| Author |
Message |
Andre Jute
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Science lies foully murder. The Environmental Faith is the N |
|
|
Zootwoman wrote:
| Quote: | If we wish to remain in the domain of science, rather than politics, we
must continue to debate any theory, no matter how well established.
|
Rich Koerner objected:
| Quote: | You don't DEBATE theories. You PROVE them, and make them FACTS!!!!
|
That was the old, well-proven way of doing science, as formalized inter
alia by Sir Karl Popper. It no longer applies to the environment.
The problem with the debate on the environment is that it has been
removed from the spheres of both science and politics. The body which
heavily influences environmental policy (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change - IPCC) has taken three fatal steps:
1. It has repeatedly rewritten, or forced scientists to rewrite,
scientific findings in stronger terms to suit political aims, and in
several notorious cases the various consecutive drafts have in fact
turned the finding of the scientists on its head, the final executive
summary for politicians saying exactly the opposite of what the
scientists found and said in their report. A notorious example was the
major summary in the 1996 report in which the scientists concluded
there is no evidence that global warming is caused by human activity.
When the report came out, the summary claimed that the evidence proves
that global warming is caused by human activity! This institutionalizes
lying.
2. Glory- and fund-hunting "scientists" have been encouraged to state
their "feelings" as if these have the same validity as repeatable
scientific proof. An example is the 2001 report in which the summary
was diametrically at odds with the data in the report; the chief
"scientist's" excuse was that he "felt" that politicians "should" take
the environment seriously! At the same time naysayers who demand proof
and honest interpretation of data have been persecuted in the press and
by the environmental establishment, funding bodies and suchlike, the
vilification of the statistician Bjorn Lomborg being merely the most
egregious and best documented example. This is an Inquisition to
persecute skeptics. In addition, any questioning of scientists, their
findings and investigations by political authorities is presented as
persecution, as current congressional investigations of controversial
findings with big public finance implications have been misrepresented
as a witchhunt. That is a mechanism for turning scientists into a new
priesthood, with their own courts and their own law, totally outside
democratic control.
3. Worst of all, it was officially decided that environmental measures
should not be subjected to cost-benefit analysis. This is simply crazy,
because the only measure any democracy has in the end is cost-benefit.
You cannot spend the taxpayer's money without limit for any purpose
whatsoever. But this crazy *official* concept goes further than even
that in its implications. For instance, legislators are not supposed to
make commonplace comparisons with other calls on the public purse, such
as Health. This takes the Environment (note the new capital) out of
politics and makes it into an official Super-Religion, a faith no dares
question. See above about the Inquisition persecuting skeptics and the
immunity of the new faith from rationality, law and democratic
oversight. So who will control this new faith? Why, the pressure groups
who have so successfully brought it about.
It's the new fascism.
***
I might also remark that the Last Rational Age started on 29 May 1919
when Eddington used the eclipse of the sun to prove Einstein's
relativity theory. Einstein had set three tests and insisted all three
tests, the red shift during the eclipse being the last, be met before
the theory would be accepted as valid. Einstein wrote to Eddington: "If
it were proved that this effect does not exist in nature then the whole
theory would have to be abondoned."
After this scientific relativity was confused with moral relativity to
the point where a worldwide "scientific" body (IPCC) would in 1996
persuade scientists to sign their names to lies and then from 2001 to
substitute their "feelings" for observable fact. That was the end of
science; 2001 marks the beginning of The Age of Feely-Feely. A few
years later we have an idiot from a pressure group telling us
(apparently without understanding how much the single sentence reveals
of the methods and motives of these power-hungry minority pressure
groups):
| Quote: | If we wish to remain in the domain of science, rather than politics, we
must continue to debate any theory, no matter how well established.
|
which translates into plain English as a threat:
"We don't care shit what science proves, and we don't care shit for the
supervision of our elected representatives, we'll continue pressuring
everyone until you give way because our 'feelings' are more important
than science or democracy."
The abandonment of science for the Environmental Faith and mob rule may
yet give the green pressure groups their destructive dream of cottage
industry and no cars. Someone should explain to them that horses shit
all over the roads and that that too is a form of pollution.
Andre Jute
Bicyclist
PS This message, posted on RAT for rational discussion, is also posted
to AGA, but not crossposted. I leave it entirely up to RATs whether
they wish to take a quick tourist trip to the monkey farm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.guitar.amps to see how the crazies
on AGA treat the same material.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chris Hornbeck
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Science lies foully murder. The Environmental Faith is t |
|
|
On 28 Sep 2005 18:08:20 -0700, "Andre Jute" <fiultra@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | When the report came out, the summary claimed that the evidence proves
that global warming is caused by human activity! This institutionalizes
lying.
|
Human energy output has doubled every century (more or less)
for the last 2000 years. Extrapolating 2000 years forward,
the surface of the Earth will be the same temperature as
the surface of the Sun, roughly 6000 K.
| Quote: | 3. Worst of all, it was officially decided that environmental measures
should not be subjected to cost-benefit analysis. This is simply crazy,
because the only measure any democracy has in the end is cost-benefit.
|
How inclusive is your definition of "cost"?
This borders on dangerous foolishness, Mon. You're not
part Amur'cin, are you?
Chris Hornbeck
"I had a perspective on the booing, too. You
can kill somebody with kindness." -Bob Dylan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andre Jute
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Sep 29, 2005 10:24 am Post subject:
Re: Science lies foully murder. The Environmental Faith is t |
|
|
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
| Quote: | On 28 Sep 2005 18:08:20 -0700, "Andre Jute" <fiultra@yahoo.com> wrote:
When the report came out, the summary claimed that the evidence proves
that global warming is caused by human activity! This institutionalizes
lying.
|
Selective quotation is the most juvenile trick in the book.
This is what I actually wrote in context:
"A notorious example [of IPCC lying] was the
major summary in the 1996 report in which the scientists concluded
there is no evidence that global warming is caused by human activity.
When the report came out, the summary claimed that the evidence proves
that global warming is caused by human activity! This institutionalizes
lying."
Of course humans may cause a little warming. It is the amount of
warming that remains to be discovered and agreed and then calmly
evaluated.
Your haven't addressed the point that the IPCC was caught lying,
manipulating the conclusions of science to their exact opposite to
protect their own jobs. If politicians did that, you would never hear
the end of the screaming.
| Quote: | Human energy output has doubled every century (more or less)
for the last 2000 years.
|
The evidence for my claims are in the IPCC reports and press statements
you can download from their netsite. Where is the evidence for your
statement?
| Quote: | Extrapolating 2000 years forward,
the surface of the Earth will be the same temperature as
the surface of the Sun, roughly 6000 K.
|
I remember the first time I sneered at the hole in the ozone layer. I
was teenage genius with a newspaper column. Only back then it was
supposed to lead to an ice age... Every year the new eejit making his
name claiming there is a hole in the ozone layer now claims it will
cause warming. Forty years, and still no proof, and the prophesies blow
hot and cold, literally. Which is it, an ice age or hell on earth?
2000 year extrapolations are just ludicrous. Imagine how our wolrd
would have looked to Herod. What that you daily use would he have
recognized? You're an idiot if you think that people two thousand years
from now will even look like you, or use anything you will recognize,
or have any thoughs you won't consider alien.
| Quote: | 3. Worst of all, it was officially decided that environmental measures
should not be subjected to cost-benefit analysis. This is simply crazy,
because the only measure any democracy has in the end is cost-benefit.
How inclusive is your definition of "cost"?
|
In principle, you can include in "cost" whatever you like and on which
a consensus can be reached. I am a longtime proponent of the concept of
"polluter pays". We've had the econometrics tools to make it work since
the 1950s and c1965 Leontiev told me that he could "before Roosevelt"
(i.e. while he was still a student in Russia in the 1920s) have laid
out a credible tax schedule for "polluter pays" merely on the basis of
the Tableau and Russian work based on it at the Kiel Institute.
But let's be certain we count all the relevant costs and benefits. For
instance:
Let's start with a minus and a plus. Global warming, by the IPCC's most
generally accepted forecast, will be so mild by the year 2100 that
there will be a tiny negative net effect on developed economies--and
larger positive effect on underdeveloped economies largely through
increased agricultural yields. Global warming will in fact lead to
fewer people starving. Thus, if "we're doing it for the poor people of
the world", we should tax clean fuel and encourage coal-burning...
It is exactly because the environmental hysteria doesn't answer to the
facts that they removed cost benefit from their cuckoo reports.
| Quote: | This borders on dangerous foolishness, Mon. You're not
part Amur'cin, are you?
|
No, what is dangerous is for politicians to run scared before pressure
groups (none of whom are altruists) and spend huge amounts of money on
the environment against unproven dangers when we could instead spend it
to give poor and starving people clean water and primary education (the
two keys respectively to health and the emancipation of women). What is
dangerous is to empower a priesthood beyond control. What is dangerous
is to become an hysterical accomplice to publicists seeking power and
money. Much of the environmental to-do has the same smell about it as
the industrial-military complex creating a hysteria out of the
Communist Menace. It's jobs for the boys, power for Lester Brown. I say
fuck him, let him prove his case like everyone else with his hand out.
Why should a guy, a bunch of guys, who have been wrong in their every
prediction for over forty years, who can be proved to be deliberate,
routine, habitual liars by any fresher statistics student, be given a
free pass through the controls of a democratic society? That's the
danger, and you know it.
The hysterical denigration of any skeptic already tells you these
people don't have a scientific case. I especially liked it when the
Danish environmental establishment, which is especially virulent,
having had their first attempt to have Lomborg disciplined thrown out,
came back for a second bite at the cherry on the ground that he was
disrespectful of established authority. Appeals to authority, as I bet
you know only to well, are made only by losers who know they have no
case, no argument, no facts that will stand scrutiny.
| Quote: | You're not
part Amur'cin, are you?
|
I'm sorry you feel like that about your own country, Chris. I studied
and worked (advertising, films) in America in my twenties. I also
toured the Soviet Union in 1968, in the Little Perestroika, as the
guest of the Russian government, who shot my minder three days after I
left. You want to guess where i would rather bring up my child? It
isn't Russia.
| Quote: | Chris Hornbeck
"I had a perspective on the booing, too. You
can kill somebody with kindness." -Bob Dylan
|
I reprint my post in full so that everyone else can follow a coherent
argument.
Andre Jute
Zootwoman wrote:
| Quote: | If we wish to remain in the domain of science, rather than politics, we
must continue to debate any theory, no matter how well established.
|
Rich Koerner objected:
| Quote: | You don't DEBATE theories. You PROVE them, and make them FACTS!!!!
|
That was the old, well-proven way of doing science, as formalized inter
alia by Sir Karl Popper. It no longer applies to the environment.
The problem with the debate on the environment is that it has been
removed from the spheres of both science and politics. The body which
heavily influences environmental policy (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change - IPCC) has taken three fatal steps:
1. It has repeatedly rewritten, or forced scientists to rewrite,
scientific findings in stronger terms to suit political aims, and in
several notorious cases the various consecutive drafts have in fact
turned the finding of the scientists on its head, the final executive
summary for politicians saying exactly the opposite of what the
scientists found and said in their report. A notorious example was the
major summary in the 1996 report in which the scientists concluded
there is no evidence that global warming is caused by human activity.
When the report came out, the summary claimed that the evidence proves
that global warming is caused by human activity! This institutionalizes
lying.
2. Glory- and fund-hunting "scientists" have been encouraged to state
their "feelings" as if these have the same validity as repeatable
scientific proof. An example is the 2001 report in which the summary
was diametrically at odds with the data in the report; the chief
"scientist's" excuse was that he "felt" that politicians "should" take
the environment seriously! At the same time naysayers who demand proof
and honest interpretation of data have been persecuted in the press and
by the environmental establishment, funding bodies and suchlike, the
vilification of the statistician Bjorn Lomborg being merely the most
egregious and best documented example. This is an Inquisition to
persecute skeptics. In addition, any questioning of scientists, their
findings and investigations by political authorities is presented as
persecution, as current congressional investigations of controversial
findings with big public finance implications have been misrepresented
as a witchhunt. That is a mechanism for turning scientists into a new
priesthood, with their own courts and their own law, totally outside
democratic control.
3. Worst of all, it was officially decided that environmental measures
should not be subjected to cost-benefit analysis. This is simply crazy,
because the only measure any democracy has in the end is cost-benefit.
You cannot spend the taxpayer's money without limit for any purpose
whatsoever. But this crazy *official* concept goes further than even
that in its implications. For instance, legislators are not supposed to
make commonplace comparisons with other calls on the public purse, such
as Health. This takes the Environment (note the new capital) out of
politics and makes it into an official Super-Religion, a faith no dares
question. See above about the Inquisition persecuting skeptics and the
immunity of the new faith from rationality, law and democratic
oversight. So who will control this new faith? Why, the pressure groups
who have so successfully brought it about.
It's the new fascism.
***
I might also remark that the Last Rational Age started on 29 May 1919
when Eddington used the eclipse of the sun to prove Einstein's
relativity theory. Einstein had set three tests and insisted all three
tests, the red shift during the eclipse being the last, be met before
the theory would be accepted as valid. Einstein wrote to Eddington: "If
it were proved that this effect does not exist in nature then the whole
theory would have to be abondoned."
After this scientific relativity was confused with moral relativity to
the point where a worldwide "scientific" body (IPCC) would in 1996
persuade scientists to sign their names to lies and then from 2001 to
substitute their "feelings" for observable fact. That was the end of
science; 2001 marks the beginning of The Age of Feely-Feely. A few
years later we have an idiot from a pressure group telling us
(apparently without understanding how much the single sentence reveals
of the methods and motives of these power-hungry minority pressure
groups):
| Quote: | If we wish to remain in the domain of science, rather than politics, we
must continue to debate any theory, no matter how well established.
|
which translates into plain English as a threat:
"We don't care shit what science proves, and we don't care shit for the
supervision of our elected representatives, we'll continue pressuring
everyone until you give way because our 'feelings' are more important
than science or democracy."
The abandonment of science for the Environmental Faith and mob rule may
yet give the green pressure groups their destructive dream of cottage
industry and no cars. Someone should explain to them that horses shit
all over the roads and that that too is a form of pollution.
Andre Jute
Bicyclist
PS This message, posted on RAT for rational discussion, is also posted
to AGA, but not crossposted. I leave it entirely up to RATs whether
they wish to take a quick tourist trip to the monkey farm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.guitar.amps to see how the crazies
on AGA treat the same material. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian Iveson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Sep 29, 2005 7:11 pm Post subject:
Re: Science lies foully murder. The Environmental Faith is t |
|
|
"Andre Jute" wrote
| Quote: | You don't DEBATE theories. You PROVE them, and make them
FACTS!!!!
That was the old, well-proven way of doing science, as formalized
inter
alia by Sir Karl Popper...
|
I don't think so. Popper was a poodle who rejected verification in
favour of its opposite, falsification, and patched up the consequent
loss of certainty with probability. All in order to claim that
systematic knowledge of the world is impossible because systematic
theories of the world are not falsifiable and therefore not
scientific.
His job was to legitimise his illiterate political masters' attack
on social science.
His political philosophy is wholly dishonest, which is plain to see
if you compare his commentary on Hegel, for example, with Hegel's
original work. "The open society and its enemies" is a patchwork of
lies and quilt quotations.
I consider it undeniable that people know more now about how the
world changes than they used to. What is science if it is not
developing knowledge?
Considering your notion of cauliflower cheese and estimating your
culinary ability, you may not be aware that you can't make an
omelette without breaking eggs. The more you protest that
environmental science has made mistakes, the greater the weight you
lend it. If it is falsifiable it must be science, right?
The real problem you share with Popper is an inability or
unwillingness to grasp the notion of synthetic knowledge, as opposed
to the mere analysis to which you try to restrict the scope of
science. But without synthesis, the endpoint of science would be a
mass of detail no less complex and complicated than the world
itself, and understanding would be no further forward.
Lots of environmentalists are full of shit. The more the crying need
for environmental science. The more the need to replace the humanity
that Popper and his cronies drove from the realm of knowledge.
cheers, Ian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andre Jute
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 3:36 am Post subject:
Re: Science lies foully murdered. The Environmental Faith is |
|
|
Thanks for the Marxist view, Ian. After I struggled my way through the
dialectic duck soup, I laughed all the way to the lavatory, where I
vomited. As always, you confuse philosophy and politics with science. A
"systematic theory of the world" is a faith, not a scientific doctrine.
That was Marx's dumbest mistake, and that's saying something,
considering how dumb his mistakes in economics and mass psychology
were.
| Quote: | Lots of environmentalists are full of shit.
|
Can't but agree.
| Quote: | The more the crying need
for environmental science.
|
We have more than enough environmental science already to prove that
there is no environmental problem. We just need to maintain a low level
of watchfulness. What we don't need is a huge "environmental" vested
interest hysterically creating "problems" to protect their jobs. But I
fear it is already too late. General Electrics Corporation in the
States is already in the "environmental business", complete with a
trademark, Enviroimagination (or something like it, I haven't seen it,
just heard about it from their CEO). What was it I wrote earlier today
to Chris about environmentalism being the new industrial-military
complex gravy train?
| Quote: | The more the need to replace the humanity
that Popper and his cronies drove from the realm of knowledge.
|
So scientific outcome should be decided by vote? Only cardcarrying
right-thinkers (i.e. those who subscribe to your "systematic theory of
the world" will be permitted to vote, of course. How is that different
from "science" determined by the loudest, most hysterical pressure
group?
Like I said, the Age of Feely-Feely is upon us.
Hail, Iveson-Lysenko, socially-approved "scientist"!
Andre Jute
Communism is an even sicker joke than Scientology
-- Andre Jute to TIME, after a lecture tour of Soviet Russia, 1968
I've seen the future (1), and *all* the taps drip
--Andre Jute to Rolling Stone, ditto
Nothing wrong with Russia that can't be fixed if we put Hal Geneen (2)
in charge for ten years
--Andre Jute, Guest Editorial in The Director, ditto
(1) For the rest of you, because Iveson already knows, this is a
sarcastic pun on a remark made by Lincoln Steffens, an American
pinkocommiefellowtraveller, who went to Russia while Lenin and Stalin
were killing ten million a year (lowest estimate) and reported, "I've
been to the future, and it works." Steffens was one of the Lubricious
Mendicants for The Cause, and Iveson apparently wants to be the last.
(2) Hal Geneen ran ITT. My ad agency handled the advertising and PR for
several ITT divisions. A quarter-century later, when the Russian
finally took my advice, it was almost too late; so much else had gone
wrong that it would take a lot longer than ten years to fix the
country.
Ian Iveson wrote:
| Quote: | "Andre Jute" wrote
You don't DEBATE theories. You PROVE them, and make them
FACTS!!!!
That was the old, well-proven way of doing science, as formalized
inter
alia by Sir Karl Popper...
I don't think so. Popper was a poodle who rejected verification in
favour of its opposite, falsification, and patched up the consequent
loss of certainty with probability. All in order to claim that
systematic knowledge of the world is impossible because systematic
theories of the world are not falsifiable and therefore not
scientific.
His job was to legitimise his illiterate political masters' attack
on social science.
His political philosophy is wholly dishonest, which is plain to see
if you compare his commentary on Hegel, for example, with Hegel's
original work. "The open society and its enemies" is a patchwork of
lies and quilt quotations.
I consider it undeniable that people know more now about how the
world changes than they used to. What is science if it is not
developing knowledge?
Considering your notion of cauliflower cheese and estimating your
culinary ability, you may not be aware that you can't make an
omelette without breaking eggs. The more you protest that
environmental science has made mistakes, the greater the weight you
lend it. If it is falsifiable it must be science, right?
The real problem you share with Popper is an inability or
unwillingness to grasp the notion of synthetic knowledge, as opposed
to the mere analysis to which you try to restrict the scope of
science. But without synthesis, the endpoint of science would be a
mass of detail no less complex and complicated than the world
itself, and understanding would be no further forward.
Lots of environmentalists are full of shit. The more the crying need
for environmental science. The more the need to replace the humanity
that Popper and his cronies drove from the realm of knowledge.
cheers, Ian
|
ORIGINAL POST:
Zootwoman wrote:
| Quote: | If we wish to remain in the domain of science, rather than politics, we
must continue to debate any theory, no matter how well established.
|
Rich Koerner objected:
| Quote: | You don't DEBATE theories. You PROVE them, and make them FACTS!!!!
|
That was the old, well-proven way of doing science, as formalized inter
alia by Sir Karl Popper. It no longer applies to the environment.
The problem with the debate on the environment is that it has been
removed from the spheres of both science and politics. The body which
heavily influences environmental policy (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change - IPCC) has taken three fatal steps:
1. It has repeatedly rewritten, or forced scientists to rewrite,
scientific findings in stronger terms to suit political aims, and in
several notorious cases the various consecutive drafts have in fact
turned the finding of the scientists on its head, the final executive
summary for politicians saying exactly the opposite of what the
scientists found and said in their report. A notorious example was the
major summary in the 1996 report in which the scientists concluded
there is no evidence that global warming is caused by human activity.
When the report came out, the summary claimed that the evidence proves
that global warming is caused by human activity! This institutionalizes
lying.
2. Glory- and fund-hunting "scientists" have been encouraged to state
their "feelings" as if these have the same validity as repeatable
scientific proof. An example is the 2001 report in which the summary
was diametrically at odds with the data in the report; the chief
"scientist's" excuse was that he "felt" that politicians "should" take
the environment seriously! At the same time naysayers who demand proof
and honest interpretation of data have been persecuted in the press and
by the environmental establishment, funding bodies and suchlike, the
vilification of the statistician Bjorn Lomborg being merely the most
egregious and best documented example. This is an Inquisition to
persecute skeptics. In addition, any questioning of scientists, their
findings and investigations by political authorities is presented as
persecution, as current congressional investigations of controversial
findings with big public finance implications have been misrepresented
as a witchhunt. That is a mechanism for turning scientists into a new
priesthood, with their own courts and their own law, totally outside
democratic control.
3. Worst of all, it was officially decided that environmental measures
should not be subjected to cost-benefit analysis. This is simply crazy,
because the only measure any democracy has in the end is cost-benefit.
You cannot spend the taxpayer's money without limit for any purpose
whatsoever. But this crazy *official* concept goes further than even
that in its implications. For instance, legislators are not supposed to
make commonplace comparisons with other calls on the public purse, such
as Health. This takes the Environment (note the new capital) out of
politics and makes it into an official Super-Religion, a faith no dares
question. See above about the Inquisition persecuting skeptics and the
immunity of the new faith from rationality, law and democratic
oversight. So who will control this new faith? Why, the pressure groups
who have so successfully brought it about.
It's the new fascism.
***
I might also remark that the Last Rational Age started on 29 May 1919
when Eddington used the eclipse of the sun to prove Einstein's
relativity theory. Einstein had set three tests and insisted all three
tests, the red shift during the eclipse being the last, be met before
the theory would be accepted as valid. Einstein wrote to Eddington: "If
it were proved that this effect does not exist in nature then the whole
theory would have to be abondoned."
After this scientific relativity was confused with moral relativity to
the point where a worldwide "scientific" body (IPCC) would in 1996
persuade scientists to sign their names to lies and then from 2001 to
substitute their "feelings" for observable fact. That was the end of
science; 2001 marks the beginning of The Age of Feely-Feely. A few
years later we have an idiot from a pressure group telling us
(apparently without understanding how much the single sentence reveals
of the methods and motives of these power-hungry minority pressure
groups):
| Quote: | If we wish to remain in the domain of science, rather than politics, we
must continue to debate any theory, no matter how well established.
|
which translates into plain English as a threat:
"We don't care shit what science proves, and we don't care shit for the
supervision of our elected representatives, we'll continue pressuring
everyone until you give way because our 'feelings' are more important
than science or democracy."
The abandonment of science for the Environmental Faith and mob rule may
yet give the green pressure groups their destructive dream of cottage
industry and no cars. Someone should explain to them that horses shit
all over the roads and that that too is a form of pollution.
Andre Jute
Bicyclist
PS This message, posted on RAT for rational discussion, is also posted
to AGA, but not crossposted. I leave it entirely up to RATs whether
they wish to take a quick tourist trip to the monkey farm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.guitar.amps to see how the crazies
on AGA treat the same material. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jon Yaeger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Science lies foully murder. The Environmental Faith is t |
|
|
in article VeudnX-Hz_5RO6HeRVn-1g@comcast.com, Don at spiced-ham?No@big.isp
wrote on 9/29/05 10:45 PM:
| Quote: | In article <1127971473.219428.188880@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
fiultra@yahoo.com says...
I remember the first time I sneered at the hole in the ozone layer. I
was teenage genius with a newspaper column. Only back then it was
supposed to lead to an ice age... Every year the new eejit making his
name claiming there is a hole in the ozone layer now claims it will
cause warming. Forty years, and still no proof, and the prophesies blow
hot and cold, literally. Which is it, an ice age or hell on earth?
I'd like to see one scientific reference where the artic ozone holes are said
to cause either global warming or global cooling. The ozone hole problem
concerns UV radiation, as far as I know. And it was the efforts of Margaret
Thatcher, who studied chemistry at Oxford, that resulted in the banning of
HFC's.
If you are in error concerning this, Andre, perhaps you may wish to re-examine
your other propositions?
-Don
|
Don't get too worked up about Andre, Don. He doesn't know the difference
between a B.T.U. & a B.U.T.T.
Jon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Science lies foully murder. The Environmental Faith is t |
|
|
In article <1127971473.219428.188880@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
fiultra@yahoo.com says...
| Quote: | I remember the first time I sneered at the hole in the ozone layer. I
was teenage genius with a newspaper column. Only back then it was
supposed to lead to an ice age... Every year the new eejit making his
name claiming there is a hole in the ozone layer now claims it will
cause warming. Forty years, and still no proof, and the prophesies blow
hot and cold, literally. Which is it, an ice age or hell on earth?
|
I'd like to see one scientific reference where the artic ozone holes are said
to cause either global warming or global cooling. The ozone hole problem
concerns UV radiation, as far as I know. And it was the efforts of Margaret
Thatcher, who studied chemistry at Oxford, that resulted in the banning of
HFC's.
If you are in error concerning this, Andre, perhaps you may wish to re-examine
your other propositions?
-Don |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jon Yaeger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Science lies foully murdered. The Environmental Faith is |
|
|
Stick to cooking and perhaps circumcision.
in article 1128046880.722687.168460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, Andre Jute
at fiultra@yahoo.com wrote on 9/29/05 10:21 PM:
| Quote: | Okay, maybe my first response to Ian was a little harsh. Instead of
just throwing up my hands and saying, Oh, fuck, not that again, I could
if I were stroked argue that Marx's model of postdialectic
deappropriation holds that culture, perhaps ironically, has objective
value, given that the premise of postcapitalist materialist theory is
invalid. In that sense, anyway; after all, Sontag uses the term
'dialectic neomaterialist theory' to denote the failure of presemiotic
sexual identity ("oh, fuck"? "stroked" definitely). Any number of
theories concerning textual narrative may be revealed. Ian's may be
valid. However, if constructivism holds, in environmental
interpretation we have to choose between the neoconceptualist paradigm
of context and cultural capitalism. -- Andre Jute
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andre Jute
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Science lies foully murder. The Environmental Faith is t |
|
|
ROTFLOL. This is absolutely a brilliant reference, Vinyl. Never mind
work, I'm reading! Among these references is a mathematician who was
inspired to do a review of the complete issue of Social Text in which
the Sokal hoax appeared. See
http://galileo.math.siu.edu/~msulliva/Preprints/socialtext.html
for an absolute scream.
Thanks, man.
Andre Jute
vinylbigot wrote:
| Quote: | The use "feelings" to replace "facts" has its roots in the postmodern
movement--as far as it is used today.
There is an excellent humorous set of web pages referred to as the Alan
Sokal Affair
See the link: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/ and
"Transgressing the Boundaries: An Afterword"
Post Modernists love Kuhn's book "The structure of scientific revolutions"
because they think it is the last word in discovery of theory. It
completely escapes their notice that a validated theory still requires a
fundamental natural basis in provable fact. That paradigm shifts occur is
true--but they don't create new natural law, they only discover what was
there all along.
"Andre Jute" <fiultra@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127956100.721157.258270@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Zootwoman wrote:
If we wish to remain in the domain of science, rather than politics, we
must continue to debate any theory, no matter how well established.
Rich Koerner objected:
You don't DEBATE theories. You PROVE them, and make them FACTS!!!!
That was the old, well-proven way of doing science, as formalized inter
alia by Sir Karl Popper. It no longer applies to the environment.
The problem with the debate on the environment is that it has been
removed from the spheres of both science and politics. The body which
heavily influences environmental policy (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change - IPCC) has taken three fatal steps:
1. It has repeatedly rewritten, or forced scientists to rewrite,
scientific findings in stronger terms to suit political aims, and in
several notorious cases the various consecutive drafts have in fact
turned the finding of the scientists on its head, the final executive
summary for politicians saying exactly the opposite of what the
scientists found and said in their report. A notorious example was the
major summary in the 1996 report in which the scientists concluded
there is no evidence that global warming is caused by human activity.
When the report came out, the summary claimed that the evidence proves
that global warming is caused by human activity! This institutionalizes
lying.
2. Glory- and fund-hunting "scientists" have been encouraged to state
their "feelings" as if these have the same validity as repeatable
scientific proof. An example is the 2001 report in which the summary
was diametrically at odds with the data in the report; the chief
"scientist's" excuse was that he "felt" that politicians "should" take
the environment seriously! At the same time naysayers who demand proof
and honest interpretation of data have been persecuted in the press and
by the environmental establishment, funding bodies and suchlike, the
vilification of the statistician Bjorn Lomborg being merely the most
egregious and best documented example. This is an Inquisition to
persecute skeptics. In addition, any questioning of scientists, their
findings and investigations by political authorities is presented as
persecution, as current congressional investigations of controversial
findings with big public finance implications have been misrepresented
as a witchhunt. That is a mechanism for turning scientists into a new
priesthood, with their own courts and their own law, totally outside
democratic control.
3. Worst of all, it was officially decided that environmental measures
should not be subjected to cost-benefit analysis. This is simply crazy,
because the only measure any democracy has in the end is cost-benefit.
You cannot spend the taxpayer's money without limit for any purpose
whatsoever. But this crazy *official* concept goes further than even
that in its implications. For instance, legislators are not supposed to
make commonplace comparisons with other calls on the public purse, such
as Health. This takes the Environment (note the new capital) out of
politics and makes it into an official Super-Religion, a faith no dares
question. See above about the Inquisition persecuting skeptics and the
immunity of the new faith from rationality, law and democratic
oversight. So who will control this new faith? Why, the pressure groups
who have so successfully brought it about.
It's the new fascism.
***
I might also remark that the Last Rational Age started on 29 May 1919
when Eddington used the eclipse of the sun to prove Einstein's
relativity theory. Einstein had set three tests and insisted all three
tests, the red shift during the eclipse being the last, be met before
the theory would be accepted as valid. Einstein wrote to Eddington: "If
it were proved that this effect does not exist in nature then the whole
theory would have to be abondoned."
After this scientific relativity was confused with moral relativity to
the point where a worldwide "scientific" body (IPCC) would in 1996
persuade scientists to sign their names to lies and then from 2001 to
substitute their "feelings" for observable fact. That was the end of
science; 2001 marks the beginning of The Age of Feely-Feely. A few
years later we have an idiot from a pressure group telling us
(apparently without understanding how much the single sentence reveals
of the methods and motives of these power-hungry minority pressure
groups):
If we wish to remain in the domain of science, rather than politics, we
must continue to debate any theory, no matter how well established.
which translates into plain English as a threat:
"We don't care shit what science proves, and we don't care shit for the
supervision of our elected representatives, we'll continue pressuring
everyone until you give way because our 'feelings' are more important
than science or democracy."
The abandonment of science for the Environmental Faith and mob rule may
yet give the green pressure groups their destructive dream of cottage
industry and no cars. Someone should explain to them that horses shit
all over the roads and that that too is a form of pollution.
Andre Jute
Bicyclist
PS This message, posted on RAT for rational discussion, is also posted
to AGA, but not crossposted. I leave it entirely up to RATs whether
they wish to take a quick tourist trip to the monkey farm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.guitar.amps to see how the crazies
on AGA treat the same material.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andre Jute
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Science lies foully murdered. The Environmental Faith is |
|
|
Okay, maybe my first response to Ian was a little harsh. Instead of
just throwing up my hands and saying, Oh, fuck, not that again, I could
if I were stroked argue that Marx's model of postdialectic
deappropriation holds that culture, perhaps ironically, has objective
value, given that the premise of postcapitalist materialist theory is
invalid. In that sense, anyway; after all, Sontag uses the term
'dialectic neomaterialist theory' to denote the failure of presemiotic
sexual identity ("oh, fuck"? "stroked" definitely). Any number of
theories concerning textual narrative may be revealed. Ian's may be
valid. However, if constructivism holds, in environmental
interpretation we have to choose between the neoconceptualist paradigm
of context and cultural capitalism. -- Andre Jute
Andre Jute wrote:
| Quote: | Thanks for the Marxist view, Ian. After I struggled my way through the
dialectic duck soup, I laughed all the way to the lavatory, where I
vomited. As always, you confuse philosophy and politics with science. A
"systematic theory of the world" is a faith, not a scientific doctrine.
That was Marx's dumbest mistake, and that's saying something,
considering how dumb his mistakes in economics and mass psychology
were.
Lots of environmentalists are full of shit.
Can't but agree.
The more the crying need
for environmental science.
We have more than enough environmental science already to prove that
there is no environmental problem. We just need to maintain a low level
of watchfulness. What we don't need is a huge "environmental" vested
interest hysterically creating "problems" to protect their jobs. But I
fear it is already too late. General Electrics Corporation in the
States is already in the "environmental business", complete with a
trademark, Enviroimagination (or something like it, I haven't seen it,
just heard about it from their CEO). What was it I wrote earlier today
to Chris about environmentalism being the new industrial-military
complex gravy train?
The more the need to replace the humanity
that Popper and his cronies drove from the realm of knowledge.
So scientific outcome should be decided by vote? Only cardcarrying
right-thinkers (i.e. those who subscribe to your "systematic theory of
the world" will be permitted to vote, of course. How is that different
from "science" determined by the loudest, most hysterical pressure
group?
Like I said, the Age of Feely-Feely is upon us.
Hail, Iveson-Lysenko, socially-approved "scientist"!
Andre Jute
Communism is an even sicker joke than Scientology
-- Andre Jute to TIME, after a lecture tour of Soviet Russia, 1968
I've seen the future (1), and *all* the taps drip
--Andre Jute to Rolling Stone, ditto
Nothing wrong with Russia that can't be fixed if we put Hal Geneen (2)
in charge for ten years
--Andre Jute, Guest Editorial in The Director, ditto
(1) For the rest of you, because Iveson already knows, this is a
sarcastic pun on a remark made by Lincoln Steffens, an American
pinkocommiefellowtraveller, who went to Russia while Lenin and Stalin
were killing ten million a year (lowest estimate) and reported, "I've
been to the future, and it works." Steffens was one of the Lubricious
Mendicants for The Cause, and Iveson apparently wants to be the last.
(2) Hal Geneen ran ITT. My ad agency handled the advertising and PR for
several ITT divisions. A quarter-century later, when the Russian
finally took my advice, it was almost too late; so much else had gone
wrong that it would take a lot longer than ten years to fix the
country.
Ian Iveson wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote
You don't DEBATE theories. You PROVE them, and make them
FACTS!!!!
That was the old, well-proven way of doing science, as formalized
inter
alia by Sir Karl Popper...
I don't think so. Popper was a poodle who rejected verification in
favour of its opposite, falsification, and patched up the consequent
loss of certainty with probability. All in order to claim that
systematic knowledge of the world is impossible because systematic
theories of the world are not falsifiable and therefore not
scientific.
His job was to legitimise his illiterate political masters' attack
on social science.
His political philosophy is wholly dishonest, which is plain to see
if you compare his commentary on Hegel, for example, with Hegel's
original work. "The open society and its enemies" is a patchwork of
lies and quilt quotations.
I consider it undeniable that people know more now about how the
world changes than they used to. What is science if it is not
developing knowledge?
Considering your notion of cauliflower cheese and estimating your
culinary ability, you may not be aware that you can't make an
omelette without breaking eggs. The more you protest that
environmental science has made mistakes, the greater the weight you
lend it. If it is falsifiable it must be science, right?
The real problem you share with Popper is an inability or
unwillingness to grasp the notion of synthetic knowledge, as opposed
to the mere analysis to which you try to restrict the scope of
science. But without synthesis, the endpoint of science would be a
mass of detail no less complex and complicated than the world
itself, and understanding would be no further forward.
Lots of environmentalists are full of shit. The more the crying need
for environmental science. The more the need to replace the humanity
that Popper and his cronies drove from the realm of knowledge.
cheers, Ian
ORIGINAL POST:
Zootwoman wrote:
If we wish to remain in the domain of science, rather than politics, we
must continue to debate any theory, no matter how well established.
Rich Koerner objected:
You don't DEBATE theories. You PROVE them, and make them FACTS!!!!
That was the old, well-proven way of doing science, as formalized inter
alia by Sir Karl Popper. It no longer applies to the environment.
The problem with the debate on the environment is that it has been
removed from the spheres of both science and politics. The body which
heavily influences environmental policy (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change - IPCC) has taken three fatal steps:
1. It has repeatedly rewritten, or forced scientists to rewrite,
scientific findings in stronger terms to suit political aims, and in
several notorious cases the various consecutive drafts have in fact
turned the finding of the scientists on its head, the final executive
summary for politicians saying exactly the opposite of what the
scientists found and said in their report. A notorious example was the
major summary in the 1996 report in which the scientists concluded
there is no evidence that global warming is caused by human activity.
When the report came out, the summary claimed that the evidence proves
that global warming is caused by human activity! This institutionalizes
lying.
2. Glory- and fund-hunting "scientists" have been encouraged to state
their "feelings" as if these have the same validity as repeatable
scientific proof. An example is the 2001 report in which the summary
was diametrically at odds with the data in the report; the chief
"scientist's" excuse was that he "felt" that politicians "should" take
the environment seriously! At the same time naysayers who demand proof
and honest interpretation of data have been persecuted in the press and
by the environmental establishment, funding bodies and suchlike, the
vilification of the statistician Bjorn Lomborg being merely the most
egregious and best documented example. This is an Inquisition to
persecute skeptics. In addition, any questioning of scientists, their
findings and investigations by political authorities is presented as
persecution, as current congressional investigations of controversial
findings with big public finance implications have been misrepresented
as a witchhunt. That is a mechanism for turning scientists into a new
priesthood, with their own courts and their own law, totally outside
democratic control.
3. Worst of all, it was officially decided that environmental measures
should not be subjected to cost-benefit analysis. This is simply crazy,
because the only measure any democracy has in the end is cost-benefit.
You cannot spend the taxpayer's money without limit for any purpose
whatsoever. But this crazy *official* concept goes further than even
that in its implications. For instance, legislators are not supposed to
make commonplace comparisons with other calls on the public purse, such
as Health. This takes the Environment (note the new capital) out of
politics and makes it into an official Super-Religion, a faith no dares
question. See above about the Inquisition persecuting skeptics and the
immunity of the new faith from rationality, law and democratic
oversight. So who will control this new faith? Why, the pressure groups
who have so successfully brought it about.
It's the new fascism.
***
I might also remark that the Last Rational Age started on 29 May 1919
when Eddington used the eclipse of the sun to prove Einstein's
relativity theory. Einstein had set three tests and insisted all three
tests, the red shift during the eclipse being the last, be met before
the theory would be accepted as valid. Einstein wrote to Eddington: "If
it were proved that this effect does not exist in nature then the whole
theory would have to be abondoned."
After this scientific relativity was confused with moral relativity to
the point where a worldwide "scientific" body (IPCC) would in 1996
persuade scientists to sign their names to lies and then from 2001 to
substitute their "feelings" for observable fact. That was the end of
science; 2001 marks the beginning of The Age of Feely-Feely. A few
years later we have an idiot from a pressure group telling us
(apparently without understanding how much the single sentence reveals
of the methods and motives of these power-hungry minority pressure
groups):
If we wish to remain in the domain of science, rather than politics, we
must continue to debate any theory, no matter how well established.
which translates into plain English as a threat:
"We don't care shit what science proves, and we don't care shit for the
supervision of our elected representatives, we'll continue pressuring
everyone until you give way because our 'feelings' are more important
than science or democracy."
The abandonment of science for the Environmental Faith and mob rule may
yet give the green pressure groups their destructive dream of cottage
industry and no cars. Someone should explain to them that horses shit
all over the roads and that that too is a form of pollution.
Andre Jute
Bicyclist
PS This message, posted on RAT for rational discussion, is also posted
to AGA, but not crossposted. I leave it entirely up to RATs whether
they wish to take a quick tourist trip to the monkey farm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.guitar.amps to see how the crazies
on AGA treat the same material. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vinylbigot
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Science lies foully murder. The Environmental Faith is t |
|
|
It's not glacier park that concerns me, but the Greenland ice sheet. Global
warming or no warming, human fault or not, if the sheet melts life as we
know it on this planet will dramatically change for the worse.
What is interesting is that there exists a map from the 15th century (a copy
from somewhere?) that shows the actual land mass of Antartica--not the
current ice covered one. That suggests that at one time Antartica was free
of ice--who knows what the world was like at that time.
"Chris Hornbeck" <chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote in message
news:rmuoj15s0irrb2tqtslfsp10g2aot5gdrb@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On 28 Sep 2005 22:24:33 -0700, "Andre Jute" <fiultra@yahoo.com> wrote:
snipped for bandwidth, 'cause you've read it
There's no arguing religion. I wish I could believe
you to be right; I could feel a lot better about
the world we're leaving our grandchildren.
But I can't. Here in North America we have a Glacier
National Park which will have *no* glaciers in
twenty years. I live in day-trip distance to
New Orleans; this is not an intellectual diversion
for me.
Thanks for your thoughts, as always,
Chris Hornbeck |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vinylbigot
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Science lies foully murder. The Environmental Faith is t |
|
|
The use "feelings" to replace "facts" has its roots in the postmodern
movement--as far as it is used today.
There is an excellent humorous set of web pages referred to as the Alan
Sokal Affair
See the link: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/ and
"Transgressing the Boundaries: An Afterword"
Post Modernists love Kuhn's book "The structure of scientific revolutions"
because they think it is the last word in discovery of theory. It
completely escapes their notice that a validated theory still requires a
fundamental natural basis in provable fact. That paradigm shifts occur is
true--but they don't create new natural law, they only discover what was
there all along.
"Andre Jute" <fiultra@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127956100.721157.258270@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Zootwoman wrote:
If we wish to remain in the domain of science, rather than politics, we
must continue to debate any theory, no matter how well established.
Rich Koerner objected:
You don't DEBATE theories. You PROVE them, and make them FACTS!!!!
That was the old, well-proven way of doing science, as formalized inter
alia by Sir Karl Popper. It no longer applies to the environment.
The problem with the debate on the environment is that it has been
removed from the spheres of both science and politics. The body which
heavily influences environmental policy (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change - IPCC) has taken three fatal steps:
1. It has repeatedly rewritten, or forced scientists to rewrite,
scientific findings in stronger terms to suit political aims, and in
several notorious cases the various consecutive drafts have in fact
turned the finding of the scientists on its head, the final executive
summary for politicians saying exactly the opposite of what the
scientists found and said in their report. A notorious example was the
major summary in the 1996 report in which the scientists concluded
there is no evidence that global warming is caused by human activity.
When the report came out, the summary claimed that the evidence proves
that global warming is caused by human activity! This institutionalizes
lying.
2. Glory- and fund-hunting "scientists" have been encouraged to state
their "feelings" as if these have the same validity as repeatable
scientific proof. An example is the 2001 report in which the summary
was diametrically at odds with the data in the report; the chief
"scientist's" excuse was that he "felt" that politicians "should" take
the environment seriously! At the same time naysayers who demand proof
and honest interpretation of data have been persecuted in the press and
by the environmental establishment, funding bodies and suchlike, the
vilification of the statistician Bjorn Lomborg being merely the most
egregious and best documented example. This is an Inquisition to
persecute skeptics. In addition, any questioning of scientists, their
findings and investigations by political authorities is presented as
persecution, as current congressional investigations of controversial
findings with big public finance implications have been misrepresented
as a witchhunt. That is a mechanism for turning scientists into a new
priesthood, with their own courts and their own law, totally outside
democratic control.
3. Worst of all, it was officially decided that environmental measures
should not be subjected to cost-benefit analysis. This is simply crazy,
because the only measure any democracy has in the end is cost-benefit.
You cannot spend the taxpayer's money without limit for any purpose
whatsoever. But this crazy *official* concept goes further than even
that in its implications. For instance, legislators are not supposed to
make commonplace comparisons with other calls on the public purse, such
as Health. This takes the Environment (note the new capital) out of
politics and makes it into an official Super-Religion, a faith no dares
question. See above about the Inquisition persecuting skeptics and the
immunity of the new faith from rationality, law and democratic
oversight. So who will control this new faith? Why, the pressure groups
who have so successfully brought it about.
It's the new fascism.
***
I might also remark that the Last Rational Age started on 29 May 1919
when Eddington used the eclipse of the sun to prove Einstein's
relativity theory. Einstein had set three tests and insisted all three
tests, the red shift during the eclipse being the last, be met before
the theory would be accepted as valid. Einstein wrote to Eddington: "If
it were proved that this effect does not exist in nature then the whole
theory would have to be abondoned."
After this scientific relativity was confused with moral relativity to
the point where a worldwide "scientific" body (IPCC) would in 1996
persuade scientists to sign their names to lies and then from 2001 to
substitute their "feelings" for observable fact. That was the end of
science; 2001 marks the beginning of The Age of Feely-Feely. A few
years later we have an idiot from a pressure group telling us
(apparently without understanding how much the single sentence reveals
of the methods and motives of these power-hungry minority pressure
groups):
If we wish to remain in the domain of science, rather than politics, we
must continue to debate any theory, no matter how well established.
which translates into plain English as a threat:
"We don't care shit what science proves, and we don't care shit for the
supervision of our elected representatives, we'll continue pressuring
everyone until you give way because our 'feelings' are more important
than science or democracy."
The abandonment of science for the Environmental Faith and mob rule may
yet give the green pressure groups their destructive dream of cottage
industry and no cars. Someone should explain to them that horses shit
all over the roads and that that too is a form of pollution.
Andre Jute
Bicyclist
PS This message, posted on RAT for rational discussion, is also posted
to AGA, but not crossposted. I leave it entirely up to RATs whether
they wish to take a quick tourist trip to the monkey farm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.guitar.amps to see how the crazies
on AGA treat the same material.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Hornbeck
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Science lies foully murder. The Environmental Faith is t |
|
|
On 28 Sep 2005 22:24:33 -0700, "Andre Jute" <fiultra@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snipped for bandwidth, 'cause you've read it>
There's no arguing religion. I wish I could believe
you to be right; I could feel a lot better about
the world we're leaving our grandchildren.
But I can't. Here in North America we have a Glacier
National Park which will have *no* glaciers in
twenty years. I live in day-trip distance to
New Orleans; this is not an intellectual diversion
for me.
Thanks for your thoughts, as always,
Chris Hornbeck |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Hornbeck
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Science lies foully murder. The Environmental Faith is t |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2005 20:42:45 -0700, "Andre Jute" <fiultra@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | First Chris gives me an absolutely silly argument:
Extrapolating 2000 years forward,
the surface of the Earth will be the same temperature as
the surface of the Sun, roughly 6000 K.
|
Of course it's silly. The bullshit mathematical extrapolation
is also correct, but who cares?
Where can we begin to find points of agreement? To
begin with, any argument that includes Humans as a
significant contributor, but less significant than
termites, seems reasonable.
Temporarily, anyway,
Ultimately, only our (human, and our food animals)
contribution will matter. And, perhaps even more
importantly, their food crops' petroleum requirements.
Animal protein is a small step away from petroleum
and top soil. Ya wanna talk about the future? Talk
about petroleum and topsoil.
And, after the climate changes, how wonderful things
are in North Africa.
God bless us, every one,
Chris Hornbeck |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andre Jute
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Yaeger and hygiene? Re: Science lies foully murdered. The En |
|
|
The crooked garage trader and arse bandit Jon Yaeger wrote:
| Quote: | Stick to cooking and perhaps circumcision.
|
To late for you become interested in hygiene Jon/John/Jono or whatever
you call yourself today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in