iain

quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: "For MtnGoat, once a principle has been discovered through reason to be True, that is the end of the discussion. If you disagree with the principle, then your reasoning is flawed." Not only for me, and other Objectivists, but anyone who follows classical scientific method, which underlies objectivism. The scientific method is a tool to explore new ideas and concepts rather than to cast them aside when they are inconvenient or improbable. Scientific method brought the radical hypothesis of plate tectonics to established theory (GPS brings it to fact). This was a radical concept with not so many facts to support it at first, but there were hints of its validity. The method was then used to move from educated hypothesis to supported theory, rather than throwing it in the garbage due to lack of evidence. Why can you not apply this to anthropogenic climate change as many people have done already?

quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: This is the problem I have with this. The entire debate assumes an unknown and arbitrary setpoint, which does not exist. It stakes such a point as the current time (or a few decades previous), when a look at any climate chart shows how rediculous this is, and then people claim we must save the earth from change, when all it has ever done is change, for reasons no one can explain! Of course it was much hotter and colder before we were here, I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. But when we can correlate changes in climate directly to our activity, doesn't that cause even the slightest concern? This is like arguing the concept of evolution or something. If evidence were produced tomorrow that evolution was totally refutable, do think we biologists and geologists would continue supporting it? I think you would agree that's ridiculous, of course. Why are people so resistant to this idea? Do you think scientists like staking their reputations on wild theory? Isn't it worth at least considering with a little less bias? Rather than clog this board with a ton of stuff, here's one paper to start with, a summary of our impact on global climate change. It is a summary for policy makers from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It's a PDF on a web server of mine if you want to read it. Yes, there's room for interpretation of course, but I think you'd agree that there is cause for concern. I just want to make it clear that if evidence against human-caused climate change were presented tomorrow, I think many scientists would be overjoyed to drop the whole issue. But you can't drop something as important as this, in my opinion, until it has been disproven. Police still respond to bogus 911 calls, so should we, as a collective group. link here

ah yes, intolerance of differences in opinion and questioning our government. were you making some accusation towards him about being un-american?

quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: If there is actual evidence, produce it and send people to jail. If there is not, consider the answer given as truth until shown otherwise. I do not accept "looks like" proofs of malfeasance because anyone with a gripe can make noise. ... I don't blame you. But until real evidence is shown that stands in court, it's all hearsay. I refuse to consider men I don't know liars until I see the actual evidence against them. I know I don't like being called a liar and it is disrespectful to do to others what I do not like myself, politician or not. But these two clips contradict our administration's rationalization for military build-up in Iraq don't they? Yes, Hussein is an awful, dangerous man, but why is the evidence of nuclear arms production not presented first if that is the true threat? If there is a nuclear threat to the US, by all means, we should eliminate it. But please present some evidence that this is so before we commit to such a massive operation. Again, spare us the tired civil versus international law stuff. A liar is a liar around the world, so shouldn't we use the same standards?

well in kashmir

OR CLIMBER: Rants about how much harder it is to piss in Oregon than it is in Washington, pisses in shoe. (whoops got that backwards) [ 09-17-2002, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: iain ]

GYM CLIMBER: Poses too long, pisses down pants, has daddy buy new lycra.

I'm on to your game trasky!

CC.COM CLIMBERS: Sit at computers even though they have to piss real bad, lose control, piss on power strip, die of electrocution.

link to off-piste here's a snippet of info from BC Access about interference w/ the Tracker beacon. What people do with this info is up to them, but I don't sweat the cell phone interference when using a beacon. Again, I keep my cell powered down though. The main annoyance i have found with radio interference has been my beacon transmissions constantly breaking the squelch on my VHF radio. Conterra makes their radio harnesses so that you can mount the beacon to the side to avoid this (and it is supposedly a good ideain general to keep your pack/shovel from acting like a deflecting faraday shield when you are buried face down).

[ 09-17-2002, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: iain ]

remember you are always on the record when posting to the internet, as I have unfortunately realized. nice work up there.

how can you pass up b-fast in Golden. 'rants on the hwy 1 exit are like Denny's on steroids.

As someone who has been in an accident where a partner was immobilized and bleeding up on a glacier I am glad cell phones are available (but we used a radio to start a helicopter evac). It also helps mtn rescue to get information about the accident scene as well (what gear they will need, is a helicopter needed, etc). I have scoffed at phones in the past but when you are all alone with a badly injured partner who can't move, it's extremely hard to leave them behind to go get help, especially when evening is approaching. Mine is always off and I remove the battery to keep it that way, but I do bring it. I don't scoff at people who refuse to bring them and respect that decision. I just choose to carry one after being in an accident, if I remember to pack it. If not, I don't sweat not having it around. I'd be interested to know what other people think about this. [ 09-16-2002, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: iain ]

It's pointless to present the data that support a case for exponential warming secondary to post-industrial human activity, as minds are made up already and it's pretty damn tired.

quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: We'll get used to for one important reason, it happens all the time, we have nothing to do with it, nor can we stop it. [/QB] well that's an utterly ridiculous position, and this has been beaten to death in a different topic.

F'in-a get James Carville in the oval office. Foreign policy experience as consultant to many foreign prime ministers etc etc. Wife Mary M is assistant to Bush so he's even got the bi-partisan angle and he's a hard ass. how ya like them apples?

quote: Originally posted by Greg W: Your point has no merit, Iain. And I will ask you to name alternatives; there were only 4 or 5 candidates to choose from on your ballot. Opening the field to the "hundreds" is an obvious dodge of the issue. Bush is the best of what was available. Look I'll gladly acknowledge that the selection was poor. But to defend our president' with "there were no better alternatives in november" is defeatist and simplistic. The viable alternatives (if any) were flushed out long before the balllots were printed. Sure, that's a tired old argument from someone on the sidelines, but so be it. GWB still has the stage presence of a toddler and I feel embarassed as an American when I consider that people outside of the country pigeonhole me with him as symbols of Americana. Sorry this stuff gets old real fast on a climbing board. I'll try to keep my bored employee carcass out of these topics now.

The dude's a spelunker. They don't waste their time bouldering. Too busy running those big vertical systems 'n mapping 'n stuff. and carrying 4 headlamps.

Anyone who believes our current president is the best person for the job in this country is simply not facing reality. I don't need to name alternatives to back this up, there are hundreds: democrat, republican, or none of the above. Whether or not you agree w/ the administration's policies becomes secondary when our president makes us look like fools through his inability to create a coherent sentence or present an intelligent response to any unprepped question. Vicente Fox has a more impressive command of our language than our own president.

quote: Originally posted by Dwayner:

quote: Originally posted by erik: shizz thats the one for me!!! wheres it at!!! Probably easier for you to make sure one of these PDX jokers brings along Olsen's book, but it's a wide crack on the right of a pillar on the south wall. The left is a well-protected (2nd-hand info) 5.10, the standard route. piggedy-page top. [ 09-13-2002, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: iain ]

ARRGH! [ 09-13-2002, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: iain ]

quote: Originally posted by rbw1966: For a real thrill I recommend doing Free for All (5.8) but doing the right hand variation. Getting to the top of the pillar is, um, inspiring. Protects well w/ Camalot #10, whachu talkin' bout?