See other Immigration Articles
Title: How much longer will California remain a part of the United States?
Source:
www.dvorak.org
URL Source: http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2010/06/ ... n-a-part-of-the-united-states/
Published: Jun 6, 2010
Author: Dvorak
Post Date: 2010-06-06 11:50:16 by Mind_Virus
Keywords: None
Views: 3081
Comments: 283
How much longer will California remain a part of the United States? Published on June 6th, 2010 California’s white population has declined since 2000 at an unprecedented rate, hastening the day when Hispanics will be the state’s largest population group, according to newly released state figures. Analysts said the decline can be attributed to two main causes – a natural population decrease as Baby Boomers enter their later years and die at a faster rate than younger whites have children, and a migration from California since 2001 among whites who sought affordable housing as real estate costs soared. The study also confirmed projections that a steadily growing Hispanic population will surpass whites as the state’s largest racial demographic in 2016. Hispanics are expected to become a majority of all Californians in 2042, Heim said. A University of New Mexico Chicano Studies professor predicts a new, sovereign Hispanic nation within the century, taking in the Southwest and several northern states of Mexico. Truxillo, 47, has said the new country should be brought into being “by any means necessary,” but recently said it was unlikely to be formed by civil war. Instead, its creation will be accomplished by the electoral pressure of the future majority Hispanic population in the region, he said.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-180) not displayed.
.
.
.
#181. To: farmfriend (#139)
The problem is in the minds of people who buy the bs that Al Gore is selling.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. Not even close. Not only can't you rebut anything I say about CO2 being a poison as normal English users use the word, lamebrains, you can't even come up with effective ***science*** to rebut a neat downing of your own kook hotair filled balloon. ZFacts What are your biases? At heart, I’m a scientist; that means I’m a skeptic. I don’t trust easy answers especially from politicians. I also don’t trust extremists, either left or right Why are you building zFacts? I like to figure things out, and I don’t like deceptions or misunderstandings, especially ones that harm people. So with zFacts, I get to investigate many of my interests and perhaps expose some deceptions and clear up some misperceptions. Are you opposed to alternative energy? No, I love the idea of harnessing wind and solar. I’m just opposed to hyping things that don’t work to well-meaning people. Corn ethanol is not working. Brazilian ethanol may be. Home-based solar voltaics are a rip off. The better hybrid cars are a great idea. With my physics and economics background, I’m sorting this out for myself and posting it on zFacts. What about global warming, markets, poverty and neocons? I admit it; I’m curious about a lot of different things. Global warming is looking pretty likely, but the case is not quite closed. No need to wait till we’re 100% sure of getting mugged before we take action. Causes of Global Warming Human emissions of CO2 predict the increased atmospheric CO2 almost perfectly for the last 250 years. Is the earth really getting warmer? Yes, and there is complete agreement among several different temperature records that in the last 30 years it has warmed dramatically. (See the oldest record of measured temperatures. Did the CO2 cause the global warming? We can't be absolutely sure. Here's the best graph of CO2 and global temperature. The only other known contender is the sun, so check that next. Is the sun causing it? We now have 27 years of accurate solar temperature data from NASA satellites. Although the sun has changed climate in the past, it looks like it is not the culprit this time.
Huh? CO2 is beneficial because it is body waste? We breathe CO2 out because our body rejects it. It is not any more beneficial to us than the expelled products of our bowels and kidneys.
Did you draw them graphs yourself? They're pretty good for an amateur. BTW, is that a hockey stick I see there??
We breathe CO2 out because our body rejects it. It is not any more beneficial to us than the expelled products of our bowels and kidneys. Carbon dioxide and health Carbon dioxide is essential for internal respiration in a human body. Internal respiration is a process, by which oxygen is transported to body tissues and carbon dioxide is carried away from them. Carbon dioxide is a guardian of the pH of the blood, which is essential for survival. The buffer system in which carbon dioxide plays an important role is called the carbonate buffer. It is made up of bicarbonate ions and dissolved carbon dioxide, with carbonic acid. The carbonic acid can neutralize hydroxide ions, which would increase the pH of the blood when added. The bicarbonate ion can neutralize hydrogen ions, which would cause a decrease in the pH of the blood when added. Both increasing and decreasing pH is life threatening. Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/carbon-dioxide.htm#ixzz0qdcu2QJL
They're from zFacts I linked to.
Unfortunately, the outrageous claims being made here, are not that CO2 should remain at status quo, but that increased CO2 in the world atmosphere, combined with daily reduction of hundreds of thousands of acres of vegetation capable of processing this CO2, combined with this increased CO2 in the oceans destroying coral reefs, is somehow beneficial because of an irrational conspirokook theory about Bilderburgers or similar bogeymen.
It's nothing to do with Bilderburgers. I just don't believe your data, and that's all I have to say about that.
We breathe CO2 out because our body rejects it. It is not any more beneficial to us than the expelled products of our bowels and kidneys. Are you really that dense? Our bodies give off carbon dioxide and, as has been pointed out to you, the plants use that and in return give us oxygen AND food. It is becoming pretty obvious that you don't understand the nature of symbiotic relationships. I am going to have to quit working with you, you wub me the wong way as Elmer Fudd says in the Geico commercial.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. I just don't believe your data, and that's all I have to say about that. I don't believe his data either. And anyone who posts that thoroughly discredited hockey stick graph should be shunned like the Al Gore acolyte they appear to be.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. CO2 in the oceans is not destroying coral reefs. You really have to quit buying into these media reports.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." I just don't believe your data, and that's all I have to say about that. It's not my data. I linked to a completely new website with dozens of sources and citing 2 historical figures going back to the 1800's who predicted global warming as a direct consequence from the Industrial Revloution: John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius. The predictions of Tyndal and Arrhenius about global temperature increases are being fulfilled even faster then they stated. Are you going to choose being oblivious and shut your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, hum to yourself to drown out the sound, or look at something that is supported and goes back over 100 years?
Do you mean that See BS is not a reliable source? I'm shattered.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
The reports of CO2 destroying coral reefs were originally published in a paper contributed to by the science panels of scientists of 69 countries, you brainless zombie. The media then reported the conclusions of this international scientific conference, which is their job. You shamelessly lie as if this statement of CO2 destroying coral reefs, and the science panel's prediction of marine habitat being irreversibly destroyed by 2050, were invented in some news media office. The rate at which the oceans are turning acidic because of rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is faster than at any other time since the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, the scientists said in a joint statement issued today in advance of this week's pre-Copenhagen conference on climate change in Bonn. As carbon dioxide increases in the air above the ocean, more of the gas gets dissolved in the surface water of the sea, creating carbonic acid. Since the start of the industrial revolution, the acidic activity of the oceans has increased by 30 per cent. At current rates, they will become so acidic that few shell-forming organisms and coral reefs will be able to survive by mid-century
The oceans are not turning acidic. The oceans are base. They have always been base and will always remain base. Ask yourself how the coral reefs survived much higher CO2 levels in the past. Remember, CO2 is at historic lows for the planet. And remember, computer modeling is not science.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Cuz' Al, the great Carbon Profit, Gore sez' so that's why. Don't fergit' "Earth in the Lurch". You mean they're fallible? Even a Sooper Computer? That the inputs, which control the model's output, are subject to the same kind of data manipulation as was done at that great fiction factory known as the Climate Research Unit where good'ol Phil Used to work?
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
A panel of scientists from 69 countries has stated in its report released at an international conference in Europe that the increased supply of CO2 in the atmosphere - predicted over 100 years ago by John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius - will irreversibly destroy marine habit and biodiversity by 2050. In your usual manner, you blithely dismiss anything which contradicts your own point of view, while demanding science from others. Hers is the link: Again.
Repeating the same crap doesn't make it true. From your link: As I said before, computer models are NOT science. The study you are citing is nothing more than computer projects designed to force a political outcome. No reality involved.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." D-d-d-d-oes that mean that Tron wasn't real? Computer modeling is wholly dependent for its outcome upon the design of the modeling software and the input parameters and assumptions made by the modeler. You could make a model quack like Daffy Duck with the right controlled inputs. The integrity and the accuracy of Climate Modeling for CO2 in particular, given the revelations of the CRU e-mails and the campaign of fraudulent science they promoted for over a decade, the backtracking of the IPCC, Algore's repeated lies, etc., ANY Computer Model coming forth from the interested parties MUST be presumed to be false and manipulated until proven otherwise by at least one or two independent sources.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Gavin Schmidt used to post on the climate forum but stopped when the guys just tore him apart over the modeling. Of course he is the one who started Real Climate which is nothing more than a propaganda arm designed to push AGW. And yes he was involved in the CRU climategate. BTW, the Michael they were talking about in the "hide the decline" email was Michael Mann of the infamous hockey stick. There is a DA going after him now.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." That is your own false cherry picked definition of science. Tens of thousands of real scientists use computer models, including the scientists of 69 countries attending an international conference. False. There is much more in the report than computer projects. There are actual empirical measurements that were reported. Then there are the predictions of Tyndall and Arrhenius done over 100 years ago when computers were not even invented, prize winning scientists, that are being fulfilled although more rapidly than they foresaw. So we have another completely unsupported character assasaination of people who rebut you. Another lie in your endless litany of lies.
Good. That was out and out criminal fraud. It blows my mind that people so gullibly take as factual the results from easily manipulated computer modeling. And I do mean E-A-S-Y. The results of a model can be changed, slanted, stilted, manipulated, and deformed by simply controlling the input parameters to the program model. The mode is NOT reality. In honest usage it is at best a tool to look at and explore questions of "what if"? What IF the CO2 levels double does not mean the CO2 levels are going to double. It is an assumption and an input parameter designed for exploring a variety of scenarios of which none may come to pass. One can go further and point out that computer models, particularly ones on climate, NEVER account for all of the variables. The "Butterfly Effect" is always present, and any "Model" may leave unaccounted for any number of "Butterflies" as well as including "Butterlies".
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
One of biggest problems with climate modeling is they don't take into account clouds. Since they can't model water vapor and clouds they can't possibly be correct in the climate "predictions". Some models have shown clouds to be a positive feed back while some show a negative feed back.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." I linked to a completely new website with dozens of sources and citing 2 historical figures going back to the 1800's who predicted global warming as a direct consequence from the Industrial Revloution: John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius. The predictions of Tyndal and Arrhenius about global temperature increases are being fulfilled even faster then they stated. Are you going to choose being oblivious and shut your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, hum to yourself to drown out the sound, or look at something that is supported and goes back over 100 years? Since you have opened the door, utilizing the Argumentum ad Hominem fallacy shamelessly toward other posters when you were getting “pwned” (as you predictably then *projected* back upon others in such a trendy way), in the possibility of your edification and others, I will indulge in a little psychological observation, offered in a sincere, though possibly searing, effort to provide useful feedback. Anyone who actually lives up to the rigor of the scientific method or even the standard of Reason, is clear that cherry picking the facts, throwing out data that does not fit your preconceived theory, however cherished, is piss poor science and even more dishonest reasoning. Citing from a select group of authorities to win the debate for you is fallacious; argument by authority, nothing more. If you cannot detect the intellectual dishonesty and childishness of throwing fallacies around in a petulant tantrum to get your way in the discussion, I suggest either that your training in reason is lacking or there are integrity issues. In fact, the recent discrediting and disgrace of the CRU and the entire AGW lobby highlights this violation of reason and the scientific method for everyone, if they have eyes to see! However, you may take some comfort from being in good company, among poor scientific practitioners throughout the history of Western science, following their peers instead of the experimental facts, staying within the politically current rather than pushing the envelope of knowledge through discovery, getting those corporate/government grants rather than breaking fragile edifices of theory. In the context of other posts, when you share the mindset of the majority of 4um posters, your piling-on to the theme of the threads appears to be rational and reasonable. When your thinking process is challenged, you regress back to a defensiveness that can only come from ego issues, not reason. Without boxing the dialog into the old binary contrast game that appeals to the level of the vestigial reptilian brain, such as false dichotomies of liberal/conservative, R vs. D, fight or flight, good/bad, black or white, I observe that the modern, self-identified progressive tends toward instant regression when confronted with reason. This may be expected since the “progressive” mindset is dominant in the media-Matrix, into which the herd is being led, manipulating those who conform into believing that they are in fact the superior enlightened members of society and the only problems retarding progress come from the fact that there are too many other poor deluded Americans who insist upon resisting “progress”. Of course in point of fact, the problems are systemic not subverted by the disenfranchised people; ALL truly intractable problems are the result of the bureaucratized agendas of the government/financial/corporate oligarchs. Though there is some pandering in the media-Matrix to the false opposite of the “progressive” ideology, with the condescension for the “unenlightened” resisters to the forward march of the State-ist religion of Big Sister, the true mainstream of accepted PC “thought” in the u.s. is collectivist, with a dash of sentimentality, the I-am-so-righteous-I-feel-sorry-for-those-who-are-not-me meme that appeals to white-guilt-ers and other varieties of the self-deluded. In other words, the shock of awakening from the unthinking delusion that being part of the PC in-crowd of the “intelligentsia”, holding the allowed beliefs of the herd inculcated insidiously by the years of exposure to the massage of the media-Matrix, confers an honorary degree in Reasoning (like the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz), causes such a severe case of cognitive dissonance that the “progressive” instantly loses all cool and reverts to name-calling and derisive labeling to regain their unearned feeling of superiority! Since reasoning, especially the rigor of scientific reasoning, REQUIRES the experience of cognitive dissonance, the balancing of two opposing theories and the juggling of seemingly contradictory facts, those who have not been practicing this skill and training their minds to handle the sharp awareness that confronting Reality always brings are taken by surprise when moments of cognitive dissonance intrude upon their slumber. This emotional shock and its cascade of visceral reaction explains the intense vitriol of the “enlightened progressive” when confronted with uncomfortable facts and superior critical reasoning. Oh, but where are the sources for these assertions? Where are the official talking heads confirming this so that I can select from multiple choice to decide my opinion on this? First, even if I were to compile an exhaustive list of thinkers supporting this perceptual and conceptual modeling of the world, the reason-resistant mind would merely select one whose point triggered a reflexive revulsion and in a towering display of illogic, deduce that if “fault” is found in one of the timbers supporting the intellectual edifice, then the entire structure can be dismissed with one easy label: Radical, Crackpot, Wingnut, Heretic, Conspiracy Theorist or shudder: a Denier! In addition, I would be encouraging the continued use of intellectual crutches, the leaning upon argument by authority, instead of emphasizing the use of the faculty for critical thinking, long atrophied among self-styled intellectuals or the “ignoratti” as someone has coined. If you are still reading along, I would like to add one more point, appealing to your sense of manhood in the hope of inducing a cathartic gut check: There are several outstanding posters of the female persuasion who grace this forum, including this site’s esteemed hostess, who show more maturity and balanced reason at all times in their discourse than you have displayed in this thread. Since self-knowledge is the essence and goal of the human game and since (assuming that you are male) you do not have the natural advantage of motherhood to deepen your understanding of yourself, may I advise you to emulate these exemplary woman in your style of discourse and stop disgracing yourself in, dare I say it, the clichéd fury of a woman scorned? Of course, if your main motivation is merely to "win" the debate and score ego-surfing points, instead of clarifying the truth for the greater good through reasoned discourse and dialog, then you will continue to spew on, in a demented defense of your sense of self.... You may reply to the thread but I will not engage; this post was a courtesy, nothing more. Learn from the posters who have schooled you or not, that is always our choice; to grow or to regress, there is no hovering for long in life.
And therefrom came a new branch of scientific inquiry i.e., "Chaos Theory". The original models from which it sprang were early climate models which, as they ran, began to diverge further, and further, and further, from what the modeler thought he was doing. Thus we also get the phrase "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" and the "Butterfly effect" which simply stated is that a minor variable in any model, and particularly climate, can, over a period of time cause greater and greater randomity in the running of the model. The principles, and mathematics arriving from it, have had a rather profound affect on how we see and understand things - and not just climate.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
That was an awesome post. Glad you took the time and made the effort.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. Thank you! My pleasure, James. Just trying to lighten things up a bit! 8=>
I can think of only one word to describe your essay - brilliant. It is a shining gem standing out as a clear call to reason. Just as a slight footnote, not that your essay requires it, the scientific method if rigorously applied can be summed in the immortal words of Sgt. Joe Friday: "Just the facts Ma'am." (Edit to include omitted word - "a".)
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
So you finally bring up some actual scientists. Sadly you miss a lot when you take stuff like this out of context. First, actual measurements of CO2 taken in the late 1800s show CO2 levels that are higher than today. One fact you over look. Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is 3%. It is logical that increasing the amount of these gases will cause greater warming, like adding a blanket to the duvet. And since the Industrial Revolution, humanity has dug, squeezed and pumped half a trillion tons of carbon in coal, gas and oil from beneath the surface of the Earth, burnt it, and released it as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is inconceivable that this would not increase the warming effect and, indeed, it has done so. This is incorrect statements on what happens in the atmosphere. Layman's understanding if you will. Take this part for example: "Much of it is reflected back as slow-moving infra-red radiation – and most of this gets absorbed by greenhouse gases". This is just wrong. The photons are absorbed and re-emitted immediately. They don't hang on to them. Not to mention that comparing our atmosphere to a greenhouse is apples and oranges anyway. It is not the CO2 in the greenhouse that makes it get warm. It is the lack of convention. The glass acts as a barrier against radiated heat. No such glass exists in the atmosphere to restrict heat loss to space. Nor do greenhouse gases act like glass stopping the radiation. All the computer models showed the upper atmosphere heating as the GHGs trap the heat. No such heating is taking place. The upper atmosphere is actually cooling. The increase in gasses causes the atmosphere to expand outward causing cooling. As for the heating that has taken place since the 70s. Assuming the temp measurements are correct and there is ample evidence to suggest they are not, we have just come through record setting solar cycles. Solar cycles 22 and 23 produces the highest solar output of any recorded. Remember all those record setting solar flares you heard about in the news? Gosh, you think that could have contributed some? Nah it had to be man's fault. And don't even get me started on ice core and tree ring proxies. We don't have all day to go over the problems with those.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Just as a slight footnote, not that your essay requires it, the scientific method if rigorously applied can be summed in the immortal words of Sgt. Joe Friday: "Just the facts Ma'am." Thank you sir! Coming from you, that is high praise indeed! Yes, "Just the facts Ma'am." but ALL the facts, no throwing out anomalies as "experimental error", such as Millikan did in his pioneering efforts to measure the charge of the electron. His otherwise exemplary experiment COULD have pointed toward the quark underpinning of elementary particles, had he kept the data anomalies instead of discarding them. The most common misuse of Occam's razor is to exclude "inconvenient" facts from the process, favoring the established theories by "curve fitting" the data. The simplest theory that covers ALL the known facts Ma'am is most likely to be the truth. Exclude the anomalies and cripple the theoretical model, sometimes for more than 100 years, mental inertia and moneyed interests compounding the problem....
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Tee hee! Your patience, clear thinking and lucid articulation are exemplary! Not that this post is exceptional; it is indeed characteristic. It is fun to read your posts, especially when you are gently restraining your passion for the benefit of the wee ones, but cannot fully suppress your wit from spicing up your expression... 8=> By exemplary, I was aiming at some who could use a good example to model in their expression.... 8=>
Wow! I am humbled by your compliments. "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Thank you. Your acknowledgment is deeply appreciated. Glad you enjoyed it (and that I did not inadvertently ruffle any feathers with my reference to the fury potential of the femme!)
You are most welcome - I had to restrain myself from being too effusive as to over praise often under states. Occam's Razor is one of my pet peeves. It's simplistic misuse to explain away inconvenient data is so pervasive as to inspire aspiration upon sighting. It is particularly prevalent in Archaeology, one of my enduring interests, where it is used to discredit any and all discoveries in conflict with the established Academic Paradigm. Of course that is the antithesis of the Scientific Method which requires that validated data be accounted for in the theory, and as you point out, not discarded because it is in disagreement with the current academic fad. Which immediately makes me thing of Fr. Gregor Mendel and his work on the inheritability of traits. He was laughed at and derided in his own time, and his work lay unnoticed for 100 years. Today it is part of the basic curriculum. Interesting how that happens. In like mode meteorites were derided as fantasy by the Academic/Scientific establishment - "harmummmph - rocks don't fall from the sky". I could go on but I would be playing to the gallery and preaching to the choir. No doubt you have read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Oh, how the establishment hates him even now. The all purpose heretic. ;-)
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
LOL not at all. Biology and hormones can be difficult to over come. Denying their existence doesn't work for me. forgot to add the smilie. "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." One of the most visible in that area, at least to me, is the age of the Sphinx and Egytologist's reactions to the idea that geology doesn't support their contentions.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." If I may wax on, the political and financial pressures to subvert the Scientific Method in order to maintain the social and economic status quo, is not only the anti-thesis of a powerful method to approach the truth, but in our technology-driven cultural evolution, its results have been so destructive and downright evil that one could call this corruption of Reason the anti-Christ, to dramatize by anthropomorphization. Agreed that Big Science hates having its skirts raised by anyone and Kuhn certainly made a cogent case for the politics and social foibles of the scientific process. He was preceded more succinctly by Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860) All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. and by Mahatma Gandhi "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Ooooooooooooooh!!!! You hit a sore spot with that one. I could go off on that for a while. Not only does the water weathering clearly point to a construction date of 10,000 B.C. or earlier the architectural style of the Sphinx enclosure is markedly different than any other Egyptian Architecture. It has no hieroglyphics whatsoever, save the Stele erected by Chephren, and it is a very advanced and elegantly simple megalithic structure much unlike the ornate works attributed, falsely in my opinion, to Pharaohonic Egypt. The only other comparable structure is at Abydos, and was only relatively recently dug out of the marsh mud. As for the age of the Pyramids the circumstantial evidence points toward a minimum age of 18 to 24 thousand years - and the translation of one Stele, by Ibn Ben Said, suggests 74,000.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Hmmm I've missed that one. You'll have to send me some links to explore. I did like the show I saw which suggested the grand galleria was built to house the counter weights used to lift the stones over the king's chambers.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." If I may wax on, the political and financial pressures to subvert the Scientific Method in order to maintain the social and economic status quo, is not only the anti-thesis of a powerful method to approach the truth, but in our technology-driven cultural evolution, its results have been so destructive and downright evil that one could call this corruption of Reason the anti-Christ, to dramatize by anthropomorphization. Absolutely dead on. As is frequently the case we're on the nearly the same page. Just a slight expansion - this control of scientific progress is a control mechanism. For example we have had the technology and ability to send a manned mission to Mars for at least 20 years, and probably a bit longer. However, technological advance and scientific discovery are mind expanding and pardadigm shattering. That last is one of the reasons for suppressing it. The controllers Platonic Slave Society is highly dependent upon eliminating free thought, dreams of greater worlds, etc., .... The model is to maintain a "sameness" - each day like the last with eyes aimed groundward and greater thoughts forbidden. The predominance of materialism and the "Man is just another Animal" limiting paradigm are part of this. With the increasing awareness that Darwinian Materialism is incomplete and founders upon the shoals of the Scientific Method the stridency has become all the greater. All are dangerous to the status quo which is that all are "equal" in all respects and that the hive is more important than the individual - "you will be assimilated". Independence of thought and not conforming to the "group" are to be punished. Ray Bradbury was perhaps the first to strike out and try to expose what was going on when he wrote "Farenheit 451". I think readers of Science Fiction have had a much better handle on reality than those who scoff at it and deride it. This of course helps explain why it has received so little attention in "Literature Departments" as it has been, in many ways, some of the most subversive literature of the 20th Century exploring concepts and ideas that are "taboo" in the mainstream. I think they were perhaps offended most by his suggestion that Scientific Progress is held back by the very "paragons" which defend the current dominant paradigm. Scientists, or I should say Academics as there is a difference, are heavily invested in the paradigm they have built their life around and data and conclusions contrary to that view are treated as personal assaults. As well vested interests want to maintain the paradigm they have established and slide smoothly into an Ant Hive society with themselves the "Lords and Ladies" of creation. Hubris, insanity, psychosis. I'm aware of Schopenhauer but have read all too little of his writings. What little I have been introduced to I have loved. Given my love of Science Fiction I can't resist closing with Clarke's Laws of revolutionary ideas: 1. It is a ridiculous idea and it is impossible. 2. It is possible but it is not worth doing. 3. I said it was a good idea all along.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Comments (222 - 283) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestI guess the question becomes: If man does very well at higher concentrations and plants do exceptionally well at higher concentrations, where is the problem?
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#182. To: farmfriend, buckeroo, Original_Intent (#175)
(Edited)
pwned
Who’s behind zFacts, oil companies or what? Nope. I’m Steve Stoft and this is my web site. I’m building it with a little help from my friends and volunteers, but so far, it’s mostly my work. I’m a Ph.D. economist and my day job is consulting for electricity markets—California, PJM, ISO-NE. That provides 99.9% of the funding for this site. (Google ads are now providing about $12 / day). My professional web site is stoft.com, my blog is zReason.
But I don’t think these are biases; they’re based on observation. It’s hard to know your own biases, but I believe openness, information, and clear thinking are helpful—maybe those are my bias. So put these neat little rebuttals of your kookblather into your crack pipes and smoke them. They will still leave you slightly better than that CO2 you've been hitting on.
#183. To: James Deffenbach (#179)
Your argument that CO2 is some kind of killer gas might have some merit if you meant that breathing only that would kill you. But no one has made any such claim and have made the claim, scientific fact, that CO2 is beneficial to us because plants need it and we need the oxygen they give us in return.
#184. To: AGAviator (#182)
#185. To: AGAviator (#183)
Huh? CO2 is beneficial because it is body waste?
#186. To: randge (#184)
Did you draw them graphs yourself
#187. To: randge (#185)
The carbonic acid can neutralize hydroxide ions, which would increase the pH of the blood when added. The bicarbonate ion can neutralize hydrogen ions, which would cause a decrease in the pH of the blood when added. Both increasing and decreasing pH is life threatening.
#188. To: AGAviator (#187)
#189. To: AGAviator (#183)
Huh? CO2 is beneficial because it is body waste?
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#190. To: randge (#188)
It's nothing to do with Bilderburgers.
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#191. To: AGAviator (#187)
combined with this increased CO2 in the oceans destroying coral reefs,
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#192. To: randge, buckeroo (#188)
It's nothing to do with Bilderburgers.
#193. To: farmfriend (#191)
You really have to quit buying into these media reports.
#194. To: farmfriend, buckeroo (#191)
CO2 in the oceans is not destroying coral reefs. You really have to quit buying into these media reports.
Rising acidity in oceans is leading to a global catastrophe that would be unparalleled in tens of millions of years, according to the national science academies of 69 countries which want governments to take the issue more seriously in the run-up to the December climate change conference in Europe.
What a shameless liar you are pretending to be seeking debate and scientific facts, then dismissing scientific facts that rebut your kookblather as "media reports." The only suitable word to describe your intellectual dishonesty is "disgusting."
#195. To: AGAviator (#194)
(Edited)
The rate at which the oceans are turning acidic
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#196. To: farmfriend (#195)
Ask yourself how the coral reefs survived much higher CO2 levels in the past. Remember, CO2 is at historic lows for the planet.
And remember, computer modeling is not science.
#197. To: farmfriend (#195)
The oceans are not turning acidic. The oceans are base
Cut emissions or acidity will kill coral reefs, scientists say: 'Underwater catastrophe' is imminent without action
#198. To: AGAviator (#197)
"Global atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now at 387 parts per million ... model projections suggest that by mid-century, CO2 concentrations will be more than double pre-industrial levels and the oceans will be more acidic than they have been for tens of millions of years," the panel said.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#199. To: farmfriend, AGAviator, all (#198)
(Edited)
The study you are citing is nothing more than computer projects designed to force a political outcome. No reality involved.
#200. To: Original_Intent (#199)
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#201. To: farmfriend, buckeroo (#198)
(Edited)
As I said before, computer models are NOT science
The study you are citing is nothing more than computer projects designed to force a political outcome. No reality involved.
#202. To: farmfriend (#200)
BTW, the Michael they were talking about in the "hide the decline" email was Michael Mann of the infamous hockey stick. There is a DA going after him now.
#203. To: Original_Intent (#202)
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#204. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, Original_intent, randge, James Deffenbach, Mind_Virus, christine, abraxas, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, GreyLmist, gengis gandhi, earthchild, TwentyTwelve, Horse, wudidiz, ada, Googolplex, all (#192)
(Edited)
It's not my data.
Anger? as a first reaction to get your a$$ moving, once you see through the Media Matrix and set yourself free from your lifelong mind control collar. Sustainable? not enough to screen your intention to be free from the Talosians, who can’t read primitive emotions but know what you watch on cable/sat, read on the Internet and eat. Our ultimate weapon is laughter and amused detachment at the folly of the would-be emperors. Fear mongers HATE it when the FEAR card doesn’t work. The humiliation of being seen as merely a naked ape is THEIR big fear. Laugh the bastards off the stage! Tell your friends that we can build a real civilization from the ruins of the totalitarian game!
#205. To: farmfriend (#203)
One of biggest problems with climate modeling is they don't take into account clouds. Since they can't model water vapor and clouds they can't possibly be correct in the climate "predictions". Some models have shown clouds to be a positive feed back while some show a negative feed back.
#206. To: HighLairEon (#204)
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#207. To: James Deffenbach (#206)
That was an awesome post. Glad you took the time and made the effort.
Anger? as a first reaction to get your a$$ moving, once you see through the Media Matrix and set yourself free from your lifelong mind control collar. Sustainable? not enough to screen your intention to be free from the Talosians, who can’t read primitive emotions but know what you watch on cable/sat, read on the Internet and eat. Our ultimate weapon is laughter and amused detachment at the folly of the would-be emperors. Fear mongers HATE it when the FEAR card doesn’t work. The humiliation of being seen as merely a naked ape is THEIR big fear. Laugh the bastards off the stage! Tell your friends that we can build a real civilization from the ruins of the totalitarian game!
#208. To: HighLairEon, AGAviator, farmfriend, James Deffenbach, wudidiz, christine, All, who would know reason (#204)
(Edited)
#209. To: AGAviator (#201)
Then there are the predictions of Tyndall and Arrhenius done over 100 years ago when computers were not even invented, prize winning scientists, that are being fulfilled although more rapidly than they foresaw.
Solar radiation passes through the atmosphere, as through glass in a greenhouse, to warm the earth. Much of it is reflected back as slow-moving infra-red radiation – and most of this gets absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, principally water and carbon dioxide, heating the world further. If it were not for this aerial duvet, the earth would be 20C colder, making it uninhabitable.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#210. To: Original_Intent (#208)
I can think of only one word to describe your essay - brilliant. It is shining gem standing out as clear call to reason.
Anger? as a first reaction to get your a$$ moving, once you see through the Media Matrix and set yourself free from your lifelong mind control collar. Sustainable? not enough to screen your intention to be free from the Talosians, who can’t read primitive emotions but know what you watch on cable/sat, read on the Internet and eat. Our ultimate weapon is laughter and amused detachment at the folly of the would-be emperors. Fear mongers HATE it when the FEAR card doesn’t work. The humiliation of being seen as merely a naked ape is THEIR big fear. Laugh the bastards off the stage! Tell your friends that we can build a real civilization from the ruins of the totalitarian game!
#211. To: HighLairEon (#204)
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#212. To: farmfriend (#209)
... And don't even get me started on ice core and tree ring proxies. We don't have all day to go over the problems with those.
Anger? as a first reaction to get your a$$ moving, once you see through the Media Matrix and set yourself free from your lifelong mind control collar. Sustainable? not enough to screen your intention to be free from the Talosians, who can’t read primitive emotions but know what you watch on cable/sat, read on the Internet and eat. Our ultimate weapon is laughter and amused detachment at the folly of the would-be emperors. Fear mongers HATE it when the FEAR card doesn’t work. The humiliation of being seen as merely a naked ape is THEIR big fear. Laugh the bastards off the stage! Tell your friends that we can build a real civilization from the ruins of the totalitarian game!
#213. To: HighLairEon (#212)
Your patience, clear thinking and lucid articulation are exemplary! Not that this post is exceptional; it is indeed characteristic. It is fun to read your posts, especially when you are gently restraining your passion for the benefit of the wee ones, but cannot fully suppress your wit from spicing up your expression... 8=>
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#214. To: farmfriend (#211)
Anger? as a first reaction to get your a$$ moving, once you see through the Media Matrix and set yourself free from your lifelong mind control collar. Sustainable? not enough to screen your intention to be free from the Talosians, who can’t read primitive emotions but know what you watch on cable/sat, read on the Internet and eat. Our ultimate weapon is laughter and amused detachment at the folly of the would-be emperors. Fear mongers HATE it when the FEAR card doesn’t work. The humiliation of being seen as merely a naked ape is THEIR big fear. Laugh the bastards off the stage! Tell your friends that we can build a real civilization from the ruins of the totalitarian game!
#215. To: HighLairEon (#210)
(Edited)
The most common misuse of Occam's razor is to exclude "inconvenient" facts from the process, favoring the established theories by "curve fitting" the data.
The simplest theory that covers ALL the known facts Ma'am is most likely to be the truth. Exclude the anomalies and cripple the theoretical model, sometimes for more than 100 years, mental inertia and moneyed interests compounding the problem....
#216. To: HighLairEon (#214)
(Edited)
Glad you enjoyed it (and that I did not inadvertently ruffle any feathers with my reference to the fury potential of the femme!)
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#217. To: Original_Intent, HighLairEon (#215)
(Edited)
Occam's Razor is one of my pet peeves. It's simplistic misuse to explain away inconvenient data is so pervasive as to inspire aspiration upon sighting. It is particularly prevalent in Archaeology, one of my enduring interests, where it is used to discredit any and all discoveries in conflict with the established Academic Paradigm. Of course that is the antithesis of the Scientific Method which requires that validated data be accounted for in the theory, and as you point out, not discarded because it is in disagreement with the current academic fad.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#218. To: Original_Intent (#215)
Of course that is the antithesis of the Scientific Method which requires that validated data be accounted for in the theory, and as you point out, not discarded because it is in disagreement with the current academic fad. ... I could go on but I would be playing to the gallery and preaching to the choir. No doubt you have read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Oh, how the establishment hates him even now. The all purpose heretic. ;-)
Anger? as a first reaction to get your a$$ moving, once you see through the Media Matrix and set yourself free from your lifelong mind control collar. Sustainable? not enough to screen your intention to be free from the Talosians, who can’t read primitive emotions but know what you watch on cable/sat, read on the Internet and eat. Our ultimate weapon is laughter and amused detachment at the folly of the would-be emperors. Fear mongers HATE it when the FEAR card doesn’t work. The humiliation of being seen as merely a naked ape is THEIR big fear. Laugh the bastards off the stage! Tell your friends that we can build a real civilization from the ruins of the totalitarian game!
#219. To: farmfriend (#217)
One of the most visible in that area, at lest to me, is the age of the Sphinx and Egytologist's reactions to the idea that geology doesn't support their contentions.
#220. To: Original_Intent (#219)
As for the age of the Pyramids the circumstantial evidence points toward a minimum age of 18 to 24 thousand years - and the translation of one Stele, by Ibn Ben Said, suggests 74,000.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#221. To: HighLairEon (#218)
(Edited)
Of course that is the antithesis of the Scientific Method which requires that validated data be accounted for in the theory, and as you point out, not discarded because it is in disagreement with the current academic fad. ... I could go on but I would be playing to the gallery and preaching to the choir. No doubt you have read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Oh, how the establishment hates him even now. The all purpose heretic. ;-)
Agreed that Big Science hates having its skirts raised by anyone and Kuhn certainly made a cogent case for the politics and social foibles of the scientific process.
He was preceded more succinctly by Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)
.
.
.