Comments on: The Obama Admininstration vs. Science

By: Cheesestick

Cheesestick — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 01:34:02 +0000

Fostert – Do you ever pass up an opportunity to be a first class horses ass? It doesn't seem to me like you do.

And now you design heart implants? I'm going to start tracking all these claims you make with all your world traveling, wealth & riches, successful investing, culture observing, VIP elbow-rubbing, & now heart-implant inventing, experience. It does make me wonder how you ended up living in your mom's basement telling wild tales to strangers on backward-thinking conservative blogs???

By: suek

suek — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:41:16 +0000

Not so fast there…!

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/12/from-u….

By: fostert

fostert — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:35:04 +0000

By good chances, I mean the 30% market share that my products represent. Chances are, you'll avoid my products. But you can roll the dice. Two out of six says, I'll make money off your surgery. But I really don't want to make money off you. But I can assure you, I'll make money off someone. And nothing makes more money for me than people getting fat. So bring it on. And if you do get surgery, there's a 30% chance you will pay me for it.

So I ask you, get as fat as you want, you will pay me in the end.

By: fostert

fostert — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:14:57 +0000

"You mean the data that the planet hasn’t warned for a decade? Or the data that’s been proven faulty because it’s been measured on bad instrumentation? Or the data that’s been just plain incorrect?"

I mean the data that has been accepted in the appropriate scientific journals. Now, you might think that these journals don't know what they're talking about, but if you think hat, I have a request. When you have a heart problem (give your weight, you will), I ask that you request a dermatologist. After all, he is not biased by the latest scientific knowledge about your condition. You wouldn't want some godless scientist operating on you, would you? You wouldn't want the value of science just because that might help you. You will die in your perfect knowledge that only Republican philosophy will save you. I will bet my life on science. It's not a sure bet, but it's the best I have. And you will too, when you're facing death. But you'll deny your concept of science in doing so. You will finally accept our science when your life depends on it. So ask yourself: do you really accept the scientific beliefs of conservative journalists over the work of real scientists? Next time you're under the operating table, you should think about that. And given your weight, there is a good chance that the implant you get was designed by me.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:47:54 +0000

But the data leans so strongly in one direction now, I believe the theory.

You mean the data that the planet hasn't warned for a decade? Or the data that's been proven faulty because it's been measured on bad instrumentation? Or the data that's been just plain incorrect?

By: fostert

fostert — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:15:44 +0000

When that list gets to 10,000, it might have some credibility. The link doesn't give the real list, but the highlights get pretty damn low before you get to ten people. And the idea that more people signed the IPCC document is plain silly. The IPCC's attendance was limited, the "survey's" is not. If you look at surveys that ask all climate scientists to weigh in, you get over 80% saying that it is both man made and a serious issue. The scientific consensus is that the earth is warming by human endeavors. The conflicts are over how much and by what mechanisms. Now consensus isn't always right, but it usually is in the scientific world. Science rarely gets any kind of consensus until something looks really obvious. The reason is that scientists get famous and are granted permanent chairs by attacking the consensus and winning. So scientist are very hesitant to buy into any theory unless they cannot prove it wrong. Consider gravity, you can't get 30% agreeing with any theory right now. The LHC might prove a theory, but there's a good chance it won't. But everyone needs the LHC to prove a theory wrong. With some data, we'll some some real movement in who believes what about gravity. Just as we've seen on Climate Change. I was a skeptic until 2001. The data just wasn't there. But the data leans so strongly in one direction now, I believe the theory. That doesn't make it right, but it's probably close to right. And by close to right, I mean like Newton's Laws. Newton was wrong about everything he ever said except for one thing. And it's not one of his laws. His failure was threefold. He didn't account for relativity, electromagnetism, and quantum effects. Because of that, every equation he ever created must be corrected for those effects. So what was he right about? His belief that light was made up of particles. At the time, everyone thought he had gone crazy. And it took until the 1950's to prove Newton right on that one thing. And the guy who proved it really was crazy. "Surely, you're joking Mr. Feynman." No, he wasn't, and he was right. But as Freeman Dyson corrected an earlier quote: "Richard Feynman is 100% genius and 100% crazy."