Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
------------------------------
Message: 19
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:03:13 -0800
From: Bernard Cleyet<bernardcleyet@redshift.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] About the "why" and "how questins."
To: Forum for Physics Educators<phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:<320607CC-C2F7-4164-B3C9-C4125E62C453@redshift.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Right! Warnings of Meteorite Impacts are also a no, no.
bc
p.s. last "I heard", no such thing as AMI.
On 2010, Dec 21, , at 08:37, John Mallinckrodt wrote:
In any event am I correct in understanding that you would have us, under *no* circumstances, predict catastrophe?
------------------------------
Message: 20
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:09:18 -0700
From: William Robertson<wrobert9@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] About the "why" and "how questins."
To: Forum for Physics Educators<phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:<51C9F638-AE98-4780-BCF1-A350D080467D@ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed;
delsp=yes
I also think the phrase "in any given period" is important. As I have
pointed out in other posts, Phil Jones found an increase in
temperature in statistically insignificant data. Again, I have no
doubt that the planet is warming. An extended period of flat line
temperatures would be no big surprise based on the ice core data, even
though we are warming overall. An extended period of flat line
temperatures does, however, cast doubt on the cause. CO2 content in
the atmosphere has no flat line. Look, I'm on the side of reducing
CO2 emissions. I just don't want scientists to overstate their case.
Bill
On Dec 21, 2010, at 7:59 PM, William Robertson wrote:
From your link: ?Given the controversy over the veracity of climate
change data,? Sammon wrote, ?we should refrain from asserting that the
planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY
pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have
called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert
such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.?
There is a big difference between stating that no MENTION be made of
climate change effects without the disclaimer (your words), and
stating that one should refrain from ASSERTING that the planet has
warmed or cooled without the disclaimer.
Seems to me they're just being careful about making assertions.
Bill
On Dec 21, 2010, at 7:51 PM, brian whatcott wrote:
_______________________________________________the managing
editor of the FOX news
programs has issued a directive, that no mention is to be made of
climate
change effects by FOX news presenters, unless mention is made
immediately
that the science behind such warnings is suspect.
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
------------------------------
Message: 21
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:36:03 -0500
From: "Robert Cohen"<Robert.Cohen@po-box.esu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] About the "why" and "how questins."
To: "Forum for Physics Educators"<phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:
<47F49E5A3B3AA84F8DD701A3C515BF7B05D43820@tigger.admin.esu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
It seems to me that stating either "evolution is a fact" (BW) OR
"evolution is not a fact" (WR) is to be avoided because the word
"evolution", without qualifiers, is too ambiguous.
Perhaps what Bill wanted to write was that, while we may debate the
proper wording, scientists should be clear that "evolution on a small
scale" is a fact but "global evolution of species over the history of
the Earth" is not. Is there consensus on that?
Also, can we agree that the theory of biological evolution (which
consists of natural selection as well as other processes) is, as
scientific theories go, a very strong theory for explaining the "global"
diversity of species?
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Cohen, Department of Physics, East Stroudsburg University
570.422.3428 rcohen@po-box.esu.edu http://www.esu.edu/~bbq
-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
[mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf
Of William Robertson
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:46 PM
To: betwys1@sbcglobal.net; Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] About the "why" and "how questins."
If you read what I wrote, then you would know that I
acknowledge that the process of natural selection has been
demonstrated in the lab. And yes, evolution on a small scale
is a fact. I'm talking about global evolution of species over
the history of the Earth. Not a fact. A reasonable inference
from the data, and hence a good theory, but not a fact.
Scientists should not be afraid to use proper language in
explaining their findings. If you understand science, then
you would properly explain the laboratory findings as solid
evidence for the mechanism of natural selection. You would
not use that evidence to state that the global theory of
evolution is a fact. One cannot prove a theory, so theories
should not be labeled as facts.
We have enough arrogance and condescension in this forum, so
why add to it?
Bill
William C. Robertson, Ph.D.
Bill Robertson Science, Inc.
Stop Faking It! Finally Understanding Science So You Can Teach It.
wrobert9@ix.netcom.com
1340 Telemark Drive
Woodland Park, CO 80863
719-686-1609
On Dec 21, 2010, at 6:50 PM, brian whatcott wrote:
On 12/21/2010 6:51 PM, William Robertson wrote:important. I
This is why reading and comprehension skills are so very
that it is anever said that evolution was controversial. I just said
organism overtheory (a good one) rather than a fact.Can't help with the reading or comprehension skills, I'm afraid.
Bill
On Dec 21, 2010, at 5:17 PM, William Robertson wrote:
evolution,
which is about as controversial as the fact that matter has mass.
But if you'd care to run an experiment on evolving an
say 10,000 lifetimes (is that time scale good enough?) Icould share
details of the agar, petri dish, agricultural antibiotic for theevolution in
challenge, and incubator materials which are not expensive.
I suppose it's possible to FAIL to demonstrate/confirm
this way, but you would need to be really, really determined._______________________________________________
Brian W
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
End of Phys-l Digest, Vol 71, Issue 24
**************************************