MtnGoat

OK l_b, here's a list of questions, since you've been using not-answers as reasons for comment in threads. Time to be self consistent. Just thought I'd help you out a bit and get them ready for you. 1) Do you deny you are criticizing my support for the use of proxies with weapons in Iraq? 2) Do you deny my proxy actions are the direct result of my supporting same? 3) Are you going to deny you support enforcement of laws you find beneficial? 4) why am *I* supposed to vote with my feet to aim guns at people, but when you want to aim guns at people who do not with to comply with your ideas on hiring re affirmative action, you are entitled not to? 5) what element of threatening people with loss of their freedom is it you feel you are not doing, by supporting the enforcement of laws? 6) Do the laws you wish imposed on others, exist in some limbo where you support their enforcement but are not responsible for supporting the *actual* means enforcement uses?

"I am still waiting to hear whether he actually read the paper (I asked twice without a response)." Not yet, takes a couple days to process a subscription to AGU. Looks like an interesting journal. Shall I let you know when I've finished reading it, or will you just switch modes to a different form of attacks? As for asking twice, you're hardly king of responses. You have many questions waiting for you on the other thread you never answered. I ask you to be consistent here and answer some of those, if you are going to rag on me for not answering yours. We'll see. Turning away from the innate implications of how you validate a political system you support is something I see often. "And two, I doubt it will ever be compelling evidence if it goes against his political agenda." So basically your approach here to opposition to your beliefs, is slander? Please explain how we know *you* are free of judging evidence by your agenda, since you are very vocal in attacking me for doing this on the basis of my having a point of view and attempting to support it. That's it. That's the sum total of what you excoriate me for. Presumably if you present evidence for your point of view, and it all represents a similar slant, that's because it's consistent and true, hence your belief in it. When I do it, it's evidence of an agenda I must be trying to fool people with. Presumably, there is no possibility of anyone believing something different from you without hidden reasons of some kind. Have I claimed anyone should not test what I put forth? nope. Have I attacked you personally by making comments about what you "really" want or do, or your agenda? Nope. The tactic here, again, is to play the agenda game, whose agenda where for what reasons, with the implication that the accuser has no agenda or that their viewpoint is the only one that can be held without having an agenda. That's simply false. I'm not sure who granted *your* agenda freedom from being called one, but it doesn't wash with me. If you want to play the agenda game, you must first admit yours poisons your positions as much as any agenda does anyone elses. There is nothing pure and saintly and non-agenda-like by claiming someone else has an agenda, when we all do. I'll be waiting for all the answers, since you're suddenly very hot on responses and all. Lets see it. [ 09-26-2002, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"The Western Fuel Association tells me that spewing CO2 in the environnment is good and I should not be a little tickled by how self serving it sounds? give me a break, will ya?" So now you're going to claim organizations that have a point of view and try to support it are self serving? What insight! Can you perhaps find me a group of people for any argument or position who are not self serving? [ 09-26-2002, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

I didn't post that link because they were not the source of the report, Geophys letters was. Still my bad, for not posting every one of my references and doing proper attribution. Now to the meat of this angle on the data, the "who pays" fallacy. Science and good practice is independent of who pays. While individual practitioners can and do have other agendas, the winnowing of good process takes it all out in the wash. I'm reading the IPCC report regardless of the fact it is generated by folks whom I suspect of injecting ideology into their science, because looking at their methodology and data will reveal any bias. The C02.org folks present data from a third party that will likewise be reviewed for process and method. Just like the Sierra club presents data it thinks supports it's positions, CO2.org presents the data they think valid. Each side has it's own agenda yet both use data that must pass review in order to be valid. Since the Sierra club thinks it is saving the earth, they present what they feel is beneficial to their viewpoint, since C02.org thinks it's all baloney, as do I (but I am willing to take a look, again), they present theirs. "Who pays" arguments are a diversionary argument designed to minimize the role of the review of good process and actual data. Attack the data if you can and it's process, who supported the work is a non issue that comes out in the wash when inspected for process, method, and repeatability. If we want to waste our time making value judgements about various organization and their agenda instead of using good method to look at their results, all we're doing is arguing about how may CO2 angels can dance on the head of a pin instead of getting on with empirical analysis.

wow. that short term memory loss must make renting movies really easy, just grab anything and wether you've seen it or not it's new all over again!

how bored must you be, to keep reading these boring threads?

"I guess I don't understand what claims it is you feel this study "throws into the proper light"." I should have clarified, my bad. The specific claim in this case is one I see constantly repeated, the "hotter than ever" claim. Yes, it's only one pillar of a diverse argument, often made by people parroting what they've read for warming, as much as others parrot their attacks on warming..... but it's a false one and it's proper rejection moves us closer to a true evaluation of the problem at hand. Proponents of anthro warming would do well to correct well meaning but misinformed folks on their side about this because misinformation serves no one well, regardless of good intent. You have other good comments I'd like to address later, and I will do so when I have a couple more minutes. It's certainly a pleasure to argue points with an opponent who can do so with courtesy.

"just because the earth has natural climate cycles (like anyone is denying that it does?!?!)" then tell me how to figure what is "normal"? " doesn't mean it's not possible for humans to cause climate change." Surely true. It does however vastly complicate the burden of proof needed to claim we do. You sure as heck better be able to explain why the earth's temps do what they do, including huge swings, before you try and posit you *know* they're doing something different. Especially when the timing of said swings indicate we are in a warming periond *anyway*. Ambitious claims used as backing to impose huge and costly measures on billions of people better be provable or else you're pushing religion, not science. And we haven't even scratched the real question, is spending trillions and compelling billions of people worth it to supposedly change the earths temp only 0.2C in 100 years? And delay the rise for 5 years? Even if implemented fully, and entirely correct, about warming and mechanisms, Kyoto gives us a pittance of difference.

""global warming" does not mean every inch of planet earth is now warmer than it's been since pre-industrial times. just because china may have been warmer at some previous time does not mean the entire globe was." True. However, this data also verifies European and N American climate data for at least the previous 1000 years. Verification of previously extant warm and cool periods do not rest exclusivelt on Chinese data for this reason, but the Chinese data was interesting due to it's recent release and use of nine separate proxies. conversely, just because china cools the rest of the planet and/or the planet-wide average temperature can still be (and is) going up. "often left out of the discussion of "global warming" is the fact that we have not only been adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere but also particulate matter (i.e. sulfur dioxide, which becomes sulfate particles, soot, dust, etc.)." Very good point, I have not read up enough to dispute particulate data you present, and cannot claim to make any case concerning it. "3) a single study is not sufficient to prove or disprove whether we are screwing ourselves by dumping CO2 into the atmosphere." I do not claim it does. It does however throw claims made by some warming proponents into the proper light, that they are either lying, or have not done their homework. It also raises the question, again, of just how the IPCC determines what a "natural" temperature rise is, what a "normal" climate should be, etc, since looking at the natural variations already known to exist, there simply is no static point. "that's why the IPCC reaches conclusions based on a large suite of studies from both sides. their analysis includes studies such as this one." That's why I'm reading it intently. Once I have finished the damned thing I will either join your side, or know precisely how to hammer on it. "4) keep trying." I intend to.

I knew you would be! How much time do you spend quivering, anyway?

You like? Wait till the thread about how the conclusion of the IPCC report was edited and the politics of how this took place!

yup, here we go. I am currently perusing the IPCC report for sections on historical climate change and how they rule this climate history out of their proposed model for warming. When I am done with that, I intend to go through it again, hopefully finding justifications for recent 20th century temps as a setpoint to measure "abnormal" warming against. You'll see a thread on that too! regardless of how the IPCC and other anthrogenic warming proponents view this historical data, one fact remains...anyone who uses the claim that the earth is hotter now than it's ever been to buttress their warming claims, is simply wrong. [ 09-25-2002, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

Get your subscription and read up, folks. Line item 1 on alarmist news network "it's hotter than it's ever been"..... is a flat out lie. http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/ Article: Yang, B., Braeuning, A., Johnson, K.R. and Yafeng, S. 2002. General characteristics of temperature variation in China during the last two millennia. Geophysical Research Letters 29: 10.1029/2001GL014485. What was done: Using nine separate proxy climate records derived from peat, lake sediment, ice core, tree ring and other proxy sources, the authors compiled a single weighted temperature history for China spanning the past two thousand years. What was learned The composite temperature record revealed five distinct climate epochs: a warm stage from AD 0 to 240 (the tail-end of the Roman Warm Period), a cold interval between AD 240 and 800 (the Dark Ages Cold Period), a return to warm conditions from AD 800-1400 (which included the Medieval Warm Period between AD 800 and 1100), a cool interval between 1400 and 1820 (the Little Ice Age), and the current warm regime (the Modern Warm Period) that followed the increase in temperature that began in the early 1800s. Another important finding of the study was the fact that the warmest temperatures of the past two millennia were observed during the second and third centuries AD. What it means: The results of this study demonstrate that the so-called unprecedented warmth of the 20th century is a myth. Indeed, the warmth of this period was but a manifestation of naturally-induced regularly-recurring conditions similar to those experienced in prior millennia. These results also serve as a testimony against those who would deny the existence of an extensive (hemispheric or global) Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, as well as an extensive Roman Warm Period and Dark Ages Cold Period, as well as natural cyclical climate changes.

I'm not sure about that, since you actually fly your own butt around you have a lot more to worry about, me, I am happy if I can knock my buddy out of action on the slope and still make it back for a hand catch without my baby eating pine bark or rocks down the cliff somewhere. I get to sit and drink and chase birds around while checking out the view, you actually have to pay attention lest you die. World of difference. Float planes rock, I agree, my next scratch build is going to be a Grumman Goose, 30's vintage. Big fat radials with huge props, great looking plane IMO. Congrats on your job offer, pretty sweet.

I'll take you on anytime, baby. I can't claim to fly full scale, that's Anna's bag, but I do choose and modify airfoils for building from scratch my own much smaller, but equally fun and (a lot cheaper) flying toys and they fly quite well, thanks. I think I know a bit of jargon boyo, can you walk the talk? why don't you give us a rundown on your understanding of the relationship between camber, thickness, CL, and moment coefficient for airfoils..... with maybe a digression on how these change with reynolds numbers and how to read a polar to determine how a given foil will behave at various angles of attack and such. Some notes on laminar flow, separation bubbles, and how to calculate the static margin of stability for an given foil and CG would be nice too. Need any more limited jargon? I like airplanes of all sizes, and if that's too juvenile for you, that's your own special problem! I still want to see another cool pic. [ 09-24-2002, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

Awesome pic! Looks like they have the flaps down on that bird, must be trying to slow up the dive a bit. Great choice for a photo break. Give us more airplanes, Anna!

"oh please. You are in serious need of introducing a little nuance in your thinking." Nuances in this case do not change the elemental facts here. Do you deny you are criticizing my support for the use of proxies with weapons in Iraq? Do you deny my proxy actions are the direct result of my supporting same? I assume so. Then you can hardly deny *your* use of proxies and the threat they use to insure compliance, because we're both, at the bottom level, supporting proxy enforcement of our personal morals, using the same means. "Being able to compare 2 things in one respect does not mean they are equivalent (it's not very good science by the way)." No one said the intent of the policies themselves are the same. My intent is to stop someone else from taking my life, yours is to make a social change you find beneficial. Regardless of the policy, the means rest on the same basis, threatening people with the use of force. That you wish to claim "nuance" makes your support of coecion different than mine is merely an element of the social view you wish to support which I do not agree with. Where the rubber meets the road, each of our proxies still threatens their respective targets. Are you going to deny you support enforcement of laws you find beneficial? "For example jaywalking and murder are comparable insofar as they are both against the rules interpreting the social contract, yet we agree they are not met with the same punishment because their impact on society is very different." First off, we do not agree on what the nature of the "social contract" is. Secondly, murder takes the rights of another individual, jaywalking does not. "yet I don't think you'd go as far associating yourselves with those cultures that compare stealing one's neighbors apples with murdering his children." You are partially correct. In some situations theft of food is the same as murder, but since those are not prevelant in the US, I'd largely agree. "So yes, I do feel entitled to having someone enforce laws for me yet I still feel that if you are calling for the death of thousands of individuals on either side of the fence you should be ready to vote with your feet (and I don't mean paying taxes)." So why am *I* supposed to vote with my feet to aim guns at people, but when you want to do so, you are entitled not to? Besides, since I am also calling for the protection of thousands of others, just as you claim to, this must be balanced with the idea that I am threatening thousands, just as you do. Just like you, if they give in to my coercion, they will not be harmed. "In this case lower than the mean socio-economic status leads to a higher risk of loosing one's life." And in this case they knowingly choose that risk balanced against their other values. Again individual judgement of values and risks is in place. "do you have conclusive evidence as to their making threatening statements?" The same evidence anyone ever has when investigating such incidences, the statement of a witness. If it is found to be false, it is found to be false. I have no investment in deciding this woman is a-priori correct, but I also have none deciding she is lying. This is what legal systems are for. "no, yet you already concluded they were guilty and should pay in some fashion" I have decided that given the woman's testimony to the police they should be investigated. Wether or not they should "pay" is determined solely by their guilt. If we are not to allow initial evidence to determine what police will investigate, we will have no legal system. You seem to be demanding proof before any non sanctioning action can take place. These men have not been charged, they have not been convicted. They have undergone the same examination any citizen is at risk of, given statements provided by a witness. "Ergo, you discard your high principles when you see fit." Individuals are to be free of loss of rights without trial, not free of investigation of possible crimes. "come on. You were justifying calling the law, not avoiding eye contact." No, I asked you what you did in a situation with scary looking people you come in contact with. You claim looks should never make a difference, so I am asking you if this is the case in your life, not that of the men in FL.

So now we are only to accept the comments of those who have served in war, on war? I guess this rules out a lot of people and places only military folks in positions of policymaking and applicability on all matters military. Good idea!

"This is exactly your problem. You can't see how the means determine policy. Would our policies be the same if policymakers had to enforce them?" I see how means determines policy with regard to voluntary vs non voluntary means, yes. Voluntary means depend on enticement, involuntary means depends on threats. I am speaking with regard to involuntary policy, which again, always arrives at the same point in enforcement. Something you simply do not appear to be willing to face. As for would our policies be the same if policymakers had to carry them out, of course not. Your support of social policies empowered by threats would be substantially different if *you*, the policymaker, had to show up and personally tell each person you disagree with that they were going to do as you say, for reasons you find sufficient, to make society how you want it to be regardless of their wishes, while they look at you personally threatening them with loss of their liberty by reason of physical threat. Everything you support is backed by "or else". Physically, directly taking their self determination because you say so, in person, and having to explain why their values don't count as much as yours, would make policies a lot different, yup. I don't pass the buck and claim someone else is a policymaker to get around my squeamishness at using force, because I as the person who legitimizes proxies am the *real* policymaker in a democracy. My legislators are my proxies just as much as any cop is, this is the point of democracy. I do not get a pass by calling someone else a policymaker when the entire system is rooted in what each of us support. This is precisely why I am very, very reticent about the use of coercion. I appreciate your willingness to carry one here, it's pretty entertaining IMO, but your reluctance to admit what the basis of enforcement of compulsory programs is and take this into account, shows a refusal to examine the totality of what you support. Still you have not answered why your proxies need only your cash to aim guns for you, but mine need me to do so personally. [ 09-23-2002, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"well, if you persist in attempting to demonstrate that police enforcing jaywalking rules (for example) legitimizes your use of an army to point guns at an entire people without your having to commit more than tax dollars, be my guest (in your persistance that is)." It doesn't legitimize the policy itself, it does legitimize the means. I make the policy case based as above in previous posts, I legitimize the means by noting you too support the use of weapons by your proxies against other humans for your own reasons. Tell me your reasons are higher and better, whatever, but don't claim you aren't in full support of threatening whom you see fit because it simply isn't true. "In an argument like this, the trick is not to throw the baby with the bath water." I am attempting to keep them separate, but you keep tying means together with policy, in order to validate your use of coecercion for your ends,while denying others use of it for ends you don't like. You've already explicitly bought into the use of threats and violence by the acceptance of enforcing laws using these means. You seem reluctant to admit this because of how much this calls into question about a system based on coercion of others, especially when said coercions extend past lines delineated by personal ownership and self determination and into areas where these principles do not apply. Which is precisely the point here. You want laws enforced but you will not answer why your proxies are OK but mine are not. You see my reasons as suspect and illegitimate and yours as perfectly acceptable, yet will not address the fact that you are as arbitrary as I am, which I at least freely admit. Further, you fail to answer why your proxies only require your tax dollars and mine require my personal presence, when the actual implementation of both our policies rests on the same basis, threats. Somehow you exempt yourself from personal action on behalf of your beliefs and yet demand it from me. [ 09-23-2002, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

Why do you think I said which end? I should have added, does he like it clean, or...? [ 09-20-2002, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

Handy for climing with Nec? Do you use it as a pacifier? In which end?

"Sure, humans are capable of rational thinking, but surely you must realize that people do not always take the most rational action." Of course they don't. But the fact remains that it's *they* who decide to take the action, using their own judgements, however faulty someone else finds them. Wether or not people make decisions someone *else* considers rational in their personal acts is not the issue. Free individuals own the right to make stupid, fucked up decisions. We are not chattel, we do not need others to be our mommies on their own say so, no matter how well intentioned they think they are. "But you don't control your morals! Maybe you are talking about adults here, adults with a particularly focused bent on controlling every thought in their heads." Of course I am talking about adults, and not just focussed ones. Wether or not one decide to examine their morality in detail, one still has one and one is still capable of changing it. What worries me here is IMO you keep making arguments where you seem to deny other humans own the right to make their own judgements and act on them. Even not caring about ones actions is in fact a moral choice. "Children certainly do not control the formation of their value structure. At the very least, we generally refuse to allow them that control, for fear of the irrational decisions they will make." Yes, that's how we treat children, and it's as it should be. Adults however are adults. "People can make choices to have certain values, but in the end it's action that matters, and certainly the anecdotal evidence of the futility of reason in the face of extreme circumstances (hereafter referred to as "world history") destroys your concept of a perfectly rational humanity!" I don't think so. Rationality as a process does not imply certain decisions, especially ones containing value judgement. We may not agree with the structure of that rationality, or the basis for it, or the outcome, but with every decision the human mind is running what it thinks is it's rational engine and using it to make decisions. Wether or not those decisions are something I agree with does not mean reason has not taken place, unless it is a decision concerning purely objective content which is rare. I do not claim humans are rational by each others standards, as you and I agree others do make stupid decisions by ours. Regardless of that, their rational mind is still extant and they still own the right to use it without me sitting in judgement because their lives are *their* lives. "Shit, just last week I hit the snooze bar too many times and wound up late to a commitment, even though every rational moral fiber in me raged at the thought of being late."' And who held the responsibility for this? Someone else? Nope, you do. "It *wants* to grab your attention, and when a person's attention is tugged at, something registers in the brain." We agree on this, but I don't see how it becomes an argument people cannot be trusted, or are pawns, as I've already made the point that a) we excerise final control and b) we've dealt with people selling things for millenia. "My brain makes my decisions, obviously, but my consciousness is not in control over all of those decisions." No, only the ones where you make decisions about what to do. That's the sphere of argument here, the rational mind. I ask you to comment please, are all these points just observations of what influences us, or arguments on why other humans should be subject to your protections for them even if they disagree? [ 09-20-2002, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

if anyone is interested in continuing this and other bullshit in person over a beer, a couple of folks and I are going on a 4x4 car camp sat/sun. High ridgelines (6500+) on east slope. Deal is preston park n ride 8amish and on to Yakima, then SW 30 miles. cool people, great views. If interested send me a pm. [ 09-20-2002, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"Media does indeed drive consumption -- it's called advertising." Sure it does, but it operates by generating want or need. Rational minds control most want and need. We must acknowledge human rational thinking and self knowledge that allows conscious control of wants by subordinating them to morals. If we wanted everything we saw advertised we'd go crazy. Even seeing something we don't have now but know about, like your buddies nice bike, generates a certain amount of want. I control my morals. I control how I view advertisements. People sell things in every culture from the most primitive to the most advanced. Everyone knows how to deal with it. From a hawker on a side street in bangladesh to that bastard in the used car dept, humans the world over know and every age, know about salesmen in any form. " Products such as Coca-Cola are themselves advertisements (for themselves), and the Coca-Cola brand is internationally known due to media/advertising saturation. If Coke is present, then the culture of Coke is present (to whatever degree)." Now that's good marketing. Is this an observation by you, or a call to action? What about pocket knives? Lighters? Buttwipe? Radios? Kitchen utensils? Are you aware of how much consumer goods flow into these places? Are we claiming people don't recognize these wants no matter where they live and they are tricked by adverts too? So they want a coke...hell I want a coke, I love em! It's about the world where cool things go places people want em. There's nothing like a cold coke on a hot day, get to your rig *burning* with exhaustion, rip open the cooler and pull one out of the ice..... with that weird sizzle and bite as an icy fizzy gulp races down! The guy who mixed up the first one has brought a lot of "aahs" after a chug to the world, and I think that's a good thing. So common Pakistanis like it while the mullah rages, so what? I like em, if they like em I can't see that as a big deal. "It's utterly ridiculous to claim that a person's values are unaffected by what they consume, see, and hear." I don't. I claim they control their lives and judge everything they see, don't you? "If no one knew anything about Coca-Cola, they could not possibly value it." I believe I addressed that. Before they advertised electricity, I wouldn't have wanted it. Before they invented coke, no one wanted it, now they have and people want it, and get their wants satisfied. Again, how this is bad I don't see it. Ok, new things generate new wants...so? "But if they "know" that Coke promises refreshment or a good time with friends or whatever the ad says, then they associate Coke with those things and value it as a proxy." They advertise fun and associate coke with fun by proxy, but hey, that's advertising. coke promises refreshment, and if you like the stuff, it can freakin deliver. Hit the desert with me next spring and I'll show you a refreshing coke. [ 09-20-2002, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]