Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Einar wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : Einar wrote:
: : :
: : :
: : : :CO2 trading is allowed for industrial countries that have joined and
: : : :ratified the Kyoto Protocol. That means that, to name an example
: : : utside Europe that Japan can participate in the CO2 sceme. So would
: : : :USA have been able to, if it had joined.
: : : :
: : :
: : : And yet nobody else has, even when they're not meeting Kyoto targets.
: : : Why is that, Einar?
: : :
: : :If that is true, that is theyr business. However, I really doubt that
: : :what you are saying is true.
: : :
: : :So cough up some citation supporting that claim.
: : :
: :
: : So I need a citation to prove a negative, Einar?
: :
: : Obviously they don't require Political Science majors to take any
: : logic courses where you come from.
: :
: :
: :You really are quite incredible, and I don´t mean that in a positive
: :way.
: :
:
: The fact remains that you apparently think it's sane to demand that
: someone prove a negative.
:
:No, you are insisting that it is the truth, completelly without any
:evidence to back it up. Then calling me a fool for doubting it. It´s
:you who are spouting rubbish after rubbish. Clearly quite oblivious at
:the same time that that´s what you are doing, as after all 'YOU THINK
:YOU KNOW THE TRUTH.'
:

And so you once again demonstrate that obviously they don't require
Political Science majors to take any logic courses where you come
from.

Hint: Get a logic book and look up "proving a negative".

You repeat the same nonsence.

This was my statement:
"CO2 trading is allowed for industrial countries that have joined and
ratified the Kyoto Protocol. That means that, to name an example
outside Europe that Japan can participate in the CO2 sceme. So would
USA have been able to, if it had joined."

This was your:
"And yet nobody else has, even when they're not meeting Kyoto targets.
Why is that, Einar?"


Your statement contains only assertions, like I said, without any
attempt whatsoever to support your case with arguments or evidence.

As things stand, you have asserted one thing, and I have asserted
another. I see no reason to prove your statement wrong, when you so
far have made no attempt to support it with any kind of data.

:
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :
: : : :
: : : :The keyword is the defination, industrial country. As you remember
: : : :third world countries and rapidly growing industrializing countries
: : : :have been exempted from many burdens of the Kyoto. Those countries can
: : : :´t purchase CO2 quotas, yet.
: : : :
: : :
: : : Those countries DON'T NEED TO purchase CO2 quotas, since they have no
: : : 'ceilings' in the first place.
: : :
: : :
: : :It proved not possible at the time to make them accept any ceiling,
: : :which later was used by the USA as an excuse to reject the Kyoto
: : :Protocol.
: : :
: :
: : It proved not possible at the time to make the US accept any ceiling,
: : either, given European intransigence. And now China produces more CO2
: : than anyone.
: :
: : So tell me, Einar, just who was right about that one, Europe or the
: : US?
: :
: :Clearly Europe.
: :
:
: So to your thinking it made sense to exempt China from requirements
: and alienate the US so that half the CO2 production is outside any
: controls stemming from the protocol?
:
:
:Yes, I think this made sence, but that USA was silly to take umbrage.
:This was after all only the Kyoto 1. By demonstrating good example,
:along with Europe, USA and Europe would today have got a more powerful
:argument on China. Now, getting China to join is harder for the fact
:the USA chose to take umbrage.
:

And so we see that from the perspective of people like Einar,
everything is always the fault of the United States. And then they
wonder why we view them and their opinions with derision...

The USA is not allways in the right, as some Americans appear to
believe.

: No, Einar. Clearly the US position that countries like China needed
: to be part of the controls was correct. Not only has China become the
: largest single-nation source of CO2 on the planet, but their carbon
: footprint per unit of production is much worse than other big
: producers.
:
:
:USA was wrong not to participate in Kyoto 1. USA by opting out has
:made preciselly harder to convinche China and India to join. They note
:USA´s opt out, and think that if USA is not alarmed enough to join the
:Kyoto process then clearly they have no reason to do so first.
:

Except the Kyoto process didn't require them to do anything, which was
one of our objections to it.

We have to begin somewhere. It´s very difficult to move 190 states to
do something, anything.

:Somebody has to take the lead, Europe has been trying to, but without
:the USA it´s doubly/tribly difficult.
:

Then perhaps you should stop trying to present us with things we won't
agree to?

That´s why the world is waiting for the next precident. Bush has never
wanter to do anything, substantive. Today it looks most likelly the
Mrs. Clinton or Obama will be the next precident. Either of the two
might be willing to consider actions that have some degree of
substance to them.

A more flexible precident will be necessary, and along with a more
flexible Congress - it might just work.

:
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : Einar, a majority of Americans distrust your 'international'
: : : : organizations. Why do you think that is?
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :Common misconceptions about international organizations.
: : : :
: : :
: : : That's not a "why", Einar. That's a "what". The question wasn't what
: : : you want to characterize the opinion as. The question was WHY DO YOU
: : :
: : :
: : :It´s baffling, that´s sure.
: : :
: :
: : Not to anyone with a couple of brain cells to their name, it isn't.
: :
: :
: :That counts you out then.
: :
:
: And there's the best you can do, isn't it? Reality is inexplicable
: and anyone who understands it where you do not can only be insulted.
:
:
:The reason why a percentage of Americans distrust international
rganization, eludes the rest of the world, quite simply.
:

Then "the rest of the world" must be quite simple, indeed.

Or, Americans have been doing a very poor job of explaining theyr
positions.

:I appears really baffling, not the least because those institutions
:usually don´t do anything the US gow. doesn´t want done. Really only
:the WTO is capable of ruling against the USA, but the WTO is so to
:speak an operational arm of a world trade system USA itself finds in
:its interest to maintain. It was preciselly the USA which insisted on
:the WTO coming into being.
:
:Yeah, it´s quite baffling that global organizations that do mostly act
:according to US interests, have been created by past US precidents,
:have come to appear to some Americans to be some evil arm of world
:control directed at the USA. Sounds more than a litle schizophrenic.
:

And so we once again see the lack of intellectual integrity of Einar.

No evidence for any of the preceding assertions, but "Sounds more than
a litle schizophrenic".

Yeah, right.

Talk to us about what almost scotched the whole Dunkel Agreement,
Einar...


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

Like I said, USA was in the past instrumental in creating these
international organizations. Has allways made sure that they more or
less do its bidding, so it really is quite strange that a percentage
of Americans do believe that somehow they have become some sort of a
foreign conspiracy to hamstring the USA; sounds really somewhat schizo
or nutty.

Einar

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Einar wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : Einar wrote:
: : :
: : : :
: : : :Rand Simberg wrote:
: : : :
: : : : Do you think there's
: : : : anything wrong with slavery?
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :Very simple to answere, would you want to be a slave? If you think
: : : :slavery is unfair treatment of you, it´s an unfair treatment of others
: : : :as well.
: : : :
: : :
: : : I wouldn't want to live in a country that mandated my religion,
: : : either.
: : :
: : : Do you think there is something wrong with such countries?
: : :
: : : I wouldn't want to live in a country that told me I wasn't allowed to
: : : be armed to protect myself (including from the government).
: : :
: : : Do you think there is something wrong with such countries?
: : :
: : :
: : : I'd suggest it's not so simple to answer as you think.
: : :
: : :
: : :What I´m preaching is toleration.
: : :
: :
: : Toleration of what? Suppose I want to keep slaves and Rand wants to
: : have sex with 7 year olds. How's your 'toleration' now?
: :
: :
: :Why do you pick such extreme examples?
: :
:
: Because you made a silly statement and I wanted to demonstrate its
: silliness.
:
:
:But they don´t do that. Just about any human endevour can be treated
:in like manner if most extreme examples of failure are only chosen.
:

Then you need to stop making silly statements.

:
:You need to pick more representative examples. After all, to name an
:example, no country in the world actually allows slavery. Though there
:are couple of countries in which slavery is still believed to persist,
:most of it happening inside Sudan. However, Sudan is an outlyer state,
racticing many things like genocide that generally are aborred by the
:world at large. So neither genocide nor slavery is representative.
:

You need to stop making such general statements then, as if
"tolerance" is automatically a 'good thing'.

I don´t think I ever said that all things should be tolerated, yet you
sort of haranged me like I had done just that, and so did Rand.

You need to stop falling for the vorst case conclusion.

If we think about 'tolerance' as a range, perfect toleration being
tolerating all things good as well as bad, and perfect intoleration
being only to tolerate a very narrovly defined subset of behavior and
believes deemed correct; then my stance is at neither of the two
extremes.

When I say we need more toleration, then I´m saying we should mover
some distance along the toleration axis towards greater degree of
toleration, but still not suggesting tolerating all things.

Is that clarification enough?

:
:
: :
: :Mentione a singe country on the planet where such actions are legal?
: :
:
: What does that have to do with anything? YOU gave your position as
: "What I´m preaching is toleration."
:
:
:If you read through my posts I´ve never preaced toleration of genocide
r slavery.
:

You made a general, unqualified statement to try to proclaim your
position as 'better'.

No, that was you falling to that conclusion. In other words reading
something into my statement which wasn´t contained within it.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."

Einar
--G. Behn

Hop David wrote:
Einar wrote:

The fact remains that you apparently think it's sane to demand that
someone prove a negative.


No, you are insisting that it is the truth, completelly without any
evidence to back it up. Then calling me a fool for doubting it.


Pay attention to Fred. Negatives don't need backing up. If I claim
there's no silicon on the moon, I need no cite.

That is absurd. Then I could claim that the Moon is not made out of
rock, or that the Sun does not contain Hydrogen, that bones do not
contain calsium, etc.

The correct stance is to view it that all claims need a backing.


: :It´s baffling, that´s sure.
: :
:
: Not to anyone with a couple of brain cells to their name, it isn't.
:
:
:That counts you out then.
:

And there's the best you can do, isn't it? Reality is inexplicable
and anyone who understands it where you do not can only be insulted.

You are a waste of bandwidth just like Fred. No more will you pollute
signal to noise ratio.

*plonk*

Hop

Who do you think you are?

Einar

Einar wrote:

:
:ONE OF THE ISSUES WHICH STILL REMAIN UNCLEAR IS PRECISELLY HOW GREAT
:AMOUNT OF ANTRAX WAS MADE, AND PRECISELLY HOW MUCH OF IT WAS DISPOSED
:OF IN 1991.
:

Quite right. They could have made MORE than reported.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: And so you once again demonstrate that obviously they don't require
: Political Science majors to take any logic courses where you come
: from.
:
: Hint: Get a logic book and look up "proving a negative".
:
:You repeat the same nonsence.
:

And so you once again demonstrate that obviously they don't require
Political Science majors to take any logic courses where you come
from.

Hint: Get a logic book and look up "proving a negative".

[Remainder snipped unread as just more boring Eurotrash lunacy.]


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Einar wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : Einar wrote:
: : :
: : : :
: : : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : : Einar wrote:
: : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :Rand Simberg wrote:
: : : : :
: : : : : Do you think there's
: : : : : anything wrong with slavery?
: : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :Very simple to answere, would you want to be a slave? If you think
: : : : :slavery is unfair treatment of you, it´s an unfair treatment of others
: : : : :as well.
: : : : :
: : : :
: : : : I wouldn't want to live in a country that mandated my religion,
: : : : either.
: : : :
: : : : Do you think there is something wrong with such countries?
: : : :
: : : : I wouldn't want to live in a country that told me I wasn't allowed to
: : : : be armed to protect myself (including from the government).
: : : :
: : : : Do you think there is something wrong with such countries?
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : I'd suggest it's not so simple to answer as you think.
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :What I´m preaching is toleration.
: : : :
: : :
: : : Toleration of what? Suppose I want to keep slaves and Rand wants to
: : : have sex with 7 year olds. How's your 'toleration' now?
: : :
: : :
: : :Why do you pick such extreme examples?
: : :
: :
: : Because you made a silly statement and I wanted to demonstrate its
: : silliness.
: :
: :
: :But they don´t do that. Just about any human endevour can be treated
: :in like manner if most extreme examples of failure are only chosen.
: :
:
: Then you need to stop making silly statements.
:
: :
: :You need to pick more representative examples. After all, to name an
: :example, no country in the world actually allows slavery. Though there
: :are couple of countries in which slavery is still believed to persist,
: :most of it happening inside Sudan. However, Sudan is an outlyer state,
: racticing many things like genocide that generally are aborred by the
: :world at large. So neither genocide nor slavery is representative.
: :
:
: You need to stop making such general statements then, as if
: "tolerance" is automatically a 'good thing'.
:
:I don´t think I ever said that all things should be tolerated, yet you
:sort of haranged me like I had done just that, and so did Rand.
:

You said "What I am preaching is tolerance" with no conditionals at
all. Now you're telling us you were lying and really only meant "What
I am preaching is tolerance for things I think you should have
tolerance for" or some such.

: :
: :If you read through my posts I´ve never preaced toleration of genocide
: r slavery.
: :
:
: You made a general, unqualified statement to try to proclaim your
: position as 'better'.
:
:No, that was you falling to that conclusion. In other words reading
:something into my statement which wasn´t contained within it.
:

I stupidly assumed you meant what you were saying. Now you tell us
you were actually lying.


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

Einar wrote:

:
:Hop David wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: The fact remains that you apparently think it's sane to demand that
: someone prove a negative.
:
:
: No, you are insisting that it is the truth, completelly without any
: evidence to back it up. Then calling me a fool for doubting it.
:
:
: Pay attention to Fred. Negatives don't need backing up. If I claim
: there's no silicon on the moon, I need no cite.
:
:That is absurd. Then I could claim that the Moon is not made out of
:rock, or that the Sun does not contain Hydrogen, that bones do not
:contain calsium, etc.
:

And you could indeed do so and then be easily be proven incorrect. One
need simply point out that rocks have been brought back, that we have
spectrographs of the Sun showing hydrogen and that bones do indeed
contain calcium.

:
:The correct stance is to view it that all claims need a backing.
:

And so you once again demonstrate that obviously they don't require
Political Science majors to take any logic courses where you come
from.

Hint: Get a logic book and look up "proving a negative".


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On 31 Aug, 04:07, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar wrote:

:
:ONE OF THE ISSUES WHICH STILL REMAIN UNCLEAR IS PRECISELLY HOW GREAT
:AMOUNT OF ANTRAX WAS MADE, AND PRECISELLY HOW MUCH OF IT WAS DISPOSED
:OF IN 1991.
:

Quite right. They could have made MORE than reported.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Surely the real issue was whether Hans Blix and the inspection team
could go where they wanted. As I understand it after a little humming
and haing over presidential sites they were allowed into Saddam
Hussein's palaces.

The issue is what the inspectors found when they did their inspection,
which as I understand it ranged from nothing to trace amounts of
mustard gas. These came (probably) from old destroyed stocks.


- Ian Parker

Could I put in a slightly discordent note here. The Global Warming
claim is that by 2100 sea ledvels will rise by 5m. Now as an
extrapolation this is perfectly correct. If nothing is done sea levels
will rise by 5m or so.

However one major purpose of this group is to discuss resources in
space. If we were to produce aluminium foil - the Moon and asteroids
have a lot of Aluminium - no need for citations it is such common
knowledge!, a sunshield could be built. This would dramatically alter
the situation.

To me one thing we should be discussing is :-

1) How do we exploit the resources of space? Do we go for Bush's "back
to the Moon" or do we persue a robotic strategy. My own views are I
think well known. Logically if we are confident that human manual
dexerity is possible within a reasonable timescale ( back to the
Moon) robotics is the logical approach.

2) If we do have aluminium foil mirrors it becomes a real political
question of what direction climate change takes. There is one simple
point. If you have open water in the Arctic Ocean, which will save
thousands of kilometers of steaming from Europe to the Far East, there
will be political pressure to keep sailing from St Petersburg to
Vladivostok. How do we cope with this?

If you are going to say, implicitly, that use of space resources
before 2050 or even 2100 is not going to take place, this is a
colossal admission. In fact in many ways it invalidates the whole
purpose of this group. To me there is little doubt. I favor the
robotic route over astronauts, but either way .......

Possibly the one question we might ask. Assuming we have aseroids and
we extract a million tons (say) of Aluminium. How to we use it, what
are our goals? Colonies, sunshield, others. I think Fred in one
posting said "neither". To me this is the real question.



- Ian Parker

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar wrote:

:
:ONE OF THE ISSUES WHICH STILL REMAIN UNCLEAR IS PRECISELLY HOW GREAT
:AMOUNT OF ANTRAX WAS MADE, AND PRECISELLY HOW MUCH OF IT WAS DISPOSED
:OF IN 1991.
:

Quite right. They could have made MORE than reported.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

....and also less.

Logically speaking, more/less has to be considered equally likelly.

Einar