Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Enlightenment

Expand Messages
  • Laurie Appleton
    ... From: gluadys To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 11:42 PM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Enlightenment LA ... LA Not
    Message 1 of 14 , Dec 5, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: gluadys
      To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 11:42 PM
      Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Enlightenment




      LA> <snip>

      >
      LA> Not only did they have no aerial surveillance which they could let
      > me have, (the rest was "top secret") but they felt the search was
      > futile at the present time. Not because it wasn't there, but because
      > the earth was headed in to a prolonged cooling period. In fact,
      > unless government stepped in to ward it off, we were entering a
      > new Ice Age. Global cooling instead of global warming! Seems
      > there is another side indeed.
      >
      > (Global Warming, J.S. Auxt and Dr. William M. Curtis III, 2009, p.7-8) (my emphasis)
      >

      The rule in science is that data trumps theory. There was a theory briefly floated in the 1970s that we were overdue for an ice age. By the 1990s that theory was buried under the data documenting global warming. Case closed.

      LA> On the contrary. The following might be worth consideration;

      ---------------------------------

      Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists by Ron Paul

      Statement before the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2009
      Madam Speaker, before voting on the "cap-and-trade'' legislation, my
      colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following
      petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:
      "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming
      agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and
      any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases
      would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and
      technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
      There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of
      carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or
      will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the
      Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover,
      there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in
      atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the
      natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.''
      Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American
      physical scientists and supported by a definitive review of the
      peer-reviewed scientific literature, this may be the strongest and
      most widely supported statement on this subject that has been made
      by the scientific community. A state-by-state listing of the
      signers, which include 9,029 men and women with PhD degrees, a
      listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary
      of the science on this subject are available at
      www.petitionproject.org.


      The peer-reviewed summary, "Environmental Effects of Increased
      Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide'' by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and
      W. Soon includes 132 references to the scientific literature and was
      circulated with the petition.
      Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in
      atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the
      signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and
      mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant
      to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of
      human activities upon environmental quality.
      In a letter circulated with this petition, Frederick Seitz — past
      President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President
      Emeritus of Rockefeller University, and recipient of honorary
      doctorate degrees from 32 universities throughout the world — wrote:
      "The United States is very close to adopting an international
      agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies
      that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic
      compounds.


      This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research
      data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons
      is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased
      atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
      The proposed agreement we have very negative effects upon the
      technology of nations throughout the world; especially those that
      are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide
      opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically
      underdeveloped countries.
      It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens
      who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and
      offer sound advice.


      We urge you to sign and return the enclosed petition card. If you
      would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be
      sent.''
      Madam Speaker, at a time when our nation is faced with a severe
      shortage of domestically produced energy and a serious economic
      contraction; we should be reducing the taxation and regulation that
      plagues our energy-producing industries.
      Yet, we will soon be considering so-called "cap and trade''
      legislation that would increase the taxation and regulation of our
      energy industries. "Cap-and-trade'' will do at least as much, if not
      more, damage to the economy as the treaty referred by Professor
      Seitz! This legislation is being supported by the claims of "global
      warming'' and "climate change'' advocates — claims that, as
      demonstrated by the 31,478 signatures to Professor Seitz' petition,
      many American scientists believe is disproved by extensive
      experimental and observational work.


      It is time that we look beyond those few who seek increased taxation
      and increased regulation and control of the American people. Our
      energy policies must be based upon scientific truth — not fictional
      movies or self-interested international agendas. They should be
      based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that
      have provided our modern civilization, including our energy
      industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus
      claims about imaginary disasters.


      Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American
      people — the Constitution that provides the sole source of
      legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we
      preserve the basic human rights of our people — including the right
      to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means
      they devise — including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even
      bicycle generators.


      While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy
      does not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of
      the Earth upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate
      dangers should not be used as a justification to further limit the
      American people's freedom.


      In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to carefully consider
      the arguments made by the 31,478 American scientists who have signed
      this petition before voting on any legislation imposing new
      regulations or taxes on the American people in the name of halting
      climate change.


      June 11, 2009
      Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
      Ron Paul Archives

      ========================

      LA> My source for the above was;

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul537.html



      Laurie.

      "The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that
      lie between species, the more they have been frustrated."
      (Newsweek, 3 November, 1980)

      ..


      No virus found in this message.
      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2634/5937 - Release Date: 12/04/12


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • JamesG
      David Williams: There will be a time when climate change deniers will mostly shut up. A lot of the same kind of corporate interests that tried to deny ozone
      Message 2 of 14 , Apr 1, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        David Williams: "There will be a time when climate change deniers will mostly shut up. A lot of the same kind of corporate interests that tried to deny ozone depletion by man made products are into man's contribution to climate change denial. They will come around when they realize that there is no reasonable scientific doubt about man made contribution to climate change. Also, since there is a lot of money to be made in alleviating damage to climate, they will follow the money."

        Those who assert that the science of global warming is such a done deal that there is "no reasonable scientific doubt" that mankind's CO2 emissions are overheating the earth will want to ignore this article:

        http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

        Jim in Missouri
      • David
        ... David Williams: If the atmosphere warms enough to melt the Siberian permafrost, releasing the methane sequestered in it, we will see some serious global
        Message 3 of 14 , Apr 2, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "JamesG" <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > David Williams: "There will be a time when climate change deniers will mostly shut up. A lot of the same kind of corporate interests that tried to deny ozone depletion by man made products are into man's contribution to climate change denial. They will come around when they realize that there is no reasonable scientific doubt about man made contribution to climate change. Also, since there is a lot of money to be made in alleviating damage to climate, they will follow the money."
          >
          > Those who assert that the science of global warming is such a done deal that there is "no reasonable scientific doubt" that mankind's CO2 emissions are overheating the earth will want to ignore this article:
          >
          > http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions
          >
          > Jim in Missouri
          >

          David Williams: If the atmosphere warms enough to melt the Siberian permafrost, releasing the methane sequestered in it, we will see some serious global warming. I hope it never happens.
        • Lowell Baker
          What people fail to realize that climate change has been coming ever since the days of Noah. Our oceans have already risen 180 feet since then. In 2012 they
          Message 4 of 14 , Apr 2, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            What people fail to realize that climate change has been coming ever since
            the days of Noah. Our oceans have already risen 180 feet since then. In
            2012 they found a city off the coast of India that always thought as
            fictional in the ancient writings of India. Surprise, they found it down,
            180 feet under the ocean. Lowell



            From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
            Behalf Of David
            Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 1:07 PM
            To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Enlightenment







            --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com> ,
            "JamesG" <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > David Williams: "There will be a time when climate change deniers will
            mostly shut up. A lot of the same kind of corporate interests that tried to
            deny ozone depletion by man made products are into man's contribution to
            climate change denial. They will come around when they realize that there is
            no reasonable scientific doubt about man made contribution to climate
            change. Also, since there is a lot of money to be made in alleviating damage
            to climate, they will follow the money."
            >
            > Those who assert that the science of global warming is such a done deal
            that there is "no reasonable scientific doubt" that mankind's CO2 emissions
            are overheating the earth will want to ignore this article:
            >
            >
            http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be
            -heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions
            >
            > Jim in Missouri
            >

            David Williams: If the atmosphere warms enough to melt the Siberian
            permafrost, releasing the methane sequestered in it, we will see some
            serious global warming. I hope it never happens.





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Charles Palm
            David Williams: If the atmosphere warms enough to melt the Siberian permafrost, releasing the methane sequestered in it, we will see some serious global
            Message 5 of 14 , Apr 2, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              David Williams: If the atmosphere warms enough to melt the Siberian
              permafrost, releasing the methane sequestered in it, we will see some
              serious global warming. I hope it never happens.

              Charles P: http://www.nenanaakiceclassic.com/ Since 1917, both *insiders*
              and *outsiders* to the statistics for climate change have been interested
              in the Nenana Ice Classic because there is no political agenda involved.

              Charles P: http://www.nenanaakiceclassic.com/2013%20Side%20B.pdf Here is
              the empirical and verifiable data that is open to scrutiny to *insiders*
              and *outsiders*.

              Charles P: http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/27397
              What is your prediction for the date and time of the ice breakup in 2013?

              Charles P: To calculate the method of least squares prediction for any
              year, here is the formula: Date&Time = Year X -0.0769024405 +
              41549.8822518633. Theoretically the date and time for the ice breakup in
              Nenana, AK, in 2013 should be May 1, 2013 at 1:51 AM. Last year it was
              April 23, 2012, at 7:39 PM.

              Charles P: On the average, the breakup occurs about 1.845658572 hours
              earlier each year and indicates that global warming is real. That is
              favorable evidence for the *insiders*.

              Coefficient of determination:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_determination In statistics,
              the coefficient of determination, denoted R2 and pronounced R squared, is
              used in the context of statistical models whose main purpose is the
              prediction of future outcomes on the basis of other related information. R2
              is most often seen as a number between 0 and 1, used to describe how well a
              regression line fits a set of data. An R2 near 1 indicates that a
              regression line fits the data well, while an R2 close to 0 indicates a
              regression line does not fit the data very well. It is the proportion of
              variability in a data set that is accounted for by the statistical model.
              It provides a measure of how well future outcomes are likely to be
              predicted by the model.

              Charles P: Unfortunately for the *insiders* of the global warming crisis,
              the coefficient of determination is only 0.1296837588. A coefficient of
              determination near 1 would indicate a very accurate future prediction for
              the date of the breakup at the Nenana Ice Classic. The past history shows
              that the earliest the ice has broken up occurred on April 20, 1940, at 3:27
              PM. The past history shows that the latest the ice has broken up occurred
              on May 20, 1964, at 11:41 AM.

              Charles P: If the current trend in climate change continues, it will be
              the year 2149 when the *global warming* will surpass the 1940 current
              record for early breakup. That may be interpreted as a crisis by some
              *insiders* and it may be interpreted as no crisis by some *outsiders*. We
              can all agree to the empirical and verifiable evidence and disagree to the
              importance of what is being observed in nature.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • D R Lindberg
              ... since ... In ... down, ... What city was that? Can you tell us any details? Who found it? Where off the coast of India? India is a big place. Is this the
              Message 6 of 14 , Apr 2, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell Baker" <lbaker70@...> wrote:
                >
                > What people fail to realize that climate change has been coming ever
                since
                > the days of Noah. Our oceans have already risen 180 feet since then.
                In
                > 2012 they found a city off the coast of India that always thought as
                > fictional in the ancient writings of India. Surprise, they found it
                down,
                > 180 feet under the ocean. Lowell

                What city was that? Can you tell us any details? Who found it? Where off
                the coast of India? India is a big place.

                Is this the only case? Presumably the seas were rising in other places
                as well. Why would this be the only city found?

                Cheers!





                "A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God
                knew the facts of the case." -- bsmart@... (Bob Smart)


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • VictorM
                ... Only one ocean existed immediately after the flood. It was the eastern Mediterranean. Copy and past the below link into your browser.
                Message 7 of 14 , Apr 2, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell Baker" <lbaker70@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > What people fail to realize that climate change has been coming ever since
                  > the days of Noah. Our oceans have already risen 180 feet since then. In
                  > 2012 they found a city off the coast of India that always thought as
                  > fictional in the ancient writings of India. Surprise, they found it down,
                  > 180 feet under the ocean. Lowell
                  >
                  >
                  >

                  Only one ocean existed immediately after the flood. It was the eastern Mediterranean. Copy and past the below link into your browser.

                  http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/atlantic_globes/white_background/2008_age_of_oceans_globe_w1024.jpg

                  The purple are is the oldest ocean on Earth - before the Pacific formed and long before the Atlantic formed.

                  You might ask, when did the modern oceans form? During the days of Peleg was the Earth divided.

                  How? The continents only fit together on a tiny globe, without major seas. This was the garden era when it did not rain. The Bible says the Earth spreads out (gets bigger) in unbroken continuity and even what issues forth from the Earth also stretches out. Indeed, a global expansion seam runs through every ocean.

                  Where did the water come from. More water is entering the ocean today from undersea hot springs than from all the rivers on Earth. 20 house sized snowballs hit earth every minute, and that comes down as rain, contributing also to the ocean level. But this is not a simple relationship, since the Earth continues to increase in size above teh waters, according to the Bible.

                  Only a biblical version of geology is supported by simple evidence. For example, Job talks about the ocean (Hebrew west) drying during the few days of his life back in the dinosaur age. Indeed, drill cores show that the eastern Med dried 8 times. When did this happen, about 4000 years ago when men lived for geological ages (see Job 14) and grew thick brows from living for vast ages.

                  Victor
                • David
                  ... David Williams: Many global warming skeptics and evolution deniers seem to have Republican brains: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republican_Brain From
                  Message 8 of 14 , Apr 3, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > David Williams: If the atmosphere warms enough to melt the Siberian
                    > permafrost, releasing the methane sequestered in it, we will see some
                    > serious global warming. I hope it never happens.
                    >
                    > Charles P: http://www.nenanaakiceclassic.com/ Since 1917, both *insiders*
                    > and *outsiders* to the statistics for climate change have been interested
                    > in the Nenana Ice Classic because there is no political agenda involved.
                    >

                    David Williams: Many global warming skeptics and evolution deniers seem to have Republican brains:

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republican_Brain

                    From above:

                    The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science by journalist Chris Mooney is about the psychological basis for many Republican's rejection of mainstream scientific theories, as well as theories of economics and history.

                    http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/08/29/the-republican-brain-on-science/

                    From above:

                    The republican brain on science
                    by Donald Prothero, Aug 29 2012

                    A Review of The Republican Brain: The Science of Why they Deny Science—and Reality by Chris Mooney, John Wiley, New York, 327 pages.

                    Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

                    —Stephen Colbert

                    Hearing the speakers at the GOP convention spout their ideas this week, I'm again reminded that an entire American political party is proudly and openly espousing views that are demonstrably contrary to reality, from claiming that rape does not cause pregnancy, to claiming that global climate change is a hoax, to even weirder idea, like the bizarre notion that the President of the United States is a Kenyan Muslim. For years, I've puzzled over why people can believe such weird things as creationism or other kinds of pseudoscience and science denials. In my 2007 book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, I devoted an entire chapter to asking why creationists can so confidently believe patently false ideas, and refuse to look at any evidence placed in front of them. I've compared it to Alice's Adventures Through the Looking Glass, where Alice steps through the mirror and finds that the objects and the landscape look vaguely familiar—but all the rules of logic are reversed or turned inside out. How can people continue to believe things that are clearly wrong, and refuse to change their ideas or look at evidence?

                    It turns out that human brains are constructed very differently than what we would like to believe. As described by Chris Mooney (2012) in The Republican Brain: The Science of Why they Deny Science—and Reality, our brains are not logical computers or non-emotional Vulcans like Dr. Spock, but organs in emotional animals who navigate the factual world to fit our beliefs and biases.

                    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/chris-mooney-republican-brain-science-denial


                    Diagnosing the Republican Brain
                    Fact: Conservatives deny science and facts. But there's a reality check that liberals need too.

                    From above:

                    We all know that many American conservatives have issues with Charles Darwin, and the theory of evolution. But Albert Einstein, and the theory of relativity?

                    If you're surprised, allow me to introduce Conservapedia, the right-wing answer to Wikipedia and ground zero for all that is scientifically and factually inaccurate, for political reasons, on the Internet.

                    "Relativity has been met with much resistance in the scientific world," declares Conservapedia. "To date, a Nobel Prize has never been awarded for Relativity." The site goes on to catalogue the "political aspects of relativity," charging that some liberals have "extrapolated the theory" to favor their agendas. That includes President Barack Obama, who (it is claimed) helped published an article applying relativity in the legal sphere while attending Harvard Law School in the late 1980s.


                    "Virtually no one who is taught and believes Relativity continues to read the Bible, a book that outsells New York Times bestsellers by a hundred-fold," Conservapedia continues. But even that's not the site's most staggering claim. In its list of "counterexamples" to relativity, Conservapedia provides 36 alleged cases, including: "The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46–54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51."

                    David Williams:

                    Andrew Schlafly who sponsors Conservapaedia wanted to examine Richard Lenski's data on his e. coli evolution experiments. Dr. Lenski said no:

                    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/06/lenski-gives-co.html

                    Lenski gives Conservapædia a lesson

                    From above:

                    I tried to be polite, civil and respectful in my reply to your first email, despite its rude tone and uninformed content. Given the continued rudeness of your second email, and the willfully ignorant and slanderous content on your website, my second response will be less polite. I expect you to post my response in its entirety; if not, I will make sure that is made publicly available through other channels.

                    I offer this lengthy reply because I am an educator as well as a scientist. It is my sincere hope that some readers might learn something from this exchange, even if you do not.

                    First, it seems that reading might not be your strongest suit given your initial letter, which showed that you had not read our paper, and given subsequent conversations with your followers, in which you wrote that you still had not bothered to read our paper. You wrote: "I did skim Lenski's paper …" If you have not even read the original paper, how do you have any basis of understanding from which to question, much less criticize, the data that are presented therein?

                    Second, your capacity to misinterpret and/or misrepresent facts is plain in the third request in your first letter, where you said: "In addition, there is skepticism that 3 new and useful proteins appeared in the colony around generation 20,000." That statement was followed by a link to a news article from NewScientist that briefly reported on our work. I assumed you had simply misunderstood that article, because there is not even a mention of proteins anywhere in the news article. As I replied, "We make no such claim anywhere in our paper, nor do I think it is correct. Proteins do not 'appear out of the blue', in any case." So where did your confused assertion come from?

                    Dr. Lenski will not any old outsider scrutinize his work.
                  • David
                    ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQZFS9Hij0M Dwarka, India - 12,000 Year Old City of Lord Krishna Found From above: Graham Hancock - Underworld: Flooded
                    Message 9 of 14 , Apr 3, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "D R Lindberg" <dr.lindberg@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell Baker" <lbaker70@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > What people fail to realize that climate change has been coming ever
                      > since
                      > > the days of Noah. Our oceans have already risen 180 feet since then.
                      > In
                      > > 2012 they found a city off the coast of India that always thought as
                      > > fictional in the ancient writings of India. Surprise, they found it
                      > down,
                      > > 180 feet under the ocean. Lowell
                      >
                      > What city was that? Can you tell us any details? Who found it? Where off
                      > the coast of India? India is a big place.
                      >
                      > Is this the only case? Presumably the seas were rising in other places
                      > as well. Why would this be the only city found?
                      >
                      > Cheers!
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > "A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God
                      > knew the facts of the case." -- bsmart@... (Bob Smart)
                      >


                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQZFS9Hij0M

                      Dwarka, India - 12,000 Year Old City of Lord Krishna Found

                      From above:

                      Graham Hancock - Underworld: Flooded Kingdoms Of The Ice Age

                      Lost city 'could rewrite history'
                      .

                      Dwarka (Dvarka, Dwaraka, or Dvaraka, is a city in Gujarat state in India). Dwarka also known as Dwarawati in Sanskrit literature is rated as one of the seven most ancient cities in the country. The legendary city of Dvaraka was the dwelling place of Lord Krishna. It is believed that due to damage and destruction by the sea, Dvaraka has submerged six times and modern day Dwarka is the 7th such city to be built in the area. According to Hindu legend the god Krishna built a city which was ultimately destroyed by rising sea levels. Now archaeologists and Indian Navy divers are investigating underwater ruins at Dwarka on India's western coast, said to be Krishna's city. The new efforts, it is hoped, will settle the debate currently raging over the age and authenticity of the site near the Samudranaraya temple. Divers have collected blocks and samples which will now be dated. Traditional Hindu scholars referencing ancient Hindu scriptures believe the location to be very ancient, originally built many thousands of years ago. Such notions are, of course, vehemently rejected by establishment scientists though they are willing to concede that there is evidence indicating an age of as much as 3500 years.
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.