Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #801   Report Post  
Roger W. Norman
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

Tank U! g

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Blind Joni" wrote in message
...
Observable is one form of study.
Repeatable is another. To combine them both requires a far greater
timeframe than man has been in existence.


Well said Roger.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637



  #802   Report Post  
Jay Kadis
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

In article "Roger W. Norman"
writes:
No, I don't, and it's a truism that one won't have a better systematic
approach because almost all "scientific" breakthroughs are the results of
one man's vision or thought process.


Maybe, but that man is standing on the shoulders of every investigator that
went before. On second thought, I refute that assumption. Most science is
clearly a team effort, especially now that the means of investigation are so
expensive and complicated. Sometimes a person has a breakthrough idea, but
that is not the norm today.

It takes close to a generation of
additional thought along the lines of the original to begin to grasp the
implications, much less be able to put one's self into the thought patterns
that produced the original concepts in the first place, much less be able to
just discern that something is right or wrong.


There are legions of individuals working on every scientific problem. The
dispersion of findings is extremely fast now. The pace of discovery and
understanding has accelerated greatly in the last few years. And the
techniques of critical review of others' works is the first and most important
thing I learned in graduate school.

The protocols work for repeatable science. In other words, lithium placed
into water produces this result and no other results. That's repeatable
science. Magnisium subjected to a specific amount of heat will ignite and
produce a tremendously larger amount of heat, or zinc placed into
hydrocloric acid will release free hydrogen. These are repeatable.

Observable means that one cannot predict the outcome because of the
observation, hence it's not repeatable.


To me, there's no particukar relationship between repeatable and observable.
All observations are merely data points. The idea of science is to tie these
observations together in a coherent framework. If your observations are not
repeatable, you do not have enough of them to make a decision. But that does
not mean they are worthless: you simply don't know exactly what they mean: your
theory isn't supported by the observations.

It's a concept more readily applied
to anthropology or studies that don't exist within the repeatable
methodology because they are gone from existence. The only way to marry the
two is to have some timeframe that includes both the observable and the
repeatable. Probably not a possibility. Do all chimps respond to the same
stimulus the same way? Definitely not. That's observable in a short period
of time. Does hydrogen ignite under the proper circumstance? Yes, and
that's repeatable. Yet scientific methodolgy is repleat with repeatability
whereas the sciences of geology, anthropology and such are simply
observable. Yes, we have X type of rock due to Y type of occurance because
it's been observed that these circumstance have prevailed time and time
again. But then, if that's the case, how is it that man can formulate
diamonds when diamonds, until about 30 years ago, were only available in
their natural state based on millions of years of carbon being under
spectacular pressures? Somehow we negated the millions of years.


No, we replicated the physical conditions which cause carbon to become
organized into the form of a diamond. And it is science which observed that
diamonds occur naturally in places of volcanic activity. So what does that
mean? High temperatures and pressures. So we tried that in the lab and voila:
diamonds. Science worked!

So I'm not saying that I HAVE a better system towards science, I'm saying
that any science, taken as it is, isn't infallible and that for every
discovery or assumption made, there are proponents with the same or better
credentials who disagree or have other observed data. The guys that claimed
to have created cold fusion aren't proven wrong. They just haven't been
proven right. And that global warming is the fault of mankind hasn't been
proven wrong. It's just not been proven right.


Which is exadctly what I said at the beginning of this discussion. Others
concluded that this means that science doesn't work. The disputes between
researchers is what keeps science honest and peer review is the Supreme Court
equivalent. It's when people with ulterior motives begin skirting peer review
that the problems begin.

--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x
  #803   Report Post  
Roger W. Norman
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

And you're wrong, at least by my view of history. Most science is a team
effort with ONE MAN at the helm who's is the guiding force. For example, in
astronomy, it was a given that our technology wouldn't be able to "see" a
planet because we simply didn't have the ability to resolve the existence of
a planet in another solar system due to the brightness of that sun. It took
one man to say, yes, but we can infer from the wobble of that sun the
existence of other planets, and it's become a situation where now, it's
amost impossible to find a solar system without the existence of planets.

It didn't take a team to make the inferrence. It took a team to prove it.

It also took the work of one man to see that an interferometer would be able
to negate the brightness of that sun and see "past" it's brightness and view
the world directly. We've both the new 4 telescope interferomter in the
Chilean mountains under construction now, and we have the same under
development within NASA, for space deployment. Still, the vision of ONE
MAN.

You see, if we rely on the abilities of the mass of scientists that come out
of our schooling system right now, we'll get mediocraty. There's never been
a major breakthrough that hasn't come from one man in science, and I doubt
that you can actually support your hypothesis by example. And certainly you
won't want to use the development of the atomic bomb, now would you?

The speed at which such scientific discoveries may increase, as would be
expected by the continued refining of the technology, but technology isn't
science. Science requires someone of special abilities to regard a problem
outside the confines of what technology encompasses and utilize that
technology to research their subject. Technology says nothing about the
ability to perceive a problem, much less to solve it if that problem is
unperceived.

No, I find fault with the idea that a team of scientists actually come up
with anything. It's one man or woman that has the insight. It's always
been one man or woman that's had the insight. Something that wakes them up
at night, just as a new song makes one rush to the studio to lay something
down before the idea is gone.

Only one person, Jay. Only one person. That one out of a million. Even
though we have far more millions today, not all are within the discipline,
as Jonas Salk, nor outside of the discipline, as Einstein.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Jay Kadis" wrote in message
...
In article "Roger W. Norman"
writes:
No, I don't, and it's a truism that one won't have a better systematic
approach because almost all "scientific" breakthroughs are the results

of
one man's vision or thought process.


Maybe, but that man is standing on the shoulders of every investigator

that
went before. On second thought, I refute that assumption. Most science

is
clearly a team effort, especially now that the means of investigation are

so
expensive and complicated. Sometimes a person has a breakthrough idea,

but
that is not the norm today.

It takes close to a generation of
additional thought along the lines of the original to begin to grasp the
implications, much less be able to put one's self into the thought

patterns
that produced the original concepts in the first place, much less be

able to
just discern that something is right or wrong.


There are legions of individuals working on every scientific problem. The
dispersion of findings is extremely fast now. The pace of discovery and
understanding has accelerated greatly in the last few years. And the
techniques of critical review of others' works is the first and most

important
thing I learned in graduate school.

The protocols work for repeatable science. In other words, lithium

placed
into water produces this result and no other results. That's repeatable
science. Magnisium subjected to a specific amount of heat will ignite

and
produce a tremendously larger amount of heat, or zinc placed into
hydrocloric acid will release free hydrogen. These are repeatable.

Observable means that one cannot predict the outcome because of the
observation, hence it's not repeatable.


To me, there's no particukar relationship between repeatable and

observable.
All observations are merely data points. The idea of science is to tie

these
observations together in a coherent framework. If your observations are

not
repeatable, you do not have enough of them to make a decision. But that

does
not mean they are worthless: you simply don't know exactly what they mean:

your
theory isn't supported by the observations.

It's a concept more readily applied
to anthropology or studies that don't exist within the repeatable
methodology because they are gone from existence. The only way to marry

the
two is to have some timeframe that includes both the observable and the
repeatable. Probably not a possibility. Do all chimps respond to the

same
stimulus the same way? Definitely not. That's observable in a short

period
of time. Does hydrogen ignite under the proper circumstance? Yes, and
that's repeatable. Yet scientific methodolgy is repleat with

repeatability
whereas the sciences of geology, anthropology and such are simply
observable. Yes, we have X type of rock due to Y type of occurance

because
it's been observed that these circumstance have prevailed time and time
again. But then, if that's the case, how is it that man can formulate
diamonds when diamonds, until about 30 years ago, were only available in
their natural state based on millions of years of carbon being under
spectacular pressures? Somehow we negated the millions of years.


No, we replicated the physical conditions which cause carbon to become
organized into the form of a diamond. And it is science which observed

that
diamonds occur naturally in places of volcanic activity. So what does

that
mean? High temperatures and pressures. So we tried that in the lab and

voila:
diamonds. Science worked!

So I'm not saying that I HAVE a better system towards science, I'm

saying
that any science, taken as it is, isn't infallible and that for every
discovery or assumption made, there are proponents with the same or

better
credentials who disagree or have other observed data. The guys that

claimed
to have created cold fusion aren't proven wrong. They just haven't been
proven right. And that global warming is the fault of mankind hasn't

been
proven wrong. It's just not been proven right.


Which is exadctly what I said at the beginning of this discussion. Others
concluded that this means that science doesn't work. The disputes between
researchers is what keeps science honest and peer review is the Supreme

Court
equivalent. It's when people with ulterior motives begin skirting peer

review
that the problems begin.

--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x



  #804   Report Post  
Jay Kadis
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

In article "Roger W. Norman"
writes:
And you're wrong, at least by my view of history. Most science is a team
effort with ONE MAN at the helm who's is the guiding force. For example, in
astronomy, it was a given that our technology wouldn't be able to "see" a
planet because we simply didn't have the ability to resolve the existence of
a planet in another solar system due to the brightness of that sun. It took
one man to say, yes, but we can infer from the wobble of that sun the
existence of other planets, and it's become a situation where now, it's
amost impossible to find a solar system without the existence of planets.


I think you're mislead by the adulation certain scientists get for their
"brilliant" breakthroughs. Nobody works in a vacuum. The Roz Franklin case is
a good example of how the so-called geniuses need help. Watson and Crick were
competing furiously with Pauling and others at the time. And even if you're
right that a single individual makes the critical connection, they rely on the
work of all those who went before. It often appears that one person makes the
critical breakthrough out of the blue, but it usually due to the information
presented to a host of researchers, one of whom gets there first. And it still
requires on the confirmation of others to be accepted.

In a way it's like the reason you find a lost item in the last place you look.
Once you find it, you stop looking. If you didn't find it, someone else would.
That's the scientific method.

It didn't take a team to make the inferrence. It took a team to prove it.

It also took the work of one man to see that an interferometer would be able
to negate the brightness of that sun and see "past" it's brightness and view
the world directly. We've both the new 4 telescope interferomter in the
Chilean mountains under construction now, and we have the same under
development within NASA, for space deployment. Still, the vision of ONE
MAN.

You see, if we rely on the abilities of the mass of scientists that come out
of our schooling system right now, we'll get mediocraty. There's never been
a major breakthrough that hasn't come from one man in science, and I doubt
that you can actually support your hypothesis by example. And certainly you
won't want to use the development of the atomic bomb, now would you?


How about the human genome project? There's no one Edison or Tesla here, just
a host of researchers grinding through the code, providing evidence for
specialists to work with and make their own research into specific gene product
proteins and their function.

Who's the one man who figured out how the nervous system works? How memory
works? How we see? How we hear?

These big breakthroughs only seem to come from one man. In fact, genius of
that type is rare in science, especially now.

Having worked in research labs, I know that while our PI got most of the
credit, the post-docs did the work. It was absolutely a team effort. We all
discussed the proposed experiments, made suggestions, and had a hand in
interpreting the findings.

And I'd be careful about calling the current crop of science students mediocre.
There are some very smart folks working in science and we're all going to
depend on their success.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x
  #805   Report Post  
Blind Joni
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??


Tank U! g

--


You're welcome..now..I am enjoying this OT discussion but as usual the top
posting is really getting to me. I have forgotten..is there a reason why you
can't quote and snip and reply to a specific point?


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637


  #806   Report Post  
Roger W. Norman
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

Well, I'm not going to argue that they are all giants upon which the
succeeding generation doesn't stand upon their shoulders, but in truth, it
absolutely proves my statement that it mostly takes a generation to come up
with a complete understanding of the concepts and the ability to make the
intuitive leaps from there. So I don't think you're helping your cause by
making my case.

And listen, Jay. I have nothing but respect for you and your
accomplishments, so anything I hold to be true has nothing to do with some
idea that it's "against" you. I simply don't think you're correct.

What happens in a scientific collaboration is often two disparate
disciplines coming toghether to solve a common problem. What happens even
more so is that one's given ideas draws the other in because there are
disparate but common problems that perhaps have one single solution. Of
course, it's like a marriage, similar to the marriage of musicians who have
a common goal and the totallity is greater than the sum of the two.

When I talk about their being ONE person, I still hold that it's true, but
I'm not saying that there's only ONE whom does the work. It might well be a
collaboration of two or more that have the same common goals for their own
reasons, and that collaboration might well be 5 or 10 fold more important
than what the one could achieve. But I still hold that there's enough
commonality that ONE person holds the key, has the chops, or simply far
outstrips the others if they weren't working within the combine.

However, your description of the scientific method leaves a little to be
desired! g Why would a scientist stop looking? Because they have no
funding. Otherwise, they will ultimately reach the last place to look.

Of course, I contend that if they'd just look in the last place they'd look,
scientific research would be much cheaper! g

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Jay Kadis" wrote in message
...
In article "Roger W. Norman"
writes:
And you're wrong, at least by my view of history. Most science is a

team
effort with ONE MAN at the helm who's is the guiding force. For

example, in
astronomy, it was a given that our technology wouldn't be able to "see"

a
planet because we simply didn't have the ability to resolve the

existence of
a planet in another solar system due to the brightness of that sun. It

took
one man to say, yes, but we can infer from the wobble of that sun the
existence of other planets, and it's become a situation where now, it's
amost impossible to find a solar system without the existence of

planets.


I think you're mislead by the adulation certain scientists get for their
"brilliant" breakthroughs. Nobody works in a vacuum. The Roz Franklin

case is
a good example of how the so-called geniuses need help. Watson and Crick

were
competing furiously with Pauling and others at the time. And even if

you're
right that a single individual makes the critical connection, they rely on

the
work of all those who went before. It often appears that one person makes

the
critical breakthrough out of the blue, but it usually due to the

information
presented to a host of researchers, one of whom gets there first. And it

still
requires on the confirmation of others to be accepted.

In a way it's like the reason you find a lost item in the last place you

look.
Once you find it, you stop looking. If you didn't find it, someone else

would.
That's the scientific method.

It didn't take a team to make the inferrence. It took a team to prove

it.

It also took the work of one man to see that an interferometer would be

able
to negate the brightness of that sun and see "past" it's brightness and

view
the world directly. We've both the new 4 telescope interferomter in the
Chilean mountains under construction now, and we have the same under
development within NASA, for space deployment. Still, the vision of ONE
MAN.

You see, if we rely on the abilities of the mass of scientists that come

out
of our schooling system right now, we'll get mediocraty. There's never

been
a major breakthrough that hasn't come from one man in science, and I

doubt
that you can actually support your hypothesis by example. And certainly

you
won't want to use the development of the atomic bomb, now would you?


How about the human genome project? There's no one Edison or Tesla here,

just
a host of researchers grinding through the code, providing evidence for
specialists to work with and make their own research into specific gene

product
proteins and their function.

Who's the one man who figured out how the nervous system works? How

memory
works? How we see? How we hear?

These big breakthroughs only seem to come from one man. In fact, genius

of
that type is rare in science, especially now.

Having worked in research labs, I know that while our PI got most of the
credit, the post-docs did the work. It was absolutely a team effort. We

all
discussed the proposed experiments, made suggestions, and had a hand in
interpreting the findings.

And I'd be careful about calling the current crop of science students

mediocre.
There are some very smart folks working in science and we're all going to
depend on their success.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x



  #807   Report Post  
Roger W. Norman
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

"Blind Joni" wrote in message
...

You're welcome..now..I am enjoying this OT discussion but as usual the top
posting is really getting to me. I have forgotten..is there a reason why

you
can't quote and snip and reply to a specific point?



You had a short message so I didn't move it to the top. However, I just
replied to Jay, and I didn't move it to the top either.

So I guess the answer is, NO, I don't have a good reason other than 8 years
here and suddenly I have to change my habits.

Of course, the good thing is, if you read one of my posts you'll know that,
whether I top post or not, there won't only be a "U da man" answer! g

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.





  #808   Report Post  
Jay Kadis
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

In article "Roger W. Norman"
writes:
Well, I'm not going to argue that they are all giants upon which the
succeeding generation doesn't stand upon their shoulders, but in truth, it
absolutely proves my statement that it mostly takes a generation to come up
with a complete understanding of the concepts and the ability to make the
intuitive leaps from there. So I don't think you're helping your cause by
making my case.


But the time required for assimilation and taking the next step is no longer a
generation. That's my point. Things are moving much faster now.

And listen, Jay. I have nothing but respect for you and your
accomplishments, so anything I hold to be true has nothing to do with some
idea that it's "against" you. I simply don't think you're correct.


I certainly take no personal offense, but I have worked in science in the
modern era and know that it's a team effort. What gets presented in the
popular press and those winning the Nobel prize may be presented as having done
it all themselves, but in fact this is not so. (And this may be the most
interesting OT thread yet to me.)

What happens in a scientific collaboration is often two disparate
disciplines coming toghether to solve a common problem. What happens even
more so is that one's given ideas draws the other in because there are
disparate but common problems that perhaps have one single solution. Of
course, it's like a marriage, similar to the marriage of musicians who have
a common goal and the totallity is greater than the sum of the two.


Very much so. And thanks for making MY point this time!

When I talk about their being ONE person, I still hold that it's true, but
I'm not saying that there's only ONE whom does the work. It might well be a
collaboration of two or more that have the same common goals for their own
reasons, and that collaboration might well be 5 or 10 fold more important
than what the one could achieve. But I still hold that there's enough
commonality that ONE person holds the key, has the chops, or simply far
outstrips the others if they weren't working within the combine.


When a breakthrough occurs, it is usually attributed to one person because they
(their team) got there first. Often a second lab is right on their heels. In
a lot of cases, it boils down to luck.

However, your description of the scientific method leaves a little to be
desired! g Why would a scientist stop looking?


Because someone found the answer!

Because they have no funding. Otherwise, they will ultimately reach the
last place to look.


Right!

Of course, I contend that if they'd just look in the last place they'd look,
scientific research would be much cheaper! g


How rarely that occurs! But it sound like Bush proposal. I hope the NSF
doesn't get wind of this.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x
  #809   Report Post  
Mark Steven Brooks
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

So, to bring this to an end, I'd say that global warming science is half
wrong, and the other half leaks out one's ass.


Is there any conceivable way that all the emissions we are pouring into our
atmosphere could NOT be harmful?
(Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)
  #810   Report Post  
Blind Joni
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??


Is there any conceivable way that all the emissions we are pouring into our
atmosphere could NOT be harmful?


Many substances are poisonous to humans..but only in the right dosage..same
problem here..no way to know the dose...we don't understand enough about the
system. So the answer may be yes,may be no.




John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637


  #811   Report Post  
Roger W. Norman
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

****, I'd worry more about radioactive material leaking out of those barrels
they want to bury in the Yucca Mountains first.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Mark Steven Brooks" wrote in message
...
So, to bring this to an end, I'd say that global warming science is

half
wrong, and the other half leaks out one's ass.


Is there any conceivable way that all the emissions we are pouring into

our
atmosphere could NOT be harmful?
(Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)



  #812   Report Post  
LeBaron & Alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

Roger W. Norman wrote:

And I have to reiterate that the "evidence" you are observing, Hank, allows
you to make faulty conclusions. You may be able to say that it's, in fact,
due to global warming, but you cannot, in fact, say that it's due to global
warming caused by man.


I've done a lot of reading about this issue since well before it hit the
headlines. My AK trip allowed me to see some evidence of the effects of
the _rate_ of heating and hear firsthand from AK indigents how it
compared with previous _rates_ of that, and come to some understanding
of just how ****ing rapidly this is happening _now_.

BTW, at what elevation do you dwell? I'm @ 4K'. g

I've grokked the mini ice ages previously unnoticed, the ancient ice
core action, the sea bed history, and more. _Science News_ has been a
personally enjoyable trip for a few decades.

No one can say it's all our fault. Back in the early '80's a scientist
said that all the extreme predictions could be untenable, but that he
had a prediction: weather events on planet Earth would become more
extreme. The accuracy of his prediction is borne out before my own eyes.

We _do_ have evidence that our activities include crap that influences
the climate, and in the direction it is presently headed. If what is
happening is a natural occurrence, and we do have evidence of global
warming for the last 10K years, then the possibility that our own
contribution is a accelerant might be a wake up call to interested
parties.

We can either decide to deal with our lazy ass approach to greed or we
can buck up and face that we might need to adjust our actions to attempt
to maintain a humanly inhabitable biospere. This is little different
than deciding cheap **** from WalMart is worth the loss of our economy
or deciding to purchase elsewhere. We can act or not; I prefer to be on
the side of action.

--
ha

  #813   Report Post  
LeBaron & Alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

Blind Joni wrote:

So, to bring this to an end, I'd say that global warming science is half
wrong, and the other half leaks out one's ass.


Very funny and so, so true.


And I contend you both are enjoying some convenient denial. I hope our
children find it as entertaining.

--
ha
  #814   Report Post  
LeBaron & Alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

Mark Steven Brooks wrote:

So, to bring this to an end, I'd say that global warming science is half
wrong, and the other half leaks out one's ass.


Is there any conceivable way that all the emissions we are pouring into our
atmosphere could NOT be harmful?


Bingo. The evidence supports a contention that our own activities are
part of a trend going back ten thousand years during which Earth has
been swinging out of its most recent mini ice age. Absent our
contribution the rate of change could well be less. Every spurt of
warming leads to a shift of the pendulum and if the forthcoming rate of
cooling is anything like the present rate of warming I'm pretty sure
lots more folks will take notice and take _that_ more seriously. But a
move toward global tropicality seems enjoyable at the moment and that
lulls people into a comfortable denial that has them proposing all sorts
of senseless **** about the practice of science.

If the present rate of heating prevails for another few decades, lots of
people are going to sweat blood.

Just because some idiot ****s up a Pentium in the design stage does not
render science useless. Nothing human is perfect, except, perhaps, for
the power of denial.

--
ha
  #815   Report Post  
LeBaron & Alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

Blind Joni wrote:

What he's saying is that even scientific method can't fill in billions of
years of unrecorded cause and effect...let alone make predictions based on
the lack of information. It was a very clear description.


And it overlooks clear and present evidence that our activities include
that which influences the planetary weather systems. ****, just the
amount of _asphalt_ alone is enough to contriubte to an acceleration of
the current, natural trend of global warming. Throw in a few cheap
chemical byproducts and we could be in trouble of our own making. Toss a
little irrigation into Arizona and the cactii move out. I fail to grasp
the ease with which some people dismiss that which stands in front of
their own noses.

I am not concerned about Gaia's ability to maintain a life supporting
biosphere, within certain limits over which we have no control. But Gaia
is rightly unconcerned whether or not that biosphere is humanly
inhabitable.

Who but humans shall be concerned? And if not humans, then who stands to
say they give a **** whether their own children will have a planet upon
which to dwell? I don't know about you and Roger, but I happen to like
my own children, and many others, too. I would just as soon wake up and
admit I have ****ed up and make some changes ASAP in hopes the young
will get to grow old.

Nobody ever suggested natural selection was easy or pretty. But it is
inevitable and the results immutable. Better to deal with the process
while one may still do so, insofar as that is possible. Sitting on one's
denial about this kind of stuff leads to waking up too ****ing late to
make a difference in the outcome.

It's important to mic stuff well, but it's not improtant to maintain a
humanly viable biosphere? What needs a mic when there are no humans? At
least there'd be no more arguments about the reasonability of the cost
of decent digital mastering...

--
ha


  #816   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??


On 2003-10-10 said:
But I still
hold that there's enough commonality that ONE person holds the key,
has the chops, or simply far outstrips the others if they weren't
working within the combine.

TO see an example of this you only have to look at George Martin's
contribution to that famous foursome. What they accomplished with him
will far outstrip anything they've done as individuals imho.

To point out the other position I'd give you the old rEturn to forever
group with the young guitar hotshot Al Dimiola(spelling) who were
greater than the sum of their parts. I saw them together and have
seen CHick Corea with other ensembles since and RTF was a much more
intense musical eperience.
There's the rub, both modes of operating can achieve those moments of
brilliance and I'd put it at about even with maybe a little edge
toward the one person who has the sudden flash of insight or chops to
bring the effort together. IN the case of scientific discovery it's
that one who uses the training and knowledge gained and thinks outside
the box just a bit. iN the arts it's a matter of the experience he or
she brings to bear on the project. Again I hold out George Martin as
the example. The beatles were developing quite the chops from playing
nonstop in the clubs but it was GM who had the ears and the knowledge
to provide the elements which took them to that higher level.



Richard Webb
Electric Spider Productions
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--


  #817   Report Post  
Roger W. Norman
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

A) If you've read others of my posts you know that I've been a proponent of
reasonable and justifiable use of products that cut down our requirements
and increase our own self-sustainability. I've gone on about using
geothermal heating/AC, about installing photovoltaic shingles in appropriate
locations, etc., so it's not like I'm not for a policy that aims to cut down
on people's usage of fossil fuels, whether it be in their motor vehicles or
by using less electricity.

B) These posts about global warming and evidence are not in conflict with
point A. One does not preclude the other, nor have I said it did. I have,
instead, used the reasonable person approach that requires much better proof
of a hypothesis than speculative "science" that operates without enough data
to make comparisons, and that allows the creation of more than 20 different
climate modeling programs that can't even model from 1900 to 1950 with
current data. And anyone who's done computer based projection work knows
that a model needs to be able to accurately recreate the past before one can
begin to trust it's ability to even "reasonably" project the future.
Moreover, these 20 models, even when tweaked to give today's climate don't
even come up with anything like a "consensus" if one can have a consensus
via numerous models. Temperatures from these models range from 1 to 5+
degree centigrade with twice the current CO2 in the atmosphere as there is
today. That's a range from "barely worth talking about" to 8 degrees
fahrenheit, which would be considerable on a global basis. And it's not
likely that one can assume a medium because that's guessing and the models
are supposed to be fairly accurate predictors.

C) I specified in the beginning of all of this that it is a fallicy that one
should utilize these models listed above to support speculation and try to
derive policy that can and most measurably will have a detrimental effect on
the economy and on people's jobs. If one is worried about humans being able
to survive any global warming, don't be. It isn't pertinent. CO2 increases
don't necessarily take the world to a climate that can't be adapted to by
humans, and it will most likely, in all the models, become the "Greening of
Earth" as was so succinctly put by a number of those that don't hold truck
with the current conclusions of these disparate models. More food, cheaper
food and we'll need that because there will be more people. I doubt
seriously that one need worry about moving our world to cool it off as the
Pierson's Puppeteers had to in Niven's novels.

And Hank, as to being at 4k feet of elevation, well, that part of the
atmosphere has been considerably cooler for the past 20 years of satellite
data gathering. In fact, the ONLY global measurements we have are from the
satellite data of the past 20 years, as opposed to the "surface"
measurements which only reflect termperatures of a microcosm. So while you
may decide to act, you have no real facts or figures that mean your actions
will have a positive effect, nor, truthfully, whether they will have any
effect at all. I will admit that it's likely your actions wouldn't have an
adverse effect as far as climate, but I don't think it would bode well for
the economy. I would simply suggest that you aren't the only one that has
been studying this stuff for more than a few years. Even Jim Hanson, who
somewhat placed his professional skin on the line 10 years ago has changed
his tune, citing way too many factors in what's known as "forcings" to allow
us to even guess, much less make accurate predictions. And I can say that a
direct relation in forcing and the climate was apparent to me after Mt.
Pinatubo blew and I wasn't able to use my pool for a couple of years (I
depended on solar heating). But we had beautiful sunsets.

So I will end this discussion by saying that I've pretty well researched the
statements and come to my own conclusions way before I even attempted to
study up on the discourse against the global warming "facts". My own
thoughts do not come up any different than those who's PhDs and well founded
scientific lives have presented. I'm not asking you to change your way of
thinking. I'm just presenting why I think the way I do. And again, nothing
in my thoughts about the possibility of global warming excludes my concerns
for the use of fossil fuels and our inability to be independant upon those
that somewhat have us in their grips. If my concerns have the effect of
lessing the use of fossil fuels then fine, but it won't be because I'm
concerned about global warming.
--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"LeBaron & Alrich" wrote in message
...
Roger W. Norman wrote:

And I have to reiterate that the "evidence" you are observing, Hank,

allows
you to make faulty conclusions. You may be able to say that it's, in

fact,
due to global warming, but you cannot, in fact, say that it's due to

global
warming caused by man.


I've done a lot of reading about this issue since well before it hit the
headlines. My AK trip allowed me to see some evidence of the effects of
the _rate_ of heating and hear firsthand from AK indigents how it
compared with previous _rates_ of that, and come to some understanding
of just how ****ing rapidly this is happening _now_.

BTW, at what elevation do you dwell? I'm @ 4K'. g

I've grokked the mini ice ages previously unnoticed, the ancient ice
core action, the sea bed history, and more. _Science News_ has been a
personally enjoyable trip for a few decades.

No one can say it's all our fault. Back in the early '80's a scientist
said that all the extreme predictions could be untenable, but that he
had a prediction: weather events on planet Earth would become more
extreme. The accuracy of his prediction is borne out before my own eyes.

We _do_ have evidence that our activities include crap that influences
the climate, and in the direction it is presently headed. If what is
happening is a natural occurrence, and we do have evidence of global
warming for the last 10K years, then the possibility that our own
contribution is a accelerant might be a wake up call to interested
parties.

We can either decide to deal with our lazy ass approach to greed or we
can buck up and face that we might need to adjust our actions to attempt
to maintain a humanly inhabitable biospere. This is little different
than deciding cheap **** from WalMart is worth the loss of our economy
or deciding to purchase elsewhere. We can act or not; I prefer to be on
the side of action.

--
ha



  #818   Report Post  
LeBaron & Alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

Roger W. Norman wrote:

And Hank, as to being at 4k feet of elevation, well, that part of the
atmosphere has been considerably cooler for the past 20 years of satellite
data gathering.


Roger, I have been living at this altitude for the last 19 years. I can
assure you that in that time the shift in microclimate is not toward a
cooler state. Rainfall is greatly below the 100 year average, snowfall
is bordering on nonexistent compared to a while ago, reservoirs are
dropping overall, and the flora and fauna are changing in response to
the change in climate. We have new birds, new plants, and some of same
that are no longer hanging out around here. I don't know what that
satellite is smoking, but it's not having much to do with what's
happening on the ground and in the air in my own backyard.

--
ha
  #819   Report Post  
Blind Joni
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??


And I contend you both are enjoying some convenient denial. I hope our
children find it as entertaining.


Almost sounds like time for a friendly wager!


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637
  #820   Report Post  
Blind Joni
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

****, just the
amount of _asphalt_ alone is enough to contriubte to an acceleration of
the current, natural trend of global warming.


Yeah, when you fly over most countries you can't miss that asphalt!!


Who but humans shall be concerned? And if not humans, then who stands to
say they give a **** whether their own children will have a planet upon
which to dwell?


I agree concern is appropriate. And giving a **** is surely a good thing..but
having an ability to afect it is what we're talking about..and there is no way
to predict that.

Better to deal with the process
while one may still do so, insofar as that is possible


That's the rub..what is or isn't possible.

Sitting on one's
denial about this kind of stuff leads to waking up too ****ing late to
make a difference in the outcome.


Maybe..but again we can't now this..only surmise what might happen..with no
previous experience to build upon.


It's important to mic stuff well, but it's not improtant to maintain a
humanly viable biosphere? What needs a mic when there are no humans?


The first is your job and you can do it well and predict an outcome based on
personal experience..the second is none of these..I'm sure you see the
difference.




John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637


  #821   Report Post  
Blind Joni
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

Is there any conceivable way that all the emissions we are pouring into our
atmosphere could NOT be harmful?


Bingo. The evidence supports a contention that our own activities are
part of a trend going back ten thousand years during which Earth has
been swinging out of its most recent mini ice age.


So the evidence can say our last 100 yeasrs or so of activity is the last nail
in a 12,000 year old coffin?

But a
move toward global tropicality seems enjoyable at the moment and that
lulls people into a comfortable denial that has them proposing all sorts
of senseless **** about the practice of science.


Not saying that would be good or bad..many people would have to move. things
happen over tens of thousands of years. Probably cheaper to move than stop
every country from doing something we consider wrong. I see the debate I just
don't see a practical solution even if all you assume is true. It's kind of
like worrying that all the ice cream cones I've bought in my life kept me from
buying that $10,000 mic...true but what is the solution?..assuming possesing
the $10,000 mic is a necessity or a possibility.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637
  #822   Report Post  
Blind Joni
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??



Back in the early '80's a scientist
said that all the extreme predictions could be untenable, but that he
had a prediction: weather events on planet Earth would become more
extreme. The accuracy of his prediction is borne out before my own eyes.


So he had a 50% chance of being right..boy..way out there on a limb!!
Can he commiunicate with my aunt Edna?
This statement says nothing.

If what is
happening is a natural occurrence, and we do have evidence of global
warming for the last 10K years, then the possibility that our own
contribution is a accelerant might be a wake up call to interested
parties.


Interested in what.stopping it???
If you say it been going on for 10,000 how would you suggest we possibly stop
it?
I have tried to logically find a way that this arguement works..but it doesn't.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637
  #823   Report Post  
LeBaron & Alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

Blind Joni wrote:

Back in the early '80's a scientist
said that all the extreme predictions could be untenable, but that he
had a prediction: weather events on planet Earth would become more
extreme. The accuracy of his prediction is borne out before my own eyes.


So he had a 50% chance of being right..boy..way out there on a limb!!
Can he commiunicate with my aunt Edna?
This statement says nothing.


Taken a look at the increasingly stout performance of Ma Nature in the
storm arena? Since I'be been here we've swung smashingly between
outright drought and a pair of "100 year storms" within a decade of each
other that put a lot of local territory unexpectedly under water.

Change is the only constant, but _rates_ of change might be something to
address if we already have clear evidence that our actions include that
which can accelerate change in unfortunate directions.

Idea: our vehicle is headed down a steep grade, and accelerating
seriously. Shall we keep our pedal to the metal? How will that work out?
g

If what is
happening is a natural occurrence, and we do have evidence of global
warming for the last 10K years, then the possibility that our own
contribution is a accelerant might be a wake up call to interested
parties.


Interested in what.stopping it??? If you say it been going on for 10,000
how would you suggest we possibly stop it?


Who said anything about stopping it? I contend we do stuff that
accelerates it and if we don't address that we might well be pushing a
pendulum right past our point of survival. The cockroaches don't give a
****.

I have tried to logically find
a way that this arguement works..but it doesn't.


My take on your position is that we should ignore whatever evidence we
have that our own activities may be deleterious to our own survival
because it's too much trouble to bother thinking about this stuff or
trying to figure out how to take action on a global scale.
  #824   Report Post  
Blind Joni
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

I have,
instead, used the reasonable person approach that requires much better proof
of a hypothesis than speculative "science" that operates without enough data
to make comparisons, and that allows the creation of more than 20 different
climate modeling programs that can't even model from 1900 to 1950 with
current data. And anyone who's done computer based projection work knows
that a model needs to be able to accurately recreate the past before one can
begin to trust it's ability to even "reasonably" project the future.


This is the meat of the issue. We would never accept any other conclusions
based on a system capable of only generating these kind of results.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637
  #825   Report Post  
Blind Joni
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

Idea: our vehicle is headed down a steep grade, and accelerating
seriously. Shall we keep our pedal to the metal? How will that work out?
g


It depends..if we have no brakes it really doesn't matter. g


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637


  #826   Report Post  
Justin Ulysses Morse
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

Blind Joni wrote:


I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. If you have a better systematic

approach to discovery that traditional science I'd like to hear it.



What he's saying is that even scientific method can't fill in billions of
years
of unrecorded cause and effect...let alone make predictions based on the lack
of information.
It was a very clear description.



Even though it's not true. Filling in billions of years of unrecorded
cause and effect is exactly what the scientific method has been doing
in the areas of astronomy, geology, evolutionary biology, anthropology,
and other disciplines for the last few hundred years.


Just because the pendulum has always been swinging doesn't mean we
should go ahead and kick over the whole clock.


ulysses
  #827   Report Post  
LeBaron & Alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:

Just because the pendulum has always been swinging doesn't mean we
should go ahead and kick over the whole clock.


That is, however, easier than trying to deal with what time it is.

--
ha
  #828   Report Post  
Blind Joni
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

Filling in billions of years of unrecorded
cause and effect is exactly what the scientific method has been doing
in the areas of astronomy, geology, evolutionary biology, anthropology,
and other disciplines for the last few hundred years.


The difference being that we have fossils and stars and such that supply a sort
of hard eveidence that we can still recover and examine...plus these processes
were repeated over and over..in some cases billions of times whereas climate
changes happened one at a time.
I am happy that Roger put forth his perspective on this..very detailed and
objective from a practical sicientific viewpoint.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637
  #830   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??


On 2003-10-13 said:
that the science of "Global Warming" is still disputed,

according to Christian Broadcast News, and various Oil
Industry scientists, coincidentally...
THere you go. SE my previous post on junk science. tHere is the
evidence. REach a foregone conclusion and ignore any finding of
facts which don't support your foregone conclusion.

Was that along with "breathing in vaporized depleted uranium is
healthy for you".
I've seen the entire voodoo science of CBN, and the Oil Industry
Lobbiests on Global warming, and enviormental damage, it is right
up there with those doctors that work for the tobaco companies and
say "cigarettes might not be harmful at all".
You can find scientists, after the fact, to support whatever
conclusions you need for your cause.

Amen brother. Part of true scientific inquiry or investigation is
trying to find as much data as you can before drawing a conclusion.

THe examples above are one example, but it's even more pervasive in
the science branches IA call "soft" sscience, sociology psychology
etc. These folks base their findings on a small group which fits the
group which they wish to sample.

HERe again we get back to blind people. Many older folks who go blind
have no competence with alternative methods for doing day to day
things. sOme who have been blind all their life haven't had the
education and training they need to overcome their problem, hence when
the so-called scientists take this population and decide to research
it their findings are skewed toward blind oflks as a group being
incompetent etc. That's the problem with statistics and other ways
that these sciences have to work.

THis is where peer review comes into play in all sciences. ONe has to
do the same study on a different group of people if it's one of the
soft sciences, or if it's one of the hard sciences do the experiment
again. IIRC peer review told the guys that thought they'd figured
out cold fusion that they were really all wet. Hopefully one's peers
in any scientific endeavor will come at the problem with different
biases and will draw their own conclusions.


Btw I enjoyed Roger Norman's post that I read earlier today. I know
he's a bit scheptical of the findings on global warming. Imho man is
accelerating the process, according to data that I've read, but I"m a
musician sound guy and recording guy in that order and somewhat of a
radio tinkerer. Geology and environmental science aren't my thing.
Still from my readings on the subject I can't help but believe man is
doing this. THere again I get my info on the subject from
publications that are grinding their own axe such as National
Geographic etc. THough they may have an axe to grind here according
to some I've seen them present both sides of the issue e.g. an article
a few months back talking about ice core samples in antarctica.


REgards,




Richard Webb
Electric Spider Productions
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--



Sacred cows make great hamburgers.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction??? Jacob Kramer Audio Opinions 1094 September 9th 03 02:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:44 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"