BBC keeps hassling me

[FlashDangerpants]

David Bellamy.

You mean the David Bellamy who was the face of many BBC programs, including Life in Our Sea, Bellamy's Britain, and Bellamy's Backyard Safari. Odd choice given the context.

[Maia]

Interesting, but it has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Star Talk is always very accessible. Here's Neil DGT talking to one of those evil 'conspirator scientists'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqzs5VSjObE&t=780s

I don't think there's a conspiracy involving all scientists, though we do know of individual instances of fakery. It's certainly the case, though, that only those scientists who are pro-global warming get funding, and those that aren't, are shut out, such as David Bellamy.

This is not to say that global warming research is wrong, as such, but rather, that it doesn't represent the whole picture. Even that video you linked admitted that we've managed to prevent the next ice age, which is surely a good thing. It was far less clear on the adverse consequences of warming the earth up, other than an extremely slow rise in sea levels.

The earth has been slowly cooling down ever since its formation, as its initial heat dissipates. Ice ages, for example, have only been a feature of recent geological history. One day it will cool down so much that it will become a cold, dead lump of rock, and anything we can do to slow this process down is a good thing.

So you accept human-induced climate change when it's doing something you consider to be 'good'--like avoiding an ice age? It's odd how 'selective' people can be in their acceptance of facts.
The video is about Milankovitch cycles and you mentioned previously about the Sun. There are plenty of other videos about global warming.
No one is 'pro-global warming'. You mean the scientists who accept the science? Why would anyone fund loons who call themselves scientists yet deny scientific facts? Those loons get vacuumed up by religious organisations and used for the kind of websites that the likes of Walker and IC love to frequent.
Isn't paganism supposed to be all about connectedness, and respect for nature? Obviously if we ignore that connectedness and abuse nature then that is going to have major consequences, which we are seeing today. Denying it is futile.

I don't particularly accept it, I'm just pointing out that for all their talk of global warming, they haven't really said why global warming is so bad. All my examples above were to show that, for the most part, global warming is a positive thing.

It all very much reminds me of a a scientific theory that exactly tracks the global warming paradigm, from a hundred years earlier. From small beginnings in the 1870s, right after Darwin, scientists began worrying about a gradual degradation of the human race. So was born eugenics, the science of improving it. This built up over the next few decades until it eventually reached fever pitch, especially in Germany in the 1930s and '40s, though it has faced something of a backlash since then.

[Maia]

David Bellamy.

You mean the David Bellamy who was the face of many BBC programs, including Life in Our Sea, Bellamy's Britain, and Bellamy's Backyard Safari. Odd choice given the context.

Yes, that's the one. He was cancelled when he opined that global warming was natural.

[Phil8659]

I once had a talk with a tree once, lasted for hours.
After we talked. I thanked the tree very much for its company.

As I was leaving, a crow who perched in the tree,
gave me a tip, a wet one.
Now ain't that all, borders are so impolite!

[accelafine]

I don't think there's a conspiracy involving all scientists, though we do know of individual instances of fakery. It's certainly the case, though, that only those scientists who are pro-global warming get funding, and those that aren't, are shut out, such as David Bellamy.

This is not to say that global warming research is wrong, as such, but rather, that it doesn't represent the whole picture. Even that video you linked admitted that we've managed to prevent the next ice age, which is surely a good thing. It was far less clear on the adverse consequences of warming the earth up, other than an extremely slow rise in sea levels.

The earth has been slowly cooling down ever since its formation, as its initial heat dissipates. Ice ages, for example, have only been a feature of recent geological history. One day it will cool down so much that it will become a cold, dead lump of rock, and anything we can do to slow this process down is a good thing.

So you accept human-induced climate change when it's doing something you consider to be 'good'--like avoiding an ice age? It's odd how 'selective' people can be in their acceptance of facts.
The video is about Milankovitch cycles and you mentioned previously about the Sun. There are plenty of other videos about global warming.
No one is 'pro-global warming'. You mean the scientists who accept the science? Why would anyone fund loons who call themselves scientists yet deny scientific facts? Those loons get vacuumed up by religious organisations and used for the kind of websites that the likes of Walker and IC love to frequent.
Isn't paganism supposed to be all about connectedness, and respect for nature? Obviously if we ignore that connectedness and abuse nature then that is going to have major consequences, which we are seeing today. Denying it is futile.

I don't particularly accept it, I'm just pointing out that for all their talk of global warming, they haven't really said why global warming is so bad. All my examples above were to show that, for the most part, global warming is a positive thing.

It all very much reminds me of a a scientific theory that exactly tracks the global warming paradigm, from a hundred years earlier. From small beginnings in the 1870s, right after Darwin, scientists began worrying about a gradual degradation of the human race. So was born eugenics, the science of improving it. This built up over the next few decades until it eventually reached fever pitch, especially in Germany in the 1930s and '40s, though it has faced something of a backlash since then.

Yes. Very 'positive'. Hurricanes and forest fires are so exhilarating--and that's just the appetiser.

I don't get the eugenics reference.

[Phil8659]

I don't get the eugenics reference.

Eugenics is a pseudo science which bases human superiority on the body, since no one could figure out what intelligence is, so fuck it, make someone who can pound the shit out of someone else.

I would not call it an ideal science.

I don't get it myself, why would anyone make someone who could stomp the shit out of you for fucking with their mama?
You might call it the science of masochism.

I am a eugenics experiment myself. My mom and dad tried not to make me but they got caught.

[Maia]

So you accept human-induced climate change when it's doing something you consider to be 'good'--like avoiding an ice age? It's odd how 'selective' people can be in their acceptance of facts.
The video is about Milankovitch cycles and you mentioned previously about the Sun. There are plenty of other videos about global warming.
No one is 'pro-global warming'. You mean the scientists who accept the science? Why would anyone fund loons who call themselves scientists yet deny scientific facts? Those loons get vacuumed up by religious organisations and used for the kind of websites that the likes of Walker and IC love to frequent.
Isn't paganism supposed to be all about connectedness, and respect for nature? Obviously if we ignore that connectedness and abuse nature then that is going to have major consequences, which we are seeing today. Denying it is futile.

I don't particularly accept it, I'm just pointing out that for all their talk of global warming, they haven't really said why global warming is so bad. All my examples above were to show that, for the most part, global warming is a positive thing.

It all very much reminds me of a a scientific theory that exactly tracks the global warming paradigm, from a hundred years earlier. From small beginnings in the 1870s, right after Darwin, scientists began worrying about a gradual degradation of the human race. So was born eugenics, the science of improving it. This built up over the next few decades until it eventually reached fever pitch, especially in Germany in the 1930s and '40s, though it has faced something of a backlash since then.

Yes. Very 'positive'. Hurricanes and forest fires are so exhilarating--and that's just the appetiser.

I don't get the eugenics reference.

Eugenics was the global warming of its day, which, from small beginnings, gradually came to consume the thoughts of almost everyone, and have vast resources poured at it, until, inevitably, the Nazis came along.

And just like global warming, it wasn't even wrong. What was wrong about it was its elevation to the driving force behind almost everything that governments and scientists were doing.

[accelafine]

I don't particularly accept it, I'm just pointing out that for all their talk of global warming, they haven't really said why global warming is so bad. All my examples above were to show that, for the most part, global warming is a positive thing.

It all very much reminds me of a a scientific theory that exactly tracks the global warming paradigm, from a hundred years earlier. From small beginnings in the 1870s, right after Darwin, scientists began worrying about a gradual degradation of the human race. So was born eugenics, the science of improving it. This built up over the next few decades until it eventually reached fever pitch, especially in Germany in the 1930s and '40s, though it has faced something of a backlash since then.

Yes. Very 'positive'. Hurricanes and forest fires are so exhilarating--and that's just the appetiser.

I don't get the eugenics reference.

Eugenics was the global warming of its day,

No, it wasn't.

[Phil8659]

Yes. Very 'positive'. Hurricanes and forest fires are so exhilarating--and that's just the appetiser.

I don't get the eugenics reference.

Eugenics was the global warming of its day,

No, it wasn't.

There, that is it exactly, now you know what it is like to walk in space without a suit. It is not thin air, there is no air at all.

[Maia]

Yes. Very 'positive'. Hurricanes and forest fires are so exhilarating--and that's just the appetiser.

I don't get the eugenics reference.

Eugenics was the global warming of its day,

No, it wasn't.

There are some very disturbing parallels with how both movements have played out, not least that one seems to be tracking the other almost exactly a hundred years later. Given what we know happened with eugenics in the 1930s, it's not difficult to extrapolate to our own time.

[accelafine]

I've had enough of this. The science is out there. Mountains of it. If you wanted to learn about it you would. You are clearly not a stupid person.

[Phil8659]

I am doing another write up of the Delian solution, this time, I am doing it straight forward and concise.
The results is, Sketchpad always gets an exact answer, while Mathcad put a difference whose significacne 5 decimal places, i.e., it puts a difference between a point and itself.
That is a rather large error. It happens because the more complex a system of equations, precision keeps degrading in arithmetic.
Now you can apply that to people who only learn by wrote. Pretty soon, you end up talking about something wholly different than the other person.

[accelafine]

I am doing another write up of the Delian solution, this time, I am doing it straight forward and concise.
The results is, Sketchpad always gets an exact answer, while Mathcad put a difference whose significacne 5 decimal places, i.e., it puts a difference between a point and itself.
That is a rather large error. It happens because the more complex a system of equations, precision keeps degrading in arithmetic.
Now you can apply that to people who only learn by wrote. Pretty soon, you end up talking about something wholly different than the other person.

If you actually knew 'grammar' then your comments might make some kind of sense.

[Maia]

I've had enough of this. The science is out there. Mountains of it. If you wanted to learn about it you would. You are clearly not a stupid person.

The same is true of eugenics. There are mountains of science supporting it, if that's what is being sought. The problem is, what people did with that science, and in the name of that science. Very much a case of the cure being worse than the problem.

[Phil8659]

I am doing another write up of the Delian solution, this time, I am doing it straight forward and concise.
The results is, Sketchpad always gets an exact answer, while Mathcad put a difference whose significacne 5 decimal places, i.e., it puts a difference between a point and itself.
That is a rather large error. It happens because the more complex a system of equations, precision keeps degrading in arithmetic.
Now you can apply that to people who only learn by wrote. Pretty soon, you end up talking about something wholly different than the other person.

If you actually knew 'grammar' then your comments might make some kind of sense.

That is why my work has pictures for every problem. if you cannot read, just follow the lines.