That proves why Ozone-Al promotes that malarky. He makes goofy Carter almost
look coherent.

Keep in mind Jon lives in California.

Capt. JG wrote:
Don't need to look. They find me. :-)

"katy" wrote in

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

sheesh, Jon...first you tell us you know a woman who came after you with a
frying pan now you're telling us about women trying to control your
mind...maybe you're looking for them in the wrong places?????

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:11:30 -0400, katy
wrote:

Capt. JG wrote:
Don't need to look. They find me. :-)

that's very scary....I'd be changing something about myself if I were
you...

Those operations are very expensive and insurance usually doesn't
cover even a portion of it! :^)

LOL. Not to mention that Jon would probably make a rather . . . um,
unattractive female.

Max

I think that's a compliment, so I'll take it that way. :-)

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

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

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:11:30 -0400, katy
wrote:

Capt. JG wrote:
Don't need to look. They find me. :-)

that's very scary....I'd be changing something about myself if I were
you...

Those operations are very expensive and insurance usually doesn't
cover even a portion of it! :^)

LOL. Not to mention that Jon would probably make a rather . . . um,
unattractive female.

Max

That was a big ashtray. :-}

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

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Don't need to look. They find me. :-)

Lucky you.

Max

That's true. In SF if you whistle at a woman, she waves back. Then, all you
have to do is confirm that she's a she. :-)

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

"Bart" wrote in message
oups.com...
Keep in mind Jon lives in California.

Capt. JG wrote:
Don't need to look. They find me. :-)

"katy" wrote in

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

sheesh, Jon...first you tell us you know a woman who came after you
with a
frying pan now you're telling us about women trying to control your
mind...maybe you're looking for them in the wrong places?????

Sorry, but you've just supported my argument. You said that you read
published papers. Thus you are relying on the papers to form your opinions.
Yet, you claim that one shouldn't use consensus for technical issues. So,
when you read 10 published papers from respected scientists and find one
that doesn't agree do you take the minority opinion as act of faith?

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

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"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.

Maxprop wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Don't need to look. They find me. :-)

Lucky you.

Max


With lick like that who needs enemies?

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Sorry, but you've just supported my argument. You said that you read
published papers. Thus you are relying on the papers to form your
opinions. Yet, you claim that one shouldn't use consensus for technical
issues. So, when you read 10 published papers from respected scientists
and find one that doesn't agree do you take the minority opinion as act of
faith?


The papers present facts and conclusions supported by facts.

I draw my own conclusions. From reason and analysis of the data set and
experiment.

Here's a simple example from first year college physics. It is taught that
relative motion between magnet and a wire is necessary to produce electrical
current (Faraday's Law of Induction). That is a law.

Now go here and read on about unipolar or homopolar electrical generators:

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

Consider the case of the permanent magnetic rotating with the disc:

"If the magnetic field is provided by a permanent magnet, the generator
works regardless of whether the magnet is fixed to the stator or rotates
with the disc. Before the discovery of the electron and the Lorentz force
law, the phenomenon was inexplicable and was known as the Faraday paradox."

The key here is the Faraday Paradox:

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


Now, one proven simple physical law (Faraday's Law of Induction) cannot
explain the observed results and yet another simple law (Lorentz force
equation) can.

Laws work the same in all reference frames, regardless of the observer.

Figure out why Faradays Law of Induction does not work and what simple
modification or observation is necessary to make it work.

This is all simple physics, you do not have to invoke relativity, there is
no one elses opinion or consensus to help you. Figure it out on your own.

Again, this is a very simple physics problem, not a complex global warming
problem. After you tackle this, then tell me about global warming.

Now I know you will say, what is the relevance of this to global warming?
The earth is a unipolar generator of a large scale. The conductive
atmosphere and core is rotating with it's magnetic source. The resulting
electric field is a forcing function in the climate, weather and ionosphere.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3727/11/5/020

Which consensus includes the effects of the earth's magnetic field in their
global warming models?

Which global warming model has accurately predicted previous climatic trends
using data from the time? (This is a good way to test global warming models,
see if it works on old data).

If the earth cools over the next 20 years does global warming even exist?
Why don't the models predict a cooling?

Claiming consensus is an argument from ignorance and an appeal to authority.
Claiming consensus where none exists is ignorance.