The Urge to Explore

Shawn Wilson wrote:
trying as usual to shoehorn reality into his preconceived notion
of Chicago School monetarism.

Never even heard of it. Google has, to the tune of a whopping 36 hits.

Odd. Searching for '"Chicago School" economics' turns up 66,000 hits,
not 36. And searching for '"Chicago School" monetarism" specifically
turns up 843 hits. These include hits like:

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/chicago.htm
http://www.economist.com/research/Ec...m?TERM=CAPITAL
http://economics.about.com/library/g...ago-school.htm

So, obviously, you're as bad at constructing Google searches as you are
at everything else requiring mental acuity.

Here's a tip: you obviously don't know squat about economics, don't try to
criticize something without SOME knowledge.

This from the guy who apparently doesn't know who Milton Friedman is.

--
Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Shawn Wilson wrote:
"George William Herbert" wrote in message
...

Unfortunately, no. It applies to static systems as well.

Nope. If seven citations aren't enough to pound this simple thing into
your
incredibly thick skull just say so, and I'll post as many as you want.

None of these seven citations contradict what I am saying.

If you don't understand why, you are not equipped to be
participating in this conversation.

Every single one of them directly contradicts your claim. I'm tired of all
the falsehood and ignorance coming from you.

Plonk.

Hey, cool. You agreed with George that you not equipped to participate
in the conversation. You kind of snarky about it, but I knew you guys
could agree on something.

--
Justin Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
Hop David wrote:

You evidently don't know what a cite is.

You might note that the serious global warming folks got real quiet when
I asked them to "cite" some actual accurate predictions that have come
true.

That's not a cite either, Chad. A cited claim looks more like this:

Chad, you're a liar. Several people in this thread have cited some
actual, accurate predictions that have come true. For example:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e6364d7?hl=en&

--
Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

"Christopher P. Winter" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 04:57:23 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
wrote:

Anyway, it's this poem by Dorothy Parker, which I think is well-known:

Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
A medley of extemporanea;
And love is a thing that can never go wrong;
And I am Marie of Rumania


That's good; I like that. I wonder if anything else rhymes with
"extemporanea". (But now I'm really getting off topic.)

Hi there,

I wonder if you guys would be so kind as to snip soc.history.what-if from
your headers. It is a big message volume thread, but is OT for the group.

cheers,


--

----------
Doug

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

Shawn Wilson ) wrote:

: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: ...

: : ...And pretend ignorance, if your "when have we seen earth with a warmer
: : climate?" question is any evidence.
:
: I asked for empirical evidence. The fossil record doesn't take into
: account the burning of fossile fuels!


: Gee, all it has is a record of what the Earth is like with higher
: temperatures and higher CO2 levels...

Right, the CO2 right along with the other industrial gases. Idiots like
you are convinced that we do nothing worse than what volcanos spew out.

: Plonk.

You plonking me?!?!

ROFLMAO.....

Dave O'Neill ) wrote:


: Shawn Wilson wrote:
: "George William Herbert" wrote in message
: ...
:
: Unfortunately, no. It applies to static systems as well.
:
: Nope. If seven citations aren't enough to pound this simple thing into
: your
: incredibly thick skull just say so, and I'll post as many as you want.
:
: None of these seven citations contradict what I am saying.
:
: If you don't understand why, you are not equipped to be
: participating in this conversation.
:
:
:
: Every single one of them directly contradicts your claim. I'm tired of all
: the falsehood and ignorance coming from you.

: No, really, every single one of them backed up what he was saying.

: You just don't understand the science.

Worse, he doesn't even want to try and undertsand science!

Eric

: Dave

Hop David writes:

wrote:

It would take some very sophisticated modelling to answer that
question. If the CO2 were to stay in the atmosphere I'd
guess that the greenhouse effect would keep Venus uninhabitably
warm out beyond the orbit of Mars.

Dr. Hyde, Bob Zubrin contends there is a lot of frozen CO2 on Mars and
that a little nudge would vaporize it, increasing pressure and
temperature and thus causing more frozen CO2 to be vaporized.

I read some speculation on this years ago, but I can't
honestly say I know enough to evaluate it seriously. And
I haven't kept up on this subject.

Do you agree that it wouldn't take much to start a runaway greenhouse
effect on Mars?

The version I was reading called for ten thousand ten megaton
fusion bombs in the crust. I presume the idea is more subtle
now.

IIRC Zubrin projected that even with a runaway
greenhouse effect, Mars' atmosphere would still be too cold and thin
to work in without protective suits. But he thought such a Mars would
be a little less hostile.

The models I write or work with generally are not capable of
accurate computation of radiative transfer at very high
CO2 levels (certainly not at 100X, for example). However,
the results should be plausible within very broad limits
(i.e. if it says you need 100X, the range of error is
not 95-105, but more like 50-200).

That being said I found, even assuming a serious H2O feedback,
that it took a huge amount of CO2 to bring Mars up to near-Earth
temperatures. Enough that the atmosphere would be unbreathable
anyway. And I wasn't taking into account the cooling effect
of clouds.

So yes, it sounds like we're in agreement.

We need an IR absorber which is more efficient than CO2 but
does not break down, as CFCs do.


--
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University

Chad Irby wrote:

In article , Beowulf Bolt
wrote:

Then why the **** did you bring it up in a discussion centering
around the scientific basis for such claims?!?

Because - and this is something that you keep missing, time after time:

Most of what we've been hearing about global warming is not really
very scientific.

Well, duh. Thank you, Captain Obvious.

This has nothing - and I repeat *nothing* to do with the ongoing
argument where you were getting your ass soundly kicked on the basis of
the *scientific* data supporting (or not) Global Warning.

Dr. Hyde asked for *cites*, not the ravings of the granola fringe.
Your failure to provide them has been noted.

Biff


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Justin Bacon wrote:


Wayne Throop wrote:

: Chad Irby
: They came up with similar answers, but it's *impossible* to really
: reproduce someone's work *until the work itself is known*.

"The source code hasn't been published" isn't the same thing as
"the work is not known".


Someone once showed me a program which purported to calculate the
length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle if you gave it the length
of the other two sides.

He refused to show me the source code, though. Just babbled on and on
about "a^2 + b^2 = c^2".

It would clearly be impossible to reproduce his work or verify his
theory without access to his source code, though, so I've dismissed him
as a kook.

But if that person then followed up by announcing that his
software had produced a result where, given that a=3 and
b=4, c=7, you might very well have doubts as to the
competence of his source code.

In the case of climate change, the problem is enormously
more complex than the one you presented above, and the
answers therefore much less clearcut. It seems quite
reasonable, under the circumstances, that people who claim
to be making forecasts of future climate changes be asked to
present not just their general principles for public
inspection, but their source code, as well.

"Brandon" wrote in message
...


Justin Bacon wrote:


Wayne Throop wrote:

: Chad Irby
: They came up with similar answers, but it's *impossible* to really
: reproduce someone's work *until the work itself is known*.

"The source code hasn't been published" isn't the same thing as
"the work is not known".


Someone once showed me a program which purported to calculate the
length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle if you gave it the length
of the other two sides.

He refused to show me the source code, though. Just babbled on and on
about "a^2 + b^2 = c^2".

It would clearly be impossible to reproduce his work or verify his
theory without access to his source code, though, so I've dismissed him
as a kook.

But if that person then followed up by announcing that his software had
produced a result where, given that a=3 and b=4, c=7, you might very well
have doubts as to the competence of his source code.

In the case of climate change, the problem is enormously more complex than
the one you presented above, and the answers therefore much less clearcut.
It seems quite reasonable, under the circumstances, that people who claim
to be making forecasts of future climate changes be asked to present not
just their general principles for public inspection, but their source
code, as well.

I'd prefer algorithms, myself, to encourage alternative implementations. If
the two disagree, at least one of them is implemented wrong, and that's a
good thing to know. Deriving algorithms from source code is non-trivial, as
is verifying that code implements an algorithm correctly.