Everyone stare at the spiral on the sky over Norway and chant, "AGW is real. AGW is real...."
-- Paul Hovnanian mailto: snipped-for-privacy@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------ I could get a new lease on life but I need the first and last month in advance.
----
Cheers! Rich
And one anonymous scientist told a reporter that they felt they would get no more work if they did not sign.
-- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
t .
They aren't actually. Less than 1% of your scientists had any involvement in climatology. And most of them got sucked in by Frederick Seitz in his capacity as a past president of the National Academy of Science who was then a paid lackey of the denialist propaganda machine.
Rich would like him - he was also active in the denial of the dangers of smoking.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
On a sunny day (Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:52:21 -0700) it happened "Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in :
It could be a new Russian weapon.... Black hole bomb. ? Anonymous.
It looked like a modified bat-signal to me. If you can find a pic of it, look at the light beam coming up at about the 4:00 position. Somebody took a searchlight and put a rotating mask over the front of it, and projected it onto the clouds.
But they're blaming a failed Russin missile test. Would something like that last that long?
Cheers! Rich
On a sunny day (Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:55:53 -0800) it happened Rich Grise wrote in :
It is a wormhole to an other universe were there is no global warming.
Is this a matter that's decided by a majority vote?
Sylvia.
hat
..
Sort of. The mindless majority will keep on burning fossil carbon and the the earth will count the CO2 molecules and warm up appropriately. Your grand-children will be able to read the outcome from their thermometers, if their civilisation still retains the capacity to build thermometers.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
The question I was raising is whether the truth of anthropogenic global warming (about which I'm expressing no view here) is to be determined by a vote. That is not how scientific questions are usually decided.
Sylvia.
On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:46:38 +1100) it happened Sylvia Else wrote in :
Yes, science works that way, you vote for the politicians, they decide an agenda, and assign scientists to support that agenda. And the agenda is set by what the Captains of Industry need at that moment, usually more money. Purely democratic, as you decide what products you buy from the captains of industry. wait, lemme read this again, hey... ?? Oh well, it is 1 o'clock at night Sorry.
Right. Here on sed, it's not vote but rather bash.
-- Thanks, Fred.
Well its 51 to 49% so global warming must be happening furshure.
Cheers
Science used to rely on experiment.
John
what
E...
tm
True. Scientific questions are usually decided by a concensus of scientists who have all looked at the question in some detail, and end up agreeing - give or take a few contarians who won't agree with any majority, on principle - on the evidence and the arguments.
This happened a while ago with anthropogenic global warming, and the current furore is simply the fossil carbon extraction industry trying to cast doubt on the scientific process and its conclusions.
Since the interesting question with anthropogenic global warming isn't whether it is real - it is - but what we are going to do about it, which necessarily involves politics and thus voting. My response addressed that question.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
what
...
mThe politicians would like it work that way, but scientists have this perverse enthusiasm for evidence. Dubbya knew what he wanted his scientists to tell him about global warming , but for some reason he couldn't get them to deliver.
t,
of industry.
Don't worry Jan. You don't think straight during the day eithier.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
what
...
mNewton's astronomical experiments are famous, as are Darwin's evolutionary experiments.
John Larkins opinions about science are at best superficial, and often quite wrong - as here.
I'd like to find a cheerful and supportive way of saying this, but I can't think of one. Suggestions would be welcome.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
fE...
fhtm
ySure, the suckers who have fallen for the Exxon-Mobil funded denialist propaganda seem to be a little more numerous, but they are distinctly short on good arguments.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
This is s.e.d., moron.
But I spent the afternoon in the advanced misroscopy lab at UCSF Mission Bay Campus, where I learned some interesting stuff about spin transfer NMR. Had a few ideas, too, that weren't received with scorn.
They have a Bruker 800 MHz magnet with cryo probe that's about 14 feet high. A big flat-grey ugly beast. When you pay a couple of megabucks for something like this, one might expect a snazzier paint job.
Tell us about some interesting science that you're involved in.
Say something about electronics.
John
ow what
YfE...
of
.htm
Does that make your foolish claim any less wrong? There are experimental sciences and observational sciences, and both can produce useful information.
Never upset the technician who builds your equipment.
This sort of equipment is sold on the basis of its specification sheet. A snazzy paint job won't bring in any more customers.
There's nothing that you would understand.
Will that make you look any less foolish?
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.