Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Other Rumors and Predictions
Thread started 12 May 2017 (Friday) 11:19
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Oil and gas drilling in National Monuments

 
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
CyberDyneSystems's Avatar
47,710 posts
Gallery: 78 photos
Joined Apr 2003
Rhode Island USA
Post has been edited 5 months ago by CyberDyneSystems.
Jun 03, 2017 13:08 |  #31

Wilt wrote in post #18369452 (external link)
I recall growing up in San Jose when it was a tiny city of only about 120,000-200,000 people and it seemed that on most days smog prevented you from seeing the foothills only 5 miles to the east!....

I never visited at that terrible time, but in grade school I recall reading a news magazine about the smog problem in and around LA (it was the mid 1970's) and there were photos,. and it looked like Beijing today. Absolutely horrible. The things we've been able to do with car exhaust since that time is nothing short of phenomenal.

I recall an episode of Top Gear where a Mercedes (I think I recall correctly) had such amazing emissions scrubbing that it's exhaust was technically measurably cleaner (for some contaminates I assume) than the London air that was going into the air intake!


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
CyberDyneSystems's Avatar
47,710 posts
Gallery: 78 photos
Joined Apr 2003
Rhode Island USA
Jun 03, 2017 13:21 |  #32

re: Bad science,. I have one that I have a huge problem with.

Dark Matter.

In astronomy there have been many cases were the effects of something invisible have been observable,. and have led to some pretty spot on theories about the cause. As science and technology, often enough, the theories are proven accurate. (Heck in the case of black holes the theory existed before anyone even saw an effect!)

However, my gut tells me that in the case of dark matter, we are measuring an effect and due to no obvious explanation, we have created a cause. In doing so I believe we have overlooked some far more obvious causes.

Dark matter explains certain gravitational anomalies that we can't seem to explain. ie: we see an effect, notice that it does not coincide with what we "know" about gravity, and then create Dark Matter to explain this anomalous behavior. IMHO that is bordering on the very definition of bad science. A bit like saying "we don"t know how the Pyramids were built, so it must have been Aliens". We don't know what is making this happen so it must be some secret sauce that we can't see. It's not the first time that's come up. At one point in time all of outer space was filled with "Ether" ;)

So what is the more obvious overlooked solution? Admit that we do not fully understand, and are underestimating gravity and it's effect on matter. Just a theory ;)


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Capn ­ Jack
Senior Member
Capn Jack's Avatar
Joined Mar 2010
NE USA
Jun 03, 2017 16:36 |  #33

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18370025 (external link)
re: Bad science,. I have one that I have a huge problem with.

Dark Matter.

In astronomy there have been many cases were the effects of something invisible have been observable,. and have led to some pretty spot on theories about the cause. As science and technology, often enough, the theories are proven accurate. (Heck in the case of black holes the theory existed before anyone even saw an effect!)

However, my gut tells me that in the case of dark matter, we are measuring an effect and due to no obvious explanation, we have created a cause. In doing so I believe we have overlooked some far more obvious causes.

Dark matter explains certain gravitational anomalies that we can't seem to explain. IE: we see an effect, notice that it does not coincide with what we "know" about gravity, and then create Dark Matter to explain this anomalous behavior. IMHO that is bordering on the very definition of bad science. A bit like saying "we don"t know how the Pyramids were built, so it must have been Aliens". We don't know what is making this happen so it must be some secret sauce that we can't see. It's not the first time that's come up. At one point in time all of outer space was filled with "Ether" ;)

So what is the more obvious overlooked solution? Admit that we do not fully understand, and are underestimating gravity and it's effect on matter. Just a theory ;)

I really don't know of any scientist that is really enamored of dark matter and dark energy. Both are just a way of saying there's something there and we don't understand it. Both are a creation to work within our models. In my opinion, physics is at a point similar to that of roughly a century ago. Physicists had observations that couldn't be handled by the math/physics of the time. One example, the inability to model black body radiation, had something melodramatically named the "ultraviolet catastrophe", and was solved by the introduction of quantum mechanics. Another, the inability to model mercury's orbit, was solved by general relativity. Both of these theories advanced our sciences, including chemistry (quantum mechanics helps to explain the shape of molecules and the rate of reactions), biology, physics, and astronomy. We are waiting for another Max Plank and Albert Einstein to create new theories. Two of the "unsolved problems" we have are the "galaxy rotation problem" and the "fly-by" anomaly, an unexpected energy increase measured during Earth flybys of spacecraft. Dark matter has been used for both problems but no one is happy about using it (that I know of); solving one probably solves the other...


USA members- don't let the airlines buy the air traffic control system: http://www.atcnotforsa​le.com/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Capn ­ Jack
Senior Member
Capn Jack's Avatar
Joined Mar 2010
NE USA
Jun 03, 2017 16:47 |  #34

Jeff Hanson wrote in post #18369585 (external link)
Thanks for this point Wilt, it guided me to what I really want to express. Take away climate change, the ozone layer or any of that stuff, I'm open to all arguments, theories and evidence. What scares me is when the scientific "consensus" of the moment becomes orthodoxy that cannot be questioned. Then you've got the modern equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition for anyone who dares question "science".

This is a great discussion and thanks for everyone's point of view. Now I'm going out for some Friday night beers.

While there are stubborn people in the sciences (like anywhere else), I don't feel there is orthodoxy for the most part in the sciences. Politicians? And those following a particular political position? That's a whole 'nother kettle of beans. Let's not confuse the two groups.

Keep in mind that a new theory in opposition to others need to make some good measurable predictions, not contradict observations, and have those predictions borne out, to gain acceptance. Relativity didn't contradict Newtonian physics but rather simplified to it in the framework most of us experience daily.


USA members- don't let the airlines buy the air traffic control system: http://www.atcnotforsa​le.com/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Jeff ­ Hanson
Goldmember
Joined Oct 2013
Jun 03, 2017 23:00 as a reply to Capn Jack's post |  #35

Michael Mann is actually suing people who disagree with his climate "science" claims in federal court. It's my understanding that he's a scientist, not a politician. There are zealots in every profession and walk of life. Their reason for zealotry may be different (personal belief, money, fame, hate) but people are people and they exist in the same approximate proportions in the scientific community. Bill Nye the Science guy is an example of a zealot.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Capn ­ Jack
Senior Member
Capn Jack's Avatar
Joined Mar 2010
NE USA
Jun 04, 2017 08:55 |  #36

Jeff Hanson wrote in post #18370390 (external link)
Michael Mann is actually suing people who disagree with his climate "science" claims in federal court. It's my understanding that he's a scientist, not a politician. There are zealots in every profession and walk of life. Their reason for zealotry may be different (personal belief, money, fame, hate) but people are people and they exist in the same approximate proportions in the scientific community. Bill Nye the Science guy is an example of a zealot.

This lawsuit?

The current case brings a defamation lawsuit against Steyn, Simberg, National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute “for their utterly false and defamatory statements against Dr. Mann—accusing him of academic fraud and comparing him to a convicted child molester, Jerry Sandusky, the disgraced former football coach at Pennsylvania State University.”

Ref: https://www.washington​post.com ...l/?utm_term=.7f8071​9a3891 (external link)

That doesn't seem like a suit because they disagree with his science...

He certainly isn't suing scientists that publish papers that disagree with him.


USA members- don't let the airlines buy the air traffic control system: http://www.atcnotforsa​le.com/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Jeff ­ Hanson
Goldmember
Joined Oct 2013
Post has been edited 5 months ago by Jeff Hanson.
Jun 04, 2017 10:11 as a reply to Capn Jack's post |  #37

Yes, that lawsuit. And he is suing them (as opposed to actual researchers who publish contradictory data) because no one will ever see or hear about those researchers and he wants the microphone taken away from people who have it and can spread the word. I hope everyone reads the article you linked to the end and sees that the very paper printing the report (along with the New York Times, National Press Club, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, NBC, Los Angeles Times, et al) joined in an amicus brief to the courts supporting the defendants. For those who don't have time, here's the relevant quote from the article:

"And over the years, the defendants have received similar expressions of support from other sources. In 2014, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 26 other organizations — including The Washington Post and other media groups — filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants, suggesting that “defendants were expressing constitutionally protected opinions about both (a) the validity of Mann’s scientific conclusions on climate change and (b) the findings of governmental bodies that had endorsed his views.”

I'm not trying to start a new debate over freedom of speech, but just trying to make the point (probably very poorly) that, as a group, scientists should not be looked on as intellectually, morally or ethically superior to people in general. They have the same nature we all do, and are not above allowing an agenda (again it could be fame, money, status, etc) to effect their work. You get trouble any time you elevate any class of people over another as it pertains to their perceived innate "goodness" or "rightness". I remember when you would never question your Catholic priest, and look how that allowed the continued abuse of many children by some bad apples. That's not meant as a direct comparison, just an example.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Capn ­ Jack
Senior Member
Capn Jack's Avatar
Joined Mar 2010
NE USA
Post has been edited 5 months ago by Capn Jack.
Jun 04, 2017 10:42 |  #38

Jeff Hanson wrote in post #18370612 (external link)
Yes, that lawsuit. And he is suing them (as opposed to actual researchers who publish contradictory data) because no one will ever see or hear about those researchers and he want the microphone taken away from people who have it and can spread the word. I hope everyone reads the article you linked to the end and sees that the very paper printing the report (along with the New York Times, National Press Club, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, NBC, Los Angeles Times, et al) joined in an amicus brief to the courts supporting the defendants. For those who don't have time, here's the relevant quote from the article:

"And over the years, the defendants have received similar expressions of support from other sources. In 2014, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 26 other organizations — including The Washington Post and other media groups — filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants, suggesting that “defendants were expressing constitutionally protected opinions about both (a) the validity of Mann’s scientific conclusions on climate change and (b) the findings of governmental bodies that had endorsed his views.”

I'm not trying to start a new debate over freedom of speech, but just trying to make the point (probably very poorly) that, as a group, scientists should not be looked on as intellectually, morally or ethically superior to people in general. They have the same nature we all do, and are not above allowing an agenda (again it could be fame, money, status, etc) to effect their work. You get trouble any time you elevate any class of people over another as it pertains to their perceived innate "goodness" or "rightness". I remember when you would never question your Catholic priest, and look how that allowed the continued abuse of many children by some bad apples. That's not meant as a direct comparison, just an example.

I never claimed that scientists were any better than anyone else, please re-read my posts. I also stated earlier that a scientist that is able to make a convincing case about the cause of global warming not being man-made, or make a convincing case that it doesn't exist, or there are climate influences that will cause it to reverse, will be famous, and I'm sure several people are looking to make such cases. Anyone that publishes such a case will certainly have that publication paraded by those wanting to prove global warming is nothing to worry about. Bringing in the priests is a bit of a red herring, as scientists mostly will look at the case presented and change their minds; it took a long time for an apology to be given to Galileo. The vast majority of scientists don't claim science is a religion. The court case has been sufficiently muddied that it is difficult to see what the actual reasons for starting the case might be.

Jeff Hanson wrote in post #18370390 (external link)
Michael Mann is actually suing people who disagree with his climate "science" claims in federal court. It's my understanding that he's a scientist, not a politician. There are zealots in every profession and walk of life. Their reason for zealotry may be different (personal belief, money, fame, hate) but people are people and they exist in the same approximate proportions in the scientific community. Bill Nye the Science guy is an example of a zealot.


Looking at the link (my reference, which you agree with), it seems the defendants sued, and appealed to federal court to prevent the lawsuit going forward (see below), so the claims that he sued in federal court (your quote, highlighted) are deceptive and disingenuous and fail to reflect the facts. And you are taking a single example and using it to represent all scientists.

When the lawsuit was first brought in a lower court, the defendants asked the judge to dismiss the case and were denied. They appealed, and now the D.C. Court of Appeals has also denied the motion to dismiss, finding that “Dr. Mann has presented evidence sufficient to defeat the special motions to dismiss as to some of his claims.”


USA members- don't let the airlines buy the air traffic control system: http://www.atcnotforsa​le.com/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Jeff ­ Hanson
Goldmember
Joined Oct 2013
Jun 04, 2017 10:48 as a reply to Capn Jack's post |  #39

Sorry for the multiple posts, but I forgot address the Sandusky comparison.

While crude (and in my opinion necessary) the comparison to the Sandusky incident was more about what the defendants perceived as a sham investigation by Penn State into the allegations of academic misconduct by Mann than to compare his actions to molestation. The comparison is apt given Penn State's failure to properly investigate Sandusky. Funny coincidence, three or four Penn State officials (including the former President) were just convicted sentenced to jail time last week for their part in covering up (or failing to appropriately act) on Sandusky's conduct.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,149 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been last edited 5 months ago by Wilt. 4 edits done in total.
Jun 04, 2017 10:54 |  #40

It seems to me that Michael Mann's lawsuit revolves around whether or not "the statements assert or imply false facts that defame the individual,”, and part of the adjudication depends upon whether or not "on whether the jury finds that the defendants acted with 'actual malice.' ”

Whether an unstated motive by Michael Mann exists on his part that "he wants the microphone taken away from people who have it and can spread the word" as contended by Jeff is debatable, and considered independent and separate from any defamatory statements bu others which assert or imply false facts that defame the individual,” Defamation is defamation.

Without reading the text of the legal briefs filed, we only have very superficial reporting by a news outlet, and whether or not that reporting itself is an accurate reflection of reality can be questioned!...only last week I read a news article about the effects of the Trump-proposed budget on a ranking of STATES...and ATLANTA was listed as one of the most affected states from the proposed budget. I have to assume that unlike the knowledgeable author of that article, I am blind and ignorant about the 51st state in the United States?!

https://www.washington​post.com ...l/?utm_term=.a89804​95d8a0 (external link)


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
Jeff ­ Hanson
Goldmember
Joined Oct 2013
Post has been edited 5 months ago by Jeff Hanson.
Jun 04, 2017 10:55 as a reply to Capn Jack's post |  #41

No, the plaintiff sued and the defendants asked the court to dismiss. When the trial court declined to dismiss, they appealed and the appeal was also denied. All that means is the Appellate Court says the case has to go to trial, not that either party is right or wrong.

This is one area I'm not just spouting an opinion on, having personally been sued in both state and federal court several times. I recently spent almost three weeks of my life in a courtroom at the Dirksen Federal Building as a defendant, so I know something about how parties present facts in complaints, motions, briefs etc., which is the light that's best to their argument. The jury found in our favor, but we too were denied dismissal of the case at both the trial and appellate level.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Jeff ­ Hanson
Goldmember
Joined Oct 2013
Jun 04, 2017 11:01 |  #42

Capn Jack wrote in post #18370656 (external link)
Looking at the link (my reference, which you agree with), it seems the defendants sued, and appealed to federal court to prevent the lawsuit going forward (see below), so the claims that he sued in federal court (your quote, highlighted) are deceptive and disingenuous and fail to reflect the facts. And you are taking a single example and using it to represent all scientists.

And now that you've called me deceptive and disingenuous, I'm done with you. I think you've proven my point.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Capn ­ Jack
Senior Member
Capn Jack's Avatar
Joined Mar 2010
NE USA
Post has been edited 5 months ago by Capn Jack.
Jun 04, 2017 11:16 |  #43

Jeff Hanson wrote in post #18370673 (external link)
No, the plaintiff sued and the defendants asked the court to dismiss. When the trial court declined to dismiss, they appealed and the appeal was also denied. All that means is the Appellate Court says the case has to go to trial, not that either party is right or wrong.

This is one area I'm not just spouting an opinion on, having personally been sued in both state and federal court several times. I recently spent almost three weeks of my life in a courtroom at the Dirksen Federal Building as a defendant, so I know something about how parties present facts in complaints, motions, briefs etc., which is the light that's best to their argument. The jury found in our favor, but we too were denied dismissal of the case at both the trial and appellate level.

That's exactly correct. The plainfiff did NOT sue in federal court. The plaintiff sued in a LOWER court. The defendants took it to a federal court to get the case dismissed.


USA members- don't let the airlines buy the air traffic control system: http://www.atcnotforsa​le.com/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Capn ­ Jack
Senior Member
Capn Jack's Avatar
Joined Mar 2010
NE USA
Jun 04, 2017 11:19 |  #44

Jeff Hanson wrote in post #18370680 (external link)
And now that you've called me deceptive and disingenuous, I'm done with you. I think you've proven my point.

Actually, I didn't call you anything. Also, I'm not the one that used the Priest child abuse scandal as an example of scientists not questioning "authority", whatever that may be in the sciences. Better examples would have been the Galileo trial, or the arguments against evolution.


USA members- don't let the airlines buy the air traffic control system: http://www.atcnotforsa​le.com/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

2,266 views & 25 likes for this thread
Oil and gas drilling in National Monuments
FORUMS News & Rumors Other Rumors and Predictions


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00176 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is comayjo
977 guests, 505 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016