"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I know women like this... at least the mind control part anyway.

But of course. You live in the Bay Area, after all.

Max

Al Go

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...035.shtml?s=lh

"Cigarette smoking is a "significant" contributor to global warming."


The latest fad-sham theory in "Global Warming" is that warming the earth
will plunge us into an ice age. Using this new principle of thermodynamics
I've invented a new type of refrigerator freezer that uses no flourocarbons.
Simply take you oven, turn it up to 500 degrees and wait. It's only a matter
of time before it starts producing ice cubes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm

Where was the consensus?

People who rely on consensus - other people's opinions - usually cannot
think for themselves.

Instead rely on basic physical laws and measurable, repeatable experiments
reduced to the fundamentals.

11th order unstable computer models are for mystics.

The brain - man's second most favorite organ - is a wonderful thing. Make
the choice to use it. Frequently!

"Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads
armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all
had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision
unborrowed, and the response they recieved-hatred. The great creators-the
thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors-stood alone against the
men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new
invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The
airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious.
Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went
ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won." Ayn Rand

Yeah, I guess the same can be said of the theory of evolution. When the
preponderance of scientists come to consensus, we should definitely ignore
them.

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

"Gilligan" wrote in message
news
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm

Where was the consensus?

People who rely on consensus - other people's opinions - usually cannot
think for themselves.

Instead rely on basic physical laws and measurable, repeatable experiments
reduced to the fundamentals.

11th order unstable computer models are for mystics.

The brain - man's second most favorite organ - is a wonderful thing. Make
the choice to use it. Frequently!

"Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new
roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but
they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the
vision unborrowed, and the response they recieved-hatred. The great
creators-the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors-stood
alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed.
Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered
foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was
considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of
unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid.
But they won." Ayn Rand

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Yeah, I guess the same can be said of the theory of evolution. When the
preponderance of scientists come to consensus, we should definitely ignore
them.

Think for yourself is what I said. I didn't say discount anything because it
is a consensus. Judge things on the evidence, not opinion.


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

"Gilligan" wrote in message
news
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm

Where was the consensus?

People who rely on consensus - other people's opinions - usually cannot
think for themselves.

Instead rely on basic physical laws and measurable, repeatable
experiments reduced to the fundamentals.

11th order unstable computer models are for mystics.

The brain - man's second most favorite organ - is a wonderful thing. Make
the choice to use it. Frequently!

"Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new
roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but
they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the
vision unborrowed, and the response they recieved-hatred. The great
creators-the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors-stood
alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed.
Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered
foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was
considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of
unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid.
But they won." Ayn Rand

This is what you said: "People who rely on consensus - other people's
opinions - usually cannot
think for themselves."

So, in fact, you did discount relying on the consensus of others.

How do you propose getting the facts of a huge issue such as GW or evolution
without relying on the consensus of scientists????

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

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Yeah, I guess the same can be said of the theory of evolution. When the
preponderance of scientists come to consensus, we should definitely
ignore them.

Think for yourself is what I said. I didn't say discount anything because
it is a consensus. Judge things on the evidence, not opinion.


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

"Gilligan" wrote in message
news
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm

Where was the consensus?

People who rely on consensus - other people's opinions - usually cannot
think for themselves.

Instead rely on basic physical laws and measurable, repeatable
experiments reduced to the fundamentals.

11th order unstable computer models are for mystics.

The brain - man's second most favorite organ - is a wonderful thing.
Make the choice to use it. Frequently!

"Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new
roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but
they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the
vision unborrowed, and the response they recieved-hatred. The great
creators-the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors-stood
alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was
opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was
considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power
loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the
men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they
paid. But they won." Ayn Rand

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
This is what you said: "People who rely on consensus - other people's
opinions - usually cannot
think for themselves."

So, in fact, you did discount relying on the consensus of others.

How do you propose getting the facts of a huge issue such as GW or
evolution without relying on the consensus of scientists????


The same way those scientists get the facts. Someone has to get facts and do
analysis. Admittedly I do not get many of the facts first hand, I read
published studies. I have a good liberal education that emphasized critical
thinking skills. It appears you are treating these issues as a religion -
you accept things on faith and when facts don't add up you regurgitate the
dogma.

The current dogma is that global warming will trigger an ice age. How is
adding heat to a system going to cool it down? How does smokling cause
global warming? How did global warming occur before man existed, or do you
believe the earth is only 2,000 years old? Look at it, there isn't much
difference between a right wing wacko religious nut and an eco-nut.

Gilligan wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm

Where was the consensus?

People who rely on consensus - other people's opinions - usually cannot
think for themselves.

Oh, you're just mad because the scientific evidence isn't corrorborating
your preconceived opinions.

That's fine. You can keep holding your opinions despite overwhelming
evidence to the contrary, and trolling through the interwebs looking for
something/anything to bolster your faith-based notions. Michael
Crichton, anyone? Surely a hack Sci-Fi novelist would be in a better
position to know than an actual reasearch scientist who has to submit
his assertions to a peer review process, right?

Meanwhile, those of us with a science/engineering background can read
the peer-reviewed papers, listen to the scientists who have much more
familiarity with the subject, evaluate the evidence, and draw the
inevitable conclusions.

Global warming is sort of like the link between cigarette smoking and
cancer - it took a decade or two to go from conjecture to hypothesis to
consensus theory. Sure, there are still those who deny the link, but
they're mostly paid shills for the tobacco companies and kooks on the
intertubes. Likewise, when the global warming studies first came out in
the early 80's any reasonable person would have been skeptical. I
certainly was. By the mid-ninties it was more than just hypothesis, and
today the evidence is basically irrefutable. Except for a few paid
shills for the energy companies, some non-scientist bloviators and a
large quantity of their ignorant followers, the verdict is in.

So sorry that you're on the losing side, but them's the breaks.
(Actually, I wish you were right. But wishing won't make it so.)

No, I don't expect to convince you of anything, Glen. You've clearly
made up your mind. But I can point out to others that what you say is crap.

Instead rely on basic physical laws and measurable, repeatable experiments
reduced to the fundamentals.

So you don't believe in plate techtonics either, eh? 'Cause that's
never been repeated in a laboratory. You have a funny narrow idea of
what constitutes science.

//Walt

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Gilligan wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm

Where was the consensus?

People who rely on consensus - other people's opinions - usually cannot
think for themselves.

Oh, you're just mad because the scientific evidence isn't corrorborating
your preconceived opinions.


No. Show me one computer model that has accurately simulated the climate for
the past 200 years. Show me a computer model that predicts what the weather
will be in 30 days.

Science is about measurement, repeatability, understanding and prediction

The evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor. There are millions of years of
past climate changes. Look here at the chart of temperature vs CO2 for the
last 750,000 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Are you saying man caused at the warming spikes and sudden drops in the
temperature and CO2 concentrations for the last 750,000 years? In fact,
10,000 years ago it was greater than it is today.



That's fine. You can keep holding your opinions despite overwhelming
evidence to the contrary, and trolling through the interwebs looking for
something/anything to bolster your faith-based notions. Michael Crichton,
anyone? Surely a hack Sci-Fi novelist would be in a better position to
know than an actual reasearch scientist who has to submit his assertions
to a peer review process, right?

So tell me - seriously - what exactly is my opinion?



Meanwhile, those of us with a science/engineering background can read the
peer-reviewed papers, listen to the scientists who have much more
familiarity with the subject, evaluate the evidence, and draw the
inevitable conclusions.

Inevitable conclusions - is that similar to "preconcieved notions"



Global warming is sort of like the link between cigarette smoking and
cancer - it took a decade or two to go from conjecture to hypothesis to
consensus theory. Sure, there are still those who deny the link, but
they're mostly paid shills for the tobacco companies and kooks on the
intertubes. Likewise, when the global warming studies first came out in
the early 80's any reasonable person would have been skeptical. I
certainly was. By the mid-ninties it was more than just hypothesis, and
today the evidence is basically irrefutable. Except for a few paid shills
for the energy companies, some non-scientist bloviators and a large
quantity of their ignorant followers, the verdict is in.

NOAA:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html

Here's raw data for the last 1,000 years:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal...al-4_12_01.txt

Go over the Solar Beryllium 10 concentrations. You know what that indicates
or do you need it explained? What is your conclusion about the data?

Do you know what NOAA is?



So sorry that you're on the losing side, but them's the breaks. (Actually,
I wish you were right. But wishing won't make it so.)

No, I don't expect to convince you of anything, Glen. You've clearly made
up your mind. But I can point out to others that what you say is crap.

You can only prove it is crap with logic, reason and fact. When are you
going to get around to producing some of this?


Instead rely on basic physical laws and measurable, repeatable
experiments reduced to the fundamentals.

So you don't believe in plate techtonics either, eh?

So that's your use of logic?

'Cause that's never been repeated in a laboratory.

Measured by GPS and reproduced in the lab. The geological evidence is very
strong too, ridges, rifts, mountain ranges. The thin spots in the earth's
mantle below Hawaii and Yellowstone clearly show the drift. Seismic analysis
also show plates floating.


You have a funny narrow idea of
what constitutes science.


I think you do.

"This first thing a scientist does is work to disprove a new theory."

Just doing my job.

Come back when you have some numbers (measured data or a validated model )
that shows the sun is not warming (increasing its output) or the sun is not
the major cause of global warming.

Or simply show that CO2 levels are historically (show about one million
years of data) a leading indicator for temperature rise.

You can't and you won't. You will simply parrot the phrase "There's a
consensus". Famous last words of many civilizations.

Gilligan wrote:
irrelevant crap snipped

People who rely on consensus - other people's opinions - usually cannot
think for themselves.

You will simply parrot the phrase "There's a
consensus". Famous last words of many civilizations.

You seem to be going back and forth between "there is no consensus" and
"the consensus is wrong"

Which is it, Glen? Please make up your mind which way you want to argue
this. It will save us all a lot of time.

//Walt