Al Those Great Scientists Here

Michael Press

In article
<52b60b1b-bff8-459f-a992-875ba1b1f95b@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"Paul G." <carbide@egine.com> wrote:

> On May 8, 12:58 pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 8, 12:01 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
> >
> > > Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
> > > commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.
> >
> > Read the link.
>
> Ah, but reading the link would be `reality based'.

I read it. Now what?

--
Michael Press

Robert Chung

On May 8, 6:35 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <2ef51ac6-1cf4-4d7f-8b2e-f24dff3da...@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 8, 12:01 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
>
> > > Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
> > > commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.
>
> > Read the link.
>
> I read it, and stand by what I said.

I am not surprised.

Paul G.

On May 8, 6:36 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <52b60b1b-bff8-459f-a992-875ba1b1f...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 8, 12:58 pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 8, 12:01 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
>
> > > > Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
> > > > commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.
>
> > > Read the link.
>
> > Ah, but reading the link would be `reality based'.
>
> I read it. Now what?
>
> --
> Michael Press

I think a rational person would come to the opposite conclusion from
yours. This is the ultimate in hubris: "We're an empire now, and when
we act, we create our own reality." No one owns reality. There is no
hubris involved in studying reality, or acknowledging it. Quite the
opposite- denying reality because it doesn't give the answer you want
is hubris. And futility.

Maybe you're coming from a religious angle. Doesn't matter whether you
think the laws of physics were laid down by God or not. They are still
immutable. You can believe it's because God decrees it, or not.
Doesn't affect the outcome. The greenhouse effect is reality no matter
what your faith or lack thereof.

You just plunged in my estimation. I've mentally penciled in
"crackpot"
-Paul

Sandy

Dans le message de
news:0cce639d-f38c-49df-ad74-8bbd8fc866b4@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com,
Paul G. <carbide@egine.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On May 8, 2:16 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 7 May 2008 20:28:48 GMT, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The social and economic science of climate change is really very
>>> simple, to avoid making any sacrifices during our lifetimes, most
>>> of us are betting that the really bad effects will occur after we
>>> are dead.
>>
>> Why think of them as bad. When my son asked me what would happen if
>> the sea level rises 100 feet, I tell him that we wont have to drive
>> as far to go to the beach.
>
> That sounds good... except you'll be starving because of decades of
> drought in crop producing areas

Think: VIRGIN TUNDRA !!

> and you won't be driving because all
> the ports and many of the oil fields world-wide will be underwater.

A novel idea - extracting oil and gas from the marine environment - perhaps
they'll figure out some kind of technology, maybe?

Howard Kveck

In article <482314ac$0$14355$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
Ted van de Weteringe <myfullname@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:

> Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> > "reality-based community"---I love it! When do we move?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

I'm betting on the aide in question being Karl Rove.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Bret

On May 8, 9:41*pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> In article <482314ac$0$14355$e4fe5...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> *Ted van de Weteringe <myfulln...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> > > "reality-based community"---I love it! *When do we move?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
>
> * *I'm betting on the aide in question being Karl Rove.

I think it was Douglas Feith. I do hope we find out some day.

Bret

Howard Kveck

In article <bb78e344-0cc3-4681-9e64-134f7271ea27@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Bret <bret.wade@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 8, 9:41*pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > In article <482314ac$0$14355$e4fe5...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> > *Ted van de Weteringe <myfulln...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> > > > "reality-based community"---I love it! *When do we move?
> >
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
> >
> > * *I'm betting on the aide in question being Karl Rove.
>
> I think it was Douglas Feith. I do hope we find out some day.

You know, Feith is also a good choice. But it sounds so Rovian to me - similar to
his comment to NPR host Robert Siegel about the then-impending '06 elections: "You
may end up with a different math, but you're entitled to your math. I'm entitled to
'the' math."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/R...h_NPR_1025.html

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Paul G.

On May 8, 8:35 pm, "Sandy" <leur...@free.fr> wrote:
> Dans le message denews:0cce639d-f38c-49df-ad74-8bbd8fc866b4@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com,
> Paul G. <carb...@egine.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> > On May 8, 2:16 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On 7 May 2008 20:28:48 GMT, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> The social and economic science of climate change is really very
> >>> simple, to avoid making any sacrifices during our lifetimes, most
> >>> of us are betting that the really bad effects will occur after we
> >>> are dead.
>
> >> Why think of them as bad. When my son asked me what would happen if
> >> the sea level rises 100 feet, I tell him that we wont have to drive
> >> as far to go to the beach.
>
> > That sounds good... except you'll be starving because of decades of
> > drought in crop producing areas
>
> Think: VIRGIN TUNDRA !!
>
> > and you won't be driving because all
> > the ports and many of the oil fields world-wide will be underwater.
>
> A novel idea - extracting oil and gas from the marine environment - perhaps
> they'll figure out some kind of technology, maybe?

You're not clear on the concept. Every seaport in the world is going
to be under water. Many trillions of dollars of infrastructure,
refineries, etc would have to be rebuilt. What is going to happen is
mass starvation, millions of refugees, and wars over resources. No
one is going to be planting wheat and corn on "virgin tundra" soon
enough to feed the existing population. There will be a massive die-
off.
-Paul

Paul G.

On May 8, 4:42 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 15:55:57 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Why think of them as bad. When my son asked me what would happen if
> >> the sea level rises 100 feet, I tell him that we wont have to drive as
> >> far to go to the beach.
>
> >That sounds good... except you'll be starving because of decades of
> >drought in crop producing areas
>
> Nonsense, my fridge will be stocked full of Alaska oranges and
> grapefruits.
>
> >and you won't be driving because all
> >the ports and many of the oil fields world-wide will be underwater.
>
> I'll be driving my electric car to the beach that will be charged at
> home from electricity produced by nuclear energy.
>
> >But what the hell, go ahead and pick out a nice bathing suit.
> >-Paul
>
> I prefer natural fibers so it will be made from Canadian cotton.

Heh heh... where to start... maybe you haven't noticed but many of
the nuclear power plants are on the coasts. They aren't going to work
very well underwater. What are you going to buy Canadian cotton with-
"Bush Bucks"? They'll be worth about 2 cents Canadian by then. And
there's going to be an awkward period of mass starvation between the
time the Florida orange groves are wiped out and the new ones in
Alaska start producing...
-Paul

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

On May 8, 6:38*pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 6:35 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <2ef51ac6-1cf4-4d7f-8b2e-f24dff3da...@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> > *Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 8, 12:01 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
>
> > > > Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
> > > > commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.
>
> > > Read the link.
>
> > I read it, and stand by what I said.
>
> I am not surprised.

"Reality-based" in this context isn't an assertion of
empirical certainty. It's a Homeric epithet.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/...ericEpithet.htm

Ben

Donald Munro

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> "Reality-based" in this context isn't an assertion of empirical certainty.
> It's a Homeric epithet.

ST will want to know if its Homeric by nature or nurture.

Howard Kveck

In article <482413c3$0$30086$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> > "Reality-based" in this context isn't an assertion of empirical certainty.
> > It's a Homeric epithet.
>
> ST will want to know if its Homeric by nature or nurture.

Answer the question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Michael Press

In article
<7e13efd1-e72a-4380-aec3-8b134b10924a@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Chung <rechung@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 8, 6:35 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <2ef51ac6-1cf4-4d7f-8b2e-f24dff3da...@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> > Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 8, 12:01 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
> >
> > > > Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
> > > > commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.
> >
> > > Read the link.
> >
> > I read it, and stand by what I said.
>
> I am not surprised.

I _am_ surprised.
Where do you disagree with what I said?

--
Michael Press

Michael Press

In article
<46051b7e-c173-443c-b7a6-b66fedf88bfc@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
"Paul G." <carbide@egine.com> wrote:

> On May 8, 6:36 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <52b60b1b-bff8-459f-a992-875ba1b1f...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 8, 12:58 pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 8, 12:01 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
> >
> > > > > Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
> > > > > commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.
> >
> > > > Read the link.
> >
> > > Ah, but reading the link would be `reality based'.
> >
> > I read it. Now what?

>
> I think a rational person would come to the opposite conclusion from
> yours. This is the ultimate in hubris: "We're an empire now, and when
> we act, we create our own reality." No one owns reality. There is no
> hubris involved in studying reality, or acknowledging it. Quite the
> opposite- denying reality because it doesn't give the answer you want
> is hubris. And futility.

Then you agree with me.

> Maybe you're coming from a religious angle. Doesn't matter whether you
> think the laws of physics were laid down by God or not. They are still
> immutable.

Gravity is a fact.
What are the immutable laws of physics?
At this point gravity, quantum physics,
electrodynamics, and nuclear forces
are not reconciled.

> You can believe it's because God decrees it, or not.
> Doesn't affect the outcome. The greenhouse effect is reality no matter
> what your faith or lack thereof.

So that is the problem.
I had a feeling that what I said was decoded according
to a code of which I was unaware.
Is it the case that reality based communities have
a firm stand on the greenhouse effect?

> You just plunged in my estimation. I've mentally penciled in
> "crackpot"

But we agree in part.

--
Michael Press