Abortion Increases Crime Rate


 Religions > Atheism > Abortion Increases Crime Rate

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 4 of 18

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 

8
 

9
 

10
 

11
 

12
 

13
 

14
 

15
 

16
 

17
 

18
 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "Sound of Trumpet"
Date: 11 Aug 2007 07:16:18 PM
Object: Abortion Increases Crime Rate
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879410/posts
New Book, "Freedomnomics" says Abortion Increases Crime Rate
LifeSiteNews ^ | 8/10/07 | Hilary White
Posted on 08/10/2007 12:37:58 PM PDT by wagglebee
WASHINGTON, August 10, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A book published in
June by a leading US economist in part responds to previous and oft-
quoted claims that abortion has been a significant factor in lowering
the U.S. crime rate. The book by John R. Lott of the American
Enterprise Institute, "Freedomnomics," answers claims by liberal
economist Steven Levitt that abortion, in reducing the number of
"unwanted" children, has eliminated significant numbers of the kind of
people who commit crimes.
Lott's 2001 study, "Abortion and Crime: Unwanted Children and Out-of-
Wedlock Births" concluded that legalized abortion has in fact
increased the overall violent crime rate.
"We find evidence that legalizing abortion increased murder rates by
around about 0.5 to 7 percent... Others note that the legalizing of
abortion might contribute to a coarsening of society that might itself
lead to more crime."
"Freedomnomics," is being called a conservative response to the
publication of a manifesto of liberal political and economic theory by
University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt and New York Times
journalist Stephen J. Dubner, which topped the 2005 New York Times
bestseller list.
"Freakonomics," claimed that "legalized abortion may account for as
much as one-half of the overall crime reduction" during the 1990s.
This claim was seized upon by abortion advocates, notably Dr. Henry
Morgentaler, Canada's most notorious abortionist, who claimed it was
proof that vindicated their claims and support for abortion on
demand.
The conclusion that abortion actually tends to increase crime rates
coincides with a study published earlier this year. That study
examined data on 237 low-income women in Baltimore and showed a
statistical correlation between abortion and incidents of child abuse.
Published in March in the Internet Journal of Pediatrics and
Neonatology, the study a showed history of abortion is associated with
more frequent acts of physical aggression toward subsequent children.
Read the study "Abortion and Crime: Unwanted Children and Out-of-
Wedlock Births" online:
http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&c...
Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Abortion Linked to Higher Rates of Child Abuse, Study Finds
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07031301.html
Media Ignoring Study Saying Abortion Increases Crime
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2001/sep/01091005.html
Study Linking Abortion and Lower Crime Rates Published
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2001/may/01051702.html
Experts Debunk Donohue/Levitt Study Connecting Abortion and Crime
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2001/may/01053005.html
.

User: "Robert"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 19 Aug 2007 12:30:36 PM
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:30:07 GMT, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ivadncRzev4eulrbnZ2dnUVZ_qGknZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4tydneyRTKY1f1vbnZ2dnUVZ_rKtnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

Please repeat after me. Correlation does NOT imply causality.


I just knew you were going to say that since you heard it first
from me as I wrote it while demolishing another one of your posts.

Let me type really slowly so it will sink in through that thick
skull of yours. The correlation between anthropogenic greenhouse
emissions and global mean temperature was established about 20
years ago. Thus, the theory has about 20 years of inerrant
predictions. That's a pretty powerful explanation.


Please repeat after me. Correlation does NOT imply causality.
Whether that correlation is past, present or future.


Well, sorry about that, but that is how science works. An hypothesis
(prediction) is tested, the observations are compared with the
hypothesis, a theory is established and further predictions are
made. The predictions are tested against observations and the theory
is revised. The cycle continues ever.


Sure, but so far you haven't proven causality. Simply that the
correlation continues to exist.


And *once again* I have to tell you a fundamental concept of science.
Science does *not* deal in proofs. Proof is for mathmeticians and
moonshiners.

I've explained to you the scientific method and the basis for establishing
scientific theories. Theories are only as good as the predictions they
make. This one happens to be particularly good having successfully made
predictions for 20+ years.


Well given that climatic changes are multicentury long affairs you will
excuse me if I consider a 20 year prediction to be significant. Heck, I bet
your margin of error is greater than the variability for the same time
period.

Given that the accuracy of their predictions is less than flipping a
coin, climatology is more akin to religion than science. Some what
like Creation Science.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
User: "Geoff"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 19 Aug 2007 02:17:24 PM
Robert wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:30:07 GMT, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ivadncRzev4eulrbnZ2dnUVZ_qGknZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4tydneyRTKY1f1vbnZ2dnUVZ_rKtnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

Please repeat after me. Correlation does NOT imply causality.


I just knew you were going to say that since you heard it first
from me as I wrote it while demolishing another one of your
posts.

Let me type really slowly so it will sink in through that thick
skull of yours. The correlation between anthropogenic greenhouse
emissions and global mean temperature was established about 20
years ago. Thus, the theory has about 20 years of inerrant
predictions. That's a pretty powerful explanation.


Please repeat after me. Correlation does NOT imply causality.
Whether that correlation is past, present or future.


Well, sorry about that, but that is how science works. An
hypothesis (prediction) is tested, the observations are compared
with the hypothesis, a theory is established and further
predictions are made. The predictions are tested against
observations and the theory is revised. The cycle continues ever.


Sure, but so far you haven't proven causality. Simply that the
correlation continues to exist.


And *once again* I have to tell you a fundamental concept of
science. Science does *not* deal in proofs. Proof is for
mathmeticians and moonshiners.

I've explained to you the scientific method and the basis for
establishing scientific theories. Theories are only as good as the
predictions they make. This one happens to be particularly good
having successfully made predictions for 20+ years.


Well given that climatic changes are multicentury long affairs you
will excuse me if I consider a 20 year prediction to be significant.
Heck, I bet your margin of error is greater than the variability for
the same time period.

Given that the accuracy of their predictions is less than flipping a
coin, climatology is more akin to religion than science. Some what
like Creation Science.

How ironic. I consider climate change deniers to be more like Creationists.
Neither base their objections on science and rather get their opinions heard
through direct links to media, politicians, and "think tank" advocacy groups
financed by conservative money.
.
User: "brique"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 19 Aug 2007 06:50:06 PM
Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:wOmdndd9qMHZClXbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@giganews.com...

Robert wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:30:07 GMT, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ivadncRzev4eulrbnZ2dnUVZ_qGknZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4tydneyRTKY1f1vbnZ2dnUVZ_rKtnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

Please repeat after me. Correlation does NOT imply causality.


I just knew you were going to say that since you heard it first
from me as I wrote it while demolishing another one of your
posts.

Let me type really slowly so it will sink in through that thick
skull of yours. The correlation between anthropogenic greenhouse
emissions and global mean temperature was established about 20
years ago. Thus, the theory has about 20 years of inerrant
predictions. That's a pretty powerful explanation.


Please repeat after me. Correlation does NOT imply causality.
Whether that correlation is past, present or future.


Well, sorry about that, but that is how science works. An
hypothesis (prediction) is tested, the observations are compared
with the hypothesis, a theory is established and further
predictions are made. The predictions are tested against
observations and the theory is revised. The cycle continues ever.


Sure, but so far you haven't proven causality. Simply that the
correlation continues to exist.


And *once again* I have to tell you a fundamental concept of
science. Science does *not* deal in proofs. Proof is for
mathmeticians and moonshiners.

I've explained to you the scientific method and the basis for
establishing scientific theories. Theories are only as good as the
predictions they make. This one happens to be particularly good
having successfully made predictions for 20+ years.


Well given that climatic changes are multicentury long affairs you
will excuse me if I consider a 20 year prediction to be significant.
Heck, I bet your margin of error is greater than the variability for
the same time period.

Given that the accuracy of their predictions is less than flipping a
coin, climatology is more akin to religion than science. Some what
like Creation Science.


How ironic. I consider climate change deniers to be more like

Creationists.

Neither base their objections on science and rather get their opinions

heard

through direct links to media, politicians, and "think tank" advocacy

groups

financed by conservative money.

It is odd, in a way, but one might have assumed the fundies would be all
over climate change like a rash, ....'end of days' and all that.
.
User: "Bama Brian"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 20 Aug 2007 08:09:05 AM
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 00:50 +0100, brique wrote:

Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:wOmdndd9qMHZClXbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@giganews.com...

Robert wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:30:07 GMT, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ivadncRzev4eulrbnZ2dnUVZ_qGknZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4tydneyRTKY1f1vbnZ2dnUVZ_rKtnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

Please repeat after me. Correlation does NOT imply causality.


I just knew you were going to say that since you heard it first
from me as I wrote it while demolishing another one of your
posts.

Let me type really slowly so it will sink in through that thick
skull of yours. The correlation between anthropogenic greenhouse
emissions and global mean temperature was established about 20
years ago. Thus, the theory has about 20 years of inerrant
predictions. That's a pretty powerful explanation.


Please repeat after me. Correlation does NOT imply causality.
Whether that correlation is past, present or future.


Well, sorry about that, but that is how science works. An
hypothesis (prediction) is tested, the observations are compared
with the hypothesis, a theory is established and further
predictions are made. The predictions are tested against
observations and the theory is revised. The cycle continues ever.


Sure, but so far you haven't proven causality. Simply that the
correlation continues to exist.


And *once again* I have to tell you a fundamental concept of
science. Science does *not* deal in proofs. Proof is for
mathmeticians and moonshiners.

I've explained to you the scientific method and the basis for
establishing scientific theories. Theories are only as good as the
predictions they make. This one happens to be particularly good
having successfully made predictions for 20+ years.


Well given that climatic changes are multicentury long affairs you
will excuse me if I consider a 20 year prediction to be significant.
Heck, I bet your margin of error is greater than the variability for
the same time period.

Given that the accuracy of their predictions is less than flipping a
coin, climatology is more akin to religion than science. Some what
like Creation Science.


How ironic. I consider climate change deniers to be more like

Creationists.

Neither base their objections on science and rather get their opinions

heard

through direct links to media, politicians, and "think tank" advocacy

groups

financed by conservative money.


It is odd, in a way, but one might have assumed the fundies would be all
over climate change like a rash, ....'end of days' and all that.

The fundies won't use this connection until duh Prez gets it through his
thick head that he's actually NOT fighting the Battle of Armageddon in
Iraq.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.

User: "Geoff"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 19 Aug 2007 07:09:57 PM
brique wrote:

Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:wOmdndd9qMHZClXbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@giganews.com...

Robert wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:30:07 GMT, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ivadncRzev4eulrbnZ2dnUVZ_qGknZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4tydneyRTKY1f1vbnZ2dnUVZ_rKtnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

Please repeat after me. Correlation does NOT imply causality.


I just knew you were going to say that since you heard it
first from me as I wrote it while demolishing another one of
your posts.

Let me type really slowly so it will sink in through that
thick skull of yours. The correlation between anthropogenic
greenhouse emissions and global mean temperature was
established about 20 years ago. Thus, the theory has about 20
years of inerrant predictions. That's a pretty powerful
explanation.


Please repeat after me. Correlation does NOT imply causality.
Whether that correlation is past, present or future.


Well, sorry about that, but that is how science works. An
hypothesis (prediction) is tested, the observations are compared
with the hypothesis, a theory is established and further
predictions are made. The predictions are tested against
observations and the theory is revised. The cycle continues
ever.


Sure, but so far you haven't proven causality. Simply that the
correlation continues to exist.


And *once again* I have to tell you a fundamental concept of
science. Science does *not* deal in proofs. Proof is for
mathmeticians and moonshiners.

I've explained to you the scientific method and the basis for
establishing scientific theories. Theories are only as good as the
predictions they make. This one happens to be particularly good
having successfully made predictions for 20+ years.


Well given that climatic changes are multicentury long affairs you
will excuse me if I consider a 20 year prediction to be
significant. Heck, I bet your margin of error is greater than the
variability for the same time period.

Given that the accuracy of their predictions is less than flipping a
coin, climatology is more akin to religion than science. Some what
like Creation Science.


How ironic. I consider climate change deniers to be more like
Creationists. Neither base their objections on science and rather
get their opinions heard through direct links to media, politicians,
and "think tank" advocacy groups financed by conservative money.


It is odd, in a way, but one might have assumed the fundies would be
all over climate change like a rash, ....'end of days' and all that.

Oh, some of them are. I ***** you not.
.
User: "brique"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 19 Aug 2007 11:36:26 PM
Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:M-GdnTYS_pRLRlXbnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@giganews.com...

brique wrote:

Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:wOmdndd9qMHZClXbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@giganews.com...

Robert wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:30:07 GMT, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ivadncRzev4eulrbnZ2dnUVZ_qGknZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4tydneyRTKY1f1vbnZ2dnUVZ_rKtnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

Please repeat after me. Correlation does NOT imply causality.


I just knew you were going to say that since you heard it
first from me as I wrote it while demolishing another one of
your posts.

Let me type really slowly so it will sink in through that
thick skull of yours. The correlation between anthropogenic
greenhouse emissions and global mean temperature was
established about 20 years ago. Thus, the theory has about 20
years of inerrant predictions. That's a pretty powerful
explanation.


Please repeat after me. Correlation does NOT imply causality.
Whether that correlation is past, present or future.


Well, sorry about that, but that is how science works. An
hypothesis (prediction) is tested, the observations are compared
with the hypothesis, a theory is established and further
predictions are made. The predictions are tested against
observations and the theory is revised. The cycle continues
ever.


Sure, but so far you haven't proven causality. Simply that the
correlation continues to exist.


And *once again* I have to tell you a fundamental concept of
science. Science does *not* deal in proofs. Proof is for
mathmeticians and moonshiners.

I've explained to you the scientific method and the basis for
establishing scientific theories. Theories are only as good as the
predictions they make. This one happens to be particularly good
having successfully made predictions for 20+ years.


Well given that climatic changes are multicentury long affairs you
will excuse me if I consider a 20 year prediction to be
significant. Heck, I bet your margin of error is greater than the
variability for the same time period.

Given that the accuracy of their predictions is less than flipping a
coin, climatology is more akin to religion than science. Some what
like Creation Science.


How ironic. I consider climate change deniers to be more like
Creationists. Neither base their objections on science and rather
get their opinions heard through direct links to media, politicians,
and "think tank" advocacy groups financed by conservative money.


It is odd, in a way, but one might have assumed the fundies would be
all over climate change like a rash, ....'end of days' and all that.


Oh, some of them are. I ***** you not.

But one would expect more from them than we get. Must be some crisis of
faith thang, who to beleive Rush or the Bible?
.





User: "Geoff"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 19 Aug 2007 10:46:30 PM
Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ivadncRzev4eulrbnZ2dnUVZ_qGknZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4tydneyRTKY1f1vbnZ2dnUVZ_rKtnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

Please repeat after me. Correlation does NOT imply causality.


I just knew you were going to say that since you heard it first
from me as I wrote it while demolishing another one of your
posts. Let me type really slowly so it will sink in through that
thick
skull of yours. The correlation between anthropogenic greenhouse
emissions and global mean temperature was established about 20
years ago. Thus, the theory has about 20 years of inerrant
predictions. That's a pretty powerful explanation.


Please repeat after me. Correlation does NOT imply causality.
Whether that correlation is past, present or future.


Well, sorry about that, but that is how science works. An
hypothesis (prediction) is tested, the observations are compared
with the hypothesis, a theory is established and further
predictions are made. The predictions are tested against
observations and the theory is revised. The cycle continues ever.


Sure, but so far you haven't proven causality. Simply that the
correlation continues to exist.


And *once again* I have to tell you a fundamental concept of science.
Science does *not* deal in proofs. Proof is for mathmeticians and
moonshiners.

I've explained to you the scientific method and the basis for
establishing scientific theories. Theories are only as good as the
predictions they make. This one happens to be particularly good
having successfully made predictions for 20+ years.


Well given that climatic changes are multicentury long affairs you
will excuse me if I consider a 20 year prediction to be significant.
Heck, I bet your margin of error is greater than the variability for
the same time period.

Let put back what you evaded:
What in your mind would establish causation?
How would anyone establish what is the the single biggest cause of the
current spike in global mean temperature?
Are you a scientist? What is your background?
.
User: "Scout"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 20 Aug 2007 04:38:57 AM
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:IaednRiWw9ILk1TbnZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ivadncRzev4eulrbnZ2dnUVZ_qGknZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4tydneyRTKY1f1vbnZ2dnUVZ_rKtnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

Please repeat after me. Correlation does NOT imply causality.


I just knew you were going to say that since you heard it first
from me as I wrote it while demolishing another one of your
posts. Let me type really slowly so it will sink in through that
thick
skull of yours. The correlation between anthropogenic greenhouse
emissions and global mean temperature was established about 20
years ago. Thus, the theory has about 20 years of inerrant
predictions. That's a pretty powerful explanation.


Please repeat after me. Correlation does NOT imply causality.
Whether that correlation is past, present or future.


Well, sorry about that, but that is how science works. An
hypothesis (prediction) is tested, the observations are compared
with the hypothesis, a theory is established and further
predictions are made. The predictions are tested against
observations and the theory is revised. The cycle continues ever.


Sure, but so far you haven't proven causality. Simply that the
correlation continues to exist.


And *once again* I have to tell you a fundamental concept of science.
Science does *not* deal in proofs. Proof is for mathmeticians and
moonshiners.

I've explained to you the scientific method and the basis for
establishing scientific theories. Theories are only as good as the
predictions they make. This one happens to be particularly good
having successfully made predictions for 20+ years.


Well given that climatic changes are multicentury long affairs you
will excuse me if I consider a 20 year prediction to be significant.
Heck, I bet your margin of error is greater than the variability for
the same time period.


Let put back what you evaded:

What in your mind would establish causation?

That is a question that I put to you and which you still have no answered.
According to you if I predict that next year, indeed I bet I can make this
prediction for the next 20, 30 even 40 years, that there will be an increase
in drowning deaths as ice cream sales increase thus proving (under your
model) that selling ice cream causes people to drown.
You seem to feel this wouldn't adequately establish causality despite
attempting to sell just a bill of good to me.
So what do you think will establish causality? I mean you claimed it was one
thing, but when I applied it to something else you suddenly got all
defensive about your methodology.

How would anyone establish what is the the single biggest cause of the
current spike in global mean temperature?

Feel free to consider that answer once you establish how causality is
properly established.
.
User: "Geoff"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 20 Aug 2007 08:09:31 AM
Scout wrote:

What in your mind would establish causation?


That is a question that I put to you and which you still have no
answered. According to you if I predict that next year, indeed I bet
I can make this prediction for the next 20, 30 even 40 years, that
there will be an increase in drowning deaths as ice cream sales
increase thus proving (under your model) that selling ice cream
causes people to drown.

That is a very easy model to establish causation. You can have a control
group and an experimental group. Withhold ice cream from the control group.
After a period of time, count the number of drownings. Apply statistics to
see if the difference between the two is *statistically* significant and
you're done. If causation is established, expect a front page cover on the
NEJOM as well as Time. A possible Nobel awaits.
Now, without further ado, please tell us, pray tell, what would satisfy you
as far as establishing causation with regards to global climate change.
Here's a hint since you only have the faintest idea of how science works.
There is no way that you can prove causation. You can only disprove
causation (as I've done above).
In the case of global climate change, it is impossible to disprove causation
if there is correlation since there is no way to run control experiments on
a global scale.
What you can do is develop a theory. The theory can make predictions. The
theory that currently has been established is way more complicated and
predictive than your simple example above. Theories, by definition, are
tentative and are only accepted insofar as observations fit the model. When
that fails, the theory is either scrapped or modified. Theories are, to use
a term from another conservative bogeyman, evolutionary.
Now so far, the model for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions as an
explanation in the unprecedented rate in the rise in the mean global
temperature is robust. It has not remained a static theory nor is it
expected to become static in the future.
On the other hand, specific conservative objections attack the theory
politically and offer no countertheory. Now you and other conservatives have
offered many, many other vehicles to account for the data (and even others
object that the data do not exist) such as variations in solar flux, but
*no* (zip, nada) models have been proffered.

So what do you think will establish causality? I mean you claimed it
was one thing, but when I applied it to something else you suddenly
got all defensive about your methodology.

I don't think I can explain it any more clearly than I have. If you don't
understand, I can't help you. You are so set in your objections despite not
having any specific response and in the face of mountains of evidence that I
firmly believe that there would be no possible way to sway you.

How would anyone establish what is the the single biggest cause of
the current spike in global mean temperature?


Feel free to consider that answer once you establish how causality is
properly established.

Fine. Let's see how well this post does that.
.
User: "Scout"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 20 Aug 2007 04:46:32 PM
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nrOdnRfYPpUWD1TbnZ2dnUVZ_sCtnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:


What in your mind would establish causation?


That is a question that I put to you and which you still have no
answered. According to you if I predict that next year, indeed I bet
I can make this prediction for the next 20, 30 even 40 years, that
there will be an increase in drowning deaths as ice cream sales
increase thus proving (under your model) that selling ice cream
causes people to drown.


That is a very easy model to establish causation. You can have a control
group and an experimental group. Withhold ice cream from the control
group. After a period of time, count the number of drownings. Apply
statistics to see if the difference between the two is *statistically*
significant and you're done. If causation is established, expect a front
page cover on the NEJOM as well as Time. A possible Nobel awaits.

Ok, then I hereby expect you to follow the same standards with your global
warming. First you need to establish a control planet and an experimental
planet. Withhold environmental controls from the control planet. After a
period of time check global temperatures. Apply statistics to see the
differences between the two is *statistically* significant and you're done.
Let me know when you've fulfilled the first criteria and manage to produce a
control Earth and an experimental Earth.
Until then, by your own standards you haven't proven causality.
Oh, except you then turn around and denounce your own standard.

In the case of global climate change, it is impossible to disprove
causation if there is correlation since there is no way to run control
experiments on a global scale

So you just need to CLAIM there is causality and we are all suppose to buy
it hook, line and sinker.
Come back when you can apply the same standard you do for global warming to
any other correlation to establish causality and can produce a
scientifically meaningful answer. Until then, you are relying upon faith.
.
User: "Geoff"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 20 Aug 2007 08:21:33 PM
Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nrOdnRfYPpUWD1TbnZ2dnUVZ_sCtnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:


What in your mind would establish causation?


That is a question that I put to you and which you still have no
answered. According to you if I predict that next year, indeed I bet
I can make this prediction for the next 20, 30 even 40 years, that
there will be an increase in drowning deaths as ice cream sales
increase thus proving (under your model) that selling ice cream
causes people to drown.


That is a very easy model to establish causation. You can have a
control group and an experimental group. Withhold ice cream from the
control group. After a period of time, count the number of
drownings. Apply statistics to see if the difference between the two
is *statistically* significant and you're done. If causation is
established, expect a front page cover on the NEJOM as well as Time.
A possible Nobel awaits.


Ok, then I hereby expect you to follow the same standards with your
global warming.

Maybe you should read an entire post before responding. That way you don't
have to repeat what I wrote later.

Oh, except you then turn around and denounce your own standard.

These are not standards. There are differing methodologies.
Let me ask you again. What is your background? Are you a scientist? Do you
understand induction-deduction?

In the case of global climate change, it is impossible to disprove
causation if there is correlation since there is no way to run
control experiments on a global scale


So you just need to CLAIM there is causality and we are all suppose
to buy it hook, line and sinker.

Wrong. The theory is established. Until another theory with equal or greater
predictive power is proffered, then the theory stands. Here's your chance to
shine and proffer your theory.
Then, when you're done with that, go ahead and answer the question that I
have asked you now three times. I will not allow you to evade the question.
What would satisfy you
as far as establishing causation with regards to global climate change?
.
User: "Scout"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 21 Aug 2007 04:43:35 AM
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MeGdndtzNIGDo1fbnZ2dnUVZ_vyinZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nrOdnRfYPpUWD1TbnZ2dnUVZ_sCtnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:


What in your mind would establish causation?


That is a question that I put to you and which you still have no
answered. According to you if I predict that next year, indeed I bet
I can make this prediction for the next 20, 30 even 40 years, that
there will be an increase in drowning deaths as ice cream sales
increase thus proving (under your model) that selling ice cream
causes people to drown.


That is a very easy model to establish causation. You can have a
control group and an experimental group. Withhold ice cream from the
control group. After a period of time, count the number of
drownings. Apply statistics to see if the difference between the two
is *statistically* significant and you're done. If causation is
established, expect a front page cover on the NEJOM as well as Time.
A possible Nobel awaits.


Ok, then I hereby expect you to follow the same standards with your
global warming.


Maybe you should read an entire post before responding. That way you don't
have to repeat what I wrote later.

Oh, except you then turn around and denounce your own standard.


These are not standards. There are differing methodologies.

Fine, apples and oranges, maybe when you can pick a single method?

Let me ask you again. What is your background? Are you a scientist? Do you
understand induction-deduction?

My background has little to do with your inability to support your position.

In the case of global climate change, it is impossible to disprove
causation if there is correlation since there is no way to run
control experiments on a global scale


So you just need to CLAIM there is causality and we are all suppose
to buy it hook, line and sinker.


Wrong. The theory is established. Until another theory with equal or
greater predictive power is proffered, then the theory stands. Here's your
chance to shine and proffer your theory.

Great so the theory that selling ice cream causes someone to drawn is also
established. As is the theory of UFOs, shots from the grass knoll, and any
other sort of theory advanced such a primus.
.
User: "Geoff"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 21 Aug 2007 05:47:44 AM
Scout wrote:

Oh, except you then turn around and denounce your own standard.


These are not standards. There are differing methodologies.


Fine, apples and oranges, maybe when you can pick a single method?

Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.

Let me ask you again. What is your background? Are you a scientist?
Do you understand induction-deduction?


My background has little to do with your inability to support your
position.

You mean you inability to understand it. I'm trying to find out what level I
need to go to explain to you. What is your background?

In the case of global climate change, it is impossible to disprove
causation if there is correlation since there is no way to run
control experiments on a global scale


So you just need to CLAIM there is causality and we are all suppose
to buy it hook, line and sinker.


Wrong. The theory is established. Until another theory with equal or
greater predictive power is proffered, then the theory stands.
Here's your chance to shine and proffer your theory.


Great so the theory that selling ice cream causes someone to drawn is
also established.

And I've already shown how that can be falsified.

As is the theory of UFOs, shots from the grass
knoll, and any other sort of theory advanced such a primus.

Which means ***** all.
Go ahead and answer the question that I have asked you now *four* times.
What would satisfy you as far as establishing causation with regards to
global climate change?
Evading the question means you don't understand the issue.
.
User: "Scout"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 21 Aug 2007 04:46:30 PM
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:maqdnWETastJX1fbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

Oh, except you then turn around and denounce your own standard.


These are not standards. There are differing methodologies.


Fine, apples and oranges, maybe when you can pick a single method?


Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.

Right, on one hand you want Method A, on the other hand you Method B which
doesn't establish ***** except in your fevered imagination. If you can't
accept Method B as valid for anything other than your "theory" then maybe
the problem is with your Method B rather than any understanding on my part.
If your Method B can't hold water in other applications, then don't expect
me to blindly accept your theory simply because you can predict a continuing
correlation.
.
User: "Geoff"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 22 Aug 2007 08:01:16 AM
Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:maqdnWETastJX1fbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

Oh, except you then turn around and denounce your own standard.


These are not standards. There are differing methodologies.


Fine, apples and oranges, maybe when you can pick a single method?


Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.


Right, on one hand you want Method A, on the other hand you Method B

Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.
Go ahead and answer the question that I have asked you now *five* times.
What would satisfy you as far as establishing causation with regards to
global climate change?
Evading the question means you don't understand the issue.
.
User: "Scout"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 22 Aug 2007 04:06:56 PM
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:--GdnXQD9aQBrlHbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:maqdnWETastJX1fbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

Oh, except you then turn around and denounce your own standard.


These are not standards. There are differing methodologies.


Fine, apples and oranges, maybe when you can pick a single method?


Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.


Right, on one hand you want Method A, on the other hand you Method B


Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.

Oh, I understand it, and that's your problem. I understand that correlation
doesn't establish or even suggest causality, nor do predictions of a
continueing correlation. A fact which you indirectly admit by refusing to
accept such a standard when applied to a different situation.

Go ahead and answer the question that I have asked you now *five* times.
What would satisfy you as far as establishing causation with regards to
global climate change?

Sorry, you are the one trying to establish causality. If you can't determine
what it takes to scientifically establish causality, then why should I give
you the answer? I mean you are the one that claims to know it all.
.
User: "Geoff"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 24 Aug 2007 07:41:07 AM
Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:--GdnXQD9aQBrlHbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:maqdnWETastJX1fbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

Oh, except you then turn around and denounce your own standard.


These are not standards. There are differing methodologies.


Fine, apples and oranges, maybe when you can pick a single method?


Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.


Right, on one hand you want Method A, on the other hand you Method B


Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.


Oh, I understand it, and that's your problem. I understand that
correlation doesn't establish or even suggest causality,

And that's the problem. That is the depth of your understanding. You've only
scratched the surface of scientific modeling. Do you understand what
hypothesis testing is? Do you understand anova? Do you know what the
differences are between the various types of error?

nor do
predictions of a continueing correlation. A fact which you indirectly
admit by refusing to accept such a standard when applied to a
different situation.

Wrong. If causation *can* be disproved by experimentation, by all means you
should do so. In your example, there is a very easy way to do this by
controlled experimentation and hypothesis testing.
You *cannot* do this with global climate. So what do scientists do in that
case?Do they throw up there hands and give up? No. They establish a model
whereby inputs and outputs to a system are studied and they try to establish
a function whereby future inputs and outputs agree.

Go ahead and answer the question that I have asked you now *five*
times. What would satisfy you as far as establishing causation with
regards to global climate change?


Sorry, you are the one trying to establish causality. If you can't
determine what it takes to scientifically establish causality, then
why should I give you the answer? I mean you are the one that claims
to know it all.

So all this boils down to is an argument from personal incredulity. As a
logical position, this holds no water and merely establishes that you have
no argument.
.
User: "Scout"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 24 Aug 2007 05:35:49 PM
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xO6dnf-QsaV5TFPbnZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:--GdnXQD9aQBrlHbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:maqdnWETastJX1fbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

Oh, except you then turn around and denounce your own standard.


These are not standards. There are differing methodologies.


Fine, apples and oranges, maybe when you can pick a single method?


Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.


Right, on one hand you want Method A, on the other hand you Method B


Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.


Oh, I understand it, and that's your problem. I understand that
correlation doesn't establish or even suggest causality,


And that's the problem. That is the depth of your understanding. You've
only scratched the surface of scientific modeling. Do you understand what
hypothesis testing is? Do you understand anova? Do you know what the
differences are between the various types of error?

nor do
predictions of a continueing correlation. A fact which you indirectly
admit by refusing to accept such a standard when applied to a
different situation.


Wrong. If causation *can* be disproved by experimentation, by all means
you should do so. In your example, there is a very easy way to do this by
controlled experimentation and hypothesis testing.

You *cannot* do this with global climate. So what do scientists do in that
case?Do they throw up there hands and give up? No. They establish a model
whereby inputs and outputs to a system are studied and they try to
establish a function whereby future inputs and outputs agree.

And if they agree it doesn't mean anything unless the model and the
assumptions it is based on really do reflect reality. Something that for a
global system isn't going to be resolved by 10, 30, or even 50 years of
modeling. What you are doing is making an assumption that the model you are
using to support your theory is an accurate reflection of reality, but in
reality the fact is that a model can not prove a theory is correct. At best
all it can do is to disprove a theory if your understanding of the processes
involved are adequate. Otherwise, you're shooting in the dark and if the
model doesn't agree then you simply adjust your figures to make it match.
Doesn't mean the model is correct, not the theory behind it. It simply means
that it continues to agree with the correlation established. I can theorize
that ice cream causes people to drown, and can generate a computer model
that predicts the interaction between ice cream sales and drowning deaths
but it isn't going to mean squat because my model doesn't predict the events
it simply matches the correlation trends established and which are likely to
continue into the future. Nor does my model prove the theory behind the
model to be accurate. All it does it reproduce the trends, cycles, changes
and so on already known and extended into the future, unless some basic
causal fact in reality changes to alter the trend then my computer model can
be 100% accurate in predicting the future trend.....but it's not going to
prove anything.
For someone that claims to know oh so much about science your ignorance of
the principles and limitations of computer modeling is astounding. In short
all you are doing is taking your correlation to the computer and extending
the prediction of the correlation into the future. It still will not and
does not establish causality nor the direction of causality assuming that
causality exists.
.
User: "SaPeIsMa"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 24 Aug 2007 10:52:59 PM
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:93Jzi.4804$oh1.2285@trnddc04...


"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xO6dnf-QsaV5TFPbnZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:--GdnXQD9aQBrlHbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:maqdnWETastJX1fbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

Oh, except you then turn around and denounce your own standard.


These are not standards. There are differing methodologies.


Fine, apples and oranges, maybe when you can pick a single method?


Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.


Right, on one hand you want Method A, on the other hand you Method B


Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.


Oh, I understand it, and that's your problem. I understand that
correlation doesn't establish or even suggest causality,


And that's the problem. That is the depth of your understanding. You've
only scratched the surface of scientific modeling. Do you understand
what hypothesis testing is? Do you understand anova? Do you know what the
differences are between the various types of error?

nor do
predictions of a continueing correlation. A fact which you indirectly
admit by refusing to accept such a standard when applied to a
different situation.


Wrong. If causation *can* be disproved by experimentation, by all means
you should do so. In your example, there is a very easy way to do this by
controlled experimentation and hypothesis testing.

You *cannot* do this with global climate. So what do scientists do in
that case?Do they throw up there hands and give up? No. They establish a
model whereby inputs and outputs to a system are studied and they try to
establish a function whereby future inputs and outputs agree.


And if they agree it doesn't mean anything unless the model and the
assumptions it is based on really do reflect reality. Something that for a
global system isn't going to be resolved by 10, 30, or even 50 years of
modeling. What you are doing is making an assumption that the model you
are using to support your theory is an accurate reflection of reality, but
in reality the fact is that a model can not prove a theory is correct. At
best all it can do is to disprove a theory if your understanding of the
processes involved are adequate. Otherwise, you're shooting in the dark
and if the model doesn't agree then you simply adjust your figures to make
it match. Doesn't mean the model is correct, not the theory behind it. It
simply means that it continues to agree with the correlation established.
I can theorize that ice cream causes people to drown, and can generate a
computer model that predicts the interaction between ice cream sales and
drowning deaths but it isn't going to mean squat because my model doesn't
predict the events it simply matches the correlation trends established
and which are likely to continue into the future. Nor does my model prove
the theory behind the model to be accurate. All it does it reproduce the
trends, cycles, changes and so on already known and extended into the
future, unless some basic causal fact in reality changes to alter the
trend then my computer model can be 100% accurate in predicting the future
trend.....but it's not going to prove anything.

For someone that claims to know oh so much about science your ignorance of
the principles and limitations of computer modeling is astounding. In
short all you are doing is taking your correlation to the computer and
extending the prediction of the correlation into the future. It still will
not and does not establish causality nor the direction of causality
assuming that causality exists.


Scout,
Read this
http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm
This is the conclusion
Conclusion
Commonly held perceptions of the climatic relevance of CO2 and other
so-called greenhouse gases rest on a staggering failure to grasp some of the
fundamentals of physics. Correct interpretation of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics and sound appreciation of the necessary physical conditions
for emission of radiation by gases lead to the understanding that within the
troposphere no backradiation can be caused by so-called greenhouse gases.
Therefore it is not at all correct to speak of a thermal effect of these
gases on the biosphere.
The thermal conditions in our and any atmosphere are determined by its
pressure and the mass of its main components. Higher concentrations of CO2
in our atmosphere – at least until they reached 2% (a 60-fold increase) and
thus became injurious to health – would endanger neither the climate nor
mankind. To avoid further misunderstanding, the terms greenhouse effect and
greenhouse gases should be avoided in describing the functioning of the
atmosphere. A more correct term would be atmosphere effect. The operation
of this effect is described in "The Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect" at
http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/atmos.htm.)
It is completely incomprehensible and unjustified to imagine that mankind
can or must protect the climate by attempting to control trace amounts of
CO2 in the air.
.
User: "Ray Fischer"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 24 Aug 2007 11:59:36 PM
SaPeIsMa <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:

Read this
http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm

Commonly held perceptions of the climatic relevance of CO2 and other
so-called greenhouse gases rest on a staggering failure to grasp some of the
fundamentals of physics. Correct interpretation of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics and sound appreciation of the necessary physical conditions
for emission of radiation by gases lead to the understanding that within the
troposphere no backradiation can be caused by so-called greenhouse gases.
Therefore it is not at all correct to speak of a thermal effect of these
gases on the biosphere.

Do you morons have any idea just how mind-numbingly stupid that
paragraph is? That is has no basis in reality and is nothing but the
babbling of a kook?
You haven't the first clue what it's supposed to mean but because
you're just stupid sheep you bleat about it as it it means something.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Geoff"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 25 Aug 2007 08:40:10 AM
SaPeIsMa wrote:

http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm
Conclusion

Commonly held perceptions of the climatic relevance of CO2 and other
so-called greenhouse gases rest on a staggering failure to grasp some
of the fundamentals of physics. Correct interpretation of the Second
Law of Thermodynamics and sound appreciation of the necessary
physical conditions for emission of radiation by gases lead to the
understanding that within the troposphere no backradiation can be
caused by so-called greenhouse gases. Therefore it is not at all
correct to speak of a thermal effect of these gases on the biosphere.

Awesome! You finally produced a cite. I am generally skeptical of anything
that uses 2LOT as part of its argument. And I am *highly* skeptical of it's
claims of having been published, though it appears only to have been part of
a discussion and not a submission for peer review. And the publications are
for nuclear engineering.
But I will read today and comment more thoroughly.
.
User: "Geoff"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 25 Aug 2007 11:23:42 AM
Geoff wrote:

SaPeIsMa wrote:

http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm
Conclusion

Commonly held perceptions of the climatic relevance of CO2 and other
so-called greenhouse gases rest on a staggering failure to grasp some
of the fundamentals of physics. Correct interpretation of the Second
Law of Thermodynamics and sound appreciation of the necessary
physical conditions for emission of radiation by gases lead to the
understanding that within the troposphere no backradiation can be
caused by so-called greenhouse gases. Therefore it is not at all
correct to speak of a thermal effect of these gases on the biosphere.


Awesome! You finally produced a cite. I am generally skeptical of
anything that uses 2LOT as part of its argument. And I am *highly*
skeptical of it's claims of having been published, though it appears
only to have been part of a discussion and not a submission for peer
review. And the publications are for nuclear engineering.

But I will read today and comment more thoroughly.

Well, I'm going to guess that you either have less of a grasp of
thermodynamics than this guy or you didn't thoroughly read the article. His
conclusion quite clearly mentions 2LOT, yet curiously no mention of it or
entropy or anything like it in the meat of the article.
The guy cites the Ideal Gas Law and tries to apply it to the atmospheres of
both Earth and Venus.
He says: "The Venutian atmosphere is 95% CO2, and its near-surface
temperature is approximately 460oC. What climatologists overlook is that
atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is 90 bar, and that it is this
colossal pressure that determines the temperature."
Hmmm...ok...what causes those high pressures? From the Ideal Gas Law, you
can no more assume that pressure causes temperature or the other way around.
How he makes this leap is not known.
Regardless, applying the IGL to an atmosphere of a planet and just taking
pressure and temperature as inputs/outputs completely disregards volume in
the equation. There is no control volume of an atmosphere.
He says: "Everyone knows that compression causes gases to warm: the effect
is noticeable even when inflating bicycle tires. The atmosphere is no
different."
Really? And this guy is an engineer? Sad.
.
User: "SaPeIsMa"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 26 Aug 2007 12:03:19 AM
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:LqOdne_n79cNyk3bnZ2dnUVZ_ualnZ2d@giganews.com...

Geoff wrote:

SaPeIsMa wrote:

http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm
Conclusion

Commonly held perceptions of the climatic relevance of CO2 and other
so-called greenhouse gases rest on a staggering failure to grasp some
of the fundamentals of physics. Correct interpretation of the Second
Law of Thermodynamics and sound appreciation of the necessary
physical conditions for emission of radiation by gases lead to the
understanding that within the troposphere no backradiation can be
caused by so-called greenhouse gases. Therefore it is not at all
correct to speak of a thermal effect of these gases on the biosphere.


Awesome! You finally produced a cite. I am generally skeptical of
anything that uses 2LOT as part of its argument. And I am *highly*
skeptical of it's claims of having been published, though it appears
only to have been part of a discussion and not a submission for peer
review. And the publications are for nuclear engineering.

But I will read today and comment more thoroughly.


Well, I'm going to guess that you either have less of a grasp of
thermodynamics than this guy or you didn't thoroughly read the article.
His conclusion quite clearly mentions 2LOT, yet curiously no mention of it
or entropy or anything like it in the meat of the article.

The guy cites the Ideal Gas Law and tries to apply it to the atmospheres
of both Earth and Venus.

He says: "The Venutian atmosphere is 95% CO2, and its near-surface
temperature is approximately 460oC. What climatologists overlook is that
atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is 90 bar, and that it is
this colossal pressure that determines the temperature."

Hmmm...ok...what causes those high pressures? From the Ideal Gas Law, you
can no more assume that pressure causes temperature or the other way
around. How he makes this leap is not known.

Last time I checked, high pressure on the surface is directly attributable
to the force of GRAVITY
You have heard of gravity ?
It's one of those things that scientific typs such as you like to talk about

Regardless, applying the IGL to an atmosphere of a planet and just taking
pressure and temperature as inputs/outputs completely disregards volume in
the equation. There is no control volume of an atmosphere.

He says: "Everyone knows that compression causes gases to warm: the effect
is noticeable even when inflating bicycle tires. The atmosphere is no
different."

Really? And this guy is an engineer? Sad.

Well he was trying to simplify it for the non-scientific types
Too bad it was totally beyond your ken
Sad indeed
.
User: "Ray Fischer"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 26 Aug 2007 03:00:54 AM
SaPeIsMa <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message

Well, I'm going to guess that you either have less of a grasp of
thermodynamics than this guy or you didn't thoroughly read the article.
His conclusion quite clearly mentions 2LOT, yet curiously no mention of it
or entropy or anything like it in the meat of the article.

The guy cites the Ideal Gas Law and tries to apply it to the atmospheres
of both Earth and Venus.

He says: "The Venutian atmosphere is 95% CO2, and its near-surface
temperature is approximately 460oC. What climatologists overlook is that
atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is 90 bar, and that it is
this colossal pressure that determines the temperature."

Hmmm...ok...what causes those high pressures? From the Ideal Gas Law, you
can no more assume that pressure causes temperature or the other way
around. How he makes this leap is not known.


Last time I checked, high pressure on the surface is directly attributable
to the force of GRAVITY

Nope. It's also affected by the amount of gas above the surface. The
deeper the atmosphere the higher the pressure at the bottom.

You have heard of gravity ?
It's one of those things that scientific typs such as you like to talk about

You're not smart enough to be condescending.

Regardless, applying the IGL to an atmosphere of a planet and just taking
pressure and temperature as inputs/outputs completely disregards volume in
the equation. There is no control volume of an atmosphere.

He says: "Everyone knows that compression causes gases to warm: the effect
is noticeable even when inflating bicycle tires. The atmosphere is no
different."

Really? And this guy is an engineer? Sad.


Well he was trying to simplify it for the non-scientific types

Or he was revealing how little he understands. And you.
For example, the atmosphere of Neptune is very cold despite high
pressure. That contradicts your quack.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
User: "Scout"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 26 Aug 2007 07:07:46 AM
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:46d13336$0$14139$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

SaPeIsMa <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message


Well, I'm going to guess that you either have less of a grasp of
thermodynamics than this guy or you didn't thoroughly read the article.
His conclusion quite clearly mentions 2LOT, yet curiously no mention of
it
or entropy or anything like it in the meat of the article.

The guy cites the Ideal Gas Law and tries to apply it to the atmospheres
of both Earth and Venus.

He says: "The Venutian atmosphere is 95% CO2, and its near-surface
temperature is approximately 460oC. What climatologists overlook is
that
atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is 90 bar, and that it is
this colossal pressure that determines the temperature."

Hmmm...ok...what causes those high pressures? From the Ideal Gas Law,
you
can no more assume that pressure causes temperature or the other way
around. How he makes this leap is not known.


Last time I checked, high pressure on the surface is directly attributable
to the force of GRAVITY


Nope. It's also affected by the amount of gas above the surface. The
deeper the atmosphere the higher the pressure at the bottom.

And why is the amount of gas above the surface a factor......right, it's
because of GRAVITY.
God, I thought you were a dumb *****, but you certainly do work to prove that
you are even dumber than I thought.
.
User: "SaPeIsMa"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 26 Aug 2007 11:51:49 PM
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:m2eAi.30146$Bv1.26061@trnddc06...


"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:46d13336$0$14139$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

SaPeIsMa <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message


Well, I'm going to guess that you either have less of a grasp of
thermodynamics than this guy or you didn't thoroughly read the article.
His conclusion quite clearly mentions 2LOT, yet curiously no mention of
it
or entropy or anything like it in the meat of the article.

The guy cites the Ideal Gas Law and tries to apply it to the
atmospheres
of both Earth and Venus.

He says: "The Venutian atmosphere is 95% CO2, and its near-surface
temperature is approximately 460oC. What climatologists overlook is
that
atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is 90 bar, and that it is
this colossal pressure that determines the temperature."

Hmmm...ok...what causes those high pressures? From the Ideal Gas Law,
you
can no more assume that pressure causes temperature or the other way
around. How he makes this leap is not known.


Last time I checked, high pressure on the surface is directly
attributable
to the force of GRAVITY


Nope. It's also affected by the amount of gas above the surface. The
deeper the atmosphere the higher the pressure at the bottom.


And why is the amount of gas above the surface a factor......right, it's
because of GRAVITY.

God, I thought you were a dumb *****, but you certainly do work to prove
that you are even dumber than I thought.


What's that basic law for gases in ANY intro to chemistry
The IDEAL Gas Law
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/idegas.html
Too bad that geof and ray are so ignorant of such basic science
And geof who claims to be a "scientist"
Tsk, tsk, tsk...
.
User: "Geoff"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 27 Aug 2007 11:02:35 AM
SaPeIsMa wrote:

"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:m2eAi.30146$Bv1.26061@trnddc06...


"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:46d13336$0$14139$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

SaPeIsMa <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message


Well, I'm going to guess that you either have less of a grasp of
thermodynamics than this guy or you didn't thoroughly read the
article. His conclusion quite clearly mentions 2LOT, yet
curiously no mention of it
or entropy or anything like it in the meat of the article.

The guy cites the Ideal Gas Law and tries to apply it to the
atmospheres
of both Earth and Venus.

He says: "The Venutian atmosphere is 95% CO2, and its near-surface
temperature is approximately 460oC. What climatologists overlook
is that
atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is 90 bar, and that
it is this colossal pressure that determines the temperature."

Hmmm...ok...what causes those high pressures? From the Ideal Gas
Law, you
can no more assume that pressure causes temperature or the other
way around. How he makes this leap is not known.


Last time I checked, high pressure on the surface is directly
attributable
to the force of GRAVITY


Nope. It's also affected by the amount of gas above the surface. The
deeper the atmosphere the higher the pressure at the bottom.


And why is the amount of gas above the surface a factor......right,
it's because of GRAVITY.

God, I thought you were a dumb *****, but you certainly do work to
prove that you are even dumber than I thought.



What's that basic law for gases in ANY intro to chemistry
The IDEAL Gas Law
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/idegas.html

Hmmm...I guess you slept through it then because it doesn't support your
argument.

Too bad that geof and ray are so ignorant of such basic science
And geof who claims to be a "scientist"
Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Go ahead and show where in the IGL it says *anything* about gravity. It
doesn't. Pressure is a function of temperature and volume.
I'm going to have to ask for a copy of your transcripts. I'm sure
mathematical engineers are pretty smart people, but apparently they are not
required to take courses in chemistry, physics, thermo, statistics (that's
surprising), experimental design, or data analysis.
.


User: "Ray Fischer"

Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate 26 Aug 2007 01:31:38 PM
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:46d13336$0$14139$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

SaPeIsMa <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message


Well, I'm going to guess that you either have less of a grasp of
thermodynamics than this guy or you didn't thoroughly read the article.
His conclusion quite clearly mentions 2LOT, yet curiously no mention of
it
or entropy or anything like it in the meat of the article.

The guy cites the Ideal Gas Law and tries to apply it to the atmospheres
of both Earth and Venus.

He says: "The Venutian atmosphere is 95% CO2, and its near-surface
temperature is approximately 460oC. What climatologists overlook is
that
atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is 90 bar, and that it is
this colossal pressure that determines the temperature."

Hmmm...ok...what causes those high pressures? From the Ideal Gas Law,
you
can no more assume that pressure causes temperature or the other way
around. How he makes this leap is not known.


Last time I checked, high pressure on the surface is directly attributable
to the force of GRAVITY


Nope. It's also affected by the amount of gas above the surface. The
deeper the atmosphere the higher the pressure at the bottom. <