_ _ _ _
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 164

Thread: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

  1. #141
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,407

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Turbine View Post
    Perhaps but a person of influence mixing two disparate topics generally has an impact. Some might say on purpose, or with goal in mind. It doesn't have to be a conversation, a seed was planted on a disparate topic.
    I can see that but I still subscribe to the belief that I held years ago when Tipper Gore advocated for record labels. If anything Ozzy Osbourne says has more influence than your parents, your parents arent doing their job.
    I felt the same way when my boys school wanted to take Harry Potter books off the shelf because "it might promote witchcraft and black magic". I asked if they believed in witchcraft and black magic. They said no and then retreated with a sheepish look. Same with Davinci Code. If a work of fiction can shake your faith, it wasnt that strong to begin with.
    I dont look to HAwking or Dawkins as spiritual advisers so I am pretty uninterested in their take on religion. Just like I dont care about a preachers take on science.

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,407

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by CajunRed View Post
    No...I didn't miss it. Matter of fact, I've noticed that since you could no longer effectively defend your position...and have no intention of curtailing your own use of petroleum, you were more than willing to go off on a tangent.
    I think there was a mutual agreement that our sides with different. I understand j1m's side but disagree with most, I think he understands my side but disagrees with most. I posted that I hope he is correct. I am not sure anything else can be added to that particular discussion unless you have any more profound statements like "OIL".
    The conversation organically moved to the beginnings of modern science in the Renaissance and thats how we have arrived here.
    You, on the other hand, seem to have added little but slogans from bumper stickers.
    Last edited by Ragin4U; April 13th, 2016 at 08:36 pm. Reason: words

  3. #143
    CajunRed's Avatar
    CajunRed is offline Ragin Cajuns of Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns Greatest Fan Ever
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ragin4U View Post
    I think there was a mutual agreement that our sides with different. I understand j1m's side but disagree with most, I think he understands my side but disagrees with most. I posted that I hope he is correct. I am not sure anything else can be added to that particular discussion unless you have any more profound statements like "OIL".
    The conversation organically moved to the beginnings of modern science in the Renaissance and thats how we have arrived here.
    You, on the other hand, seem to have added little but slogans from bumper stickers.
    Ouch...large mind.

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,407

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by CajunRed View Post
    Ouch...large mind.
    Case in point.

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Louisiana A
    Posts
    20,315
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ragin4U View Post
    I can I dont look to HAwking or Dawkins as spiritual advisers so I am pretty uninterested in their take on religion. Just like I dont care about a preachers take on science.
    I can appreciate that, which is why I raised the Einstein quote. I think it was both a shot across the bow and a personal reminder not to get to locked in, to a particular theory. Not that he always followed that interpretation.

    Because of the broadness involved, the words Science, Religion, and Evolution are pretty much generic terms and I try not to dismiss any out of hand.

    The relative fixed rotation of Earths orbit (some 3 million miles variance annually) over billions of years at an overall consistent distance from the Sun -to date- backs up the Bible's immovable claim.

    On the other hand I'm thinking if it stayed at 91+ million miles from the Sun year round it could cause a measure of global warming.

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,407

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    "The relative fixed rotation of Earths orbit (some 3 million miles variance annually) over billions of years at an overall consistent distance from the Sun -to date- backs up the Bible's immovable claim."
    I never thought of that. Clever take.


  7. #147
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Louisiana A
    Posts
    20,315
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by MiamiCajun32 View Post
    May not be a good thing though for his topic :-)

    http://nypost.com/2016/04/06/newly-d...h-any-day-now/
    My problem with "science" sometimes is how an original article might say "theoretical discovery" (as in not yet observed) link and a subsequent peer review article simply states "a new planet discovered" but fails to mention it has not yet been observed. link

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,407

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Those two articles are not at all the same. CalTech and The Sun?
    It does illustrate the communication problem science has. One of these articles is a good example of scientific writing. The other is sensationalism posing as science writing.


  9. #149
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Outside of the cave, in the bright sunlight.
    Posts
    6,587

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)


  10. #150
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,407

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Interesting. Also important to keep in mind that he was a sci-fi writer who believed that clairvoyance and astral projection are real things.
    I'll give a short take on some of his biggest points.
    1. He uses weather patterns from single points to make a case against global climate change. Fundamentally unsound.
    2. His use of very few selections from very few studies is misleading. The body of work, in its entirety must be studied, not just the parts that confirm your bias.
    3. He apparently confuses sunspot cycles with changes in Total Solar Irradiance. Hard to tell because his info is wrong. He claims that sunspot activity was at a peak(2008) but in reality the peak was hit in the 1960's and has continued downward since.
    4. He correctly states that the future is very hard to predict. I am unclear on his point however. Do you think he means that because it is hard we should stop trying or that we shouldn't take precautions just in case? If so, that's like saying "hurricanes are hard to predict so I'll live in a paper shack on a barrier island".

    I do agree with him on the fact that causes(environmentalism, etc) can become religious in nature for some. What I disagree with is his idea that because you have extremist environmentalists that it colors the entire idea of environmentalism. Extremists in any arena are usually not a good thing. I also agree that science should be the foundation of any and all policies.
    I've enjoyed his fiction for years so its no surprise that I enjoyed reading these fictional works as well.


  11. #151
    VObserver's Avatar
    VObserver is offline Ragin Cajuns of Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns Greatest Fan Ever
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Abbeville, LA
    Posts
    5,706

    Ragin' Cajuns Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ragin4U View Post
    Interesting. Also important to keep in mind that he was a sci-fi writer who believed that clairvoyance and astral projection are real things.
    I'll give a short take on some of his biggest points.
    1. He uses weather patterns from single points to make a case against global climate change. Fundamentally unsound.
    2. His use of very few selections from very few studies is misleading. The body of work, in its entirety must be studied, not just the parts that confirm your bias.
    3. He apparently confuses sunspot cycles with changes in Total Solar Irradiance. Hard to tell because his info is wrong. He claims that sunspot activity was at a peak(2008) but in reality the peak was hit in the 1960's and has continued downward since.
    4. He correctly states that the future is very hard to predict. I am unclear on his point however. Do you think he means that because it is hard we should stop trying or that we shouldn't take precautions just in case? If so, that's like saying "hurricanes are hard to predict so I'll live in a paper shack on a barrier island".

    I do agree with him on the fact that causes(environmentalism, etc) can become religious in nature for some. What I disagree with is his idea that because you have extremist environmentalists that it colors the entire idea of environmentalism. Extremists in any arena are usually not a good thing. I also agree that science should be the foundation of any and all policies.
    I've enjoyed his fiction for years so its no surprise that I enjoyed reading these fictional works as well.
    He also happened to be a physician; a field that some would say is rather closely related to science.

    Also, I would appreciate links to proof that he believed that astral projection and clairvoyance are real things, as opposed to theorizing that they are scientifically plausible things.

  12. #152
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,407

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by VObserver View Post
    He also happened to be a physician; a field that some would say is rather closely related to science.

    Also, I would appreciate links to proof that he believed that astral projection and clairvoyance are real things, as opposed to theorizing that they are scientifically plausible things.
    I dont think he received his medical license. His website says he never practiced medicine.
    To be fair, I havent read the book "Travels" only the reviews. His ideas about the paranormal are outlined in the reviews.

  13. #153
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ragin4U View Post
    I dont think he received his medical license. His website says he never practiced medicine.
    To be fair, I havent read the book "Travels" only the reviews. His ideas about the paranormal are outlined in the reviews.
    He received his Medical Doctorate from Harvard in 1969. He never applied for his license to practice to focus on his writing. Pretty brilliant guy actually.

  14. #154
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,407

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Tremendous talent and very wide-ranging intellect.


  15. #155
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Outside of the cave, in the bright sunlight.
    Posts
    6,587

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ragin4U View Post
    ...Do you think he means that because it is hard we should stop trying or that we shouldn't take precautions just in case?...
    The problem is that the "precautions" the environmentalists would have us undertake would be catastrophic to the world economy and cause the deaths of millions.

    I'm not willing to sacrifice people on the altar of that religion. Dr. Crichton wasn't either.

  16. #156
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,407

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by CajunNation View Post
    The problem is that the "precautions" the environmentalists would have us undertake would be catastrophic to the world economy and cause the deaths of millions.

    I'm not willing to sacrifice people on the altar of that religion. Dr. Crichton wasn't either.
    I'm unclear on the "precautions" that "environmentalists" want to take that would be catastrophic.

  17. #157
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Louisiana A
    Posts
    20,315
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Its getting hot in here.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/greenlan...eratures-warm/

    When it thaws I predict they will find lots of animals frozen for perhaps thousands of years, some with vegetation in their mouth and or guts.


  18. #158
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Outside of the cave, in the bright sunlight.
    Posts
    6,587

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ragin4U View Post
    I'm unclear on the "precautions" that "environmentalists" want to take that would be catastrophic.
    Eliminating use of fossil fuels.

  19. #159
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,407

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by CajunNation View Post
    Eliminating use of fossil fuels.
    What are the consequences of gradually passing out fossil fuels?
    Interesting? http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/...nomy/81928138/

    Turb-Scary stuff in the article. To me the scary thing is that we see more and more of these every day.

  20. #160
    Just1More's Avatar
    Just1More is offline Ragin Cajuns of Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns Greatest Fan Ever
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Baton Rouge
    Posts
    16,032
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ragin4U View Post
    What are the consequences of gradually passing out fossil fuels?
    Interesting? http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/...nomy/81928138/

    Turb-Scary stuff in the article. To me the scary thing is that we see more and more of these every day.
    I've provided you the consequences. I have to say, quite fortunately, that the extremist reduction that would cripple the US has been slowed to a great extent by our poor economy. The Solyndra failure, the learned limitations of hydro/wind/solar, the consumer discovery of the massive wastes of money going into government subsidized sales of crappy green vehicle product and numerous other ridiculously dumb exploits... has curbed a lot of completely moronic pushes to "reduce fossil fuels" in the radical fashion the knuckleheads originally planned.

    We are not going to reduce the world fossil fuel footprint enough to stop the greenhouse gas damage... as is currently being "scientifically" estimated. We are doomed... or... scientists have it wrong.

    We will argue about this while the world continues to generate massive amounts of CO2... and the preoccupation with greenhouse gases will subside as scientists go through approximately 4 cycles of stating what the cause/effect/consequence is/will be... and each time they reset the forecast... their credibility will drop proportionate to their enthusiasm... and then something else will become sexier for science to focus on. I hope they find something that doesn't indict man. We need to alternate hypothetical catastrophes between man made and natural... to give mankind a break from the huge pile of ____ science stirs up in the world political community when they seek new adventures of cosmic calamity.

    Mother Nature will burp... and science will move on to another fantastic voyage. I think the next calamity of great probability and consequence will be an asteroid field heading our way. And ironically the asteroid belt will pull out some of our atmosphere as it passes.. where science will come back and state that it was a blessing (the non religious variety) that man created so much greenhouse gas. "Despite the asteroid field sucking out much of our upper atmosphere... our petroleum industry had the foresight to generate abundant supplies of additional CO2. We'll all be a little chilly for a couple of decades... but we'll keep pumping CO2 and restore it soon enough that our baby making incubator will keep on making Earth the cozy lovable randomly created debris we've come to appreciate."

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •