OT: Global warming – a view from scientists who regard Leftists' political sacred cows as 'poppycock'
Question:
It’s a big solar system..and Nature is more powerful than the dyed-in-the-wool elitist Leftists wish…the sun is putting out more energy…but why bother checking the *source* of solar energy…when there are elections that might be won, convincing people that the U.S. rejection (both parties, mind you) of Kyoto, and that Bush is President, and Republicans, are the causes of ‘global warming’… To the point, but the article is worth reading: A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes. Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. "The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently – in the last 100 to 150 years." Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth’s temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact. <snip> "The Sun’s radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming – at least the modern nightmare version – is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world’s politicians and policy-makers are not. –(Here’s the salient part)– "Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide – the principal so-called greenhouse gas – into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun1…
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >It’s a big solar system..and Nature is more powerful than the >dyed-in-the-wool elitist Leftists wish…the sun is putting >out more energy…but why bother checking the *source* of solar >energy…when there are elections that might be won, convincing >people that the U.S. rejection (both parties, mind you) of Kyoto, >and that Bush is President, and Republicans, are the causes of >’global warming’… >To the point, but the article is worth reading: >A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing >radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes. >Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for >Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: >"The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be >affecting global temperatures. >"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred >years ago and this brightening started relatively recently – in the last >100 to 150 years." >Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse >gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the >Earth’s temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater >impact. ><snip> >"The Sun’s radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it >needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as >greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The >research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. >"Global warming – at least the modern nightmare version – is a myth," he >said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But >what is really worrying is that the world’s politicians and >policy-makers are not. >–(Here’s the salient part)– >"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, >become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans >burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide – >the principal so-called greenhouse gas – into the atmosphere, causing >the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this >is poppycock." >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun1…
So the sun is actually more powerful than George W. Bush? Didn’t see that one coming! And the sun’s more capable of causing global warming, and creating hurricanes, in order to discriminately hurt Black people (Afro American, sorry. My mistake) and not White people (Crackers, sorry. Slipping up today) than GWB is capable of? But you realize of course that it’s going to be a lot more difficult for the Democrats to blame the sun. Maybe it’s a good time for them to start blaming GWB for not funding the scientific community and a new solar power revolution, in order to take advantage of this new found increased sun power. Pete — Oh look, the exploding circus is coming to town. One night only. –Brak’s Dad
Response:
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. As far as the earth being "round", for example, it is actually not perfectly spherical, but is a slightly irregular ellipsoid — a fact that is important for satellite orbits, GPS navigation, etc. So, like any scientific theory, the long-held notion of the earth’s roundness must continue to be investigated and refined, thousands of years after the idea was first formulated (500 BCE by the Greeks, if not earlier). This is true also of global warming. Even though the scientific evidence of warming of a few tenths of a Celsius degree is quite convincing for most scientists at this point, we cannot affort to shut off debate. Much more investigation should be done. It is still far from clear how much of the temperature variation is anthropogenic, and how much due to other causes, or natural cycles. This should remain an open, debatable scientific question indefinitely. Right now, we are in danger of losing the other side of this scientific debate, and if we do, we will all be the losers. If this becomes solely a political question, then we are following the path of Lysenkoism, which denied Mendelian genetics and set back Soviet biological science for decades.
Response:
> 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.
You don’t DEBATE theories. You PROVE them, and make them FACTS!!!! > As far as the earth being "round", for example, it is actually not > perfectly spherical, but is a slightly irregular ellipsoid — a fact > that is important for satellite orbits, GPS navigation, etc. So, like > any scientific theory, the long-held notion of the earth’s roundness > must continue to be investigated and refined, thousands of years after > the idea was first formulated (500 BCE by the Greeks, if not earlier). > This is true also of global warming. Even though the scientific > evidence of warming of a few tenths of a Celsius degree is quite > convincing for most scientists at this point, we cannot affort to shut > off debate. Much more investigation should be done. It is still far > from clear how much of the temperature variation is anthropogenic, and > how much due to other causes, or natural cycles. This should remain an > open, debatable scientific question indefinitely.
ONLY, if you want it to be. Look at all the scientific ass holes who said you can’t put a man on the moon. JFK made it so. It was time to put up or shut up. Many thought JFK a fool. > Right now, we are in danger of losing the other side of this scientific > debate, and if we do, we will all be the losers. If this becomes solely > a political question, then we are following the path of Lysenkoism, > which denied Mendelian genetics and set back Soviet biological science > for decades.
Yes, indeed. like,….. http://www.chernobyl.co.uk/ too. Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
courageously avow: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->It’s a big solar system..and Nature is more powerful than the >dyed-in-the-wool elitist Leftists wish…the sun is putting >out more energy…but why bother checking the *source* of solar >energy…when there are elections that might be won, convincing >people that the U.S. rejection (both parties, mind you) of Kyoto, >and that Bush is President, and Republicans, are the causes of >’global warming’… >To the point, but the article is worth reading: >A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing >radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes. >Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for >Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: >"The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be >affecting global temperatures. >"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred >years ago and this brightening started relatively recently – in the last >100 to 150 years." >Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse >gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the >Earth’s temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater >impact. ><snip> >"The Sun’s radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it >needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as >greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The >research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. >"Global warming – at least the modern nightmare version – is a myth," he >said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But >what is really worrying is that the world’s politicians and >policy-makers are not. >–(Here’s the salient part)– >"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, >become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans >burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide – >the principal so-called greenhouse gas – into the atmosphere, causing >the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this >is poppycock." >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun1… >So the sun is actually more powerful than George W. Bush?
George won’t be liking that. >Didn’t see that one coming! >And the sun’s more capable of causing global warming, and creating >hurricanes, in order to discriminately hurt Black people (Afro >American, sorry. My mistake) and not White people (Crackers, sorry. >Slipping up today) than GWB is capable of? >But you realize of course that it’s going to be a lot more difficult >for the Democrats to blame the sun. >Maybe it’s a good time for them to start blaming GWB for not funding >the scientific community and a new solar power revolution, in order to >take advantage of this new found increased sun power.
Maybe if everyone wore foil hats we could reflect the suns rays back and cool everything down a couple of degrees. Ken Wilson "Goodnight Andre Jute, wherever you are. Jesus loves you."
Response:
> > 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. > You don’t DEBATE theories. You PROVE them, and make them FACTS!!!!
theories are proved through debate and testing over time. In general science is a conversation. Things long thought "true" have later been proved to be untrue only because some geek thought the details of the conversation sounded false. Chernoble happened not because of faulty Soviet science but because of faulty Soviet operators and contractors.
Response:
> ONLY, if you want it to be. > Look at all the scientific ass holes who said you can’t put a man on the moon. > JFK made it so. It was time to put up or shut up. Many thought JFK a fool. > Right now, we are in danger of losing the other side of this scientific > debate, and if we do, we will all be the losers. If this becomes solely > a political question, then we are following the path of Lysenkoism, > which denied Mendelian genetics and set back Soviet biological science > for decades. > Yes, indeed.
Say, didn’t we have to depend on the Russians to get us to the space station when we had a little shuttle trouble??
Response:
> To the point, but the article is worth reading:
Including such "snippets" as: "Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures." and "Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki’s research. "While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant," he said." and "Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming. He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth’s temperature had continued to increase. This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said."
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->To the point, but the article is worth reading: >Including such "snippets" as: >"Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have >contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but >have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising >temperatures." >and >"Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal >Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki’s research. "While the >established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the >climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is >certainly significant," he said." >and >"Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East >Anglia’s climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun >did have an effect on global warming. >He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 >years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the >Earth’s temperature had continued to increase. >This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the >burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the >natural factors involved in climate change", he said."
Not to detract from your point but the sun has not been behaving as it should. The electrical activity from the sun has been at unprecedented levels for the past several years. One thing that climatologists and meteorologists fail to take into account is the effect of electrical activity on the weather… All the more reason we need alternatives to fossil fuels… Tubeguru
Response:
what was it two weeks ago? the solar flare was so bad it interferred with cell phones and put a communication satelite out of commission. The 8th http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/09/08/solar.flare.ap/ The flare has affected some high-frequency communications on the sunlit side of Earth, NOAA reported. Do flares affect weather? Today’s space weather report http://www.sec.noaa.gov/today.html Space weather is noticed mostly by its effects on Earth. After a great solar flare in 1959, telegraph operators discovered that currents from the intense aurora borealis was flowing through their systems, causing their telegraph keys to melt and stick in position. During World War II, the new invention of radar failed whenever the space weather activity was high. Comet tails that curved and pointed way from the sun showed that a solar wind, a part of space weather, was always blowing out through the solar system. When police cars in San Francisco tried to talk to their dispatchers, dispatchers in Minneapolis answered (reference: The Northern Light, A. Brekke, A. Egeland, Springer-Verlag, New York. 1983). Plans for revisiting the Hubbell Telescope in orbit and boosting it high enough that it will not fall to Earth are driven by space weather. When space weather is high, the orbit decays more rapidly and booster missions must be flown more often.-GH
Response:
> > > 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. > You don’t DEBATE theories. You PROVE them, and make them FACTS!!!! > theories are proved through debate and testing over time.
One Test Is Worth A 100 Expert Opinions. It ends debate. It is, or it ain’t. > In general > science is a conversation. Things long thought "true" have later been > proved to be untrue only because some geek thought the details of the > conversation sounded false.
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Scientific_method > Chernoble happened not because of faulty Soviet science but because of > faulty Soviet operators and contractors.
FYI!!!!! http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Junk_science Then, there is this little thing,…. http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Scientific_misconduct Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
> > theories are proved through debate and testing over time. > One Test Is Worth A 100 Expert Opinions. > It ends debate. > It is, or it ain’t.
Proving how much of a scientist you ain’t.
Response:
> One Test Is Worth A 100 Expert Opinions. > It ends debate. > It is, or it ain’t.
not true or scientists wouldn’t do repeated testings and blind trials. One test can be misinterpreted. One test can be a false positive or negative. And you don’t make facts. A fact is not made. It just is. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In general > science is a conversation. Things long thought "true" have later been > proved to be untrue only because some geek thought the details of the > conversation sounded false. > http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Scientific_method > Chernoble happened not because of faulty Soviet science but because of > faulty Soviet operators and contractors. > FYI!!!!! http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Junk_science > Then, there is this little thing,…. http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Scientific_misconduct > Regards, > Rich Koerner, > Time Electronics. > http://www.timeelect.com > Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, > Music & Studio Production, > Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
> > > theories are proved through debate and testing over time. > One Test Is Worth A 100 Expert Opinions. > It ends debate. > It is, or it ain’t. > Proving how much of a scientist you ain’t.
This from the resident Lefty Shutter Bug, who will now explain to the class about the meaning of E=MC^. Please enlighten us all about how this understanding is going to help the USA manage our energy problems. Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > what was it two weeks ago? the solar flare was so bad it interferred > with cell phones and put a communication satelite out of commission. > The 8th > http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/09/08/solar.flare.ap/ > The flare has affected some high-frequency communications on the sunlit > side of Earth, NOAA reported. > Do flares affect weather? > Today’s space weather report http://www.sec.noaa.gov/today.html > Space weather is noticed mostly by its effects on Earth. After a great > solar flare in 1959, telegraph operators discovered that currents from > the intense aurora borealis was flowing through their systems, causing > their telegraph keys to melt and stick in position. During World War > II, the new invention of radar failed whenever the space weather > activity was high. Comet tails that curved and pointed way from the sun > showed that a solar wind, a part of space weather, was always blowing > out through the solar system. When police cars in San Francisco tried > to talk to their dispatchers, dispatchers in Minneapolis answered > (reference: The Northern Light, A. Brekke, A. Egeland, Springer-Verlag, > New York. 1983). Plans for revisiting the Hubbell Telescope in orbit > and boosting it high enough that it will not fall to Earth are driven > by space weather. When space weather is high, the orbit decays more > rapidly and booster missions must be flown more often.-GH
Damn, and in what year was this discovered. LOL, sure looks like them good old skip shooters really know how to keep that sun cycle action a secret. Hell, four watts to Italy was a nice QSL. http://www.kloth.net/radio/qcodes.php Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->what was it two weeks ago? the solar flare was so bad it interferred >with cell phones and put a communication satelite out of commission. >The 8th >http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/09/08/solar.flare.ap/ >The flare has affected some high-frequency communications on the sunlit >side of Earth, NOAA reported. >Do flares affect weather? >Today’s space weather report http://www.sec.noaa.gov/today.html >Space weather is noticed mostly by its effects on Earth. After a great >solar flare in 1959, telegraph operators discovered that currents from >the intense aurora borealis was flowing through their systems, causing >their telegraph keys to melt and stick in position. During World War >II, the new invention of radar failed whenever the space weather >activity was high. Comet tails that curved and pointed way from the sun >showed that a solar wind, a part of space weather, was always blowing >out through the solar system. When police cars in San Francisco tried >to talk to their dispatchers, dispatchers in Minneapolis answered >(reference: The Northern Light, A. Brekke, A. Egeland, Springer-Verlag, > New York. 1983). Plans for revisiting the Hubbell Telescope in orbit >and boosting it high enough that it will not fall to Earth are driven >by space weather. When space weather is high, the orbit decays more >rapidly and booster missions must be flown more often.-GH >Damn, and in what year was this discovered. >LOL, sure looks like them good old skip shooters really know how to keep that sun cycle action a >secret. >Hell, four watts to Italy was a nice QSL. >http://www.kloth.net/radio/qcodes.php >Regards, >Rich Koerner, >Time Electronics. >http://www.timeelect.com >Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, > Music & Studio Production, >Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
The thing is that sun is not currently following it’s predicted cycle. The strength of recent solar flares is unprecedented. I have heard that some have the potential to fry the electrical grid if they had occurred when the earth was in their path. We’ve been pretty lucky so far…… The ionosphere has an electrical potential of some 250,000 volts. Lightning has been observed going from the ionosphere to the ground. The ionosphere is charged by the solar wind. It would seem logical that the electrical potential of the atmosphere would influence the formation of clouds which are formed by water vapor clinging to dust particles. This could not happen unless the water vapor and dust had differing electrical potentials….. You see where this is going. That "science" fails to consider this is sheer folly. Tubeguru
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>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. >You don’t DEBATE theories. You PROVE them, and make them FACTS!!!! > theories are proved through debate and testing over time. In general > science is a conversation. Things long thought "true" have later been > proved to be untrue only because some geek thought the details of the > conversation sounded false. > Chernoble happened not because of faulty Soviet science but because of > faulty Soviet operators and contractors.
Hi, At current rate NW passage will be open in next 20 to 30 years. Then what? We can sell/ship oil/gas to China much faster/easier. Maybe U.S. will invade Canada too then. Tony
Response:
Delayed Gratification: Why it Took Everybody So Long to Acknowledge that Bacteria Cause Ulcers This is an example of what happens when "scientists" think they know the truth and then somebodyu discovers it ain’t true. A few years ago the New Yorker did a great article about these two guys. One of them almost got drummed out of his license for having the audacity to present his obviously ridiculus findings at a medical conference. In 1983, Australian doctors J. Robin Warren and Barry Marshall isolated Helicobacter pylori, the bacterial cause of peptic ulcer disease (P.U.D.). However, decades passed before most doctors prescribed antibiotics to their afflicted patients. Why didn’t the medical community hit itself on its collective head? After all, most bacterial diseases had been discovered a century before during Robert Koch’s golden age of bacteriology. Why didn’t doctors laud Warren and Marshall for their findings? Why didn’t long-term ulcer-sufferers champion Warren and Marshall’s discovery that with a standard course of oral antibiotics, patients no longer have to swig antacid, feel guilty for leading a stressful life, or massage their stomachs through their coats to distract from their ulcers’ gnawing pain. Understanding these questions reveals how complex scientific processes mold contemporary medical discoveries and their reception. http://www.jyi.org/features/ft.php?id=101 This is also a good example of the evolution of scientific theory to fact back to theory to fact again. True scientific inquirey requires the scientist to remain a little bit sckeptic, no matter how established a "fact." Sometimes your are on the train moving forward and sometimes it is really the train next to you going backward. It just depends on whee and how you make your observatons.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Delayed Gratification: Why it Took Everybody So Long to Acknowledge >that Bacteria Cause Ulcers >This is an example of what happens when "scientists" think they know >the truth and then somebodyu discovers it ain’t true. A few years ago >the New Yorker did a great article about these two guys. One of them >almost got drummed out of his license for having the audacity to >present his obviously ridiculus findings at a medical conference. >In 1983, Australian doctors J. Robin Warren and Barry Marshall isolated >Helicobacter pylori, the bacterial cause of peptic ulcer disease >(P.U.D.). However, decades passed before most doctors prescribed >antibiotics to their afflicted patients. Why didn’t the medical >community hit itself on its collective head? After all, most bacterial >diseases had been discovered a century before during Robert Koch’s >golden age of bacteriology. Why didn’t doctors laud Warren and >Marshall for their findings? Why didn’t long-term ulcer-sufferers >champion Warren and Marshall’s discovery that with a standard course >of oral antibiotics, patients no longer have to swig antacid, feel >guilty for leading a stressful life, or massage their stomachs through >their coats to distract from their ulcers’ gnawing pain. >Understanding these questions reveals how complex scientific processes >mold contemporary medical discoveries and their reception. >http://www.jyi.org/features/ft.php?id=101 >This is also a good example of the evolution of scientific theory to >fact back to theory to fact again. True scientific inquirey requires >the scientist to remain a little bit sckeptic, no matter how >established a "fact." Sometimes your are on the train moving forward >and sometimes it is really the train next to you going backward. It >just depends on whee and how you make your observatons.
Do a Google on nanobacteria. There’s a doctor who has discovered that arteriosclerosis is caused by a nanobacteria that creates a calcium shell around itself. The pharmaceutical industry is literally killing us, not only with their drugs, but also by suppressing simple cures for many diseases and conditions. Did you know that soybean oil suppresses cells’ abiltiy to utilize insulin? Guess how many cases of type 2 diabetes there were prior to the introduction of Crisco? The answer is none. Tubeguru
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Delayed Gratification: Why it Took Everybody So Long to Acknowledge >that Bacteria Cause Ulcers >This is an example of what happens when "scientists" think they know >the truth and then somebodyu discovers it ain’t true. A few years ago >the New Yorker did a great article about these two guys. One of them >almost got drummed out of his license for having the audacity to >present his obviously ridiculus findings at a medical conference. >In 1983, Australian doctors J. Robin Warren and Barry Marshall isolated >Helicobacter pylori, the bacterial cause of peptic ulcer disease >(P.U.D.). However, decades passed before most doctors prescribed >antibiotics to their afflicted patients. Why didn’t the medical >community hit itself on its collective head? After all, most bacterial >diseases had been discovered a century before during Robert Koch’s >golden age of bacteriology. Why didn’t doctors laud Warren and >Marshall for their findings? Why didn’t long-term ulcer-sufferers >champion Warren and Marshall’s discovery that with a standard course >of oral antibiotics, patients no longer have to swig antacid, feel >guilty for leading a stressful life, or massage their stomachs through >their coats to distract from their ulcers’ gnawing pain. >Understanding these questions reveals how complex scientific processes >mold contemporary medical discoveries and their reception. >http://www.jyi.org/features/ft.php?id=101 >This is also a good example of the evolution of scientific theory to >fact back to theory to fact again. True scientific inquirey requires >the scientist to remain a little bit sckeptic, no matter how >established a "fact." Sometimes your are on the train moving forward >and sometimes it is really the train next to you going backward. It >just depends on whee and how you make your observatons. > Do a Google on nanobacteria. There’s a doctor who has discovered that > arteriosclerosis is caused by a nanobacteria that creates a calcium > shell around itself. > The pharmaceutical industry is literally killing us, not only with their > drugs, but also by suppressing simple cures for many diseases and > conditions. > Did you know that soybean oil suppresses cells’ abiltiy to utilize insulin? > Guess how many cases of type 2 diabetes there were prior to the > introduction of Crisco? The answer is none. > Tubeguru
I guess that brings new meaning to "nano nano nano" :P I’ve been making shoes for babies for 20 years using the same patterns. When I started I got complaints all the time that they were too wide and loose. Now I am geitng complaints all the time that they are too narrow. What’s changed? Much fatter babies and children. We are having to regrade all of our patterns. Why are there fatter babies and children? Oh riddle me that. What is the number one selling vegetable in the vegetable kingdom?
Response:
>> 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. >You don’t DEBATE theories. You PROVE them, and make them FACTS!!!!
When experimental proof is impractical, theories are debated based on the available evidence — and sometimes applied based on sensible risk analysis when there is an overwhelming consensus, e.g. nuclear fission, where the consensus was that it could be done and a small-but-loud minority predicted that detonation of such a device would set off a chain reaction in and of the atmosphere. The consensus was correct — as it most likely is regarding the role of human activity in global warming. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> As far as the earth being "round", for example, it is actually not > perfectly spherical, but is a slightly irregular ellipsoid — a fact > that is important for satellite orbits, GPS navigation, etc. So, like > any scientific theory, the long-held notion of the earth’s roundness > must continue to be investigated and refined, thousands of years after > the idea was first formulated (500 BCE by the Greeks, if not earlier). > This is true also of global warming. Even though the scientific > evidence of warming of a few tenths of a Celsius degree is quite > convincing for most scientists at this point, we cannot affort to shut > off debate. Much more investigation should be done. It is still far > from clear how much of the temperature variation is anthropogenic, and > how much due to other causes, or natural cycles. This should remain an > open, debatable scientific question indefinitely. >ONLY, if you want it to be. >Look at all the scientific ass holes who said you can’t put a man on the moon.
Show me *one* within the last fifty years. The debate wasn’t over whether it could be done, it was over whether it was worth the expense and risk — which is still an open question. >JFK made it so. It was time to put up or shut up. Many thought JFK a fool.
Irrelevant. [snip] Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Delayed Gratification: Why it Took Everybody So Long to Acknowledge >>that Bacteria Cause Ulcers >>This is an example of what happens when "scientists" think they know >>the truth and then somebodyu discovers it ain’t true. A few years ago >>the New Yorker did a great article about these two guys. One of them >>almost got drummed out of his license for having the audacity to >>present his obviously ridiculus findings at a medical conference. >>In 1983, Australian doctors J. Robin Warren and Barry Marshall isolated >>Helicobacter pylori, the bacterial cause of peptic ulcer disease >>(P.U.D.). However, decades passed before most doctors prescribed >>antibiotics to their afflicted patients. Why didn’t the medical >>community hit itself on its collective head? After all, most bacterial >>diseases had been discovered a century before during Robert Koch’s >>golden age of bacteriology. Why didn’t doctors laud Warren and >>Marshall for their findings? Why didn’t long-term ulcer-sufferers >>champion Warren and Marshall’s discovery that with a standard course >>of oral antibiotics, patients no longer have to swig antacid, feel >>guilty for leading a stressful life, or massage their stomachs through >>their coats to distract from their ulcers’ gnawing pain. >>Understanding these questions reveals how complex scientific processes >>mold contemporary medical discoveries and their reception. >>http://www.jyi.org/features/ft.php?id=101 >>This is also a good example of the evolution of scientific theory to >>fact back to theory to fact again. True scientific inquirey requires >>the scientist to remain a little bit sckeptic, no matter how >>established a "fact." Sometimes your are on the train moving forward >>and sometimes it is really the train next to you going backward. It >>just depends on whee and how you make your observatons. >Do a Google on nanobacteria. There’s a doctor who has discovered that >arteriosclerosis is caused by a nanobacteria that creates a calcium >shell around itself. >The pharmaceutical industry is literally killing us, not only with their >drugs, but also by suppressing simple cures for many diseases and >conditions. >Did you know that soybean oil suppresses cells’ abiltiy to utilize insulin? >Guess how many cases of type 2 diabetes there were prior to the >introduction of Crisco? The answer is none. >Tubeguru >I guess that brings new meaning to "nano nano nano" :P >I’ve been making shoes for babies for 20 years using the same patterns. >When I started I got complaints all the time that they were too wide >and loose. Now I am geitng complaints all the time that they are too >narrow. What’s changed? Much fatter babies and children. We are having >to regrade all of our patterns. Why are there fatter babies and >children? Oh riddle me that. What is the number one selling vegetable >in the vegetable kingdom?
Probably MSG, conventional baby food is riddled with it. Anything that says hydrolized or modified food starch or yeast is MSG. MSG has been proven to cause obesity. In fact, when scientists need obese rats for an experiment they just feed them MSG…. Also, people are getting bigger. My daughter unfortunately inherited my feet (I take a 13 EEE) and we have a real hard time finding her shoes because her feet are so wide. She’s not obese by any stretch, but I’ve seen a lot of kids who are…. TG
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>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. >You don’t DEBATE theories. You PROVE them, and make them FACTS!!!! >When experimental proof >is impractical, theories >are debated based on the >available evidence — >and sometimes applied >based on sensible risk >analysis when there is an >overwhelming consensus, >e.g. nuclear fission, >where the consensus was >that it could be done and >a small-but-loud minority >predicted that detonation >of such a device would >set off a chain reaction >in and of the atmosphere. >The consensus was correct >– as it most likely is >regarding the role of >human activity in global >warming. >>As far as the earth being "round", for example, it is actually not >>perfectly spherical, but is a slightly irregular ellipsoid — a fact >>that is important for satellite orbits, GPS navigation, etc. So, like >>any scientific theory, the long-held notion of the earth’s roundness >>must continue to be investigated and refined, thousands of years after >>the idea was first formulated (500 BCE by the Greeks, if not earlier). >>This is true also of global warming. Even though the scientific >>evidence of warming of a few tenths of a Celsius degree is quite >>convincing for most scientists at this point, we cannot affort to shut >>off debate. Much more investigation should be done. It is still far >>from clear how much of the temperature variation is anthropogenic, and >>how much due to other causes, or natural cycles. This should remain an >>open, debatable scientific question indefinitely. >ONLY, if you want it to be. >Look at all the scientific ass holes who said you can’t put a man on the moon. >Show me *one* within the >last fifty years. The >debate wasn’t over >whether it could be >done, it was over >whether it was worth the >expense and risk — >which is still an open >question. >JFK made it so. It was time to put up or shut up. Many thought JFK a fool. >Irrelevant. >[snip] > Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access > >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< >-=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Interesting point on fission. Something not a lot of people are aware of is that nuclear fission doesn’t have to be done with radioactive materials. The reason that we have been using uranium all these years is to provide weapons material….. Tubeguru
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> 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. >You don’t DEBATE theories. You PROVE them, and make them FACTS!!!! > When experimental proof > is impractical, theories > are debated based on the > available evidence — > and sometimes applied > based on sensible risk > analysis when there is an > overwhelming consensus,
Like the scientific experts who are funded by those with the agenda to be made. Explain the global warming on Mars. Explain the impact that the 1/700 of 1% human contribution to the total, actually has on the rising temperture. Explain why the recent hurricanes, claimed to be the result of global warming, is not supported by the data collected on hurricanes for the last 100 years. THIS is evidence that is ignored by you, and the consenus you point to. This is far from being objective in the search for the truth. Sorry, but both you, and your consenus are tainted. > e.g. nuclear fission, > where the consensus was > that it could be done and > a small-but-loud minority > predicted that detonation > of such a device would > set off a chain reaction > in and of the atmosphere. > The consensus was correct > — as it most likely is > regarding the role of > human activity in global > warming.
That concenus was not tainted, in it’s direction and/or it’s practice, as it is today. However, the experiment made the theory, fact. Little Boy, exampled a practical application. Which, later gave way to it’s energy supplied by our power grid. However, if those scientists who gave us such, practiced as you suggested, there would not be enough power supplied by the power grid to supply the juice to power all those computers that connect to the internet. Energy conservation, what’s that. I want to here your screed on phantom load dude. Where the hell is it from you, and the rest of you environmental nazis. Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
, > Like the scientific experts who are funded by those with the agenda to be made.
Rich, EVERYONE has an agenda – you have an agenda, I have an agenda. No one is without unspoken goals or prejudices. > Explain the global warming on Mars.
I think yo should do that since you are are resident physicist. I’d like to know how and why the sun is putting out more heat now than before. Where is it getting more energy? Is it expanding? What? > Explain the impact that the 1/700 of 1% human contribution to the total, actually has on the rising > temperture.
Humans have from time to time made air unbreathable in urban cities. This also affects weather. Humans have from time to time made land arid, created vast deserts through over use. Humans have from time to time over fished and over hunted to the point where species no longer exist. Humans have from time to time created conditions where disease vectors wiped out more than half of the populatoin. Now what was that you were saying about how human have no effect on the environment??? > Explain why the recent hurricanes, claimed to be the result of global warming, is not supported by > the data collected on hurricanes for the last 100 years.
It depends in which data and which interpretation of data you wish to present. In as much as we didn’t accurately predict where and when Rita would hit more than a fw hours in advance, I’d say that our ablility to understand what is happening with weather is somewhat, shall we say, limited. The only thing that is clear is that weather changes. If you are a creationist, you can dicount all the bullshit about ice ages. If you are an believer in intelligent design, you just shouldn’t worry about it and everything will take care of itself as things are pre-designed for the best including the elmination of the human race. But if there is the possiblity that the use of fossil fuel is contributing to the "erosion" of or atmosphere AND the sun is warming AND oil is peaking you’d think you might want to explore some kind of remedies and alternatives to our current path until such time as we are SURE that the sun is going to engulf us completely so we may as well loot and party on. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> THIS is evidence that is ignored by you, and the consenus you point to. > This is far from being objective in the search for the truth. > Sorry, but both you, and your consenus are tainted. > e.g. nuclear fission, > where the consensus was > that it could be done and > a small-but-loud minority > predicted that detonation > of such a device would > set off a chain reaction > in and of the atmosphere. > The consensus was correct > — as it most likely is > regarding the role of > human activity in global > warming. > That concenus was not tainted, in it’s direction and/or it’s practice, as it is today. > However, the experiment made the theory, fact. > Little Boy, exampled a practical application. Which, later gave way to it’s energy supplied by our > power grid. > However, if those scientists who gave us such, practiced as you suggested, there would not be enough > power supplied by the power grid to supply the juice to power all those computers that connect to > the internet. > Energy conservation, what’s that. > I want to here your screed on phantom load dude. > Where the hell is it from you, and the rest of you environmental nazis. > Regards, > Rich Koerner, > Time Electronics. > http://www.timeelect.com > Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, > Music & Studio Production, > Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
Related Posts