Ophiolite

Alain Co has, seemingly, presented evidence via citations of numerous papers. I have seen no evidence that those doubting LENR have considered those papers. Certainly there have been no discussions, that I have seen, of the content of any referenced papers. In such circumstances it is hardly surprising that Alain has felt it appropriate to introduce "philosophy of science" comments to his posts. As an associate member of the forum "team" via my designated Expert status I wish to distance myself from the moderation remarks that characterise Alain's observations as cod-psychology. The members have not done a bad job of discounting the presented evidence, they have done no job at all1. That disappoints me. For the record, I remain highly skeptical of the reality of LENR, but that's because I bask in the warm (non-nuclear) glow, of not having looked at the evidence. It would be nice if those of you who have would now systematically refute the contents of one or more of Alain's referenced papers. 1. With the exception of Sensei.

Rule Number Four: Never work for an employer who uses psyche exams.

I donate to the Salvation Army. I am not a Christian. I do not donate to them because they are a religious organisation. I donate to them because I like their approach to supporting the homeless. When I lived in Egypt I donated on a regular basis to a Christian organisation that organised provision of clean water to poor villages. I did this, not because they were Christian, but because I thought there work was important and well organised.

Your posts reveal, repeatedly, that you have learned the vocabulary of evolution, but have no understanding of its meaning. A deformed beak is a rather useless term in this context. In some environments a specific beak shape may be advantageous, in other environments, deleterious, or neutral. Contrary to your assertion we can certainly look at features and predict whether or not those features would be positive or negative in a given environment. If you searched the literature with an open mind you would find plenty of examples. (Don't ask me for citations: this evolution 101 and you claim to be passed that point. Do the work yourself.) The majority of the identification of desirable traits is post hoc, but that is because we live in a post hoc world, not because it impossible, as you assert.

A Freudian slip? Do you see the IPCC as a predator? You seem not to understand that the increase in temperature leads to extremities of weather. Increased flooding and high winds, with associated falling trees and the like lead to increased deaths. It has nothing to do with wealth. If you are hit on the head by a Welsh roofing slate your survival is largely independent of your bank balance. Can you tell me, without googling, approximately how many people have died in Bangladesh as a consequence of flooding in the last 100 years? An order of magnitude number would do. You really need to substitute evidence and study for self indulgent ignorance: From the Guardian, 6 January 2007. Sandwiched between temperate Europe and African heat, Italy is on the front line of climate change and is witnessing a rise in tropical diseases such as malaria and tick-borne encephalitis, a new report says. Italy was declared free of malaria in 1970, but it is making a comeback, said the Italian environmental organisation Legambiente.

This is incorrect. If we recognise that the Hebrews used the full range of literary devices, including metaphor, then Adam and Eve cease to be individuals, but become proxies for the first humans. As such it evokes a concept similar to that of the Noble Savage (and probably as inaccurate). We should not underestimate the knowledge of their ignorance that the writers of Genesis probably possessed.

Compared to most footballers, of any nationality he is a superior football player. MigL is simply demonstrating that some crackpots can be found amongst soccer fans.

Now which is it. Your posts and your opening remark declare that you believe the current documented increases in global temperature are natural. Yet you also say you believe in AGW. Yet AGW is generally taken to mean that the bulk of the temperature increase we see is a consequence of human activities. If you are defining it differently it is really rather rude of you to accost people who use the conventional definition. Frankly, I find it yet another example of the looseness of thought that permeates your posts. 1. Strawman argument. I have no idea what Uganda has to do with this. 2. No good reason? Saving the planet's biosphere from the impact of humanity seems like a good reason to me. You are wrong. There is a powerful consensus on the major points. Disagreement exists, as it should, on many details, but the IPCC report is one of the more remarkable scientific consensuses to emerge in the last one hundred years. Denial without justification is as welcome as flatulence in the confessional. Please cite specific examples of "weasel words". You seem always ready to critique with rhetoric, but you run lightly with facts. Perhaps a defect in your education. How many times have you clarified? You seem to live in a delusion wherein I carefully read all of your fact free posts and try to resolve the internal inconsistencies, the logical fallacies, and the agenda driven angst. I don't. But please tell me where I have repeated lies about your position. (Note, it is not my responsibility if your writing is as incoherent as your opinions.) Feel free to report me at any time. I have certainly reported you for rule infringement. I expect to see many more straits emerging with rising sea levels. I hope I have that straight. If I have misrepresented your viewpoint it is down to the laxity of your expression. Correct that and you might have fewer things to complain of. And, as noted earlier in this post, your views on AGW are contradictory at best and dumb-assed at worst second best.

You seem to conflate the existence of a man called Jesus with that of the Jesus of the Bible. Occam's razor would direct us to accepting that a myth has grown around a particular man, rather than that he had been entirely fabricated. A strange position to take.

Is that a withdrawal of your earlier claim that in the absence of religion there would be fewer charitable donations?

The issue of global warming is one of the greatest challenges facing our species today. The actions that would minimise the impact are commonly seen as expensive, or even too expensive. The political will to address these challenges will not arise until there is a sufficiently well informed populace to press for action. Attitudes, such as yours, that deny AGW, not on the basis of evidence, but upon opinion, misinformation, misinterpretation, and a cynical employment of deceitful rhetoric could deceive a casual and presently uninformed reader. That delays the creation of a well informed populace. So, to answer your question, I have no better thing to do at present than to call you out. Provide the support for your assertion or retract it or be seen as a dishonest charlatan. Your choice.

Staying with the scientific, would you defend your use of the equation mentioned in earlier posts. Detail its relevance to your argument and account for the irregularities identified by a prior poster.

You mention having suffered depression. Was this medically diagnosed? Are you currently undergoing treatment? If not, why not? Your thoughts, as revealed in your posts, appear to me to be unhealthy. If you find it cathartic to discuss these on a forum, all well and good, but I suspect you would benefit from professional consultation.

Not everyone feels a need for a God, therefore they do not invent one, nor worship one invented by others. Are you agreeing that your God is not real, but is invented? Medical science does quite a lot. Without medical science I would probably be dead now. Yes, people go blind, but millions have their sight rescued, restored, or preserved by medical science. People lose limbs, but medical science provides increasingly sophisticated prosthetic limbs. Drugs can have serious side effects, they also combat diseases that a century or two ago would have been fatal. Further, your argument for religion relates to the spiritual aspects of existence. Medical science has to do with the physical. Religion does not offer a practical way of dealing with that. Why would we not see a development of religious ideas? Humans tend to improve things over time.

Eggs are laid. QED.

There seems to be a certainty that this is a result of single gene. Many traits are controlled by multiple genes. I see no reason to eliminate that possibility here.

I have never given plus points for people agreeing with me. I give them for a well reasoned point, interesting information, or sharp humour. My impression is that any reputation points others award to me have been awarded for the same reason. I don't recall any instances where I have received such points simply for reflecting the consensus. I trust your realise that there is a massive difference between agreeing with a viewpoint simply because the majority hold it (compliance) and arriving at that viewpoint through careful consideration of the evidence (reason). Some of us like to be contrary. I often argue on forums for pan spermia, or the notion that the Vikings did find life on Mars. Not because I think the odds of either of these are high, but because they remain plausible, insufficiently considered and, yes, allow me to be contrary. If I could find some weakness in AGW I would be over on your side of the fence. I'm not. If the weaknesses are there neither you nor other AGW deniers have presented it. It is unfortunate, but AGW is not a laughing matter.

That looks to be out by two orders of magnitude, or is the mistake mine?

Favourable traits happen, by chance, through mutation.1 They are then selected for, by Nature. Nature is a short hand term for all the relevant environmental factors. 1. Or because they happen to already be present in the gene pool when the environment changes in a way to convert them from neutral, or unfavourable, to favourable.

This is the sort of OP and thread that gives philosophy a bad name.

I am sure any banning would revolve around three spelling mistakes and one typo in a single, short sentence. Why not ask the question in an agenda-free way?

This assertion appears to lie at the heart of your beliefs, yet you have failed to support it in any way, other than flawed argument. Nor have you, as far as I can see, bothered to address the differences between fundamental and emergent properties - differences that you casually brush aside without justification.

I am bemused that you would think this. You appear to have some knowledge of evolution - at least you have some of the vocabulary - yet you are unaware of the many instances in the literature where the causes of particular changes have been tied to the particulars of the environment. I begin with three examples that are so well known I decline to provide citations for them: 1. The Galapagos finches. 2. The moths of the English Midlands. 3. Dwarfism in originally large animals confined to islands. Here are three examples, pulled arbitrarily from the literature, that further demonstrate the falsity of your supposition. 1. Linkage of stout spines on gastropod shells to presence of predatory fishes that feed upon gastropods. Here. 2. Turnover of ammonite species correlating with regressive/transgressive events in the Jurassic. Here. 3. The irreversible loss of olfactory sensitivity in domesticated pigs. Here.

Great science fiction; sixth rate science. If I have an empty weekend I shall specifically address some of your assertions.1 1. Certain adjectives removed because I've been told to stop making insulting remarks.

I didn't know that.