Re: Is it hot in here?
On Tue, 4 May 2004 20:51:28 -0400 (EDT), Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert Seeberger wrote: No turtles?! No elephants either! And without them, our fat mines will run dry! Jim Fifth Elephant Maru Don't worry, our Prez Cheney has a plan. Gary disappointed in Monstrous Regiment but liked Night Watch ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it hot in here?
At 07:58 PM 5/3/04, Dan Minette wrote: 2) There is nothing underlying physics. Which explains the Gahan Wilson cartoon Is Nothing Sacred? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it hot in here?
No turtles all the way down? Damn, I might as well go back to believing that the universe is one wave particle string looped a google times in time. This is restating Bach's theory of One. That was an easy question about clowns,. they are drunk, the glass is slippery. What about gravity, if elephants aren't sucking us down what is? It's too complicated to believe that gravity and inertia are scalar quantum retardation functions. I want my corks and elephants back. Easter Lemming Notebook ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it hot in here?
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 5:06 AM Subject: Re: Is it hot in here? That was an easy question about clowns,. they are drunk, the glass is slippery. Yeah, but they have those really big shoes for extra traction that also double for wooden leg overflow. xponent The Clowns Are Coming Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it hot in here?
Robert Seeberger wrote: No turtles?! No elephants either! And without them, our fat mines will run dry! Jim Fifth Elephant Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it hot in here?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 9:48 PM Subject: Re: Is it hot in here? In a message dated 5/3/2004 7:27:56 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dan Minette wrote: 2) There is nothing underlying physics. No turtles?! No elephants either! G And no corks! No corks? No corks! What keeps the clowns from climbing out of the wine bottle? xponent Seat Of Pants Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it hot in here?
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 9:33 AM Subject: Re: Is it hot in here? At 09:27 AM 4/28/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: Science is not all cut and dry. There are a number of global climate models, that have uncertainties in them. Global warming hawks tend to favor models that discuss about 3-4C increases in global temperature due to human activity over the next 50-100 years, while global warming doves ten to favor models that are more in the 1C-1.5C range. The most likely results are somewhere in between. Publishing both papers is a normal part of good science. I thought that good science required precision to multiple decimal points??? ;-) Sigh, did you look at my definition of science and not respond or just not look at the definition? If you want to discuss what is and what is not science and why economics is not a science, then I'd be more than happy to. It is true that ecology is not as good a science as physics. Physics is the paradigm science; it is the first true science and it shows by example what science is. There are two reasons for this. 1) The problems in physics tend to be simpler. 2) There is nothing underlying physics. This points to how long term atmospheric studies fall under science. The science underlying atmospheric studies is well known chemistry and physics. For the short term, one can treat it as a complex thermo problem. It has always been complex enough so that one cannot simply turn the crank, even at a large level. At the level of where hit and miss thunderstorms will hit, I'm pretty sure its at the level where QM actually is importantespecially hit or miss thunderstorms several days from now. But, on a large scale quantum fluctuations average out, and theoretical predictions are very makeable, in principal. On moderate time scales, the ability to model hurricanes has increased tremendously. In particular, it is amazing how models come together after NOAA missions drop a spread of sampling probes to feed data into the models. So, the study of the atmosphere is well grounded in more basic sciences, and has shown tremendous strides in its predictive abilities. Long term models have more scatter, but the scientific method is still usable. Contrast that with economics. Its been around close to the same amount of time as physics, and top people still argue about what actually happened, not what will happen. It is based, on the microeconomic scale, on the free will of people. Politics actually affects the results, not just what gets published. If you want to argue with this, I think it would be useful for you to point out where you think I am wrong in the guidelines for what is and what is not science that I posted. If you don't really differ, than I'd be happy to accept the burden of proof to show why economics is not a science by those guidelines. If you just want to fire off the occasional one line zinger, that's OK, I guess. I just don't accept proof by one line zinger. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it hot in here?
Dan Minette wrote: 2) There is nothing underlying physics. No turtles?! -- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 551-0427 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it hot in here?
In a message dated 5/3/2004 7:27:56 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dan Minette wrote: 2) There is nothing underlying physics. No turtles?! No elephants either! G And no corks! Vilyehm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it hot in here?
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 8:21 PM Subject: Re: Is it hot in here? Dan Minette wrote: 2) There is nothing underlying physics. No turtles?! No elephants either! G xponent Stackers Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it hot in here?
At 09:27 AM 4/28/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: Science is not all cut and dry. There are a number of global climate models, that have uncertainties in them. Global warming hawks tend to favor models that discuss about 3-4C increases in global temperature due to human activity over the next 50-100 years, while global warming doves ten to favor models that are more in the 1C-1.5C range. The most likely results are somewhere in between. Publishing both papers is a normal part of good science. I thought that good science required precision to multiple decimal points??? ;-) JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it hot in here?
At 09:33 AM 5/1/04, JDG wrote: At 09:27 AM 4/28/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: Science is not all cut and dry. There are a number of global climate models, that have uncertainties in them. Global warming hawks tend to favor models that discuss about 3-4C increases in global temperature due to human activity over the next 50-100 years, while global warming doves ten to favor models that are more in the 1C-1.5C range. The most likely results are somewhere in between. Publishing both papers is a normal part of good science. I thought that good science required precision to multiple decimal points??? ;-) Sometimes in science the best you can do is an order-of-magnitude estimate (i.e., getting the power of 10 right), and sometimes that's only if you're lucky . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it hot in here?
-- From: Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040426-090538-2682r.htm Washinton Times: Sugar Daddy Moons Personal Propaganda outlet. A feverish fate for scientific truth? Lately, many have begun to wonder if Jayson Blair has a new job as their science editor. On Page 616 of the April 8 issue, Nature published an Personal attacks. No basis in reality but a favorite of the propagandist. Then, 23 pages later, Nature published an alarming and completely misleading article predicting the melting of the entire Greenland ice cap in 1,000 years, thanks to pernicious human economic activity, i.e., global warming, using a regional climate projection. And yet just a few days ago some of those same pernicious scientists--that Anti-Science 4thReichKlans hate--completed a study using 18 years worth of satellite data to show that the temperature of the surface of the earth has gone up by an average of 0.77 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-04/nsfc-saa042204.php Although an increasing trend has been observed from the global average, the regional changes can be very different, Jin said. While many regions were warming, central continental regions in North America and Asia were actually cooling. Lying liars and the lies they tell Washington Times: Making the world safe for Unificationist Fascism ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
