Science also needs to be willing to consider new ideas that question "the scientific consensus."
What a concept, scientific consensus. As if nature must do what people vote for.
I like your phrase, "weeding the field of thought." We could just make skeptical thinking illegal, as some have proposed.
Since this is SED, you and Ricky should post some original circuits that we can weed.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Is this in regard to me posting a message to the newsgroup? Do you consider all the readers here to be inferior to lightposts, or similar to pigs?
That's not 'also'. Any consensus is irrelevant to weed identification, why would you want to consider that? If this is about climate change, you're famous for trying to salvage and replant weeds.
Don't be silly; skeptical thinking is exactly how you identify the weeds, that sentence makes no sense. Skepticism means leaving the weeds in the discard pile. John Larkin is credulous, and NOT a skeptic.
On Thursday, 2 January 2020 15:29:34 UTC-8, John Larkin wrote: ..
...
One risk, however, is that the increase in carbon dioxide will cause a redu ction in ocean pH that stresses or even dissolves the shells of many sea cr eatures. This could ultimately affect the livelihoods of a couple of billio n people. Ocean acidity levels have significantly changed since industriali zation.
That confuses cross-breeding in one generation, and hybridization, with evolution by natural processes. The mixing of genes is not evolution, any more than gene modification is.
We depend on a lot of species, and it's hard to know exactly which ones matter. If we knew, we could save a lot of money on vanilla (the plants require a rather rare kind of insect for pollination), and would still be able to enjoy sylphium. We can't breed a viable ecosystem to replace one that collapses without a level of engineering beyond our clever seed-production technology.
So, how important to you ARE the species that get wiped out? Is 'human' one of 'em?
How can you replace them, worldwide? It's cheaper, safer, not to kill 'em off in the first place.
I remember when Scientific American was actually about science. That was a long time ago.
We had a giant Dungeness crab last night. It looks to be a good season. The shell was sure hard to crack.
Looks like the lowest pH since the LIA was around 1920. The creatures apparently survived.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Some region in their range still supported at least one species, though that doesn't mean the individual creatures survived, nor that 'the lowest pH' applied to the entire habitat range.
Crabs live several seasons, and a single stress year (1920) might not be the best test of species survival during the century to come. I'm skeptical of a rosy conclusion.
Looking at the context, he considers JL that way in regard to the subject at hand.
Everything is evolution, including any selection, and horizontal gene transfer, natural or man-made.
Humans increasingly consciously control evolution. That is itself evolution.
And of course you snipped the reference to your snipping the CO2 greening link. You really don't like that concept.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
google climate denial illegal
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Vanilla beans are running circa $100/lb, and Madagascar exports a thousand metric tons or so a year. It's so expensive because a pollinator species doesn't thrive outside parts of Mexico, and elsewhere humans have to inspect the plants daily to not miss the short pollenation window (even if the plants thrive, there's no beans if they don't pollinate).
No one has been able to breed a substitute for the missing pollinator or the plant's inconvenient cultivation requirements. There's money to be made if you can solve this.
It's hard to solve these problems, we do NOT just control evolution.
It's not relevant. What's to like?
Plants. Green things. Some people like plants.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
es matter.
re a rather
nd
es doesn't
e plants daily
re's no
the plant's inconvenient
is.
Larkin is amazingly adapt at showing ignorance. He likes to wax poetic abo ut the richness of his favorite beer or the savory taste of the fat drippin g from a steak, but when it comes to the complexity of flavors from a vanil la bean he posts a link to a Wikipedia page about a chemically produced alt ernative. There is a reason why they call it vanillin instead of vanilla.
Yes, Larkin is quite the connoisseur.
-- Rick C. -+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging -+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
:
ise just to bait people. Why do you take the bait?
eld of
ies." -- Voltaire
s who believe his crap because they have also had the koolaid or those who think and can see the obvious lies. The former won't learn anything from w hat you write and the latter don't need you to tell them anything.
There are more than just two kinds of people in this group.
Dan
The big cut is between people who design electronics, and people who whine about personalities.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
at pump becomes less efficient at lower temperatures, it doesn't stop worki ng. It still puts out more heat than it draws from the power line. The cu t out you are talking about is a setting in the controller. A heat pump I had in a house had a dial outside to set that temperature.
temperatures. At low outside temps it may be only a few percent better th an resistive heating. So why not use resistive heating and not wear out t he compressor?
Dan
While some other people can't see their limitations, and proselytise that EVs are sufficient and practical because that happens to be true in their case.
heat pump becomes less efficient at lower temperatures, it doesn't stop wor king. It still puts out more heat than it draws from the power line. The cut out you are talking about is a setting in the controller. A heat pump I had in a house had a dial outside to set that temperature.
w temperatures. At low outside temps it may be only a few percent better than resistive heating. So why not use resistive heating and not wear out the compressor?
d keeps the entire house warm. So clearly it is a false premise that the h
F... at least not my heat pump. That was my original question, if there wa s something different about Win's heat pump.
I would also point out that the efficiency isn't really a matter of the out side temperature as it is the difference between the outside and inside tem
e. So why pin everyone to the same cutoff temperature unless it had someth ing to do with a fixed temperature such as freezing water? My heat pump ha
-- Rick C. -+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging -+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
ote:
ynoise just to bait people. Why do you take the bait?
field of
cities." -- Voltaire
ones who believe his crap because they have also had the koolaid or those w ho think and can see the obvious lies. The former won't learn anything fro m what you write and the latter don't need you to tell them anything.
There is incredible irony in JL whining about personalities by trying to dr aw a line between himself and others he accuses of whining about personalit ies.
LOL
-- Rick C. -++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging -++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Do i get any cheese with that whine?
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.