would have to pay because the other guys are missing.
""Can someone clarify this for me, isn't drug use illegal? It’s
ok if it’s supervised. What moron thought that made sense. What’s next,
legalized rape as long as someone watches. Can’t believe how stupid some people
can be. You want to help the problem, arrest everyone that shows up at these
clinic to do illegal drugs. Their habits will die in prison. This is just one step towards chaos. Crime should be punished not encouraged. GC you suck.""
________________________________________
Alethia:
Suicide is illegal. In fact it is the only criminal act that the perpetrator will get away with 100% of the time. As a society, we could stand back and say: "have at er"--if you are stupid enough to do that then tough.
However, by developing a treatment model, and developing a drug regime that restores chemical balances in the brain, we have saved thousands of lives. Thousands of kids grow up with both their mom and dad, instead of with one of them. Thousands of people are set free from profound disabilities like depression, and hold down professional jobs where ever you look. Thier families do not grow up in poverty, their families don't have to cope with the burden & pain suicide places on them. And *most importantly (sic) they pay taxes. Money you would have to pay because the other guys are missing.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Christi Clark by Rod Mickleburg.
Christie rocks. Why shouldn't it matter to the premier the justice system does what it should? What an inane commentary. Is this piece partisan or anarchistic? Are you cheering for the vandals then? The premier senses the growing frustration in the populace who have yet to see justice done. How many months has it been? Hardly like rushing high-noon. So ok, then this is a piece designed to strum your favorite underground thugs--maybe so that they would be emboldened to do it again, only not wait so long this time? After all, it is uncool to want the rule of law in this country there should be no crime and *punishment.
Oh, you failed to receive the part of any normal education that made the court system to be public? Except for family and minors, it has been long understood that the populace has a right to see justice done--for both the guilty and the innocent? Yes that's right acquittals make headlines too you know. But then, since you are busy sleeping in the legislature, you probably are a bit behind in current affairs... *hint Amanda Knox... Shoe makers children wear no shoes (sic).
Perhaps such a slovenly reporting reflects that you have bigger boobs than she does.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/rod-mickleburgh/christy-clark-grandstanding-against-those-riotous-ruffians-once-again/article2193962/comments/
Oh, you failed to receive the part of any normal education that made the court system to be public? Except for family and minors, it has been long understood that the populace has a right to see justice done--for both the guilty and the innocent? Yes that's right acquittals make headlines too you know. But then, since you are busy sleeping in the legislature, you probably are a bit behind in current affairs... *hint Amanda Knox... Shoe makers children wear no shoes (sic).
Perhaps such a slovenly reporting reflects that you have bigger boobs than she does.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/rod-mickleburgh/christy-clark-grandstanding-against-those-riotous-ruffians-once-again/article2193962/comments/
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
More AGW discussion evolves...
We are close on many things. I have an optimism that technology for radical shifts in energy are very close, Rossi's 1mw cold fusion plant is supposed to be demonstrated tomorrow in the United States. This is an example I have watched with a healthy dose of skepticism. There are "deniers" that he has had to contend with. I have more of a wait and see attitude. I don't feel compelled to draw a conclusion. I want to see the raw data for myself, and follow the logic behind how a conclusion was drawn by the author. I probably see conclusions as a continuum. From very firm conclusions with massive supporting data (a la Newton) to conclusions that are conjecture but have a lot of support for those conjectures, to theory with conflicting data, to theory with shaky data, to conclusions with no data, to conclusions clearly falsified. I think AGW has moved along this continuum in one direction, then another. I think LENR (Rossi) has conclusion with some shakey data, but with reputations of enough PhDs to demand I not discount it... unless/until I can find something falsifiable.
An hypothesis, properly constructed is accepted to be true. Only the skeptic discipline can prove it wrong through the experimental process. Science accepts to be true what cannot be falsified. The theory of AGW must be accepted to be true on the onset. Supporting experiments are nice but they don't prove the theory to be more true. It is the problems, I have shared most of them with you. A priori, effecting approaches to data collecting. Data missing (disappeared), Datum discounted--not even appearing in the literature--datum that should at least be identified as anomalous--are examples of the problems. A theory that works for a decade or two but not for centuries and not for eons makes me hesitate. So between us, you are comfortable accepting the conclusion I am not. You may be extremely doubtful about cold fusion, but I have not formed the opposite point of view. Should I, it will be after I see the raw data, and inspect the apparatus--and then only until I can reproduce it in my lab will I be comfortable about fairly solid conclusion. It is ironic that what may be the most doubtful experiment in science is the answer to the "dubious-to-me" AGW in the end.
I am a fan of Soren Kierkegaard, who said in contrast to the Hegelian Dialectic: "Truth is often found in the tension of the paradox". There is some value in allowing the tension of what appear to be opposite conclusions work. Many times the polemic is wrong or not resolvable. It is a mistake to force synthesis.
Too much of our approach to truth is on the horns of the dilemma: polar opposites hastily forced to synthesis.
We stand on the threshold of great opportunity. These sorts of doubts and turmoil, sincerity and insincerity, are often on the cusp of tectonic paradigm shift.
An hypothesis, properly constructed is accepted to be true. Only the skeptic discipline can prove it wrong through the experimental process. Science accepts to be true what cannot be falsified. The theory of AGW must be accepted to be true on the onset. Supporting experiments are nice but they don't prove the theory to be more true. It is the problems, I have shared most of them with you. A priori, effecting approaches to data collecting. Data missing (disappeared), Datum discounted--not even appearing in the literature--datum that should at least be identified as anomalous--are examples of the problems. A theory that works for a decade or two but not for centuries and not for eons makes me hesitate. So between us, you are comfortable accepting the conclusion I am not. You may be extremely doubtful about cold fusion, but I have not formed the opposite point of view. Should I, it will be after I see the raw data, and inspect the apparatus--and then only until I can reproduce it in my lab will I be comfortable about fairly solid conclusion. It is ironic that what may be the most doubtful experiment in science is the answer to the "dubious-to-me" AGW in the end.
I am a fan of Soren Kierkegaard, who said in contrast to the Hegelian Dialectic: "Truth is often found in the tension of the paradox". There is some value in allowing the tension of what appear to be opposite conclusions work. Many times the polemic is wrong or not resolvable. It is a mistake to force synthesis.
Too much of our approach to truth is on the horns of the dilemma: polar opposites hastily forced to synthesis.
We stand on the threshold of great opportunity. These sorts of doubts and turmoil, sincerity and insincerity, are often on the cusp of tectonic paradigm shift.
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/05/flaherty-sounds-economic-alarm
This scenario has long been predicted about fiat currencies based on debt. Its challenging because on one hand we found that the Bennet-buggy approach where government did little--in order to keep the books balanced. This extended the great depression some say for at least 5 years. Others say it took a world war to shake the global economy out of it. Greece is the first domino to teeter. The US domino is far bigger, I would be terrified to live in the US. Living next door to them is like living next door to a burning building. I don't wish them I'll, I am just skeptical this can be fixed under the current system.
I think there will need to be some sort of global forgiveness. Where the bottom 100 Billion of every country's debt would be absolved. 100 B is nothing to the US, and won't help their 15 trillion dollar crisis much. But for other countries in the world, it would mean being totally free of debt. That would stimulate global trade like no other, then maybe the US economy can grow out of its free-fall. But even then, gah its a crap-shoot.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Re: Climate change discourse | |
| Date: | 10/03/11 |
| Message: | "A peer-review process is an awesome process of sharing information, unless the jury is rigged." True, but it must be nigh on impossible to rig the jury for numerous journals. Remember that journals are competitive enterprises. Science would love to scoop a major find like that over Nature, and vice versa... Its all about reputation remember. "There are establishment forces on this topic in government that suppress contrary opinion, data, and conclusions that are held by graduate-level scientists" Perhaps there is resistance to results which are contrary to established science, in fact Id be surprised if there wasnt. People are just like that - even many scientists. However, you're still delving into the realm of "giant conspiracy", which I really dont think is plausible. Again, the graduate scientists could just go to another journal. Or the media, who are also in a competitive enterprise. Suggesting that there is some conspiracy hiding the results of thousands of grads is beyond reason, and speculative. " Could we not be honest and admit the fatal academic departure from the a priori of AGW is a career killer?" I understand your argument, but would suggest that it would be the opposite. Every scientist who (accurately) departed from the status quo is well recognised. Those who followed are not. In science it's not a career breaker, but a fame MAKER. There would be no better result for prestige. It's in the interest of science to make these paradigm shifts. "This is not unlike the politic of Galileo's day; or Pasteur's for example." The fact that you know the name of Galileo or Pasteur or Curie or Newton proves my above point. "There are massive problems with internal politics within the IPCC." Perhaps, but they arent really the ones doing the science. They just collate the findings from various sources and tie it together to tell a coherent story. Their reports are written there, but they are well cited. Easy enough to fact check. And errors are found (not surprising for 3000 page document, or whatever it is). The fact that the main flaw in AR4 had to do with Himalayan glacier melt rates, and was essentially akin to a typo, says something about it. Not only are errors found and publicised (showing no huge conspiracy), but these errors are far from significant given the size and scope of the document. "The WWF for example has an intake of close to 1/4 billion dollars per year." That's intake, not profit. Dont forget they have costs too. Compare for one second to the petroleum companies. eg: wiki - "In 2008, Forbes called it the second largest privately held company in the United States (after Cargill) with an annual revenue of about $98 billion,[5][6][7] down from the largest in 2006. If Koch Industries were a public company in 2007, it would rank about 16 in the Fortune 500.[8]" Or mining companies. Ever notice petrol (gas) prices rising for some reason, then not dropping when that reason is no longer applicable...? Then petroleum giants consistently announcing record profits? They essentially have a monopoly on the transport and energy markets. What do you think they would do to keep that? "but like the Catholic Church of Galileo and Copernicus, or the biogenisists of Pasteur, it doesn't mean that it is correct." Nor is it evidence that they are incorrect. "I think it is important to hear those qualifiers." Hmm. Like everyone I think I am biased towards my own beliefs. But I try to form those beliefs based on evidence. I try to look at the story that a whole body of data tells me, and no doubt I write things off too quickly sometimes. I do try to be aware of this though (my undergrad degree is in psychology, so I always try to use that to guide my own thought processes and hopefully catch some of my subjectivity). Studies like Kirby and Svensmark I do keep an open mind about, because they seem reliable, and the science is interesting - and while I look for flaws, I accept their conclusions if I find none. Other 'skeptics' I sometimes have no time for, especially if they have been shown to be unreliable on multiple occasions. Someone like Monckton falls into that category. Unlike some other people, I will call out proponents who offer blatantly false information though. Usually if its minor I could call it an honest mistake, but (for example) a commenter just the other day said that GW would melt the Antarctic ice which would raise the Antarctic plate and cause mass earthquakes. I replied to him in the manner I do with 'skeptics' whose information is dubious, by asking for a source, then criticising his comment when he could not provide one other than himself. Im interested in humanity as a whole, and recognise that although we are all different and think differently, we have a common "destiny" (wrong word, but it'll do). Perhaps a "shared journey" is more accurate. To that end, I believe (ie: my personal belief) is that the world will become a better place by increasing scientific literacy, so that ALL people can evaluate scientific findings to a better degree than currently. And recognise enough psychology to watch for their own cognitive errors. And know enough logic to spot arguments which are not logically sound. I believe that science is not perfect, but pragmatically, it's the best system we've come up with by a LONG way. The results speak for themselves. This conversation medium is proof of that. Sure, we might be able to improve it, or replace with something better one day - but I actually think our political system needs it a LOT more help than the scientific one. Perhaps I could suggest Plato's "Republic" for some ideas in that regard. (though 'intellectuals who do not desire power are the ones who should be given power' probably sums it up). So politically I lean left. I admit to being a member of the Green party here. I dont agree with all their policies, but I do agree with their goals moreso than other parties. Things like social justice, economic and environmental sustainability, etc. I may be cynical, but the major parties all seem "paid for" by lobbies. So Im certainly not about "maintaining status quo" or "supporting the establishment" :-) In fact I think capitalism as is stands, promotes values which are less than ideal. Greed, selfishness, etc. It has only widened the gap between rich and poor. Note that I feel the same about communism though, as well as pretty much any existing system. Democracy is fine - the people need a voice - but there needs to be a counterbalance in the system. As it stands, it just promotes the view of "average Joe", which is mediocre at best. One of the two branches of government could perhaps be composed of by experts in a variety of fields, voted into office by their peers? Not sure. Oh I should probably mention my Masters is in Science (Astronomy), so I have some affinity climate science - which is also an observational science. Enough to be able to read a fair few of their papers, though I admit to not understanding some of it obviously! They have it easier though - their research targets arent lightyears away :-) I also have an application for Mensa in the works, though they seem to be taking months to schedule the "in person" test, even though I did the "at home test" and they suggested I continue. I dont often mention my education though, because I dont want to be seen as using an "argument from authority" fallacy. In terms of the quality of the claims I make, my qualifications are usually irrelevant, only the citations. In fact, I usually refuse requests, which people take to mean Im uneducated for some reason! "No comment" is not always an admission of guilt! lol. Its probably also important to mention that if a study is published which definitively falsifies AGW theory, then I'll happily change my opinion, but at present, I see nothing which approaches this. Kirby/Svensmark has potential, but I think at most it will merely alter the balance a little. CO2 will still have a climatic impact, but clouds induced by cosmic rays may do more than we currently think. We know too much about climate history and physics for CO2 to suddenly be declared as having "no effect" I think. Watch Dr Richard Alleys address to AGU to see what Im referring to. I certainly hope that this 'essay' has given you a good idea of any pre-existing prejudices or biases I have. Certainly Im heavily environmental-centric, but Im well aware that there are those who are not terribly fussed with things like evidence or coherent argument on both sides of the fence. But I do my best to be as fair as I can. I even admit to error when Im presented with appropriate evidence which demonstrates me wrong. I think this is all that any reasonable person can attempt to do, as subjectivity is unavoidable (though I have been called a robot or "sheldon" from "The big bang Theory" more than once!) __________________________________ |
That I should elicit such an in depth response is humbling for me, to take so much effort from someone in the midst of their graduate studies.
Perhaps you might sense I share your love for science, and perhaps my sincerity in my approach to the subject.
At first I was surprised to be considered a conspiracy theorist, since I find myself skeptical of conspiracies in general. I accept that I have a naivete when it comes to believing in the purity of science--an ironic paradox to the skeptical fundamental.
Alas I am old, and well past my post grad studies. Perhaps it has been the personal brushes with the sort of political agenda I have alluded to. I think I battle with cynicism instead of skepticism because of personal interactions with the megalith that one finds in "established" science. Perhaps one day when you are old, your opinions will be closer to mine. Certainly if it turns out that after I die, the AGW theory is totally debunked. I worrry about science in that event. I think the credibility of the disipline will receive a damaging blow. I was young when the pending ice age theory was pressing, until the tables turned, and warming was irrefutable. I find it most galling that many of the cold-earth proponents, (I can't bring myself to call them scientists) converted to evangelize for the AGW theory instead. Especially when, courtesy of the UN hundreds of billions of dollars were in the pot, and lucrative, long-lasting funding for those who tow the line.
Around the same time my opinion on the matter was shifting from acceptance of the AGW theory, I chanced upon this 60 minutes piece: *http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n* I suppose that had it been one subject or the other I could have maintained an opinion like your own. But for me the topics were coincidental. Both had an obvious taint of special interests and history of political interference in the science. Frankly, it leaves me to question whether these are isolated events from different parts of the universe of science. Two critical studies that upon which the very hope of mankind potentially rests.
I hope you note I have no quarrel with concerns about anthropogenic pollution issues. I am a proponent of stewardship. All of us should be concerned about the earth and human impacts. I just can't let that belief become the reason to buy into AGW without the science confirming it. Supposedly one empirically falsifiable result against a theory is to put the theory in serious question. This is not happening. If 90% of the various studies indicated AGW, but 10% didn't there should be no reason we should be at this point. If 5%, 4%,3% or .1% of the experiments falsified Newton's laws, they would not be Newton's laws. This same sort of rigor does not exist on the AGW theory. That sir, is a travesty.
In summary, I am not saying AGW is false. I am saying there are problems, and enough problems in my mind to resist capitulating to the status quo. I am more comfortable with resisting a conclusion, even a compelling one, in favor of an open mind that is free to go in another direction should the data lead that way.
In conclusion, thank you for dialoguing with me. One day, it would be an honor to sit at a table with you over a cup of coffee...for a few days. I don't think we are far apart when it comes to the important things.
AGW debate on Youtube
hat I should elicit such an in depth response is humbling for me, to take so much effort from someone in the midst of their graduate studies.
Perhaps you might sense I share your love for science, and perhaps my sincerity in my approach to the subject.
At first I was surprised to be considered a conspiracy theorist, since I find myself skeptical of conspiracies in general. I accept that I have a naivete when it comes to believing in the purity of science--an ironic paradox to the skeptical fundamental.
Alas I am old, and well past my post grad studies. Perhaps it has been the personal brushes with the sort of political agenda I have alluded to. I think I battle with cynicism instead of skepticism because of personal interactions with the mega-lyth that one finds in "established" science. Perhaps one day when you are old, your opinions will be closer to mine. Certainly if it turns out that after I die, the AGW theory is totally debunked. I worrry about science in that event. I think the credibility of the disipline will receive a damaging blow. I was young when the pending ice age theory was pressing, until the tables turned, and warming was irrefutable. I find it most galling that many of the cold-earth proponents, (I can't bring myself to call them scientists) converted to evangelize for the AGW theory instead. Especially when, courtesy of the UN hundreds of billions of dollars were in the pot, and lucrative, long-lasting funding for those who tow the line.
Around the same time my opinion on the matter was shifting from acceptance of the AGW theory, I chanced upon this 60 minutes piece: *http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n* I suppose that had it been one subject or the other I could have maintained an opinion like your own. But for me the topics were coincidental. Both had an obvious taint of special interests and history of political interference in the science. Frankly, it leaves me to question whether these are isolated events from different parts of the universe of science. Two critical studies that upon which the very hope of mankind potentially rests.
I hope you note I have no quarrel with concerns about anthropogenic pollution issues. I am a proponent of stewardship. All of us should be concerned about the earth and human impacts. I just can't let that belief become the reason to buy into AGW without the science confirming it. Supposedly one empirically falsifiable result against a theory is to put the theory in serious question. This is not happening. If 90% of the various studies indicated AGW, but 10% didn't there should be no reason we should be at this point. If 5%, 4%,3% or .1% of the experiments falsified Newton's laws, they would not be Newton's laws. This same sort of rigor does not exist on the AGW theory. That sir, is a travesty.
In summary, I am not saying AGW is false. I am saying there are problems, and enough problems in my mind to resist capitulating to the status quo. I am more comfortable with resisting a conclusion, even a compelling one, in favor of an open mind that is free to go in another direction should the data lead that way.
In conclusion, thank you for dialoguing with me. One day, it would be an honor to sit at a table with you over a cup of coffee...for a few days. I don't think we are far apart when it comes to the important things.
Perhaps you might sense I share your love for science, and perhaps my sincerity in my approach to the subject.
At first I was surprised to be considered a conspiracy theorist, since I find myself skeptical of conspiracies in general. I accept that I have a naivete when it comes to believing in the purity of science--an ironic paradox to the skeptical fundamental.
Alas I am old, and well past my post grad studies. Perhaps it has been the personal brushes with the sort of political agenda I have alluded to. I think I battle with cynicism instead of skepticism because of personal interactions with the mega-lyth that one finds in "established" science. Perhaps one day when you are old, your opinions will be closer to mine. Certainly if it turns out that after I die, the AGW theory is totally debunked. I worrry about science in that event. I think the credibility of the disipline will receive a damaging blow. I was young when the pending ice age theory was pressing, until the tables turned, and warming was irrefutable. I find it most galling that many of the cold-earth proponents, (I can't bring myself to call them scientists) converted to evangelize for the AGW theory instead. Especially when, courtesy of the UN hundreds of billions of dollars were in the pot, and lucrative, long-lasting funding for those who tow the line.
Around the same time my opinion on the matter was shifting from acceptance of the AGW theory, I chanced upon this 60 minutes piece: *http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n* I suppose that had it been one subject or the other I could have maintained an opinion like your own. But for me the topics were coincidental. Both had an obvious taint of special interests and history of political interference in the science. Frankly, it leaves me to question whether these are isolated events from different parts of the universe of science. Two critical studies that upon which the very hope of mankind potentially rests.
I hope you note I have no quarrel with concerns about anthropogenic pollution issues. I am a proponent of stewardship. All of us should be concerned about the earth and human impacts. I just can't let that belief become the reason to buy into AGW without the science confirming it. Supposedly one empirically falsifiable result against a theory is to put the theory in serious question. This is not happening. If 90% of the various studies indicated AGW, but 10% didn't there should be no reason we should be at this point. If 5%, 4%,3% or .1% of the experiments falsified Newton's laws, they would not be Newton's laws. This same sort of rigor does not exist on the AGW theory. That sir, is a travesty.
In summary, I am not saying AGW is false. I am saying there are problems, and enough problems in my mind to resist capitulating to the status quo. I am more comfortable with resisting a conclusion, even a compelling one, in favor of an open mind that is free to go in another direction should the data lead that way.
In conclusion, thank you for dialoguing with me. One day, it would be an honor to sit at a table with you over a cup of coffee...for a few days. I don't think we are far apart when it comes to the important things.
Cold/Hot fusion hysteria.
Oh yeah and by the way, instead of isolating a physicist's comments without contextualization, cold fusion is on again--and that is old news. 60 minutes reported on it in 2009, with world wide physicists conceding there is something very interesting going on. And, many people are holding their breath on Rossi's 1mw cold fusion reactor producing 30 times input power in a low energy nuclear reaction. No radioactive waste, no radiation, beyond electrons far less than an old fashioned TV. *http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n*
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)