Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#801
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??
|
#817
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction??? | Audio Opinions |