| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John E. Hadstate
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:51 pm Post subject: Re: WHY HAS REAL SCIENCE STOPPED |
 |
|
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:90e96906-aa9b-494b-b040-3739f5790207@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 4:44 pm, biject <biject.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
To tell the real science from the oil industry shills, you need
to know a few basic facts.
Pretty well everywhere on Earth, each day it gets warmer during
the day while the Sun shines. Then, at night, it gets cooler -
instead of staying the same, and getting warmer still the next
day. Why does it get cooler at night? Outer space doesn't come
in contact with the Earth through convection to take heat away.
No; it gets cooler at night because the Earth radiates into the
blackness of space.
Do you see the ground beneath you glowing? Is the Earth as hot
as a light bulb's filament, or the Sun's surface? No. So what
the Earth is radiating is long-wave infrared, appropriate to
blackbody radiation for its temperature.
Carbon dioxide is transparent to sunlight - but it blocks, and
is therefore warmed by, long wave infrared of the type the
Earth radiates at night. Atmospheric carbon dioxide can be
measured, it has been, and it has gone up.
This is global warming - science, yes, but not rocket science.
It's pretty hard to get wrong, even if there are ways to dance
around it. So here, at least, the ecology side isn't crying
"Wolf".
Anyways, there's something called nuclear power which can
produce all the energy we want without burning oil - and the
objections to *that* from the ecology crowd _are_ bunk. So we
don't have to wait for absolute proof, for the polar ice cap to
melt, and so on - we can act now *without* wrecking the world
economy or making the United States weaker.
John Savard
Thank you, John. Since everything you've said has been
well-understood since at least the middle 50s, and since we
have subsequently done nothing except make the situation worse
by choosing to follow people who are more ignorant and more
stupid than dirt, do you really have any hope that we will make
the right choices in the near future?
Allow me just one question. If we can build nuclear power
plants that are safe enough and reliable enough to be operated
by a 17-year-old (the US Navy has been doing this for at least
four decades), then what is the problem with shore-based
nuclear power? Obviously, there is an agenda at work here to
which I'm not privy. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
John E. Hadstate
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:04 pm Post subject: Re: WHY HAS REAL SCIENCE STOPPED |
|
|
"Antony Clements" <antony.clements@bigpond.com> wrote in
message news:inQHk.4628$sc2.3410@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| Quote: |
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:90e96906-aa9b-494b-b040-3739f5790207@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Carbon dioxide is transparent to sunlight - but it blocks,
and is
therefore warmed by, long wave infrared of the type the
Earth radiates
at night. Atmospheric carbon dioxide can be measured, it has
been, and
it has gone up.
actually that has been debunked recently. carbon in their air
makes for better plant growth, the more plant growth the less
carbon in the air. so the industrial revolution didnt do much
for the atmosphere at all, but it did do wonders for the
rainforests of the world. the amazon for example is
going through a growth spurt because of the excess carbon in
the atmosphere,
|
That's typical of the half-assed babbling that is passed-off as
science. Man can and does build machines to stomp out the
increased growth in plant matter much faster than their growth
rate can increase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_Mower
What Savard said is scientific fact. It cannot be "debunked"
without changing the laws of physics and chemistry. You have
now demonstrated that you are utterly ignorant in at least
three areas of basic science. That qualifies you to be a
"Leader of the Free World" and demands that your opinions be
vomited-forth on Oprah. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Thomas Richter
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:08 am Post subject: Re: WHY HAS REAL SCIENCE STOPPED |
|
|
biject wrote:
| Quote: |
Its the GORE lies that even have NASA science going backwards. There
is no room there to have honest discussions.
|
Indeed. This is comp.compression, you're OT, there's no room here for
*any* discussion about this topic, let it be honest, or dishonest.
So long,
Thomas |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Antony Clements
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:14 am Post subject: Re: WHY HAS REAL SCIENCE STOPPED |
|
|
"John E. Hadstate" <jh113355@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Nd2dndxV1KQdOW3VnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@supernews.com...
| Quote: | That's typical of the half-assed babbling that is passed-off as science.
Man can and does build machines to stomp out the increased growth in plant
matter much faster than their growth rate can increase.
|
who said they didnt? but if you actually listen to the climatologists, they
will tell you that the level of carbon in the atmosphere, particularly
around old growth rain forest, is stable. it is simply this, cold weather =
more carbon trapped in ice = small more dense groth rings on a tree. warmer
weather = less carbon dioxide trapped in ice sheets = larger growth rings on
trees. it's been proven. what do plants do? take carbon dioxide, strip the
carbon release the oxygen. the older and healthier the plant, the more
efficient the process. it is as simple as that. the fact is, we will be in
an ice age before atmospheric carbon levels have reached a dangerous level.
| Quote: | Atmospheric carbon dioxide can be measured, it has been, and
it has gone up.
|
yes carbon levels can be monitored, in and around healthy forest, it has NOT
gone up. so yes it HAS been debunked. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
jacko
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:58 pm Post subject: Re: WHY HAS REAL SCIENCE STOPPED |
|
|
On 7 Oct, 18:29, biject <biject.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I have long wondered what has happened to real science. It wasn't
until I got to review papers for publication that I realized how far
gone the whole system is. What we need is a place where one can create
papers independent of Academia and the corrupt the political system
that has stifled real science. I know that in crypto one has little
chance of making a break through unless connected to the elites.
Which is why I went to compression but even here its impossible to get
papers for new things such as "a real bijective BWT". I worked in
government during the cold war I did not notice how corrupted science
was until the late 80's but here is a paper that shows how some of
the corruption as occurred in the sciences. Its written by a guy at
MIT. Maybe there are still a few nonpolitical correct professors there
but they are a dying breed.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
Not sure how I stumbled on this. I was tyring to find out what is
going on with the sun and why is NASA so full of it. When at one time
it was an honor to say I worked at NASA. Now its no honor.
David A. Scott
--
My Crypto codehttp://bijective.dogma.net/crypto/scott19u.ziphttp://www..jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zipold version
My Compression codehttp://bijective.dogma.net/
**TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
system is only as strong as its weakest link"
|
Paper on Uncertain Geometry Available as an example
Hi
http://sites.google.com/site/jackokring
Accept adult warning which has not been switchd off yet, download
attatchment at bottom of page.
Free for electronic personal use, and printing or reproduction beyond
a personal copy is 10 pounds UK sterling. You may pay this if requied
on the download page.
cheers
jacko |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
biject
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:18 pm Post subject: NASA IS LOST BUT POLITICALLY CORRECT? |
|
|
Sorry I changed name of thread from "WHY HAS REAL SCIENCE STOPPED"
I am also sorry I worked at NASA. It was once a real organization that
was honest and tried to advance science. I don't think NASA we ever be
that again. I don't think it will ever get men to MARS let alone to
the MOON again.
Did anyone notice how NASA claimed October the coldest October ever
in recent times? Is there any way to get Dr Hanson replaced with a
real scientist? Do we really want those who believe in the politically
correct god of global warming to filter and adjust all information on
the topic?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml
Will this make the front page in the U.S.?
David A. Scott
--
My Crypto code
http://bijective.dogma.net/crypto/scott19u.zip
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version
My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/
**TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
system is only as strong as its weakest link" |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
biject
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 6:55 pm Post subject: Re: NASA IS LOST BUT POLITICALLY CORRECT? |
|
|
On Nov 16, 11:05 am, Unruh <unruh-s...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | biject <biject.b...@gmail.com> writes:
Sorry I changed name of thread from "WHY HAS REAL SCIENCE STOPPED"
I am also sorry I worked at NASA. It was once a real organization that
was honest and tried to advance science. I don't think NASA we ever be
that again. I don't think it will ever get men to MARS let alone to
the MOON again.
Did anyone notice how NASA claimed October the coldest October ever
in recent times? Is there any way to get Dr Hanson replaced with a
real scientist? Do we really want those who believe in the politically
correct god of global warming to filter and adjust all information on
the topic?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16....
The allegation is true is obviously not good, but this article is also an obviously
biased reportage. In case you did not know, reportage in the UK is
openly biased. It is one of the charms of British newpapers if you know
about it, but believing everything you read is an even riskier thing to do
in the UK than in the US.
Anyway, wondering which part of physics you believe is part of the
conspiracy? A) Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased. B)
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (ie it absorbs IR radiation making the
atmosphere more opaque at the wavelengths at which the surface of the earth
radiates into space). C) The sun delivers its heat to the earth primarily
in the visible where the atmosphere is rather transparent.
Will this make the front page in the U.S.?
David A. Scott
|
I think the most important part of the conspiracy is the left allows
no debate on the subject many scientists can't even get papers
published. Several have wanted to debate Gore yet the left refuses to
allow that. I think its a bad sign that science has been hijacked. I
suspect you don't care since the ends justify the means.
A) C02 is a greenhouse gas not sure its as effective as water vapor.
B) It has often been much higher than it is currently. Yes it may be
currently on the rise plants need CO2 that could be a good thing.
C) I don't know and to lazy to look up.
But there are many things the left has ignored. The role of sunspots
in weather seems to be one of then and the fact that the climate is
getting colder and that an ice age would do more damage than a melting
of the poles. The left is using the fear of global warming to destroy
the economy. It is silly to turn corn into fuel when there could be a
food shortage in near future.
I think history has shown politicians mess up almost everything they
touch. If they ignored Gores advice we would all be better off.
David A. Scott
--
My Crypto code
http://bijective.dogma.net/crypto/scott19u.zip
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version
My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/
**TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
system is only as strong as its weakest link" |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Unruh
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:05 am Post subject: Re: NASA IS LOST BUT POLITICALLY CORRECT? |
|
|
biject <biject.bwts@gmail.com> writes:
| Quote: | Sorry I changed name of thread from "WHY HAS REAL SCIENCE STOPPED"
I am also sorry I worked at NASA. It was once a real organization that
was honest and tried to advance science. I don't think NASA we ever be
that again. I don't think it will ever get men to MARS let alone to
the MOON again.
Did anyone notice how NASA claimed October the coldest October ever
in recent times? Is there any way to get Dr Hanson replaced with a
real scientist? Do we really want those who believe in the politically
correct god of global warming to filter and adjust all information on
the topic?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml
|
The allegation is true is obviously not good, but this article is also an obviously
biased reportage. In case you did not know, reportage in the UK is
openly biased. It is one of the charms of British newpapers if you know
about it, but believing everything you read is an even riskier thing to do
in the UK than in the US.
Anyway, wondering which part of physics you believe is part of the
conspiracy? A) Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased. B)
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (ie it absorbs IR radiation making the
atmosphere more opaque at the wavelengths at which the surface of the earth
radiates into space). C) The sun delivers its heat to the earth primarily
in the visible where the atmosphere is rather transparent.
| Quote: | Will this make the front page in the U.S.?
David A. Scott |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Unruh
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:09 am Post subject: Re: NASA IS LOST BUT POLITICALLY CORRECT? |
|
|
biject <biject.bwts@gmail.com> writes:
| Quote: | On Nov 16, 11:05=A0am, Unruh <unruh-s...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
biject <biject.b...@gmail.com> writes:
Sorry I changed name of thread from "WHY HAS REAL SCIENCE STOPPED"
I am also sorry I worked at NASA. It was once a real organization that
was honest and tried to advance science. I don't think NASA we ever be
that again. I don't think it will ever get men to MARS let alone to
the MOON again.
Did anyone notice how NASA claimed October the coldest October ever
in recent times? Is there any way to get Dr Hanson replaced with a
real scientist? Do we really want those who believe in the politically
correct god of global warming to filter and adjust all information on
the topic?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=3D/opinion/2008/11/16.=
..
The allegation is true is obviously not good, but this article is also an=
obviously
biased reportage. In case you did not know, reportage in the UK is
openly biased. It is one of the charms of British newpapers if you know
about it, but believing everything you read is an even riskier thing to d=
o
in the UK than in the US.
Anyway, wondering which part of physics you believe is part of the
conspiracy? A) Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased. B)
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (ie it absorbs IR radiation making the
atmosphere more opaque at the wavelengths at which the surface of the ear=
th
radiates into space). C) The sun delivers its heat to the earth primarily
in the visible where the atmosphere is rather transparent.
Will this make the front page in the U.S.?
David A. Scott
I think the most important part of the conspiracy is the left allows
no debate on the subject many scientists can't even get papers
published. Several have wanted to debate Gore yet the left refuses to
allow that. I think its a bad sign that science has been hijacked. I
suspect you don't care since the ends justify the means.
|
Left? What has this to do with left-right? Many papers are not published.
It is the scientific refereeing process. While it may have its problems, it
is still a good way of making sure that the journals are not innundated
with garbage.
| Quote: | A) C02 is a greenhouse gas not sure its as effective as water vapor.
|
?? So what?
| Quote: | B) It has often been much higher than it is currently. Yes it may be
currently on the rise plants need CO2 that could be a good thing.
|
And is there a correlation between its height and the global temperature?
And so what if plants need it? We are not talking about plants but the
effect on global temperature. (and the evidence on plants is ambiguous-- as
I recall, plants grew more, but also were more fragile under high CO2
conditions)
| Quote: | C) I don't know and to lazy to look up.
|
I see. But not too lazy to post that others are dishonest who have bothered
to look it up.
| Quote: | But there are many things the left has ignored. The role of sunspots
in weather seems to be one of then and the fact that the climate is
getting colder and that an ice age would do more damage than a melting
of the poles. The left is using the fear of global warming to destroy
the economy. It is silly to turn corn into fuel when there could be a
food shortage in near future.
|
Of couse it is silly to turn corn into fuel, not least because it takes
more fuel to make the corn and turn it into fuel than you get out of the
corn. It was one of your right wingers-- the president of the USA-- who
grabbed onto that looney idea.
| Quote: | I think history has shown politicians mess up almost everything they
touch. If they ignored Gores advice we would all be better off.
|
??? We should listen to Bush instead?
Or to you who is "too lazy to look it up"? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Thomas Richter
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:54 am Post subject: Re: NASA IS LOST BUT POLITICALLY CORRECT? |
|
|
biject wrote:
| Quote: | I think the most important part of the conspiracy is the left allows
no debate on the subject many scientists can't even get papers
published.
|
A) Do you have any evidence that this is the case? I can certainly get
papers published, had them published in the past, and will get them
published in the future. Apparently, you don't know what a scientific
paper is about? It is about giving verify-able claims.
B) What has this to do with comp.compression? Please move this elsewhere.
| Quote: | Several have wanted to debate Gore yet the left refuses to
allow that.
|
A) Who had?
B) Why does someone need allowance to publish a paper? I certainly never
did (except from my accounting, to get the money for it.)
C) What has this to do with comp.compression?
| Quote: | I think its a bad sign that science has been hijacked.
|
A) What does the term "hijack" mean here? Scientists will do science,
you cannot hijack a concept.
B) Why do you think that happend?
C) What has this to do with comp.compression?
| Quote: | I suspect you don't care since the ends justify the means.
|
A) Unless you show evidence that - whatever it is you claim that has
happened - has happened, there is nothing to care about.
B) What has this to do with compression?
| Quote: | A) C02 is a greenhouse gas not sure its as effective as water vapor.
|
A) Why does that matter? Water is and has always been part of the
atmosphere, though the amount of CO2 has increased notably. Higher
temperature means also more water, so this part of the dynamics is
self-enforcing.
B) What has this to do with compression?
| Quote: |
B) It has often been much higher than it is currently. Yes it may be
currently on the rise plants need CO2 that could be a good thing.
|
A) This is incorrect. Plants evolved to make use of the current CO2
level, not a higher one - they would work less efficient. See for
example "Scientific American", an issue about two years old. I could
look this up "but I'm too lazy".
B) What has this to do with compression?
| Quote: | C) I don't know and to lazy to look up.
|
A) Yeah, right, then probably that's the reason why you cannot publish
papers. Science means also giving references.
| Quote: | But there are many things the left has ignored.
|
A) So do you. You do not know half the things that you ought to know to
allow you making claims in this area. Neither do I, but I do not make
claims. So either, give references and publish, or go away.
B) How is that related to compression?
| Quote: | The role of sunspots
in weather seems to be one of then
|
A) What evidence exists that the current observable warming correlates
better to the sunspots than to the CO2 level?
B) What makes you think this is related to compression?
| Quote: | and the fact that the climate is
getting colder and that an ice age would do more damage than a melting
of the poles.
|
A) Why do you think that this is a fact as the temperatures currently
rise? It's a speculation, not a fact, possibly a hypothesis, but facts
become facts when you measure them. You haven't measured that. Besides,
you're confusing the time scales. Long-time climate changes like
ice-ages happen in longer time scales than the current warming, which
appeared incredibly quick.
B) How's that related to compression?
| Quote: | The left is using the fear of global warming to destroy
the economy.
|
A) No, the population on this planet.
B) That's somehow related to compression (no mankind,no compression),
but I doubt this link is relevant enough to make you waste bandwidth.
| Quote: | It is silly to turn corn into fuel when there could be a
food shortage in near future.
|
A) Probably, but apparently it makes sense right now, otherwise it
wouldn't happen. Whether that's good or bad is another decision which
depends on the long-term perspective.
B) And it is still not related to compression.
| Quote: | I think history has shown politicians mess up almost everything they
touch. If they ignored Gores advice we would all be better off.
|
A) I doubt you would make a better politician. You're also playing the
same bad game in the same bad way. Claiming unproved hypothesis, leaving
proves out, not giving references. That's not science either, it is bad
arguing. So what makes you think people should listen to you instead of
Gore? I doubt he's a scientist, either, though he seems to be more in
line with the current results of science than you are.
B) And this is still not related to compression.
From all that I can only draw the conclusion that you should post this
elsewhere, or even better, not post at all. Because it shouldn't go
here, it's not about compression, and probably nowhere else, but that's
not me who has to judge it.
Thomas |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Antony Clements
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:25 am Post subject: Re: NASA IS LOST BUT POLITICALLY CORRECT? |
|
|
"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:hhZTk.797$jr4.584@edtnps82...
| Quote: | Anyway, wondering which part of physics you believe is part of the
conspiracy? A) Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased. B)
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (ie it absorbs IR radiation making the
atmosphere more opaque at the wavelengths at which the surface of the
earth
radiates into space). C) The sun delivers its heat to the earth primarily
in the visible where the atmosphere is rather transparent.
|
I'm just wondering
"B) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (ie it absorbs IR radiation making
the atmosphere more opaque at the wavelengths at which the surface of the
earth radiates into space)."
Wouldn't that work both ways? By that I mean wouldn't IR wavelengths be
reflected back towards earth, and IR wavelengths coming from extra-planetary
sources, be reflected back into space? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
