Discussion in 'General Announcements' started by NC8X, Jan 13, 2018.
That's an easy one. All you have to do is to convert to a renewable bio-fuel, like whale oil.
Lets see what we can do to pollute the sun and make sun spots.
Those rules also fit very well on the ZED and other forums when used by those who poorly understand antennas and amplifiers. There are also the groupies/lemmings that simply have to reply without a thought to any accuracy or value added.
A satellite, which will get closer to the sun than Mercury, will be launched this year.
We could probably drop the whole Earth into the Sun, with zero effect.
Isn’t that the truth. We will half to live with it and like it.
My OPINION is....drum roll.....the "scientists" must be busy at all times to get grant money so they can play in their lab, earn a living while writing stuff to be published, receiving adulation from worshipers of "intelligence" oriented groupies called students and patting themselves on the back for being so smart. There are some exceptions from time to time but mostly by the non-scientist managers who keep scientists on track to some desired objective like the Manhattan Project. Or SpaceX with auto landing reusable boosters. Or Paul McCready with pedal-powered aircraft (more engineering than science, sorry). Or some ham genius like the Electraft duo.
Without Primary Research none of these practical applications would ever have happened. Scientists and research professors aren't "scamming' grant money to keep a cozy no-work job. shakes head.
There are many honorable scientists who are productive and relevant. There are also many who sell their soul to Satan to influence the general public. Our mission is to test each one for integrity.
That sounds about right. Here's a couple good tests for integrity, perhaps not just for integrity of the scientists but also of the data. If the argument is "99.186% of scientists agree" then they don't have an argument, that's just an appeal to authority. Just because a lot of people agree does not mean it's true. I'll admit that this is not a perfect test because experts will agree on both what is true and what is false but if this is where they start and end their argument then this should raise suspicions. Another common fallacy is an appeal to emotion. If a climate scientist shows pictures of drowning polar bears, a gun control advocate shows crying mothers, and illegal immigration proponents plead for people to "think of the children" then there is a good chance they don't have an argument. Again it's not a perfect test but this should REALLY make you think about the argument being made. An appeal to emotion is often the last resort in any argument, if this is how they lead off then there is most likely a huge hole with their case. Attempts to counter appeals to authority or emotion quickly devolve into ad hominem, someone that disagrees is now ignorant, stupid, uncaring, or all the above.
Here's what I see as vital to making a good case, giving a means to falsify the proposal. Albert Einstein was famous for this, he'd describe a concept in physics and then tell people how to prove it true or false. Many times 99.186% of scientists would write letters to scientific publications on how he was wrong. He'd simply say it shouldn't take a thousand physicists to prove him wrong, just one with good data.
I don't like this "follow the money" argument either. People will say so-and-so is funded by such-and-such and therefore the data must be bad. I've been told that statistics will tell you anything if you torture them enough. If the people making the argument will not show their data in full then that should be suspicious.
I've pretty much given up on arguing if global warming, oops.... climate change, is real or not. The theory is difficult to falsify since there is only one planet to experiment with. I'll give in on the premise that CO2 production should be reduced since that alone is neither harmful nor helpful. The problem with most solutions to this problem of excessive CO2 production is taxation and subsidies to prop up certain sources of energy. This is a problem. We cannot have a stable economy that relies on energy sources that are not profitable on their own. This is not an argument on global warming but the economy. If we agree on the problem then it comes down to choosing a solution. We need a solution that does not destroy the economy.