Re: [WAR] A brief bit of Hillary history.
My question was, is and shall continue to be, who of the various candidates in the upcoming USA elections, who might get elected to run the USA war machine, would be the least likely candidate to push Russia and or China and or the rest of the world into World War 3, when the economic crunch time for North America finally hits the fan. We know a massive global financial crash is coming, and in previous points of financial collapse, history shows us an almost certainty of a major war following. This bodes EXTREMELY PRECARIOUSLY for all of us on this little blue planet, and suggests that those who vote in the upcoming North American elections ought think carefully about the question above. Those who are onlookers might consider being in contact with anyone they know who will be involved/ voting in the upcoming USA elections, and discover their thoughts on this fundamental question - who is most and who is least likely to start World War 3. Also, look into the preference voting system (like we also have in Australia) if you will be voting, and figure out how your candidate's votes might be applied to other candidates, should your chosen candidate not receive enough votes to be elected. That, or choose your own preferences! Be informed, and let's do our bit towards avoiding World War 3 - if this issue of the potential for the next world war is not handled by us humans, we may just find that sometime in the next 4 years, that we are all faced with a reality where NO OTHER QUESTION EVEN MATTERS, and it's too late to argue or say sorry or I told you so or anything else so pathetic in the face of the lack of the action required to have stopped the problem in the first place. Good luck fellow humans, Zenaan ----- Forwarded message ----- Subject: FW: nothing has changed! they are all the same. http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-hi... ----- End forwarded message -----
The thing about Trump is he thinks climate change / global warming is a hoax. I can't fucking stand Hillary or Trump, but at least she doesn't blatantly deny science.. not to say that she'll DO anything about it if (probably when) she's "elected"... Its an awful line up. John On August 16, 2016 11:08:53 AM EDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
My question was, is and shall continue to be, who of the various candidates in the upcoming USA elections, who might get elected to run the USA war machine, would be the least likely candidate to push Russia and or China and or the rest of the world into World War 3, when the economic crunch time for North America finally hits the fan.
We know a massive global financial crash is coming, and in previous points of financial collapse, history shows us an almost certainty of a major war following.
This bodes EXTREMELY PRECARIOUSLY for all of us on this little blue planet, and suggests that those who vote in the upcoming North American elections ought think carefully about the question above.
Those who are onlookers might consider being in contact with anyone they know who will be involved/ voting in the upcoming USA elections, and discover their thoughts on this fundamental question - who is most and who is least likely to start World War 3.
Also, look into the preference voting system (like we also have in Australia) if you will be voting, and figure out how your candidate's votes might be applied to other candidates, should your chosen candidate not receive enough votes to be elected. That, or choose your own preferences!
Be informed, and let's do our bit towards avoiding World War 3 - if this issue of the potential for the next world war is not handled by us humans, we may just find that sometime in the next 4 years, that we are all faced with a reality where NO OTHER QUESTION EVEN MATTERS, and it's too late to argue or say sorry or I told you so or anything else so pathetic in the face of the lack of the action required to have stopped the problem in the first place.
Good luck fellow humans, Zenaan
----- Forwarded message -----
Subject: FW: nothing has changed! they are all the same.
http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-hi...
----- End forwarded message -----
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:44 PM, John <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
The thing about Trump is he thinks climate change / global warming is a hoax.
Here's the thing: global warming is a red herring. Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real - dumping pollution into the environment still sucks balls. So at the behest of the bigmedia propaganda organs, perfectly well-intentioned people on both sides endlessly argue over dodgy, politicized science. Yet regardless which side is right about global warming, *almost everyone* agrees that pollution blows oats and should be reduced.
I disagree, vehemently. Global warming is not a red herring. Permafrost is melting, oceans are rising and acidifying, and the future for big coastal cities is looking very bleak indeed. There is a scientific consensus on this issue. But yes of course pollution does suck ass... -- John
On Aug 16, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Jason McVetta <jason.mcvetta@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:44 PM, John <jnn@synfin.org> wrote: The thing about Trump is he thinks climate change / global warming is a hoax.
Here's the thing: global warming is a red herring. Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real - dumping pollution into the environment still sucks balls. So at the behest of the bigmedia propaganda organs, perfectly well-intentioned people on both sides endlessly argue over dodgy, politicized science.
Yet regardless which side is right about global warming, almost everyone agrees that pollution blows oats and should be reduced.
From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org>
I disagree, vehemently. Global warming is not a red herring. Permafrost is melting, oceans are rising and acidifying, and the future for big >coastal cities is looking very bleak indeed. There is a scientific consensus on this issue.
I don't see how there can be "scientific consensus" unless there are accurate computer models which show how up climate temperature increases as a product of addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Both qualitatively and quantitatively. How much do these problems represent?
From Lord Kelvin:
“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.” http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/166961-when-you-can-measure-what-you-are-spe... There is also the prospect of adding SO2 to the high atmosphere to counteract heating, which could be a very cheap solution. Jim Bell
Lord Kelvin, died in 1907, before there were "accurate computer models" that could show anything at all. Certainly that makes this a meager and unsatisfactory quote. There is abundant research, of the scientifically valid kind, showing that the climate is changing, and indeed it would be strange if it were not. You are illustrating the op's point nicely, w/r/t politicized scientific bullshit.
On Aug 16, 2016, at 2:26 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org>
I disagree, vehemently. Global warming is not a red herring. Permafrost is melting, oceans are rising and acidifying, and the future for big >coastal cities is looking very bleak indeed. There is a scientific consensus on this issue.
I don't see how there can be "scientific consensus" unless there are accurate computer models which show how up climate temperature increases as a product of addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Both qualitatively and quantitatively. How much do these problems represent?
From Lord Kelvin:
“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.”
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/166961-when-you-can-measure-what-you-are-spe...
There is also the prospect of adding SO2 to the high atmosphere to counteract heating, which could be a very cheap solution.
Jim Bell
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:47:38 -0400 Joshua Case <jwcase@gmail.com> wrote:
There is abundant research, of the scientifically valid kind, showing that the climate is changing, and indeed it would be strange if it were not.
Yep. So all that 'scientific research' is, if not meaningless, pretty much irrelevant. 'Climate change' is a natural fact that has been acknowledged by humans for thousands of years.
On August 16, 2016 5:13:16 PM EDT, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:47:38 -0400 Joshua Case <jwcase@gmail.com> wrote:
There is abundant research, of the scientifically valid kind, showing that the climate is changing, and indeed it would be strange if it were not.
Yep. So all that 'scientific research' is, if not meaningless, pretty much irrelevant. 'Climate change' is a natural fact that has been acknowledged by humans for thousands of years.
Anthropogenic climate change is what we are talking about. At least, it's what im talking about. Not normal natural climate change or even climate change related to non human events e.g. a large asteroid hitting the earth.... Humanity has been and continues to accelerate the rate of change dramatically, and dangerously. All that "scientific research" is anything but meaningless. Since when do you put science in quotation marks like it's a big fucking joke? John -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:35:15PM -0400, John wrote:
On August 16, 2016 5:13:16 PM EDT, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:47:38 -0400 Joshua Case <jwcase@gmail.com> wrote:
There is abundant research, of the scientifically valid kind, showing that the climate is changing, and indeed it would be strange if it were not.
Yep. So all that 'scientific research' is, if not meaningless, pretty much irrelevant. 'Climate change' is a natural fact that has been acknowledged by humans for thousands of years.
Anthropogenic climate change is what we are talking about. At least,
Then please be persistent in using that terminology (which correctly names what you intent to be talking about).
it's what im talking about. Not normal natural climate change or even climate change related to non human events e.g. a large asteroid hitting the earth.... Humanity has been and continues to accelerate the rate of change dramatically, and dangerously.
That's the kind of assertion, which those who value science, will always kick back at. The best "you" (those pushing the anthropogenic climate change 'science' agenda) have is computer "models" - which use as inputs (demand) in this case assumptions, projections, and a lack of enough detailed historical facts to otherwise avoid such assumptions and projections, and so remain as scientific "theory" and not scientific "facts". Yes we are impacting the environment (pollution), yes we are pumping various gases into the atmosphere, no we cannot be certain of anthropogenic global warming OVER AND ABOVE 'natural' causes (the sun cycles, natural/ cyclical changes in the earth, more?) Vehemently claiming "theory" is not theory and is actually "fact" does not make said theory, facts, and only serves to highlight the possibility of "agenda". Now, in your case, the agenda may be nothing more or less benign than an intention to "waking people up out of ignorance", but is nevertheless, whatever it is, an agenda (thorougly guilty of such vehemence myself in my younger years - such as at least 4 months ago...).
All that "scientific research" is anything but meaningless. Since when do you put science in quotation marks like it's a big fucking joke?
Don't mix up "reasonable mathematical model giving weight to a scientific theory", with "scientific fact". Around these parts (you may have noticed) you'll keep coming unstuck on that one :)
On Tue, 2016-08-16 at 18:26 +0000, jim bell wrote:
I don't see how there can be "scientific consensus" unless there are accurate computer models which show how up climate temperature increases as a product of addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Both qualitatively and quantitatively. How much do these problems represent?
I feel like you have your head in the sand. I mean, are you serious? There are all sorts of computer models that have shown this relationship. https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
There is also the prospect of adding SO2 to the high atmosphere to counteract heating, which could be a very cheap solution.
Yes, hopefully we can solve the problem we've created with better science. I have some hope that we can. But I wouldn't bet on it. -- John
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 06:26:39PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org>
I disagree, vehemently. Global warming is not a red herring. Permafrost is melting, oceans are rising and acidifying, and the future for big >coastal cities is looking very bleak indeed. There is a scientific consensus on this issue.
I don't see how there can be "scientific consensus" unless there are accurate computer models which show how up climate temperature increases as a product of addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Both qualitatively and quantitatively. How much do these problems represent?
From Lord Kelvin:
“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.” http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/166961-when-you-can-measure-what-you-are-spe...
There is also the prospect of adding SO2 to the high atmosphere to counteract heating, which could be a very cheap solution. Jim Bell
THANK you!! "Global warming" gets bandied around as though it is "scientific" or even more ridiculously "accepted science". And another thing !! <waves old wooden walking sticdk> it was always called Global Warming, except then it got called Global Anthropogenic Temperature Changes, except then it got called Global Climate Change, except before in the 60s or 70s (dang, I can't remember which) it was called Global Cooling - front page Time Magazine articles an all. Take THAT yung whipperyschapperies! Dang Global Scientific Marketers just can't decide which terms to even use - that sure gave me confidence in their certinty!
On August 16, 2016 8:41:03 PM EDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 06:26:39PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org>
I disagree, vehemently. Global warming is not a red herring. Permafrost is melting, oceans are rising and acidifying, and the future for big >coastal cities is looking very bleak indeed. There is a scientific consensus on this issue.
I don't see how there can be "scientific consensus" unless there are accurate computer models which show how up climate temperature increases as a product of addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Both qualitatively and quantitatively. How much do these problems represent?
From Lord Kelvin:
“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.”
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/166961-when-you-can-measure-what-you-are-spe...
There is also the prospect of adding SO2 to the high atmosphere to counteract heating, which could be a very cheap solution. Jim Bell
THANK you!!
"Global warming" gets bandied around as though it is "scientific" or even more ridiculously "accepted science".
And another thing !! <waves old wooden walking sticdk> it was always called Global Warming, except then it got called Global Anthropogenic Temperature Changes, except then it got called Global Climate Change, except before in the 60s or 70s (dang, I can't remember which) it was called Global Cooling - front page Time Magazine articles an all. Take THAT yung whipperyschapperies!
Dang Global Scientific Marketers just can't decide which terms to even use - that sure gave me confidence in their certinty!
Har har! Dang ol science it must be a CONSPIRACY yeah that's it!! What has science ever done anyway? Fucking ridiculous. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Dang Global Scientific Marketers just can't decide which terms to even use - that sure gave me confidence in their certinty!
Har har! Dang ol science it must be a CONSPIRACY yeah that's it!! What has science ever done anyway?
Fucking ridiculous.
Assertion != fact. Scientific theory != fact. Even, solid mathematical model != fact. "Science" as some of us prefer to use the term, is where facts, actual measurable testable facts, are determinable by testing and verifiable by someone else running the same test and making the same measurement, resulting in taking/ measuring the same value (same result), thus verifying said fact as a fact, a value, a measurement, and more than merely assumption arising from some scientific theory. Perhaps someone else can try to explain this in a clearer way? Perhaps it's a difficult thing to express clearly in English..
-- John On Aug 16, 2016, at 11:46 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Dang Global Scientific Marketers just can't decide which terms to even use - that sure gave me confidence in their certinty!
Har har! Dang ol science it must be a CONSPIRACY yeah that's it!! What has science ever done anyway?
Fucking ridiculous.
Assertion != fact.
Scientific theory != fact.
Even, solid mathematical model != fact.
"Science" as some of us prefer to use the term, is where facts, actual measurable testable facts, are determinable by testing and verifiable by someone else running the same test and making the same measurement, resulting in taking/ measuring the same value (same result), thus verifying said fact as a fact, a value, a measurement, and more than merely assumption arising from some scientific theory.
Perhaps someone else can try to explain this in a clearer way? Perhaps it's a difficult thing to express clearly in English..
It's not difficult at all, you can play semantic games all day long. If you want to get down to absolutes NOTHING is a fact... I choose to put my faith in what seems to be the most obvious truth, based on a preponderance of scientific evidence. Anyone who chooses otherwise, particularly with important shit like this, just doesn't give a fuck or just doesn't get it, IMO. John
Dang Global Scientific Marketers just can't decide which terms to even use - that sure gave me confidence in their certinty!
Har har! Dang ol science it must be a CONSPIRACY yeah that's it!! What has science ever done anyway?
Fucking ridiculous.
When we cling to certainties (even "facts" mind you) is it that we express an attachment which may be causing us to not see something? How about when we react in an emotional way, to quotes from history's "great minds", rather than respectfully deconstruct the fundamental problem which we assert is hidden in that historical quote, or that definition (e.g. a definition of the word 'science')? Is a call to non-emotionally consider what is being said, in the precision of the words being used, a rational, hey even possibly 'scientific' call to the listener/reader? Could it be that those challenging a dearly held assertion, do so not from any contrariness, not from any obtuse stubbornness nor even belligerance, but from a heartfelt desire to seek 'the truth' and to discover the true facts behind an assertion made by another? Can we truly say we are engaging in conversation when we presume stupidity on the part of another, when they ask explicitly or implicitly for "more data, please"? Could it be that those asking for "more data" have spent considerable genuine personal time and energy searching for said data facts in support of said assertions and "scientific theory parading itself as scientific fact" and are at the point of frustration and "well, I've looked, could not find, so bloody well put up or shut up already"??? Is there any possibility that our personal programming be our Western schooling system is so ingrained, so deep, that parts of it are simply unseen by our not so humble selves? And could it be that such deep programming is in fact used by wealthy oligarchs around the world who meet behind closed doors to discuss and execute intentions to spin certain stories based on "the glory, power and untouchable truth of 'science'" to their personal and group/corporate economic benefit? And would it be reasonable to say then when such oligarchs have such meetings and execute such intentions, that they have "conspired" together to improve their profits and control in the world? Could the fruits of such endless closed door conspirings be the reason the "conspiracy theorist" had to be demonised, socially shunned and turned into the politically incorrect pariah?
I must emphasize a few key-points by Zenaan on the "global warming" fairy tale: Well, this one was brought by Jim
I don't see how there can be "scientific consensus" unless there are accurate computer models which show how up climate temperature increases as a product of addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Both qualitatively and quantitatively.
From Lord Kelvin: “When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.”
Zenaan
Vehemently claiming "theory" is not theory and is actually "fact" does not make said theory, facts.
!!! Yes we are impacting the environment (pollution), yes we are pumping
various gases into the atmosphere, no we cannot be certain of anthropogenic global warming OVER AND ABOVE 'natural' causes (the sun cycles, natural/ cyclical changes in the earth, more?)
!!! Could it be that those challenging a dearly held assertion ***(here it's
the global "warming" assertion, yesterday it was the moon fairy-tale and the Tor fairness assertions, you know), do so not from any contrariness, not from any obtuse stubbornness nor even belligerance, but from a heartfelt desire to seek 'the truth' and to discover the true facts behind an assertion made by another?
!!! *Is there any possibility that our personal programming be our Western*
*schooling system is so ingrained, so deep, that parts of it are simply* *unseen by our not so humble selves?*
!!! And could it be that such deep programming is in fact used by wealthy
oligarchs around the world who meet behind closed doors to discuss and execute intentions to spin certain stories based on "the glory, power and untouchable truth of 'science'" to their personal and group/corporate economic benefit?
!!!
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 13:55:24 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
I disagree, vehemently. Global warming is not a red herring. Permafrost is melting, oceans are rising and acidifying, and the future for big coastal cities is looking very bleak indeed. There is a scientific consensus on this issue.
Truth is not reached by 'consensus'. That's not science but groupthink. Also, it's not called global warming anymore. The new name which has been in use for more than a couple of years is 'climate change'. And of course the climate is changing, It has been chaning for millions of years and it will keep changing. It just so happens that 'climate change' is a perfect excuse for government to control every single movement of every person on the planet. Way better than 'terrorism'. Jason does have a point about pollution. But of course, even the 'war on pollution' can be used as a tool for political control. Another thing : old crony capitalists have recycled themselves as green crony capitalists and how they get billions in subsidies for being 'green'.
But yes of course pollution does suck ass...
-- John
On Aug 16, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Jason McVetta <jason.mcvetta@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:44 PM, John <jnn@synfin.org> wrote: The thing about Trump is he thinks climate change / global warming is a hoax.
Here's the thing: global warming is a red herring. Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real - dumping pollution into the environment still sucks balls. So at the behest of the bigmedia propaganda organs, perfectly well-intentioned people on both sides endlessly argue over dodgy, politicized science.
Yet regardless which side is right about global warming, almost everyone agrees that pollution blows oats and should be reduced.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 01:55:24PM -0400, John Newman wrote:
I disagree, vehemently. Global warming is not a red herring. Permafrost is melting, oceans are rising and acidifying, and the future for big coastal cities is looking very bleak indeed. There is a scientific consensus on this issue.
But yes of course pollution does suck ass...
There was a thread about this in April 2016: "Do you notice significant persistent change in climate?". I see the climate changes in my lifetime so it is "fact" for me. Likely someone profits from this, but someone will try to profit from the destruction of Earth too.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:46:01AM +0300, Georgi Guninski wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 01:55:24PM -0400, John Newman wrote:
I disagree, vehemently. Global warming is not a red herring. Permafrost is melting, oceans are rising and acidifying, and the future for big coastal cities is looking very bleak indeed. There is a scientific consensus on this issue.
But yes of course pollution does suck ass...
There was a thread about this in April 2016: "Do you notice significant persistent change in climate?".
I see the climate changes in my lifetime so it is "fact" for me.
I see no one disputing climate change. Quite the contrary.
Likely someone profits from this, but someone will try to profit from the destruction of Earth too.
Indeed.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:01:06PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
I see the climate changes in my lifetime so it is "fact" for me.
I see no one disputing climate change. Quite the contrary.
Don't follow climate statistics (some may say numerology), but natural climate change should be _very slow_ IMHO and not detectable in a single lifetime at all, except at the border of something big.
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 10:24:56 +0300 Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:01:06PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
I see the climate changes in my lifetime so it is "fact" for me.
I see no one disputing climate change. Quite the contrary.
Don't follow climate statistics (some may say numerology), but natural climate change should be _very slow_
Why? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFdZ9t4Y5hQ
IMHO and not detectable in a single lifetime at all, except at the border of something big.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:34:18AM -0300, juan wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 10:24:56 +0300 Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:01:06PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
I see the climate changes in my lifetime so it is "fact" for me.
I see no one disputing climate change. Quite the contrary.
Don't follow climate statistics (some may say numerology), but natural climate change should be _very slow_
Why?
:D Perfect! Thanks..
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 19:04:40 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:34:18AM -0300, juan wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 10:24:56 +0300 Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:01:06PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
I see the climate changes in my lifetime so it is "fact" for me.
I see no one disputing climate change. Quite the contrary.
Don't follow climate statistics (some may say numerology), but natural climate change should be _very slow_
Why?
:D Perfect! Thanks..
You see, we conspiracy theorists all think alike. Or perhaps we are just one sockpuppet? =P
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:34:18AM -0300, juan wrote:
Don't follow climate statistics (some may say numerology), but natural climate change should be _very slow_
Why?
Extremely rough approximations of the current changes give very large temperature "relatively" (to history of life) soon, I _suspect_. Not counting what will be above water, positive feedback and constants becoming functions. Might be wrong on this.
Would you explain what is this? I avoid videos.
Would you explain what is this? I avoid videos.
chaotic magnet demonstration
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:24:27 +0300 Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
Would you explain what is this? I avoid videos.
It's a video of a very small and unpredictable 'chaotic' system. A chaotic system like the atmosphere, though it's not huuuuge, unlike the atmosphere...
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 4:34 AM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh please. That's exactly what you'd get from a guy, who believes Allah wills it, launching objects *randomly by hand* via some random suspension jig into a system of magnets whose permanence, strength, and possibly even location is further modified by each run... of course it's going to be chaotic. It's random for sure, but not due the classical and quantum reasons he may have thunk it to be. "So the magnetic pendulum is a chaotic system because it is extremely sensitive to its initial position." s/is a/appears to be a/.... precisely.
On 09/17/2016 11:00 PM, grarpamp wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 4:34 AM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh please. That's exactly what you'd get from a guy, who believes Allah wills it ...
That Semitic sky god is one sadistic bastard, for sure ;)
On 09/17/2016 11:00 PM, grarpamp wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 4:34 AM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh please. That's exactly what you'd get from a guy, who believes Allah wills it ...
That Semitic sky god is one sadistic bastard, for sure ;)
Actually, as I understand it, Yahweh is a volcano deity. Hence the quaking mountains and fire from the sky, and general pissed-off attitude. But yeah, an asshole nonetheless.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:24:56AM +0300, Georgi Guninski wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:01:06PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
I see the climate changes in my lifetime so it is "fact" for me.
I see no one disputing climate change. Quite the contrary.
Don't follow climate statistics (some may say numerology), but natural climate change should be _very slow_ IMHO and not detectable in a single lifetime at all, except at the border of something big.
I disagree - it's a chaotic system, chaotic as in fractal chaos theory chaotic, meaning that a small change in one spot can cause a big change elsewhere, butterfly effect and all that. So we see whole ocean flows change in a period of 3 years or less, and the consequence being England goes from quite balmy to ice and snow all year round, and vice versa. And, in one person's lifetime. Long term global weather is a chaotic system. Long term global anthropogenic temperature effects are currently most politely described as "scientific theory" - and frankly that's a bit generous - humans being human and all, mathematical models "attempting to prove weather science" are not exactly solid beyond a few weeks. But hey, I'm just a conspiracy theorist, don't mind me :)
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 07:03:10PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:24:56AM +0300, Georgi Guninski wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:01:06PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
I see the climate changes in my lifetime so it is "fact" for me.
I see no one disputing climate change. Quite the contrary.
Don't follow climate statistics (some may say numerology), but natural climate change should be _very slow_ IMHO and not detectable in a single lifetime at all, except at the border of something big.
I disagree - it's a chaotic system, chaotic as in fractal chaos theory chaotic, meaning that a small change in one spot can cause a big change elsewhere, butterfly effect and all that.
Well, this theory explains EVERYTHING -- from the universe to the quantum stuff. By "small change" you mean small asteroid hits the earth, destroying it, right?
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 19:03:10 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Long term global anthropogenic temperature effects are currently most politely described as "scientific theory" - and frankly that's a bit generous - humans being human and all, mathematical models "attempting to prove weather science" are not exactly solid beyond a few weeks.
But hey, I'm just a conspiracy theorist, don't mind me :)
Yes, that's the problem =) The 'scientific' fact that academia is state-funded is irrelevant. There's absolutely no way for the 'scientific' state-funded establishment to come up with bullshit in order to 'justify' their 'grants'.
NOAA - the climatic gift that keeps on giving false data, fudged reports and "total computer failures" so that the data can't be verified. I wonder what could possibly drive "scientists" to be so ... political? Money? Pizza? H. Sterling Burnett: Climategate Redux! NOAA Scientists Fudge, Lose Data http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/21/h-sterling-burnett-climat... Razer rant in 3 .. 2 ..
On 8/16/16, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
economic crunch time for North America finally hits the fan. We know a massive global financial crash is coming, and in previous
Like when countries figure out the pot stirrer and start departnering with all its bases and spying in search of say less stressful entanglement, life, future... Those who are artificially propped up crash and fall. Other more natural ones just keep on going.
elections ought think carefully about the question above.
People often do strange things when backed into corners. Thankfully Hilliary will just have a seizure and drop, hopefully not while hovering over the History Eraser Button. To a voter, Green or Libertarian may look more sensible, even Trump as "outsider". Career politicians suck. Vote the crypto / pirate / anarchist party.
http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-hi...
" On his now-shuttered website, Zeifman said " archive.org? " “Hillary Clinton is ethically unfit to be either a senator or president — and if she were to become president, the last vestiges of the traditional moral authority of the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson will be destroyed.” " What used to be simple games of men and railroads, are now deep conspiracies of spooks and ether.
participants (12)
-
Georgi Guninski -
grarpamp -
Jason McVetta -
jim bell -
John -
John Newman
-
Joshua Case -
juan -
Mirimir -
xorcist＠sigaint.org -
Zenaan Harkness -
Александр