There doesn't seem to be a catch-phrase, slogan, or bumper sticker that souljour isn't up to date on. Of course, by not actually thinking, it frees up a lot of time to do other things.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
For what it is worth I dug out my old graph on what effect Californias 26% reduction in emssions law might acheive in terms of Global Warming Temperature reductions. To understand this graph:
1. The graph ASSUMES that the UN Report on warming is TRUE and then compares California's reductions if apllied ONLY to California, Only to the Northeast and finally...if the ENTIRE USA adopted this plan AND achieved the goal of a 26% reduction by 2016.
2. The AB 1493 referred to is Assembly Bill 1493 in support of the Air Resources Board.
3. The RED line is the UN projected increase in temperature over time. The Dark Blue line is ifg JUST California implements the law. The light blue line is if the entire industrial northeast adopted the law and the Purple line is if the whole country adopted the law. ca.JPG
All the lines are the same. Doesn't it feel good to do something about global warming California??!!
Is there global Warming? U bet the earth has been warning for the last 10,000 years we have been coming out of the last Ice age.
I spend summers in Alaska. Yes the Glaciers are melting fast which is what happens when the age is over DUH.
This summer was also the COLDEST in Alaska Since 1922. Gee maybe too many people stopped driving do to high fuel prices maybe that will put us back into another Ice Age maybe everyone should act fast now is the planet does freeze back up. Run your diesels we don't want the oceans to freeze we won't have anyplace to sail. But we did have a couple of Volcanos going off in Alaska this summer for a month or so each.
Nasa Says it is the sun not anything being done on earth and than it is changing back to where it will start cooling off again now.
Yes we need to stop pollution it won't change the climate but we will breather better.
From a lecture delivered by the late Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology on Jan. 17, 2003:
Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two-week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation: N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.
This serious-looking equation gave SETI a serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses -- just so we're clear -- are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.
The Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. . . .
The fact that the Drake equation was not greeted with screams of outrage -- similar to the screams of outrage that greet each Creationist new claim, for example -- meant that now there was a crack in the door, a loosening of the definition of what constituted legitimate scientific procedure. And soon enough, pernicious garbage began to squeeze through the cracks. . . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. . . . (my emphasis)
I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . . To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer model." But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world -- increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs.
This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynman called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands.
Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
Interesting... nonetheless..i'll probably fail to hear much about or otherwise ignore the one or two pointy-heads until the other thousand pointy-heads start talking about how amazing the crap that the one or two pointy-head dudes is spewing is...either way..the smart guys who get paid to know all the variables will figure it out. at the end of the day..the scientists will figure it out and tell us the best way to save the planet other than what we can each do..then i'll probably go make a model..but a plastic one..maybe a 1/25th scale P-51 mustang....sorry..er ..yeah.. or like were doomed..!
Last edited by souljour2000 : 11-07-2008 at 01:02 PM.
Remember many of the "smart guys" you are referring to are working off of grants. If they can not prove a need for their anaylisis then the Grant Money disapearsm, as does their lively hood.
SK - when you're dealing with disciples, rather than investigators, heresy is not allowed. There have been many times of "scientific consensus" throughout history that now lie discredited on the ash heap of proof. It's no coincidence that in crime and politics, one need only follow the money.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
