date:20140404



-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb

Fortunately, the University of Western Australia was not so timid; so you
can read the original paper here:

http://www.psychology.uwa.edu.au/research/cognitive/?a=2523540

Nice... don't have the time now to read it. Beautiful title though :)
Read the abstract and skimmed and spot read -- am saving it off for a later
read when I have more time... haha
Chris

Brent

On 4/3/2014 4:29 PM,
 Climate Deniers Intimidate Journal into Retracting Paper that Finds 
 They Believe Conspiracy Theories

 Ironically, it looks like they are conspiring to silence any mention of
this fact!

 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-intimidate-j
 ournal-into-retracting-paper-that-finds-they-believe-conspiracy-theori
 es

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Max and FPI



On 03 Apr 2014, at 08:56, LizR wrote:

As I understand it, the QM interpretation movement stalled for  
about 30 years before the MWI came along.


My view on this has changed. I tend to think that the Newton/Huygens  
debate, which was a debate about the nature of light (particle, for  
Newton; wave for Huygens), was already a forerunner of the quantum  
mystery, as I have discovered that both Newton and Huygens were aware  
that light seemed to have both behavior, and that seemed already  
contradictory. Of course things get worse, when much more later de  
Broglie suggested that all piece of matter, notably the electrons,  
have that contradictory/paradoxical nature. De Brogie's thesis will be  
rejected, until Einstein will defend it, and that's a key moment in  
the birth of QM. We have to wait Born probability idea to get the  
modern interpretation problem. Neither Einstein, nor de Broglie will  
be happy with Born, and the taking at face value of the wave. De  
Broglie will defend, then abandon, then come back to the pilot wave  
(an hidden variable theory), but de Broglie will insist that it is a  
local phenomenon. Einstein, will never admit indeterminacy and non- 
locality (that he discovered), and well, we don't have to, if we are  
open to the MWI, which is only QM applied to the couple observer/ 
observed.


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [foar] Amoeba's Secret now available in paperback



On 03 Apr 2014, at 16:42, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:

FWIW, on a flight this weekend I read a bit of Amoeba's Secret on my  
kindle while the stranger in the seat next to me was reading  
Tegmark's book.  If plane rides didn't make me fall unconscious  
almost immediately, that might have been grounds for an interesting  
live discussion. :)


Lol.

To sleep in a plane is like to sleep when you are high! Some people do  
that. You miss the sun above the clouds! It is magic. I love plane.


Bruno




On Thursday, March 27, 2014 1:35:57 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
Thanks Russell, just ordered a copy as well. It will dovetail in  
nicely with Max Tegmark's book, ...



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Climate models



On 03 Apr 2014, at 17:46, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

They're trying to find that jet that got lost on the Indian Ocean  
somewhere. But most of the objects the satellites zoom in on are  
just... trash. Ocean garbage is creating so many false positives,  
that it impedes finding a missing plane.


You don't even have to be green to understand that it's not  
productive or rational to keep having mountains of redundant  
material and poison keep accumulating and multiplying around us. The  
discussion in the total black white form displayed occasionally in  
this thread, is a U.S. phenomenon.


Everybody else has moved on from yes/no to the how-question and its  
economic, political, regulatory traps/subtleties, which, with  
prohibition background, are complex/insane enough.


For instance, people I know involved in monitoring plant species to  
assess efficacy of local measures to help biodiversity do its thing,  
are often trapped in some political game of stakeholders.  
Scientists: It would be good to reseed those plots properly with  
local species now. Green Politics/Money: Don't do it now! Wait  
until next year, so we have more 'devastation leverage' in our data.  
Otherwise, no contract.


So yes, prohibition/politics are very much intertwined with the  
question and hinder simple scientific common sense; even by the  
green political conspirators. PGC


If we tolerate lies in politics, like we did with cannabis, lies can  
only spread, and we loss power, and can no more trust the politicians,  
and eventually larger and larger layer of the society.
After the watergate americans voted for a capping (limitation) of  
money that we can give for electoral campaign, but this has just been  
removed (yesterday!). That is not good news.


Yes, I think the climate problem is only a symptom of a bigger and  
deeper problem, about the very working of the democracies, and its  
perversion by the grey money, the fear selling, if not the  
catastrophes merchandising. Some banks invests in catastrophes,  
bankruptcy, etc.


Bruno









On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:03, LizR wrote:

On 3 April 2014 05:56, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com  
wrote:

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of smi...@zonnet.nl

It is the belief that the scentists can be trusted to do the  
research they
are supposed to do in a scientifically responsible way, vs. the  
belief in
the conspiracy theory that the entire scientific field has been  
hijacked by

ultra left wing environmental pressure groups.

Saibal

A conspiracy theory that has become spread through massive funding  
by the
big holders of fossil carbon reserves -- seeking to protect the  
future

valuation of those reserves, which has a large impact on the current
valuation of their carbon holdings. An eminently rational (if  
cynical)
motive, for these narrow carbon interests, but one that has sowed  
confusion
and doubt, using the same junk science (and left wing hijacked  
science)
accusations that were perfected by Big Tobacco in the preceding  
decades. It
worked then for Big Tobacco and this same strategy of sowing  
falsehoods,  is

working now for the big carbon interests.

Exactly. It's even been making some headway in the interests of  
denying evolution, for God (as it were) knows what reason.



That is why I don't think politics is possible as long as  
prohibition continue. It has been used as a sort of Trojan horse for  
bandits, and they will sell you what they want.


Stopping prohibition will not be enough. We must separate politics  
from money. We should vote on ideas and not humans. We should find a  
way to prevent democracies against propaganda, if not corporatism.


The green should be ally with the antiprohibitionists. I do think  
that prohibition is the deep reason of possible climate  
perturbation, and economy.
Like the abandon of rationality in the spiritual is the deep  
reason of why the non-sensical prohibition has seem conceivable today.



Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!

2014-04-04 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:

On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit, rather than
'what it might mean' thus removing all constructs and myths surrounding it.
Dr. Maurice Bucaille did something similar when he examined the scriptures
in the light of scientific knowledge. Online translation:

https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf

To be fair, you have to allow that if there is a scientific inaccuracy in
a holy book which is considered the word of God then, unless God got the
science wrong, that would be evidence against the holy book being the word
of God. The problem is that even if a believer says they are open-minded in
this way they don't really mean it because that would be an admission that
they are willing to test God, which is contrary to faith and therefore bad.

What are you called if you are willing to test god?
A believer?

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!

2014-04-04 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On 4 April 2014 20:33, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:

On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf

What are you called if you are willing to test god?
A believer?

Rational.

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!

2014-04-04 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On 4 April 2014 16:41, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:


 What is more important? Faith or Honest Faith? How can we honestly believe
 in God when we think God doesn't know what He created? I think its a
 disservice to God, to religion and to ourselves when we choose to not to
 question Faith, and not to examine it. Its not 'to test God', rather its to
 test what we accept as from God.
 If we believe in Life After Death, then the quality of our life in the
 Hereafter is dependent on the version of scripture that we took on faith.
 If Judgement is inevitable, then it is of utmost importance that we base
 our beliefs and actions upon critical inquiry and honest understanding.


So are you saying that if a scientific error is pointed out to you in the
Bible or the Quran you will accept that they are not the word of God?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!

2014-04-04 Thread Samiya Illias

Stathis Papaioannou asks:
So are you saying that if a scientific error is pointed out to you in the
Bible or the Quran you will accept that they are not the word of God?

Honest answer: I don't know.

To quote from the last paragraph of General Conclusions from Dr Maurice
Bucaille's book:
'In view of the level of knowledge in Muhammad's day, it is inconceivable
that many of the statements In the Qur'an which are connected with science
could have been the work of a man. It is, moreover, perfectly legitimate,
not only to regard the Qur'an as the expression of a Revelation, but also
to award it a very special place, on account of the guarantee of
authenticity it provides and *the presence in it of scientific statements
which, when studied today, appear as a challenge to explanation in human
terms. *'

All I ask that scientists evaluate these in the light of today's
discoveries. I think we all stand to benefit from it.

Samiya


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:




 On 4 April 2014 16:41, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:


 What is more important? Faith or Honest Faith? How can we honestly
 believe in God when we think God doesn't know what He created? I think its
 a disservice to God, to religion and to ourselves when we choose to not to
 question Faith, and not to examine it. Its not 'to test God', rather its to
 test what we accept as from God.
 If we believe in Life After Death, then the quality of our life in the
 Hereafter is dependent on the version of scripture that we took on faith.
 If Judgement is inevitable, then it is of utmost importance that we base
 our beliefs and actions upon critical inquiry and honest understanding.


 So are you saying that if a scientific error is pointed out to you in the
 Bible or the Quran you will accept that they are not the word of God?


 --
 Stathis Papaioannou

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!

2014-04-04 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2014-04-04 12:20 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:

 Stathis Papaioannou asks:

 So are you saying that if a scientific error is pointed out to you in the
 Bible or the Quran you will accept that they are not the word of God?

 Honest answer: I don't know.

 To quote from the last paragraph of General Conclusions from Dr Maurice
 Bucaille's book:
 'In view of the level of knowledge in Muhammad's day, it is inconceivable
 that many of the statements In the Qur'an which are connected with science
 could have been the work of a man.


The easiest explanation is often the best... the easiest is that it came
from men What are such inconceivable statements that defies men of
the 6th century ? As they are that many, should be easy.

Quentin



 It is, moreover, perfectly legitimate, not only to regard the Qur'an as
 the expression of a Revelation, but also to award it a very special place,
 on account of the guarantee of authenticity it provides and *the presence
 in it of scientific statements which, when studied today, appear as a
 challenge to explanation in human terms. *'

 All I ask that scientists evaluate these in the light of today's
 discoveries. I think we all stand to benefit from it.

 Samiya


 On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:




 On 4 April 2014 16:41, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:


 What is more important? Faith or Honest Faith? How can we honestly
 believe in God when we think God doesn't know what He created? I think its
 a disservice to God, to religion and to ourselves when we choose to not to
 question Faith, and not to examine it. Its not 'to test God', rather its to
 test what we accept as from God.
 If we believe in Life After Death, then the quality of our life in the
 Hereafter is dependent on the version of scripture that we took on faith.
 If Judgement is inevitable, then it is of utmost importance that we base
 our beliefs and actions upon critical inquiry and honest understanding.


 So are you saying that if a scientific error is pointed out to you in the
 Bible or the Quran you will accept that they are not the word of God?


 --
 Stathis Papaioannou

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!

2014-04-04 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:




 2014-04-04 12:20 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:

 Stathis Papaioannou asks:

 So are you saying that if a scientific error is pointed out to you in the
 Bible or the Quran you will accept that they are not the word of God?

 Honest answer: I don't know.

 To quote from the last paragraph of General Conclusions from Dr Maurice
 Bucaille's book:
 'In view of the level of knowledge in Muhammad's day, it is
 inconceivable that many of the statements In the Qur'an which are connected
 with science could have been the work of a man.


 The easiest explanation is often the best... the easiest is that it came
 from men What are such inconceivable statements that defies men of
 the 6th century ? As they are that many, should be easy.


Clearly they came from men. But my personal subjective experience leads me
to believe that the words could have come from a channel and that
channeling  is an existent phenomenon. Channels are usually women, like the
oracles.
Richard


 Quentin



 It is, moreover, perfectly legitimate, not only to regard the Qur'an as
 the expression of a Revelation, but also to award it a very special place,
 on account of the guarantee of authenticity it provides and *the
 presence in it of scientific statements which, when studied today, appear
 as a challenge to explanation in human terms. *'

 All I ask that scientists evaluate these in the light of today's
 discoveries. I think we all stand to benefit from it.

 Samiya


 On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Stathis Papaioannou 
 stath...@gmail.comwrote:




 On 4 April 2014 16:41, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:


 What is more important? Faith or Honest Faith? How can we honestly
 believe in God when we think God doesn't know what He created? I think its
 a disservice to God, to religion and to ourselves when we choose to not to
 question Faith, and not to examine it. Its not 'to test God', rather its to
 test what we accept as from God.
 If we believe in Life After Death, then the quality of our life in the
 Hereafter is dependent on the version of scripture that we took on faith.
 If Judgement is inevitable, then it is of utmost importance that we base
 our beliefs and actions upon critical inquiry and honest understanding.


 So are you saying that if a scientific error is pointed out to you in
 the Bible or the Quran you will accept that they are not the word of God?


 --
 Stathis Papaioannou

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




 --
 All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
 Batty/Rutger Hauer)

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!

2014-04-04 Thread meekerdb


On 4/3/2014 10:47 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:

To see what I mean, please read the book by Dr Maurice Bucaille
https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf 



Oh, so you didn't mean *literally*; because that wouldn't need a book to 
explain it.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!

On 04 Apr 2014, at 11:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 4 April 2014 20:33, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:

On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit, rather
than 'what it might mean' thus removing all constructs and myths
surrounding it. Dr. Maurice Bucaille did something similar when he
examined the scriptures in the light of scientific knowledge. Online
translation:

https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf

To be fair, you have to allow that if there is a scientific
inaccuracy in a holy book which is considered the word of God then,
unless God got the science wrong, that would be evidence against the
holy book being the word of God. The problem is that even if a
believer says they are open-minded in this way they don't really
mean it because that would be an admission that they are willing to
test God, which is contrary to faith and therefore bad.

What are you called if you are willing to test god?
A believer?

Rational.

Yes. And as long the test does not contradict his theory, he can
develop a rational belief, which is basically a positive attitude
about some assumption.

In the case of God, there is one more difficulty, which is the
difficulty to agree on some non trivial definition which should be
precise enough to make a test meaningful and interesting.

With some definition, God can also been disproved, or proved, in
mathematical theories. Gödel's formalization of St-Anselmus' notion of
God makes its existence provable in the modal logic S5 (the Leibnizian
theory).

About Bucaille I will take a second look, but from I read quickly, it
seems to me to take for granted Aristotle's God (the creation, the
universe), and well, I have some doubt. It is very hard to interpret
such texts. It is too much easy to reinterpret favorably some
paragraph, and for a neoplatonist, this would mean that the author of
the sacred text did just have some insight/intuition, which for a
neoplatonist is always divine. In that case, both the existence of the
work of ramanujan, but also the existence of arithmetic in high school
are evidence for some God. Alice in Wonderland too.

I am uneasy with a priori sacralization of books, as it looks to me
like an encouragement to authoritative arguments. Any one is free to
feel some text divine, but to put divine on the front looks close to
blasphemous to me (doubly so when true).

Bruno

--
Stathis Papaioannou

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!

2014-04-04 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 04 Apr 2014, at 11:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 4 April 2014 20:33, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou
stath...@gmail.comwrote:

On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf

To be fair, you have to allow that if there is a scientific inaccuracy
in a holy book which is considered the word of God then, unless God got the
science wrong, that would be evidence against the holy book being the word
of God. The problem is that even if a believer says they are open-minded in
this way they don't really mean it because that would be an admission that
they are willing to test God, which is contrary to faith and therefore bad.

What are you called if you are willing to test god?
A believer?

Rational.

Yes. And as long the test does not contradict his theory, he can develop a
rational belief, which is basically a positive attitude about some
assumption.

In the case of God, there is one more difficulty, which is the
difficulty to agree on some non trivial definition which should be precise
enough to make a test meaningful and interesting.

With some definition, God can also been disproved, or proved, in
mathematical theories. Gödel's formalization of St-Anselmus' notion of God
makes its existence provable in the modal logic S5 (the Leibnizian theory).

About Bucaille I will take a second look, but from I read quickly, it
seems to me to take for granted Aristotle's God (the creation, the
universe), and well, I have some doubt. It is very hard to interpret such
texts. It is too much easy to reinterpret favorably some paragraph, and
for a neoplatonist, this would mean that the author of the sacred text did
just have some insight/intuition, which for a neoplatonist is always
divine. In that case, both the existence of the work of ramanujan, but also
the existence of arithmetic in high school are evidence for some God.
Alice in Wonderland too.

Why Alice in Wonderland?

I am uneasy with a priori sacralization of books, as it looks to me like
an encouragement to authoritative arguments. Any one is free to feel some
text divine, but to put divine on the front looks close to blasphemous to
me (doubly so when true).

Bruno

--
Stathis Papaioannou

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!

2014-04-04 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2014-04-04 19:05 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com:

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 04 Apr 2014, at 11:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 4 April 2014 20:33, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou
stath...@gmail.comwrote:

On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit, rather than
'what it might mean' thus removing all constructs and myths surrounding
it.
Dr. Maurice Bucaille did something similar when he examined the scriptures
in the light of scientific knowledge. Online translation:

https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf

To be fair, you have to allow that if there is a scientific inaccuracy
in a holy book which is considered the word of God then, unless God got the
science wrong, that would be evidence against the holy book being the word
of God. The problem is that even if a believer says they are open-minded in
this way they don't really mean it because that would be an admission that
they are willing to test God, which is contrary to faith and therefore bad.

What are you called if you are willing to test god?
A believer?

Rational.

Yes. And as long the test does not contradict his theory, he can develop
a rational belief, which is basically a positive attitude about some
assumption.

In the case of God, there is one more difficulty, which is the
difficulty to agree on some non trivial definition which should be precise
enough to make a test meaningful and interesting.

With some definition, God can also been disproved, or proved, in
mathematical theories. Gödel's formalization of St-Anselmus' notion of God
makes its existence provable in the modal logic S5 (the Leibnizian theory).

About Bucaille I will take a second look, but from I read quickly, it
seems to me to take for granted Aristotle's God (the creation, the
universe), and well, I have some doubt. It is very hard to interpret such
texts. It is too much easy to reinterpret favorably some paragraph, and
for a neoplatonist, this would mean that the author of the sacred text did
just have some insight/intuition, which for a neoplatonist is always
divine. In that case, both the existence of the work of ramanujan, but also
the existence of arithmetic in high school are evidence for some God.
Alice in Wonderland too.

Why Alice in Wonderland?

To know that, you have to follow the white rabbit.

I am uneasy with a priori sacralization of books, as it looks to me like
an encouragement to authoritative arguments. Any one is free to feel some
text divine, but to put divine on the front looks close to blasphemous to
me (doubly so when true).

Bruno

--
Stathis Papaioannou

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!

2014-04-04 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

2014-04-04 19:05 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com:

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 04 Apr 2014, at 11:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 4 April 2014 20:33, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:

On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit, rather than
'what it might mean' thus removing all constructs and myths surrounding
it.
Dr. Maurice Bucaille did something similar when he examined the
scriptures
in the light of scientific knowledge. Online translation:

https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf

To be fair, you have to allow that if there is a scientific inaccuracy
in a holy book which is considered the word of God then, unless God got
the
science wrong, that would be evidence against the holy book being the word
of God. The problem is that even if a believer says they are open-minded
in
this way they don't really mean it because that would be an admission that
they are willing to test God, which is contrary to faith and therefore
bad.

What are you called if you are willing to test god?
A believer?

Rational.

Yes. And as long the test does not contradict his theory, he can develop
a rational belief, which is basically a positive attitude about some
assumption.

In the case of God, there is one more difficulty, which is the
difficulty to agree on some non trivial definition which should be precise
enough to make a test meaningful and interesting.

With some definition, God can also been disproved, or proved, in
mathematical theories. Gödel's formalization of St-Anselmus' notion of God
makes its existence provable in the modal logic S5 (the Leibnizian theory).

About Bucaille I will take a second look, but from I read quickly, it
seems to me to take for granted Aristotle's God (the creation, the
universe), and well, I have some doubt. It is very hard to interpret such
texts. It is too much easy to reinterpret favorably some paragraph, and
for a neoplatonist, this would mean that the author of the sacred text did
just have some insight/intuition, which for a neoplatonist is always
divine. In that case, both the existence of the work of ramanujan, but also
the existence of arithmetic in high school are evidence for some God.
Alice in Wonderland too.

Why Alice in Wonderland?

To know that, you have to follow the white rabbit.

I am uneasy with a priori sacralization of books, as it looks to me like
an encouragement to authoritative arguments. Any one is free to feel some
text divine, but to put divine on the front looks close to blasphemous to
me (doubly so when true).

Bruno

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: Climate models

2014-04-04 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:03, LizR wrote:

 On 3 April 2014 05:56, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:

 -Original Message-
 From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of smi...@zonnet.nl

 It is the belief that the scentists can be trusted to do the research they
 are supposed to do in a scientifically responsible way, vs. the belief in
 the conspiracy theory that the entire scientific field has been hijacked
 by
 ultra left wing environmental pressure groups.

 Saibal

 A conspiracy theory that has become spread through massive funding by the
 big holders of fossil carbon reserves -- seeking to protect the future
 valuation of those reserves, which has a large impact on the current
 valuation of their carbon holdings. An eminently rational (if cynical)
 motive, for these narrow carbon interests, but one that has sowed
 confusion
 and doubt, using the same junk science (and left wing hijacked
 science)
 accusations that were perfected by Big Tobacco in the preceding decades.
 It
 worked then for Big Tobacco and this same strategy of sowing falsehoods,
  is
 working now for the big carbon interests.

 Exactly. It's even been making some headway in the interests of denying
 evolution, for God (as it were) knows what reason.



 That is why I don't think politics is possible as long as prohibition
 continue. It has been used as a sort of Trojan horse for bandits, and they
 will sell you what they want.

 Stopping prohibition will not be enough. We must separate politics from
 money.


Agreed, but I think there's a subtly here -- politics in necessarily about
money, because money is the fundamental tool that we have to manage
resources, unless someone figures out a way to make communism work. There's
nothing fundamentally good or evil about money, it's just a neutral tool
that can be used both ways.

I see the problem as more one of managing incentives. People react to
incentives. I strongly believe that the pollution problem could be
mitigated quickly if the free market had the incentive to do so. Carbon
credits are a horrible idea, because they reinforce bad behaviours without
creating the incentives that can actually solve the problem.

If an objective cost can be calculated for the damage that certain
companies cause to the environment, then let's charge them for this and
re-distribute this money directly to the people, with no special rules or
distinctions. Just a simple division. None of this money should ever fall
under the control of politicians. Then the companies have an incentive to
solve the problem, and less people have an incentive to lie.

This should be purely handed by the police and the courts, in the same way
that they are used to place a cost on other undesirable behaviours. If
instead this money falls under the control of politicians, we now have two
problems.

Best,
Telmo.


 We should vote on ideas and not humans. We should find a way to prevent
 democracies against propaganda, if not corporatism.

 The green should be ally with the antiprohibitionists. I do think that
 prohibition is the deep reason of possible climate perturbation, and
 economy.
 Like the abandon of rationality in the spiritual is the deep reason of
 why the non-sensical prohibition has seem conceivable today.


 Bruno


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Shale unconventional oil play is just a bubble (and one that is about to burst) -- reserves have been wildly overstated.

This article is packed full of falsehoods that a simple bit of research
could correct.

read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale

As to its main point, all predictions are based on models. Models are never
the real thing. Duh! So some expert has a wrong model. Big News! LOL.
What is the point of making a big deal about this if not to spread
uncertainty and doubt. Good job being an unpaid hack for oil future short
sellers.

On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:16:35 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:

This article from Bloomberg delves into some detail on how the
unconventional oil sector is actually based on unreliable numbers -- with
reserve estimates and production curves that have proven to have been
wildly overstated -- to the point of criminal conspiracy to defraud
investors (I would argue)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-03/old-math-casts-doubt-on-accuracy-of-oil-reserve-estimates.html
Old Math Casts Doubt on Accuracy of Oil Reserve Estimates
Jan Arps is the most influential oilman you’ve never heard of.
In 1945, Arps, then a 33-year-old petroleum engineer for British-American
Oil Producing Co., published a formula to predict how much crude a well
will produce and when it will run dry. The Arps method has become one of
the most widely used measures in the industry. Companies rely on it to
predict the profitability of drilling, secure loans and report reserves to
regulators. When Representative Ed
Roycehttp://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Ed%20Roycesite=wnewsclient=wnewsproxystylesheet=wnewsoutput=xml_no_dtdie=UTF-8oe=UTF-8filter=pgetfields=wnnissort=date:D:S:d1partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYNDlr=-lang_ja,

a California Republican, said at a March 26 hearing in Washington that the
U.S. should start exporting its oil to undermine Russian influence, his
forecast of “increasing U.S. energy production” can be traced back to Arps.
The problem is the Arps equation has been twisted to apply to shale
technology, which didn’t exist when Arps died in 1976. John Lee, a
University of Houston engineering professor and an authority on estimating
reserves, said billions of barrels of untapped shale oil in the U.S. are
counted by companies relying on limited drilling history and tweaks to
Arps’s formula that exaggerate future production. That casts doubt on how
close the U.S. will get to energy independence, a goal that’s nearer than
at any time since 1985, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information
Administration.
http://www.bloomberg.com/photo/oil-/-itgilbEjwUBA.htmlPhotographer: Ken
James/Bloomberg
To replace the Arps calculation, researchers are testing new formulas with
names worthy... Read
Morehttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-03/old-math-casts-doubt-on-accuracy-of-oil-reserve-estimates.html#
“Things could turn out more pessimistic than people project,” said Lee.
“The long-term production of some of those oil-rich wells may be
overstated.”
Calculate Reserves
Lee’s criticisms have opened a rift in the industry about how to measure
the stores of crude trapped within rock formations thousands of feet below
the earth’s surface. In a newsletter published this year by Houston-based
Ryder
Scott Co. http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/0835143D:US, which helps
drillers calculate reserves, Lee called for an industry conference to
address what he said are inconsistent approaches. The Arps method is
particularly open to abuse, he said.
U.S. oil production has increased 40 percent since the end of 2011 as
drillers target layers of oil-bearing rock such as the Bakken shale in North
Dakota http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/CROMND:IND, the Eagle Ford in
Texas http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/CROMTX:IND, and the Mississippi
Lime in Kansas andOklahoma http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/CROMOK:IND,
according to the EIA. The U.S. is on track to become the world’s largest
oil producer by next year, according to the Paris-based International
Energy Agency. A report from London-based consultants Wood Mackenzie said
that by 2020 the Bakken’s output alone will be 1.7 million barrels a day,
from 1.1 million now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/photo/an-oil-drilling-rig-stands-in-north-dakota-/-ih0UDS7y0m40.htmlPhotographer:

Matthew Staver/Bloomberg
U.S. oil production has increased 40 percent since the end of 2011 as
drillers target... Read
Morehttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-03/old-math-casts-doubt-on-accuracy-of-oil-reserve-estimates.html#
U.S. crude benchmark West Texas Intermediate fell 41 cents to $99.21 a
barrel at 10:10 a.m London time in electronic trading on the New York
Mercantile Exchange. It has risen 0.8 percent this year.
Inherently Uncertain
Predicting the future is an inherently uncertain business, and Arps’s
method works as well as any other, said Scott Wilson, a senior vice
president in Ryder Scott’s Denver office.
“No one method does it right every time,” Wilson said. “Arps is just a
tool. If you blame

Re: Video of VCR



On 04 Apr 2014, at 03:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, April 3, 2014 2:34:06 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Apr 2014, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 1:00:54 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Apr 2014, at 21:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:

I believe you, but all of the laws and creativity can still only  
occur in the context of a sense making experience.


Did I ever said the contrary?

Yes, you are saying that multiplication and addition laws prefigure  
sense making and sense experience.


It makes the minimal sense *you* need to understand what we talk  
about. That sense has already been studied and has itself some  
mathematical representation.
Then, once you have the numbers, and the laws of + and *, you can  
prove the existence of the universal numbers and their  
computations. The universal numbers are the sense discovering  
machine.


It doesn't matter how minimal the sense is by our standards. In  
that frame of reference, before we exist, it is much sense as there  
could ever be. If there is sense to make + and *, then numbers can  
only act as conduit to shape that sense, not to create it. You're  
interested in understanding numbers, but I'm only interested in  
understanding the sense that makes everything (including, but not  
limited to numbers).


You ignore the discovery that numbers can understand and make sense  
of many things, with reasonable and understandable definitions  
(with some work).


Just as we depend our eyes to make sense of our retinal cells  
sense, so to do numbers act as lenses and filters to capture sense  
for us. That does not mean that what sense is made through numbers  
belong to numbers.



Of course. Comp might be false. ~comp, we agree on this since the  
start. But it does not add anything to your []~comp. You persist to  
confuse ~[]comp and []~comp.


I'm not confusing them, I'm saying that []~comp is not untrue


this means you say []~comp is true.

Or that you confuse, like you did already truth and knowledge, but  
in that case you keep saying that you know []~comp, yet your argument  
above was only for ~[]comp, on which I already agree, as it is a  
consequence of comp.




just because it is outside of logic. When you arbitrarily begin from  
the 3p perspective, you can only see the flatland version of 1p  
intuition. You would have to consider the possibility that numbers  
can come from this kind of intuition and not the other way around.  
If you put your fingers in your ears, and only listen to formalism,  
then you can only hear what formalism has to say about intuition,  
which is... not much.


Why?

























All that can still make sense in the theory according to which  
sense is a gift by Santa Klaus.


And this is not an argument against your theory, nor against the  
existence of Santa Klaus.


Concerning your theory, I find it uninteresting because it abandons  
my entire field of inquiry: making sense of sense.


I don't think abandoned as much as frees it from trying to do the  
impossible. I see mathematics as being even more useful when we  
know that it is safe from gaining autonomous intent.



Comp implies that Arithmetic is not free of autonomous intent,  
trivially. But computer science provides many realities capable of  
justifying or defining autonomous intent.


I was talking about the theory of comp being over-extended to try  
to explain qualia and awareness.



It helps to formulate the problems, and provides way to test  
indirect predictions.


But again you are pursuing the confusion between ~[]comp and []~comp.

There's no confusion. If comp cannot justify actual qualia, but  
~comp can, then we should give ~comp the benefit of the doubt.



comp implies that ~comp has the benefits of the doubt. I told you  
this many times.

As I just repeated above, this does not refute comp.

What does it mean to give it the benefit of the doubt but then deny  
it?



You are the only one who deny a theory here.

I never said that comp is true, or that comp is false. I say only that  
comp leads to a Plato/aristotle reversal, to be short.


But *you* say that comp is false, and that is why we ask you an  
argument. The argument has to be understandable, and not of the type  
let us abandon logic and ..., which is like God told me ..., and  
has zero argumentative value.







Comp is Gödelian. It behaves like consistency (~[]f, t), which  
entails the consistency of its negation: t - []f.


Not sure what you mean. Maybe if you wrote it out without symbols.


If I am consistent then it is consistent that I am not consistent.
(I = the 3p notion of self).





























But in logic and computer science, we do have theories relating  
formula/theories/machine and some mathematical notion senses  
(models, interpretation, valuation) usually infinite or transfinite.


But I have never said that you are wrong with your theory. Only  
that the use of

Re: [foar] COMP = no cloning?

All of those different versions of you have slightly different quantum 
states, or else they would be exactly this you and not a different 
version. There is no contradiction.

On Monday, March 24, 2014 5:55:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:

 According to MWI I am not unique for there are many versions of myself 
 having made different choices and now living different lives. Therefore I 
 am being cloned all the time. As I understand comp, it is consistent with 
 MWI. That in itself seems contradictory to the no-cloning theorem to me.
 Richard


 On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Kim Jones 
 kimj...@ozemail.com.aujavascript:
  wrote:


 On 25 Mar 2014, at 8:00 am, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.comjavascript: 
 wrote:

 Well then the question is How is cloning different from Asking the doctor 
 to gather info from the substitution level to reproduce you at two 
 different locations? To me at least that seems to be essentially cloning 
 you.
 Richard


 How many number 2s are there? How many versions of 17 are there? You are 
 a number, which surely makes you unique.

 You are unique. Just like everyone else..

 Kim





 On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:35 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:

 On 25 March 2014 08:18, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com 
 javascript:wrote:

 Bruno,
 How does cloning differ from asking the doctor.
 Forgive me but it seems that you are being contradictory-
 just to indicate that this is an important question.
 Richard

 If you don't mind me asking, how is Bruno being contradictory? I 
 thought his explanation made perfect sense (assuming comp, of course).
  
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
 an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to 
 everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

  -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything

2014-04-04 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Bruno:
 

On Friday, April 4, 2014 12:36:13 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 Hal,

 Yes, we might be on the same length wave for the ultimate TOE, 

 
Thank you
 

 but your terming is rather terrible.
  

 
I will work on it, perhaps needing some help.
 
Today I tend to think of the current state of my model as managing to 
parachute in using a bed sheet without sustaining a fatal injury.
 
Hal
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

2014-04-04 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:

 Solar PV is here today


Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR RD, and yet solar PV
is still just a rounding error in our total energy budget.

 I see the practical technological limits that constrain what can actually
 be accomplished.


Apparently not.


 Oh for heavens sake! There is no Uranium shortage and Thorium is 4 times
 as abundant and easier to separate from it's ore than Uranium is, and we
 can only get energy from .7% of the Uranium but  we can use 100% of the
 Thorium! So do you REALLY want to say we shouldn't consider Thorium because
 we can't get enough of it??


  Wrong again


I want to know if I really understand you correctly, are you saying that a
major problem (or even a minor problem) with using Thorium for energy is
that there isn't enough of it? Is that really your position?


  the world is facing a recoverable uranium peak that will be reached
 within a decade or two (at current extraction rates, if nuclear is ramped
 up peak uranium will be reached that much sooner).


Uranium prices are the lowest they've been in  8 years. I found a chart for
the last 5 years:



And so I would like to make a public bet with you and see if you're willing
to put your money where your mouth is. You say the shit will hit the fan
within a decade or two, so if before April 4 2024 there is widespread
reactor shutdowns because of Uranium shortages (and not due to temper
tantrums from environmentalists) then, assuming I'm still alive, I will
send you $1000; if there are not widespread reactor shutdowns because of
Uranium shortages before April 4 2024 then, assuming you're still alive,
you only needs to send me $100. So do we have a bet? Come on I'm giving you
10 to 1 odds!

 You are the one making the claim that extracting 12 grams of Thorium
 from one meter of dirt would take more energy than the Thorium could
 produce, so it is up to you to show it's true; although nobody would be
 dumb enough to bother with such dirt when there is ore that contains 50%
 Thorium available.


  Whatever.


Yes, whatever.

 I do not inhabit the same magical thinking universe you seem to live in.


How nice for you, therefore by accepting my bet you can make an easy $1000.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: The Shale unconventional oil play is just a bubble (and one that is about to burst) -- reserves have been wildly overstated.

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR

 

On 4 April 2014 08:16, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:

 

This article from Bloomberg delves into some detail on how the
unconventional oil sector is actually based on unreliable numbers -- with
reserve estimates and production curves that have proven to have been wildly
overstated -- to the point of criminal conspiracy to defraud investors (I
would argue)

 

Not to mention the rest of us.

 

It's what you get when you have rule by the gangster psychopaths controlling
the global corridors of power. As Bruno has pointed out it is the drug
prohibition that has given these transnational crime families a real leg up
in penetrating then controlling institution after institution. But then
hasn't the whole of human written history been, by and large characterized
by rule by psychopaths. 

One can also say that without the sheep there would be no wolves; it is the
ease with which us humans are corralled into social herds; the predictable
human nature and habit of obedience to authority that makes it possible for
psychopaths to infiltrate organizations and take power over them (from
within) and then leverage that organizational power to control vast human
herds.

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Climate models

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 12:57 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:

 Solar PV is here today 

Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR RD, and yet solar PV
is still just a rounding error in our total energy budget.  

Haha - if you call the almost 150 GW of currently installed solar PV
capacity a rounding error that is your prerogative. 150GW is however a
significant amount of energy production capacity no matter how much you
desire to minimize its importance. The global installed capacity of solar PV
has also been doubling every two or so years for quite a while now and is
projected to surpass 300GW of globally installed PV capacity by 2017. 

Just a rounding number?

In your world maybe.

Compare this capacity with the current capacity of LFTR which is 0 watts.

 I see the practical technological limits that constrain what can actually
be accomplished. 

Apparently not.

 Oh for heavens sake! There is no Uranium shortage and Thorium is 4 times
as abundant and easier to separate from it's ore than Uranium is, and we can
only get energy from .7% of the Uranium but  we can use 100% of the Thorium!
So do you REALLY want to say we shouldn't consider Thorium because we can't
get enough of it??  

 Wrong again 

I want to know if I really understand you correctly, are you saying that a
major problem (or even a minor problem) with using Thorium for energy is
that there isn't enough of it? Is that really your position?

No it is not my position and never has been - though I take issue with your
reserve figures. The big issues with LFTR are that it simply does not exist
and in order to bring it into existence would require a large scale
concerted multi-decadal effort. The entire sector - not just the reactor
units themselves, but the entire logistical supply chain - has to be built
out from nothing.

This has always been my position, but you choose instead to frame my
position as being other than what it is for your own argumentative purposes.

 the world is facing a recoverable uranium peak that will be reached within
a decade or two (at current extraction rates, if nuclear is ramped up peak
uranium will be reached that much sooner). 

Uranium prices are the lowest they've been in  8 years. I found a chart for
the last 5 years:

So? That is a temporary effect of the highly successful ex-Soviet bombs to
reactor fuel program that the US and post-USSR Russia negotiated in the
1990s. Give it another ten years.

And so I would like to make a public bet with you and see if you're willing
to put your money where your mouth is. You say the shit will hit the fan
within a decade or two, so if before April 4 2024 there is widespread
reactor shutdowns because of Uranium shortages (and not due to temper
tantrums from environmentalists) then, assuming I'm still alive, I will send
you $1000; if there are not widespread reactor shutdowns because of Uranium
shortages before April 4 2024 then, assuming you're still alive, you only
needs to send me $100. So do we have a bet? Come on I'm giving you 10 to 1
odds!

At current rates of nuclear power production the current reserves will last
longer than ten years - but they will not if nuclear power is ramped up as
an energy generation source. When the world begins to hit peak uranium very
much depends on whether more reactors are built or not. 

 You are the one making the claim that extracting 12 grams of Thorium from
one meter of dirt would take more energy than the Thorium could produce, so
it is up to you to show it's true; although nobody would be dumb enough to
bother with such dirt when there is ore that contains 50% Thorium available.

 Whatever.

Yes, whatever.   

Yeah whater

 I do not inhabit the same magical thinking universe you seem to live in. 

How nice for you, therefore by accepting my bet you can make an easy $1000. 

Nice polemic. what assurances do I even have that you would actually pay. It
is mere bluster on your end. As I said - and it is just common sense the
date we hit peak uranium very much depends on how many operating nuclear
power plants exist in the world. If nuclear power is ramped way up - as the
pro nuclear folks would have us do - then we will hit that wall sooner. If,
instead, as seems likely nuclear continues to get phased out then we will
not hit the uranium supply peak until a later point in time. Can you follow
this simple reasoning?

Chris de Morsella

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to

Re: The Shale unconventional oil play is just a bubble (and one that is about to burst) -- reserves have been wildly overstated.

Hear, Hear! Sadly, we (collectively speaking) keep buying the smooth talk
and shiny baubles they promise and keep electing them. To oppose it we must
think for ourselves. Form opinions from facts we collect and examine them
to our best ability and collaborate with each other. It's hard work, very
hard. Most people simply would rather be blissfully ignorant...


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR



 On 4 April 2014 08:16, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:



 This article from Bloomberg delves into some detail on how the
 unconventional oil sector is actually based on unreliable numbers -- with
 reserve estimates and production curves that have proven to have been
 wildly overstated -- to the point of criminal conspiracy to defraud
 investors (I would argue)



 Not to mention the rest of us.



 It's what you get when you have rule by the gangster psychopaths
 controlling the global corridors of power. As Bruno has pointed out it is
 the drug prohibition that has given these transnational crime families a
 real leg up in penetrating then controlling institution after institution.
 But then hasn't the whole of human written history been, by and large
 characterized by rule by psychopaths.

 One can also say that without the sheep there would be no wolves; it is
 the ease with which us humans are corralled into social herds; the
 predictable human nature and habit of obedience to authority that makes it
 possible for psychopaths to infiltrate organizations and take power over
 them (from within) and then leverage that organizational power to control
 vast human herds.



 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/-LyjqBLxxFY/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

2014-04-04 Thread spudboy100


By solar and wind its isn't.


-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Apr 2, 2014 8:13 pm
Subject: Re: Climate models



On 3 April 2014 12:17,  spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

We still have to possess the technology in place to replace carbon with clean. 
Please note that New Delhi, or Auckland is not yet electrified, say to 20%.  
You cannot do a kidney transplant without a replacement kidney.   


Auckland isn't electrified??? (How am I managing to write this post?!)


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

My scepticism took a small knock today

2014-04-04 Thread LizR

Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the
door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in
most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no
thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect.

I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall.

A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and
a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy
came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message
from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken.

Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a
situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked
him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream.

Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

Hey Chris,

   About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where
I live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem
with the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have you been reading?


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella 
 cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:

   Solar PV is here today


 Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
 been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR RD, and yet solar PV
 is still just a rounding error in our total energy budget.

  I see the practical technological limits that constrain what can
 actually be accomplished.


 Apparently not.


  Oh for heavens sake! There is no Uranium shortage and Thorium is 4
 times as abundant and easier to separate from it's ore than Uranium is, and
 we can only get energy from .7% of the Uranium but  we can use 100% of the
 Thorium! So do you REALLY want to say we shouldn't consider Thorium because
 we can't get enough of it??


   Wrong again


 I want to know if I really understand you correctly, are you saying that a
 major problem (or even a minor problem) with using Thorium for energy is
 that there isn't enough of it? Is that really your position?


   the world is facing a recoverable uranium peak that will be reached
 within a decade or two (at current extraction rates, if nuclear is ramped
 up peak uranium will be reached that much sooner).


 Uranium prices are the lowest they've been in  8 years. I found a chart
 for the last 5 years:



 And so I would like to make a public bet with you and see if you're
 willing to put your money where your mouth is. You say the shit will hit
 the fan within a decade or two, so if before April 4 2024 there is
 widespread reactor shutdowns because of Uranium shortages (and not due to
 temper tantrums from environmentalists) then, assuming I'm still alive, I
 will send you $1000; if there are not widespread reactor shutdowns because
 of Uranium shortages before April 4 2024 then, assuming you're still alive,
 you only needs to send me $100. So do we have a bet? Come on I'm giving you
 10 to 1 odds!

  You are the one making the claim that extracting 12 grams of Thorium
 from one meter of dirt would take more energy than the Thorium could
 produce, so it is up to you to show it's true; although nobody would be
 dumb enough to bother with such dirt when there is ore that contains 50%
 Thorium available.


   Whatever.


 Yes, whatever.

   I do not inhabit the same magical thinking universe you seem to live
 in.


 How nice for you, therefore by accepting my bet you can make an easy
 $1000.

 John K Clark


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/-LyjqBLxxFY/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Climate models

Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be counted as part of
global uranium reserves?

Why exactly?

By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why not
include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -  after all
who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all may be
recoverable.. What have you been reading? 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models

 

Hey Chris,

 

   About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where I
live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem with
the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have you been reading?

 

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:

 

 Solar PV is here today 

 

Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR RD, and yet solar PV
is still just a rounding error in our total energy budget.  

 

 I see the practical technological limits that constrain what can actually
be accomplished. 

 

Apparently not.

 

 

 Oh for heavens sake! There is no Uranium shortage and Thorium is 4 times
as abundant and easier to separate from it's ore than Uranium is, and we can
only get energy from .7% of the Uranium but  we can use 100% of the Thorium!
So do you REALLY want to say we shouldn't consider Thorium because we can't
get enough of it??  

 

 Wrong again 

 

I want to know if I really understand you correctly, are you saying that a
major problem (or even a minor problem) with using Thorium for energy is
that there isn't enough of it? Is that really your position?
 

 the world is facing a recoverable uranium peak that will be reached within
a decade or two (at current extraction rates, if nuclear is ramped up peak
uranium will be reached that much sooner). 


Uranium prices are the lowest they've been in  8 years. I found a chart for
the last 5 years:



And so I would like to make a public bet with you and see if you're willing
to put your money where your mouth is. You say the shit will hit the fan
within a decade or two, so if before April 4 2024 there is widespread
reactor shutdowns because of Uranium shortages (and not due to temper
tantrums from environmentalists) then, assuming I'm still alive, I will send
you $1000; if there are not widespread reactor shutdowns because of Uranium
shortages before April 4 2024 then, assuming you're still alive, you only
needs to send me $100. So do we have a bet? Come on I'm giving you 10 to 1
odds!

 You are the one making the claim that extracting 12 grams of Thorium from
one meter of dirt would take more energy than the Thorium could produce, so
it is up to you to show it's true; although nobody would be dumb enough to
bother with such dirt when there is ore that contains 50% Thorium available.


 

 Whatever.

 

Yes, whatever.   

 I do not inhabit the same magical thinking universe you seem to live in. 

 

How nice for you, therefore by accepting my bet you can make an easy $1000. 

John K Clark

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
Google Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/-LyjqBLxxFY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.





 

-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

  http://m.c.lnkd.licdn.com/media/p/8/000/2c9/1ca/29d0ccd.png 

 


This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to

RE: [foar] Amoeba's Secret now available in paperback

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gabriel Bodeen
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 7:43 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [foar] Amoeba's Secret now available in paperback

FWIW, on a flight this weekend I read a bit of Amoeba's Secret on my kindle 
while the stranger in the seat next to me was reading Tegmark's book.  If plane 
rides didn't make me fall unconscious almost immediately, that might have been 
grounds for an interesting live discussion. :)

Funny coincidence… what are the odds of that?

And funny enough as I was reading your post on this list my copy of Bruno’s 
book Amoeba’s Secret arrived from Amazon/UPS. I am almost done reading Max 
Tegmark’s book as well. It will be interesting to read these back to back.

Cheers,

Chris

On Thursday, March 27, 2014 1:35:57 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:

Thanks Russell, just ordered a copy as well. It will dovetail in nicely with 
Max Tegmark’s book, ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Climate models

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes

 

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 

On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:03, LizR wrote:





On 3 April 2014 05:56, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of smi...@zonnet.nl

It is the belief that the scentists can be trusted to do the research they
are supposed to do in a scientifically responsible way, vs. the belief in
the conspiracy theory that the entire scientific field has been hijacked by
ultra left wing environmental pressure groups.

Saibal

A conspiracy theory that has become spread through massive funding by the
big holders of fossil carbon reserves -- seeking to protect the future
valuation of those reserves, which has a large impact on the current
valuation of their carbon holdings. An eminently rational (if cynical)
motive, for these narrow carbon interests, but one that has sowed confusion
and doubt, using the same junk science (and left wing hijacked science)
accusations that were perfected by Big Tobacco in the preceding decades. It
worked then for Big Tobacco and this same strategy of sowing falsehoods,  is
working now for the big carbon interests.

Exactly. It's even been making some headway in the interests of denying
evolution, for God (as it were) knows what reason.

 

 

That is why I don't think politics is possible as long as prohibition
continue. It has been used as a sort of Trojan horse for bandits, and they
will sell you what they want.

 

Stopping prohibition will not be enough. We must separate politics from
money.

 

Agreed, but I think there's a subtly here -- politics in necessarily about
money, because money is the fundamental tool that we have to manage
resources, unless someone figures out a way to make communism work. There's
nothing fundamentally good or evil about money, it's just a neutral tool
that can be used both ways.

 

I see the problem as more one of managing incentives. People react to
incentives. I strongly believe that the pollution problem could be mitigated
quickly if the free market had the incentive to do so. Carbon credits are a
horrible idea, because they reinforce bad behaviours without creating the
incentives that can actually solve the problem.

 

If an objective cost can be calculated for the damage that certain
companies cause to the environment, then let's charge them for this and
re-distribute this money directly to the people, with no special rules or
distinctions. Just a simple division. None of this money should ever fall
under the control of politicians. Then the companies have an incentive to
solve the problem, and less people have an incentive to lie.

 

I have long held a similar view. The proceeds from any disincentive tax -
say a carbon tax paid for at the pump or added to a utility bill to cover
that electricity's carbon content, but also a tax on alcohol, cigarette or
other drugs.. Whatever is being levied against  - should all go into a
general fund that gets disbursed evenly amongst all citizens, without any
interdiction on this fund, whatsoever, by the greedy lobby-beholden hands of
politicians and preferably in some spread out manner - say by paying out the
annual dividend, on a person's birthday.

However this approach does not address the need to mandate certain
standards. For example catalytic converters for cars. It can get into a grey
area, where in some cases a mandated approach is more effective than one
driven by cost disincentives.

Chris

 

 

This should be purely handed by the police and the courts, in the same way
that they are used to place a cost on other undesirable behaviours. If
instead this money falls under the control of politicians, we now have two
problems.

 

Best,

Telmo.

 

We should vote on ideas and not humans. We should find a way to prevent
democracies against propaganda, if not corporatism.

 

The green should be ally with the antiprohibitionists. I do think that
prohibition is the deep reason of possible climate perturbation, and
economy. 

Like the abandon of rationality in the spiritual is the deep reason of why
the non-sensical prohibition has seem conceivable today.

 

 

Bruno

 

 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

 

 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from

Re: Climate models

Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be
a source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen
off Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward.
No challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:

 Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
 quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
 quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be counted as part of
 global uranium reserves?

 Why exactly?

 By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why not
 include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -  after all
 who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all may be
 recoverable What have you been reading?



 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
 *Sent:* Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM

 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: Climate models



 Hey Chris,



About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where
 I live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem
 with the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have you been reading?



 On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
 wrote:



  Solar PV is here today



 Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
 been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR RD, and yet solar PV
 is still just a rounding error in our total energy budget.



  I see the practical technological limits that constrain what can
 actually be accomplished.



 Apparently not.





  Oh for heavens sake! There is no Uranium shortage and Thorium is 4
 times as abundant and easier to separate from it's ore than Uranium is, and
 we can only get energy from .7% of the Uranium but  we can use 100% of the
 Thorium! So do you REALLY want to say we shouldn't consider Thorium because
 we can't get enough of it??



  Wrong again



 I want to know if I really understand you correctly, are you saying that a
 major problem (or even a minor problem) with using Thorium for energy is
 that there isn't enough of it? Is that really your position?


  the world is facing a recoverable uranium peak that will be reached
 within a decade or two (at current extraction rates, if nuclear is ramped
 up peak uranium will be reached that much sooner).


 Uranium prices are the lowest they've been in  8 years. I found a chart
 for the last 5 years:



 And so I would like to make a public bet with you and see if you're
 willing to put your money where your mouth is. You say the shit will hit
 the fan within a decade or two, so if before April 4 2024 there is
 widespread reactor shutdowns because of Uranium shortages (and not due to
 temper tantrums from environmentalists) then, assuming I'm still alive, I
 will send you $1000; if there are not widespread reactor shutdowns because
 of Uranium shortages before April 4 2024 then, assuming you're still alive,
 you only needs to send me $100. So do we have a bet? Come on I'm giving you
 10 to 1 odds!

  You are the one making the claim that extracting 12 grams of Thorium
 from one meter of dirt would take more energy than the Thorium could
 produce, so it is up to you to show it's true; although nobody would be
 dumb enough to bother with such dirt when there is ore that contains 50%
 Thorium available.



  Whatever.



 Yes, whatever.

  I do not inhabit the same magical thinking universe you seem to live in.



 How nice for you, therefore by accepting my bet you can make an easy
 $1000.

 John K Clark



 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/-LyjqBLxxFY/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.





 --

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 stephe...@provensecure.com

  http://www.provensecure.us/


 This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
 the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
 information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
 exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
 attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
 hereby

RE: Climate models

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King

 

Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be a
source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen off
Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward. No
challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.

 

Here is the thing you are betting the destiny of planet earth that these
hypothetical future technologies will become realized in time for the human
race to cheat destiny again and again. That is putting a lot of faith in
these hypothetical future technologies you seem to be counting on. 

Don't get me wrong I am actually one who wishes we already had permanent
settlements on the Moon, L2, choice NEOs, and Mars; I see and understand the
incredible resource potential of up there. 

Think of the solar capacity.. Alone. Even at earth orbital the solar flux is
around 1400 w/m2; in the micro-gravity and almost constant insolation of
high geosynchronous orbit it even begins to look attractive.

But - we are not there. We are here. On earth, with the technology we do
have and facing imminent critical energy supply peaks that will suck the
oxygen out of any grand ideas as we burn the last of what we have in global
conflict. Is this a sure outcome; I certainly hope not, but given how
politics operate globally and looking at the military focused strategy the
US has chosen to face this. well let's just say it leads me to conclude that
the odds are high that as a species we are going to blow it.

It's too bad, and I wish it were otherwise. It is how I see things - given
my understanding of the nature of human mass behavior.

Cheers,

Chris

 

P.S. I am still waiting for 2001 to happen and it is 2014. Point being that
some things - like getting from earth to orbit for example - remain
stubbornly difficult and have remained at the very limit of what we can do
with technology (in spite of forty years of technological advancement from
the days of the Apollo program) Same with fusion, always just fifty years
away.. Maybe someday, but where will the next ITER get its funding from? 

In a world swallowed up by the existential need for industrial nations to
secure their flow of petroleum supplies, and likely going to war (how many
more wars for Freedom do you see in the near future?) to do so.. There is
not going to be a whole lot left for every single other human activity.

Do not underestimate how terribly blind the logic of power can be,
constrained by the deadly calculus of the psychopathic mindset - that knows
that this is what they would do if they were in the other guys shoes. so
they do it. because they know he is surely doing it as well.

Power when it is not tempered by wisdom is the most dangerous poison in the
universe. and in us humans, it all so easily blinds us to all that is good.

We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.

 

 

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:

Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be counted as part of
global uranium reserves?

Why exactly?

By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why not
include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -  after all
who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all may be
recoverable.. What have you been reading? 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM


To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models

 

Hey Chris,

 

   About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where I
live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem with
the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have you been reading?

 

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:

 

 Solar PV is here today 

 

Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR RD, and yet solar PV
is still just a rounding error in our total energy budget.  

 

 I see the practical technological limits that constrain what can actually
be accomplished. 

 

Apparently not.

 

 

 Oh for heavens sake! There is no Uranium shortage and Thorium is 4 times
as abundant and easier to separate from it's ore than Uranium is, and we can
only get energy from .7% of the Uranium but  we can use 100% of the Thorium!
So do you REALLY want to say we shouldn't consider Thorium because we can't
get enough of it??  

 

 Wrong again 

 

I

Re: Climate models

read this paper please and ponder its implications if applied universally.
http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/24/ajae.aau001.abstract


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King



 Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
 advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be
 a source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen
 off Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward.
 No challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.



 Here is the thing you are betting the destiny of planet earth that these
 hypothetical future technologies will become realized in time for the human
 race to cheat destiny again and again. That is putting a lot of faith in
 these hypothetical future technologies you seem to be counting on.

 Don't get me wrong I am actually one who wishes we already had permanent
 settlements on the Moon, L2, choice NEOs, and Mars; I see and understand
 the incredible resource potential of up there.

 Think of the solar capacity Alone. Even at earth orbital the solar flux
 is around 1400 w/m2; in the micro-gravity and almost constant insolation of
 high geosynchronous orbit it even begins to look attractive.

 But - we are not there. We are here. On earth, with the technology we do
 have and facing imminent critical energy supply peaks that will suck the
 oxygen out of any grand ideas as we burn the last of what we have in global
 conflict. Is this a sure outcome; I certainly hope not, but given how
 politics operate globally and looking at the military focused strategy the
 US has chosen to face this... well let's just say it leads me to conclude
 that the odds are high that as a species we are going to blow it.

 It's too bad, and I wish it were otherwise. It is how I see things - given
 my understanding of the nature of human mass behavior.

 Cheers,

 Chris



 P.S. I am still waiting for 2001 to happen and it is 2014. Point being
 that some things - like getting from earth to orbit for example - remain
 stubbornly difficult and have remained at the very limit of what we can do
 with technology (in spite of forty years of technological advancement from
 the days of the Apollo program) Same with fusion, always just fifty years
 away Maybe someday, but where will the next ITER get its funding from?

 In a world swallowed up by the existential need for industrial nations to
 secure their flow of petroleum supplies, and likely going to war (how many
 more wars for Freedom do you see in the near future?) to do so There is
 not going to be a whole lot left for every single other human activity.

 Do not underestimate how terribly blind the logic of power can be,
 constrained by the deadly calculus of the psychopathic mindset - that knows
 that this is what they would do if they were in the other guys shoes... so
 they do it... because they know he is surely doing it as well.

 Power when it is not tempered by wisdom is the most dangerous poison in
 the universe... and in us humans, it all so easily blinds us to all that is
 good.

 We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.





 On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
 wrote:

 Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
 quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
 quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be counted as part of
 global uranium reserves?

 Why exactly?

 By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why not
 include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -  after all
 who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all may be
 recoverable What have you been reading?



 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
 *Sent:* Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM


 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: Climate models



 Hey Chris,



About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where
 I live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem
 with the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have you been reading?



 On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
 wrote:



  Solar PV is here today



 Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
 been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR RD, and yet solar PV
 is still just a rounding error in our total energy budget.



  I see the practical technological limits that constrain what can
 actually be accomplished.



 Apparently not.





  Oh for heavens sake! There is no

Re: Climate models

We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.

No, no problem is without a solution. Find the solution that keeps the
current equilibria in place. Our world is a chaotic and complex system. One
does not harness such a beast. One learns to ride it.


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King



 Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
 advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be
 a source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen
 off Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward.
 No challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.



 Here is the thing you are betting the destiny of planet earth that these
 hypothetical future technologies will become realized in time for the human
 race to cheat destiny again and again. That is putting a lot of faith in
 these hypothetical future technologies you seem to be counting on.

 Don't get me wrong I am actually one who wishes we already had permanent
 settlements on the Moon, L2, choice NEOs, and Mars; I see and understand
 the incredible resource potential of up there.

 Think of the solar capacity Alone. Even at earth orbital the solar flux
 is around 1400 w/m2; in the micro-gravity and almost constant insolation of
 high geosynchronous orbit it even begins to look attractive.

 But - we are not there. We are here. On earth, with the technology we do
 have and facing imminent critical energy supply peaks that will suck the
 oxygen out of any grand ideas as we burn the last of what we have in global
 conflict. Is this a sure outcome; I certainly hope not, but given how
 politics operate globally and looking at the military focused strategy the
 US has chosen to face this... well let's just say it leads me to conclude
 that the odds are high that as a species we are going to blow it.

 It's too bad, and I wish it were otherwise. It is how I see things - given
 my understanding of the nature of human mass behavior.

 Cheers,

 Chris



 P.S. I am still waiting for 2001 to happen and it is 2014. Point being
 that some things - like getting from earth to orbit for example - remain
 stubbornly difficult and have remained at the very limit of what we can do
 with technology (in spite of forty years of technological advancement from
 the days of the Apollo program) Same with fusion, always just fifty years
 away Maybe someday, but where will the next ITER get its funding from?

 In a world swallowed up by the existential need for industrial nations to
 secure their flow of petroleum supplies, and likely going to war (how many
 more wars for Freedom do you see in the near future?) to do so There is
 not going to be a whole lot left for every single other human activity.

 Do not underestimate how terribly blind the logic of power can be,
 constrained by the deadly calculus of the psychopathic mindset - that knows
 that this is what they would do if they were in the other guys shoes... so
 they do it... because they know he is surely doing it as well.

 Power when it is not tempered by wisdom is the most dangerous poison in
 the universe... and in us humans, it all so easily blinds us to all that is
 good.

 We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.





 On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
 wrote:

 Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
 quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
 quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be counted as part of
 global uranium reserves?

 Why exactly?

 By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why not
 include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -  after all
 who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all may be
 recoverable What have you been reading?



 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
 *Sent:* Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM


 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: Climate models



 Hey Chris,



About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where
 I live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem
 with the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have you been reading?



 On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
 wrote:



  Solar PV is here today



 Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
 been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR RD, and yet solar PV
 is still just a rounding error in our total energy budget.



  I see the practical

Re: My scepticism took a small knock today

2014-04-04 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Friday, April 4, 2014 6:00:09 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:

 Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the 
 door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in 
 most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no 
 thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect.

 I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall.

 A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 
 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy 
 came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message 
 from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken.

 Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a 
 situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked 
 him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream.

 Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it?


Personally I think that you have to add in the fact that you took notice of 
the happenstance, so already it was a potential coincidence. By the time it 
recurs, it is slightly more than a coincidence. What does it mean? I think 
not much but it offers a glimpse into the larger nature of time as rooted 
in experience rather than physics.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

are betting the destiny of planet earth that these hypothetical future
technologies will become realized in time for the human race to cheat
destiny again and again

Say again? What models are you trusting?


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King



 Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
 advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be
 a source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen
 off Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward.
 No challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.



 Here is the thing you are betting the destiny of planet earth that these
 hypothetical future technologies will become realized in time for the human
 race to cheat destiny again and again. That is putting a lot of faith in
 these hypothetical future technologies you seem to be counting on.

 Don't get me wrong I am actually one who wishes we already had permanent
 settlements on the Moon, L2, choice NEOs, and Mars; I see and understand
 the incredible resource potential of up there.

 Think of the solar capacity Alone. Even at earth orbital the solar flux
 is around 1400 w/m2; in the micro-gravity and almost constant insolation of
 high geosynchronous orbit it even begins to look attractive.

 But - we are not there. We are here. On earth, with the technology we do
 have and facing imminent critical energy supply peaks that will suck the
 oxygen out of any grand ideas as we burn the last of what we have in global
 conflict. Is this a sure outcome; I certainly hope not, but given how
 politics operate globally and looking at the military focused strategy the
 US has chosen to face this... well let's just say it leads me to conclude
 that the odds are high that as a species we are going to blow it.

 It's too bad, and I wish it were otherwise. It is how I see things - given
 my understanding of the nature of human mass behavior.

 Cheers,

 Chris



 P.S. I am still waiting for 2001 to happen and it is 2014. Point being
 that some things - like getting from earth to orbit for example - remain
 stubbornly difficult and have remained at the very limit of what we can do
 with technology (in spite of forty years of technological advancement from
 the days of the Apollo program) Same with fusion, always just fifty years
 away Maybe someday, but where will the next ITER get its funding from?

 In a world swallowed up by the existential need for industrial nations to
 secure their flow of petroleum supplies, and likely going to war (how many
 more wars for Freedom do you see in the near future?) to do so There is
 not going to be a whole lot left for every single other human activity.

 Do not underestimate how terribly blind the logic of power can be,
 constrained by the deadly calculus of the psychopathic mindset - that knows
 that this is what they would do if they were in the other guys shoes... so
 they do it... because they know he is surely doing it as well.

 Power when it is not tempered by wisdom is the most dangerous poison in
 the universe... and in us humans, it all so easily blinds us to all that is
 good.

 We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.





 On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
 wrote:

 Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
 quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
 quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be counted as part of
 global uranium reserves?

 Why exactly?

 By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why not
 include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -  after all
 who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all may be
 recoverable What have you been reading?



 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
 *Sent:* Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM


 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: Climate models



 Hey Chris,



About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where
 I live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem
 with the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have you been reading?



 On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
 wrote:



  Solar PV is here today



 Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
 been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR RD, and yet solar PV
 is still just a rounding error in our total energy budget.



  I see the practical technological limits that constrain what can
 actually be accomplished.

Re: Climate models

2014-04-04 Thread meekerdb

Here's the Mountain Pass rare earth mine in Southern California: 35.48°N 115.53°W It
produced cerium, lanthanium neodymium, and europium for rare earth magnets until the
Chinese undercut the market. It has huge piles of tailings rich in thorium and radium
which are at present just a waste product that is hard to get rid of because it's slightly
radioactive.

Availabililty of thorium is not a problem. Designing and building the
powerplants is.

Brent

On 4/4/2014 3:51 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

Hey Stephen -- try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not
ore quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the
minuscule quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be
counted as part of global uranium reserves?

Why exactly?

By your count the garden dirt argument -- taken to the absurd -- why
not include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy --
after all who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all
may be recoverable What have you been reading?

*From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul
King *Sent:* Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM *To:*
everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Climate models

Hey Chris,

About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near
where I live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a
huge problem with the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have
you been reading?

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella
cdemorse...@yahoo.com mailto:cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:

Solar PV is here today

Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of times more
money has been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR RD,
and yet solar PV is still just a rounding error in our total energy
budget.

I see the practical technological limits that constrain what can
actually be accomplished.

Apparently not.

Oh for heavens sake! There is no Uranium shortage and Thorium is
4 times as abundant and easier to separate from it's ore than
Uranium is, and we can only get energy from .7% of the Uranium
but we can use 100% of the Thorium! So do you REALLY want to say
we shouldn't consider Thorium because we can't get enough of it??

Wrong again

I want to know if I really understand you correctly, are you saying
that a major problem (or even a minor problem) with using Thorium for
energy is that there isn't enough of it? Is that really your
position?

the world is facing a recoverable uranium peak that will be reached
within a decade or two (at current extraction rates, if nuclear is
ramped up peak uranium will be reached that much sooner).

Uranium prices are the lowest they've been in 8 years. I found a
chart for the last 5 years:

And so I would like to make a public bet with you and see if you're
willing to put your money where your mouth is. You say the shit will
hit the fan within a decade or two, so if before April 4 2024 there
is widespread reactor shutdowns because of Uranium shortages (and not
due to temper tantrums from environmentalists) then, assuming I'm
still alive, I will send you $1000; if there are not widespread
reactor shutdowns because of Uranium shortages before April 4 2024
then, assuming you're still alive, you only needs to send me $100. So
do we have a bet? Come on I'm giving you 10 to 1 odds!

You are the one making the claim that extracting 12 grams of
Thorium from one meter of dirt would take more energy than the
Thorium could produce, so it is up to you to show it's true;
although nobody would be dumb enough to bother with such dirt
when there is ore that contains 50% Thorium available.

Whatever.

Yes, whatever.

I do not inhabit the same magical thinking universe you seem to
live in.

How nice for you, therefore by accepting my bet you can make an easy
$1000.

John K Clark

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this
topic, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/-LyjqBLxxFY/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com

mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options,
visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity

RE: Climate models

Oh come on now - a climate change denier are you? For real?

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 7:07 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models

read this paper please and ponder its implications if applied universally.

http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/24/ajae.aau001.abstract

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King

Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be a
source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen off
Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward. No
challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.

Here is the thing you are betting the destiny of planet earth that these
hypothetical future technologies will become realized in time for the human
race to cheat destiny again and again. That is putting a lot of faith in
these hypothetical future technologies you seem to be counting on. 

Don't get me wrong I am actually one who wishes we already had permanent
settlements on the Moon, L2, choice NEOs, and Mars; I see and understand the
incredible resource potential of up there. 

Think of the solar capacity.. Alone. Even at earth orbital the solar flux is
around 1400 w/m2; in the micro-gravity and almost constant insolation of
high geosynchronous orbit it even begins to look attractive.

But - we are not there. We are here. On earth, with the technology we do
have and facing imminent critical energy supply peaks that will suck the
oxygen out of any grand ideas as we burn the last of what we have in global
conflict. Is this a sure outcome; I certainly hope not, but given how
politics operate globally and looking at the military focused strategy the
US has chosen to face this. well let's just say it leads me to conclude that
the odds are high that as a species we are going to blow it.

It's too bad, and I wish it were otherwise. It is how I see things - given
my understanding of the nature of human mass behavior.

Cheers,

Chris

P.S. I am still waiting for 2001 to happen and it is 2014. Point being that
some things - like getting from earth to orbit for example - remain
stubbornly difficult and have remained at the very limit of what we can do
with technology (in spite of forty years of technological advancement from
the days of the Apollo program) Same with fusion, always just fifty years
away.. Maybe someday, but where will the next ITER get its funding from? 

In a world swallowed up by the existential need for industrial nations to
secure their flow of petroleum supplies, and likely going to war (how many
more wars for Freedom do you see in the near future?) to do so.. There is
not going to be a whole lot left for every single other human activity.

Do not underestimate how terribly blind the logic of power can be,
constrained by the deadly calculus of the psychopathic mindset - that knows
that this is what they would do if they were in the other guys shoes. so
they do it. because they know he is surely doing it as well.

Power when it is not tempered by wisdom is the most dangerous poison in the
universe. and in us humans, it all so easily blinds us to all that is good.

We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:

Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be counted as part of
global uranium reserves?

Why exactly?

By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why not
include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -  after all
who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all may be
recoverable.. What have you been reading? 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM

To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models

Hey Chris,

   About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where I
live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem with
the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have you been reading?

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:

 Solar PV is here today 

Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR RD, and yet solar PV
is still just a

RE: Climate models

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 7:09 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models

We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.

No, no problem is without a solution. Find the solution that keeps the
current equilibria in place. Our world is a chaotic and complex system. One
does not harness such a beast. One learns to ride it.

And humans are riding the planet right over the cliff. We are burning
through all the treasures of this planet as fast as we possibly can. I fail
to see the wisdom in this mad rush to use everything up. Perhaps you can
enlighten me about the wisdom in this course our civilization is on?

There are many quantifiable metrics: top soil loss, organic matter loss in
soil, rates of desertification, deforestation, bio-diversity collapse, rates
of species extinction, collapse of oceanic eco-systems. Look at the real
physically quantifiable metrics that we can measure about our world and
about our effect on it and what it's constraints are upon us.

I fail to see how you get all optimistic about our situation and see it as
even remotely being describable as keeping current equilibria in place. Our
species has had an incredibly disruptive effect on this planet; let us at
least be honest about who we are. We truly are an invasive species. and we
have succeeded in invading almost every niche of this planet's land surface
and now with factory fishing we are proving we can kill the sea as well.

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King

Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be a
source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen off
Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward. No
challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.

Here is the thing you are betting the destiny of planet earth that these
hypothetical future technologies will become realized in time for the human
race to cheat destiny again and again. That is putting a lot of faith in
these hypothetical future technologies you seem to be counting on. 

Don't get me wrong I am actually one who wishes we already had permanent
settlements on the Moon, L2, choice NEOs, and Mars; I see and understand the
incredible resource potential of up there. 

Think of the solar capacity.. Alone. Even at earth orbital the solar flux is
around 1400 w/m2; in the micro-gravity and almost constant insolation of
high geosynchronous orbit it even begins to look attractive.

But - we are not there. We are here. On earth, with the technology we do
have and facing imminent critical energy supply peaks that will suck the
oxygen out of any grand ideas as we burn the last of what we have in global
conflict. Is this a sure outcome; I certainly hope not, but given how
politics operate globally and looking at the military focused strategy the
US has chosen to face this. well let's just say it leads me to conclude that
the odds are high that as a species we are going to blow it.

It's too bad, and I wish it were otherwise. It is how I see things - given
my understanding of the nature of human mass behavior.

Cheers,

Chris

P.S. I am still waiting for 2001 to happen and it is 2014. Point being that
some things - like getting from earth to orbit for example - remain
stubbornly difficult and have remained at the very limit of what we can do
with technology (in spite of forty years of technological advancement from
the days of the Apollo program) Same with fusion, always just fifty years
away.. Maybe someday, but where will the next ITER get its funding from? 

In a world swallowed up by the existential need for industrial nations to
secure their flow of petroleum supplies, and likely going to war (how many
more wars for Freedom do you see in the near future?) to do so.. There is
not going to be a whole lot left for every single other human activity.

Do not underestimate how terribly blind the logic of power can be,
constrained by the deadly calculus of the psychopathic mindset - that knows
that this is what they would do if they were in the other guys shoes. so
they do it. because they know he is surely doing it as well.

Power when it is not tempered by wisdom is the most dangerous poison in the
universe. and in us humans, it all so easily blinds us to all that is good.

We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:

Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule

RE: Climate models

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King

 

are betting the destiny of planet earth that these hypothetical future
technologies will become realized in time for the human race to cheat
destiny again and again

 

Say again? What models are you trusting?

 

I am trusting physically quantifiable data and am not assuming future
hypothetical ways  means as you seem to be doing. What models are you
trusting?

 

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King

 

Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be a
source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen off
Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward. No
challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.

 

Here is the thing you are betting the destiny of planet earth that these
hypothetical future technologies will become realized in time for the human
race to cheat destiny again and again. That is putting a lot of faith in
these hypothetical future technologies you seem to be counting on. 

Don't get me wrong I am actually one who wishes we already had permanent
settlements on the Moon, L2, choice NEOs, and Mars; I see and understand the
incredible resource potential of up there. 

Think of the solar capacity.. Alone. Even at earth orbital the solar flux is
around 1400 w/m2; in the micro-gravity and almost constant insolation of
high geosynchronous orbit it even begins to look attractive.

But - we are not there. We are here. On earth, with the technology we do
have and facing imminent critical energy supply peaks that will suck the
oxygen out of any grand ideas as we burn the last of what we have in global
conflict. Is this a sure outcome; I certainly hope not, but given how
politics operate globally and looking at the military focused strategy the
US has chosen to face this. well let's just say it leads me to conclude that
the odds are high that as a species we are going to blow it.

It's too bad, and I wish it were otherwise. It is how I see things - given
my understanding of the nature of human mass behavior.

Cheers,

Chris

 

P.S. I am still waiting for 2001 to happen and it is 2014. Point being that
some things - like getting from earth to orbit for example - remain
stubbornly difficult and have remained at the very limit of what we can do
with technology (in spite of forty years of technological advancement from
the days of the Apollo program) Same with fusion, always just fifty years
away.. Maybe someday, but where will the next ITER get its funding from? 

In a world swallowed up by the existential need for industrial nations to
secure their flow of petroleum supplies, and likely going to war (how many
more wars for Freedom do you see in the near future?) to do so.. There is
not going to be a whole lot left for every single other human activity.

Do not underestimate how terribly blind the logic of power can be,
constrained by the deadly calculus of the psychopathic mindset - that knows
that this is what they would do if they were in the other guys shoes. so
they do it. because they know he is surely doing it as well.

Power when it is not tempered by wisdom is the most dangerous poison in the
universe. and in us humans, it all so easily blinds us to all that is good.

We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.

 

 

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:

Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be counted as part of
global uranium reserves?

Why exactly?

By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why not
include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -  after all
who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all may be
recoverable.. What have you been reading? 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM


To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models

 

Hey Chris,

 

   About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where I
live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem with
the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have you been reading?

 

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:

 

 Solar PV is here today 

 

Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times more money has
been spent developing it than has been

Re: Climate models

Dear Brent,

Good question. A leading question in response. How is it that we
(generically speaking) are leaving such designs and building up to
inefficient systems to perform?

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

Here's the Mountain Pass rare earth mine in Southern California: 35.48°N
115.53°W It produced cerium, lanthanium neodymium, and europium for rare
earth magnets until the Chinese undercut the market. It has huge piles of
tailings rich in thorium and radium which are at present just a waste
product that is hard to get rid of because it's slightly radioactive.

Availabililty of thorium is not a problem. Designing and building the
powerplants is.

Brent

On 4/4/2014 3:51 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not
ore quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the
minuscule quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be
counted as part of global uranium reserves?

Why exactly?

By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why
not include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -
after all who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all
may be recoverable What have you been reading?

*From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com]
*On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul
King *Sent:* Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM *To:*
everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Climate models

Hey Chris,

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella
cdemorse...@yahoo.com
mailto:cdemorse...@yahoo.comcdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:

Solar PV is here today

I see the practical technological limits that constrain what can
actually be accomplished.

Apparently not.

Wrong again

the world is facing a recoverable uranium peak that will be reached
within a decade or two (at current extraction rates, if nuclear is
ramped up peak uranium will be reached that much sooner).

Uranium prices are the lowest they've been in 8 years. I found a
chart for the last 5 years:

Whatever.

Yes, whatever.

I do not inhabit the same magical thinking universe you seem to
live in.

How nice for you, therefore by accepting my bet you can make an easy
$1000.

John K Clark

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this
topic, visit

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/-LyjqBLxxFY/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comeverything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this

RE: Climate models

Br

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 7:15 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models

Here's the Mountain Pass rare earth mine in Southern California: 35.48°N
115.53°W  It produced cerium, lanthanium neodymium, and europium for rare
earth magnets until the Chinese undercut the market.  It has huge piles of
tailings rich in thorium and radium which are at present just a waste
product that is hard to get rid of because it's slightly radioactive.  

Availabililty of thorium is not a problem.  Designing and building the
powerplants is.

Exactly, and never disputed that there are ready reserves of Thorium; what I
did find absurd is including the highly entropized (if I can spin it that
way) Thorium in common garden dirt as counting towards some future reserve.
Again agreed, there is no existing LFTR design. I have read proposals that
seem reasonable, but before proposals of that nature can become transfigured
into blueprint quality specifications a massive engineering and quality
control operation has to happen. Engineers cost money, and so do engineers
in test. Lots of money I might add.

LFTR seems less exotic than some of the Gen IV breeders that rely on exotic
coolants such as molten lead, and for this reason more doable. How many tens
of billions of upstream money will be needed however is something I have not
heard anyone address. And how many years as well.

How much to produce a detailed LFTR specification? That is one I which
assumptions have been verified and tested. Not a back of the envelope
specification, but a real blueprint.

· How much more to build a pilot scale facility and verify that the
designs and the plant resulting from those designs meets specifications? 

· How much ramp up will be needed in upstream supply capacities over
the entire chain of production and assembly of LFTR plants. From Thorium
mining  refining to the purity levels required; to the reactor and
re-processor facilities  all the many sub-assemblies that these complex
engineered structures contain; to the waste management, separation 
sequestration facilities (not everything is burned up in an LFTR). Perhaps
some existing infrastructure can be leveraged, but I am certain that there
exist wide gaps that would need to build capacity if LFTR reactors were ever
to be built out at scale.

· How much more time then to build the first commercial model and to
test it and ensure its operational readiness?

· Then How much more energy, capital and time before the LFTR sector
became net energy positive? 

· I am sure there are other points I missed.

Chris

Brent

On 4/4/2014 3:51 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

   Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden

  dirt is not

   ore quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the

   minuscule quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should

  be

   counted as part of global uranium reserves?

   Why exactly?

   By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd

  - why

   not include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire

  galaxy -

   after all who knows maybe someday with some technology will

  it all

   may be recoverable What have you been reading?

   *From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com

   [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of

  *Stephen Paul

   King *Sent:* Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM *To:*

   everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Climate

  models

   Hey Chris,

   About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt

  near

   where I live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We

  have a

   huge problem with the radon gas that the stuff generates...

  What have

   you been reading?

   On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark

  johnkcl...@gmail.com

mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

   On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Chris de Morsella

   cdemorse...@yahoo.com

   mailto:cdemorse...@yahoo.com mailto:cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:

   Solar PV is here today

   Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of  times

  more

   money has been spent developing it than has been spent on

  LFTR RD,

   and yet solar PV is still just a rounding error in our total

  energy

   budget.

   I see the practical technological limits that constrain

  what can

Re: Climate models

ones that I built for myself.  The data is hard to get...


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King



 are betting the destiny of planet earth that these hypothetical future
 technologies will become realized in time for the human race to cheat
 destiny again and again



 Say again? What models are you trusting?



 I am trusting physically quantifiable data and am not assuming future
 hypothetical ways  means as you seem to be doing. What models are you
 trusting?



 On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
 wrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King



 Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
 advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be
 a source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen
 off Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward.
 No challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.



 Here is the thing you are betting the destiny of planet earth that these
 hypothetical future technologies will become realized in time for the human
 race to cheat destiny again and again. That is putting a lot of faith in
 these hypothetical future technologies you seem to be counting on.

 Don't get me wrong I am actually one who wishes we already had permanent
 settlements on the Moon, L2, choice NEOs, and Mars; I see and understand
 the incredible resource potential of up there.

 Think of the solar capacity Alone. Even at earth orbital the solar flux
 is around 1400 w/m2; in the micro-gravity and almost constant insolation of
 high geosynchronous orbit it even begins to look attractive.

 But - we are not there. We are here. On earth, with the technology we do
 have and facing imminent critical energy supply peaks that will suck the
 oxygen out of any grand ideas as we burn the last of what we have in global
 conflict. Is this a sure outcome; I certainly hope not, but given how
 politics operate globally and looking at the military focused strategy the
 US has chosen to face this... well let's just say it leads me to conclude
 that the odds are high that as a species we are going to blow it.

 It's too bad, and I wish it were otherwise. It is how I see things - given
 my understanding of the nature of human mass behavior.

 Cheers,

 Chris



 P.S. I am still waiting for 2001 to happen and it is 2014. Point being
 that some things - like getting from earth to orbit for example - remain
 stubbornly difficult and have remained at the very limit of what we can do
 with technology (in spite of forty years of technological advancement from
 the days of the Apollo program) Same with fusion, always just fifty years
 away Maybe someday, but where will the next ITER get its funding from?

 In a world swallowed up by the existential need for industrial nations to
 secure their flow of petroleum supplies, and likely going to war (how many
 more wars for Freedom do you see in the near future?) to do so There is
 not going to be a whole lot left for every single other human activity.

 Do not underestimate how terribly blind the logic of power can be,
 constrained by the deadly calculus of the psychopathic mindset - that knows
 that this is what they would do if they were in the other guys shoes... so
 they do it... because they know he is surely doing it as well.

 Power when it is not tempered by wisdom is the most dangerous poison in
 the universe... and in us humans, it all so easily blinds us to all that is
 good.

 We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.





 On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
 wrote:

 Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
 quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
 quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be counted as part of
 global uranium reserves?

 Why exactly?

 By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why not
 include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -  after all
 who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all may be
 recoverable What have you been reading?



 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
 *Sent:* Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM


 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: Climate models



 Hey Chris,



About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where
 I live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem
 with the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have you been reading?



 On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com

RE: My scepticism took a small knock today

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 7:11 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: My scepticism took a small knock today

On Friday, April 4, 2014 6:00:09 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:

Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door 
selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most 
dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we 
don't indulge or words to that effect.

Love that response – even if from a dream – “no thanks, we don’t indulge”…. 
Perfect.

I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall.

A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a 
half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to 
the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I 
sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken.

I must be on some national evangelical do not visit list, because when I see 
the little groups of salvation sellers come around they knock on all the houses 
except mine. I keep waiting, but instead I see them look down at their database 
generated no go list and move on. A strange mix of technology in the service of 
medievalism. 

Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he 
has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, 
although his makes more sense as a worry dream.

Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it?

Personally I think that you have to add in the fact that you took notice of the 
happenstance, so already it was a potential coincidence. By the time it recurs, 
it is slightly more than a coincidence. What does it mean? I think not much but 
it offers a glimpse into the larger nature of time as rooted in experience 
rather than physics.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Climate models

 

 

By solar and wind its isn't.

 

Current global installed solar PV capacity is greater than 150 GW; in two
years or so this is expected to surpass 300GW of installed capacity. The
installed capacity base for Solar PV has been doubling every two years or so
for quite some time now and so far does not show signs of slowing down this
breakneck rate of growth in capacity. 

These are quantified values, what you said above what actual content does
that contain beyond the polemic content it certainly does contain?

Chris

 

 

-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Apr 2, 2014 8:13 pm
Subject: Re: Climate models

On 3 April 2014 12:17, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

We still have to possess the technology in place to replace carbon with
clean. Please note that New Delhi, or Auckland is not yet electrified, say
to 20%.  You cannot do a kidney transplant without a replacement kidney.   

 

Auckland isn't electrified??? (How am I managing to write this post?!)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

This data is interesting:
http://www.indeed.com/salary/Green-Growth-Ventures-LLC.html


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King



 are betting the destiny of planet earth that these hypothetical future
 technologies will become realized in time for the human race to cheat
 destiny again and again



 Say again? What models are you trusting?



 I am trusting physically quantifiable data and am not assuming future
 hypothetical ways  means as you seem to be doing. What models are you
 trusting?



 On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
 wrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King



 Here is the thing. You are complete discounting future technological
 advancements in your analysis. 50 years ago, no one considered shale to be
 a source ore for hydrocarbons. Soon enough we will be syphoning hydrogen
 off Jupiter. Why the panic over resources? Lean forward man! Think forward.
 No challenge was ever overcome by fearful people.



 Here is the thing you are betting the destiny of planet earth that these
 hypothetical future technologies will become realized in time for the human
 race to cheat destiny again and again. That is putting a lot of faith in
 these hypothetical future technologies you seem to be counting on.

 Don't get me wrong I am actually one who wishes we already had permanent
 settlements on the Moon, L2, choice NEOs, and Mars; I see and understand
 the incredible resource potential of up there.

 Think of the solar capacity Alone. Even at earth orbital the solar flux
 is around 1400 w/m2; in the micro-gravity and almost constant insolation of
 high geosynchronous orbit it even begins to look attractive.

 But - we are not there. We are here. On earth, with the technology we do
 have and facing imminent critical energy supply peaks that will suck the
 oxygen out of any grand ideas as we burn the last of what we have in global
 conflict. Is this a sure outcome; I certainly hope not, but given how
 politics operate globally and looking at the military focused strategy the
 US has chosen to face this... well let's just say it leads me to conclude
 that the odds are high that as a species we are going to blow it.

 It's too bad, and I wish it were otherwise. It is how I see things - given
 my understanding of the nature of human mass behavior.

 Cheers,

 Chris



 P.S. I am still waiting for 2001 to happen and it is 2014. Point being
 that some things - like getting from earth to orbit for example - remain
 stubbornly difficult and have remained at the very limit of what we can do
 with technology (in spite of forty years of technological advancement from
 the days of the Apollo program) Same with fusion, always just fifty years
 away Maybe someday, but where will the next ITER get its funding from?

 In a world swallowed up by the existential need for industrial nations to
 secure their flow of petroleum supplies, and likely going to war (how many
 more wars for Freedom do you see in the near future?) to do so There is
 not going to be a whole lot left for every single other human activity.

 Do not underestimate how terribly blind the logic of power can be,
 constrained by the deadly calculus of the psychopathic mindset - that knows
 that this is what they would do if they were in the other guys shoes... so
 they do it... because they know he is surely doing it as well.

 Power when it is not tempered by wisdom is the most dangerous poison in
 the universe... and in us humans, it all so easily blinds us to all that is
 good.

 We live in a world ruled by power; this is the fundamental problem - IMO.





 On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
 wrote:

 Hey Stephen - try refining it from your dirt. Your garden dirt is not ore
 quality; it is not a feasible supply. Do you believe the minuscule
 quantities of uranium in your garden's dirt should be counted as part of
 global uranium reserves?

 Why exactly?

 By your count the garden dirt argument - taken to the absurd - why not
 include all the uranium in the solar system, our entire galaxy -  after all
 who knows maybe someday with some technology will it all may be
 recoverable What have you been reading?



 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
 *Sent:* Friday, April 04, 2014 3:33 PM


 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: Climate models



 Hey Chris,



About a uranium shortage. Come scrape up a few yards of dirt near where
 I live and you'lll find lots and lots of uranium. We have a huge problem
 with the radon gas that the stuff generates... What have you been reading?



 On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, John

Re: Climate models