"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, most of the science is right according to many
environmental scientists.

The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it
may
not be. It really makes little difference, because we aren't
likely
to see anything of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our
children or their children.

Who said so? Theory? Perhaps you think Intelligent Design is a
theory
also.

I'll go one step further, Jon. I'm betting that within five to ten
years, the whole theory of global warming will be as passé and
forgotten as pet rocks, cancer-causing high-tension power lines,
cell-phones causing CA, and Furbies. When the next cause celeb
comes
along, GW will be discarded onto the same pile of oblivion that all
the
other "urgent, life-threatening" issues-of-the-day have found
themselves.


Well, that's your "theory" right... hahahaa

Yup. And it's neither provable nor disprovable any more than the
theory
of global warming being completely attributed to greenhouse gases and
human heat generation. Only time will tell which theory is right.
Probably neither, actually.

You need to take a look at the definition of the word theory... feel
free
to get back to me when you understand it. :-)

Random House Dictionary: Theory: a proposed explanation whose
status
is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that
are
regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Is that succinct enough for you, Jon? Or do you view the Random House
Dictionary with the same disrespect as those scientists with whom your
dogmatic opinions are in contravention?

Sorry, got to agree with Jon on this one. What's described as above I'd
call a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and
can't (so far) be falsified.

Take a look at Kuhn's 'Structures of Scientific Revolutions' and some
of Karl Popper's work then get back to me if you want to argue this
further.

I don't.

Max

I figured you didn't. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, most of the science is right according to many
environmental scientists.

The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it
may
not be. It really makes little difference, because we aren't
likely
to see anything of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our
children or their children.

Who said so? Theory? Perhaps you think Intelligent Design is a
theory
also.

I'll go one step further, Jon. I'm betting that within five to ten
years, the whole theory of global warming will be as passé and
forgotten as pet rocks, cancer-causing high-tension power lines,
cell-phones causing CA, and Furbies. When the next cause celeb
comes
along, GW will be discarded onto the same pile of oblivion that all
the
other "urgent, life-threatening" issues-of-the-day have found
themselves.


Well, that's your "theory" right... hahahaa

Yup. And it's neither provable nor disprovable any more than the
theory
of global warming being completely attributed to greenhouse gases and
human heat generation. Only time will tell which theory is right.
Probably neither, actually.

You need to take a look at the definition of the word theory... feel
free
to get back to me when you understand it. :-)

Random House Dictionary: Theory: a proposed explanation whose
status
is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that
are
regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Is that succinct enough for you, Jon? Or do you view the Random House
Dictionary with the same disrespect as those scientists with whom your
dogmatic opinions are in contravention?

Sorry, got to agree with Jon on this one. What's described as above I'd
call a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and
can't (so far) be falsified.

Take a look at Kuhn's 'Structures of Scientific Revolutions' and some
of Karl Popper's work then get back to me if you want to argue this
further.

I don't.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I figured you didn't. :-)

But not for the reason you suspect.

It's simply not worth pursuing. For example, if I agree that Pete is right,
then I have to retract my statement that global warming is a theory, rather
a hypothesis. Then you're going to get all ****y-moany about that, and
we're going to go back and forth another twenty or so times.

Not worth the effort.

Max

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I figured you didn't. :-)

But not for the reason you suspect.

It's simply not worth pursuing. For example, if I agree that Pete is right,
then I have to retract my statement that global warming is a theory, rather
a hypothesis. Then you're going to get all ****y-moany about that, and
we're going to go back and forth another twenty or so times.

Not worth the effort.

Yeah. Also irrelevant. Global warming is a fact, as far as I'm
concerned. The causes of global warming are at this stage only
hypotheses. That's somewhat *less* than a theory and a theory is far
less than an established fact.

I'm staying out of this crap simply because I can't see the point of
bothering. Jon can cite all the pop press articles etc he likes. They
too are irrelevant because they're based - at best - on some uninformed
& poorly educated journalist's take on what someone else with
scientific training said/wrote.

The expert I respect says 'not proven' WRT human activities. That's
worth far more to me than all the 3rd hand refs Jon can cite. This guy
is head of glaciology research, I've been to Antarctica with him on a
number of occasions, has a string of publications in refereed science
journals a mile long. In fact I've been to sea with a very broad cross
section of the entire planet's glaciologists, oceanographers,
atmospheric scientists etc. Had a whole bunch of NASA people a few
years ago. Or was it NOAA, all these acronyms, so little brain space,
even less interest...

Anyway I'm kinda hoping for a sea level rise of between 1 and 3 metres.
I'd be able to build a deep water jetty then rather than have a tidal
waterfront as I do now. Swings & roundabouts.

Couple completely irrelevant things - I might get a close look at San
Diego this year. Work is trying to convince me to go there for a bit,
I'm trying to get out of it. We'll see.

The other is, I was given a Kyocera ceramic kitchen knife as a belated
Christmas present. This thing is *sharp* and guess what - it has zero
metal content, so it ain't gonna trigger a detector, AFAIK. So much for
a/port security WRT a pair of nail clippers.

If they were really serious they'd ban *all* carryon baggage and make
everyone strip their street clothes off & wear a set of disposable
overalls for the flight. They haven't done that, and won't.

On that note, I'm waving goodbye to a bunch of friends off south and
then heading for a margarita or 3. Followed by a weekend's sailing.

PDW

I would never cite all the ones I like.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I figured you didn't. :-)

But not for the reason you suspect.

It's simply not worth pursuing. For example, if I agree that Pete is
right,
then I have to retract my statement that global warming is a theory,
rather
a hypothesis. Then you're going to get all ****y-moany about that, and
we're going to go back and forth another twenty or so times.

Not worth the effort.

Yeah. Also irrelevant. Global warming is a fact, as far as I'm
concerned. The causes of global warming are at this stage only
hypotheses. That's somewhat *less* than a theory and a theory is far
less than an established fact.

I'm staying out of this crap simply because I can't see the point of
bothering. Jon can cite all the pop press articles etc he likes. They
too are irrelevant because they're based - at best - on some uninformed
& poorly educated journalist's take on what someone else with
scientific training said/wrote.

The expert I respect says 'not proven' WRT human activities. That's
worth far more to me than all the 3rd hand refs Jon can cite. This guy
is head of glaciology research, I've been to Antarctica with him on a
number of occasions, has a string of publications in refereed science
journals a mile long. In fact I've been to sea with a very broad cross
section of the entire planet's glaciologists, oceanographers,
atmospheric scientists etc. Had a whole bunch of NASA people a few
years ago. Or was it NOAA, all these acronyms, so little brain space,
even less interest...

Anyway I'm kinda hoping for a sea level rise of between 1 and 3 metres.
I'd be able to build a deep water jetty then rather than have a tidal
waterfront as I do now. Swings & roundabouts.

Couple completely irrelevant things - I might get a close look at San
Diego this year. Work is trying to convince me to go there for a bit,
I'm trying to get out of it. We'll see.

The other is, I was given a Kyocera ceramic kitchen knife as a belated
Christmas present. This thing is *sharp* and guess what - it has zero
metal content, so it ain't gonna trigger a detector, AFAIK. So much for
a/port security WRT a pair of nail clippers.

If they were really serious they'd ban *all* carryon baggage and make
everyone strip their street clothes off & wear a set of disposable
overalls for the flight. They haven't done that, and won't.

On that note, I'm waving goodbye to a bunch of friends off south and
then heading for a margarita or 3. Followed by a weekend's sailing.

PDW

It's simply not worth pursuing. For example, if I agree that Pete is right,
then I have to retract my statement that global warming is a theory, rather
a hypothesis.

Which is really a statement of your political convictions
and an admission that you're not really sure what a "theory"
or a "hypothesis" really is. For example, Special Relativity
is just a theory.



Peter Wiley wrote:
Yeah. Also irrelevant. Global warming is a fact, as far as I'm
concerned.

Seems to be, yes.

... The causes of global warming are at this stage only
hypotheses. That's somewhat *less* than a theory and a theory is far
less than an established fact.



OTOH to suggest that human activity has had *no* part in
global warming is just plain stupid. We've been dumping
kazillions of BTUs into the atmosphere for hundreds of years
now, ramping up geometrically. Now does all that heat just
disappear? After all, conservation of energy is "just a theory."



The expert I respect says 'not proven' WRT human activities. That's
worth far more to me than all the 3rd hand refs Jon can cite. This guy
is head of glaciology research, I've been to Antarctica with him on a
number of occasions, has a string of publications in refereed science
journals a mile long. In fact I've been to sea with a very broad cross
section of the entire planet's glaciologists, oceanographers,
atmospheric scientists etc. Had a whole bunch of NASA people a few
years ago. Or was it NOAA, all these acronyms, so little brain space,
even less interest...


The problem with trying to analyse human effects on the
environment is that we don't really have any good math for
what the environment does.

It's been suggested that we'd be entering an Ice Age and
human activity has prevented that (IOW human activity is
responsible for 110% of global warming), also that human
activity is responsible for less than 10%. Whatever.


Anyway I'm kinda hoping for a sea level rise of between 1 and 3 metres.
I'd be able to build a deep water jetty then rather than have a tidal
waterfront as I do now. Swings & roundabouts.


Good for some, bad for others... it would be invconvenient
for us to find a new marina when our current one is
underwater. OTOH Katysail's marina had the foresight to
install floating docks




The other is, I was given a Kyocera ceramic kitchen knife as a belated
Christmas present. This thing is *sharp* and guess what - it has zero
metal content, so it ain't gonna trigger a detector, AFAIK. So much for
a/port security WRT a pair of nail clippers.

If they were really serious they'd ban *all* carryon baggage and make
everyone strip their street clothes off & wear a set of disposable
overalls for the flight. They haven't done that, and won't.


No, but they have reactivated the Sky Marshal program. Fancy
your chances with a ceramic knife against a .44 Sp? It's
about the only sign of 'getting serious' about security that
I've seen. OTOH the utter lack of border security makes it
irrelevant. Depressing topic.


On that note, I'm waving goodbye to a bunch of friends off south and
then heading for a margarita or 3. Followed by a weekend's sailing.


Sounds good. I'm just getting over a bad flu, so will
dispense with the alcohol... but it also gives me an
excellent excuse to do less fiberglassing & more sailing
this weekend. But first, we're stopping in at an Emmylou
Harris concert.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"DSK" wrote
...... For example, Special Relativity is just a theory.

Good example. A scientific theory is a construct, usually mathmatical, that
allow us to predict things, onten under limited conditions. It may or may not
describe the real world. Faced with an infinite universe with no obvious
reference points Albert set about constructing his general theory perforce using
finite mathmatics (all we have) and when that showed flaws, added his special
theory to fill the gaps. Both were brilliant pieces of work. However, less wise
users of these theories came to believe that the real universe was bound by the
limits of his mathmatics, which isn't necessarily true. For example, it may well
be possible to exceed 'C' altho the equations seem to say it is not.

I see the same thing in all the hubub over global warming. Models using less
than complete data seem to indicate a problem. Others do not. Some say man is
responsible, others not. Those who believe man i responsible want to take
drastic measures to reduce our technology, rather than the simple expedient of
reducing our population ... or letting Earth do it for us. I'm told by some
that everybody within X miles of coast will surely drown if we don't act now -
including major cities like N.Y. Well, how much will their drowning reduce
greenhouse gasses?? Sounds like the problem will fix itself - IF there is a
problem. So "What, me worry" is a valid attitude.

...... For example, Special Relativity is just a theory.


Vito wrote:
Good example. A scientific theory is a construct, usually mathmatical, that
allow us to predict things, onten under limited conditions.

"Usually mathematical"??
Without the math to apply it, a theory is useless.

The "limited conditions" you mention are imposed by two hard
& cold facts of reality- nobody knows everything, and while
everything affects everything else, in many cases the effect
is very very small and/or takes a very long time, and so it
can be left out.

So, please allow me to revise your statement above, it is
accurate in it's way but could be much closer to the truth
with slight & simple revision: A scientific theory is a
construct that allows us to predict things, within the
limits of what can be known & observed.


... It may or may not
describe the real world. Faced with an infinite universe with no obvious
reference points Albert set about constructing his general theory perforce using
finite mathmatics (all we have) and when that showed flaws, added his special
theory to fill the gaps.

I like you Vito, you make me laugh.

Einstein invented special relativity first, to explain a
very simple but otherwise unexplainable glitch in the theory
of gravity (as defined by Newton and refined by other
physicists over the generations). It was really a neat
exercise in theoretical mathematics, not expected to ever be
proven.

Einstein then dabbled with a more general theory, ten or
twelve years later he published a few papers on it but
immediately realized he had made some mistakes and began
revising his work.

At that point, somebody mentioned to him that recent
refiniments in the observations of the orbit of Mercury
"proved" that special relativty was valid, and Einstein was
off on his path to become the definitive genius of his time.




.... However, less wise
users of these theories came to believe that the real universe was bound by the
limits of his mathmatics, which isn't necessarily true. For example, it may well
be possible to exceed 'C' altho the equations seem to say it is not.


When we can get better & more accurate observations on the
effects of velocities approaching the speed of light, we'll
have a better idea of how relativity applies. It's true that
relativity "seems" to say that it is impossible for an
object with mass to exceed (or indeed, to achieve) the speed
of light, but it also suggests that both mass & the speed of
light can be tricked.

Bob Crantz could give you a much better answer addressing
this specific point, I'm sure.


I see the same thing in all the hubub over global warming. Models using less
than complete data seem to indicate a problem. Others do not.

How is any model going to use "complete data" when a
complete data set would have to include every molecule of
air & water on & around the Earth, plus much much more?



.... I'm told by some
that everybody within X miles of coast will surely drown if we don't act now -
including major cities like N.Y. Well, how much will their drowning reduce
greenhouse gasses?? Sounds like the problem will fix itself - IF there is a
problem. So "What, me worry" is a valid attitude.


You're right, the problem will fix itself.

This may not be an orderly process.

What boat projects are you working on, lately?

Regards
Doug King

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..


Yeah. Also irrelevant. Global warming is a fact, as far as I'm
concerned.

Well, duh--considering the Earth emerged from an ice age some 8000 years
ago, I guess that would be fact.

The causes of global warming are at this stage only
hypotheses. That's somewhat *less* than a theory and a theory is far
less than an established fact.

By your definition, I agree.


I'm staying out of this crap simply because I can't see the point of
bothering. Jon can cite all the pop press articles etc he likes. They
too are irrelevant because they're based - at best - on some uninformed
& poorly educated journalist's take on what someone else with
scientific training said/wrote.

The expert I respect says 'not proven' WRT human activities. That's
worth far more to me than all the 3rd hand refs Jon can cite. This guy
is head of glaciology research, I've been to Antarctica with him on a
number of occasions, has a string of publications in refereed science
journals a mile long. In fact I've been to sea with a very broad cross
section of the entire planet's glaciologists, oceanographers,
atmospheric scientists etc. Had a whole bunch of NASA people a few
years ago. Or was it NOAA, all these acronyms, so little brain space,
even less interest...

Anyway I'm kinda hoping for a sea level rise of between 1 and 3 metres.
I'd be able to build a deep water jetty then rather than have a tidal
waterfront as I do now. Swings & roundabouts.

Couple completely irrelevant things - I might get a close look at San
Diego this year. Work is trying to convince me to go there for a bit,
I'm trying to get out of it. We'll see.

The other is, I was given a Kyocera ceramic kitchen knife as a belated
Christmas present. This thing is *sharp* and guess what - it has zero
metal content, so it ain't gonna trigger a detector, AFAIK. So much for
a/port security WRT a pair of nail clippers.

Just don't get caught with the ceramic knife on your person. Could get
nasty, Abdul. g

If they were really serious they'd ban *all* carryon baggage and make
everyone strip their street clothes off & wear a set of disposable
overalls for the flight. They haven't done that, and won't.

On that note, I'm waving goodbye to a bunch of friends off south and
then heading for a margarita or 3. Followed by a weekend's sailing.

Enjoy.

Max

Technically, we're still in an ice age.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..


Yeah. Also irrelevant. Global warming is a fact, as far as I'm
concerned.

Well, duh--considering the Earth emerged from an ice age some 8000 years
ago, I guess that would be fact.

The causes of global warming are at this stage only
hypotheses. That's somewhat *less* than a theory and a theory is far
less than an established fact.

By your definition, I agree.


I'm staying out of this crap simply because I can't see the point of
bothering. Jon can cite all the pop press articles etc he likes. They
too are irrelevant because they're based - at best - on some uninformed
& poorly educated journalist's take on what someone else with
scientific training said/wrote.

The expert I respect says 'not proven' WRT human activities. That's
worth far more to me than all the 3rd hand refs Jon can cite. This guy
is head of glaciology research, I've been to Antarctica with him on a
number of occasions, has a string of publications in refereed science
journals a mile long. In fact I've been to sea with a very broad cross
section of the entire planet's glaciologists, oceanographers,
atmospheric scientists etc. Had a whole bunch of NASA people a few
years ago. Or was it NOAA, all these acronyms, so little brain space,
even less interest...

Anyway I'm kinda hoping for a sea level rise of between 1 and 3 metres.
I'd be able to build a deep water jetty then rather than have a tidal
waterfront as I do now. Swings & roundabouts.

Couple completely irrelevant things - I might get a close look at San
Diego this year. Work is trying to convince me to go there for a bit,
I'm trying to get out of it. We'll see.

The other is, I was given a Kyocera ceramic kitchen knife as a belated
Christmas present. This thing is *sharp* and guess what - it has zero
metal content, so it ain't gonna trigger a detector, AFAIK. So much for
a/port security WRT a pair of nail clippers.

Just don't get caught with the ceramic knife on your person. Could get
nasty, Abdul. g

If they were really serious they'd ban *all* carryon baggage and make
everyone strip their street clothes off & wear a set of disposable
overalls for the flight. They haven't done that, and won't.

On that note, I'm waving goodbye to a bunch of friends off south and
then heading for a margarita or 3. Followed by a weekend's sailing.

Enjoy.

Max