Phi for All

I know what I'm going to be next Halloween!

There is some truth to this part. I've always been a proponent of learning, and I'm prejudiced against folks who demonstrate anti-learning behavior. When I hear someone reject knowledge because it doesn't fit with their belief system, or they make something up because they didn't understand the mainstream explanation, I just can't help but feel the person is being willfully obtuse. I felt that way when I heard Donald Trump doesn't like "knowing things" ahead of time because it spoils his perfect intuition. I feel the same way when I hear people rejecting mainstream science in favor of something either they've made up, or someone else made up and emotionally persuaded/coerced others into believing it. I also have a couple of hard-to-shake prejudices about religious folks. I tend to think of evangelists as con men trying to fleece people in one way or another. The idea of converting people turns me off a great deal, so that's probably at the heart of that prejudice. I also (weirdly) tend to think of people singing hymns to their god(s) as a good example of worship, one that doesn't impinge on anyone else, and is an uplifting, creative, natural experience. While I might have problems with the religion itself, or its documents, or its claims, I tend to view folks singing with the choir as spiritual people expressing themselves joyously, and I have no problems with that. It's not a negative prejudice, but it's still judging folks based on a group. But I disagree that presenting evidence wouldn't change my mind. That's EXACTLY what changes my mind these days, better evidence.

NortonH has been banned, since warnings and suspensions had no affect on his love of breaking the rules.

That must have been right after the Vitamin Sea dried up.

Axe has been banned as a sockpuppet of John Harmonic.

! Moderator Note rian copper45, this is a science discussion forum. Your post reads more like a blog entry. What did you wish to discuss specifically?

Haven't you realized it's not an argument but a misunderstanding? It's been explained to you, but you're being (purposely?) obtuse about it, and keep preaching instead of listening.

I'm so sorry I can't do more to help you understand the nature of scientific methodology, and how theories are always challenged by experimentation, even when they support them. I think there must be something hindering your critical thinking in this regard. Perhaps it's your fixation on mistakes, trying again to bounce them in one hand while ignoring the mountain of trustworthy success in the other.

I think you make a mistake in ignoring the staggering amount of methodically recorded evidence for mainstream theories, each piece of which was an attempt to challenge those theories. It makes your arguments look like you're trying to judge the scientific merits by bouncing them in either hand.

Taxonomist didn't make it to 7 posts before violating most of the rules, so he's banned. Probably mikemikev anyway, same flavor of hate.

Then you need to stop using the word "proof", because that's exactly what it means. There is no evidence that does more than support an explanation, and science looks for the preponderance of evidence rather than "proof". Also, the 4th choice should be "... is something science isn't designed to explain." The existence of god(s) is outside of natural examination. Science needs observation and predictability, both of which god(s) lack.

Arkangel Daniel has been cast out permanently for preaching the crazy.

Achilles has been permanently banned. His need for abusive controversy overcame his need for learning science.

Betty Davis eyes, Frieda Kahlo eyebrows, Ann Francis beauty mark, and Freddy Mercury beginner moustache. The next Disney princess!

How is the water and land the same? And why don't you take all the sophisticated new species competing for existence into account?

Well thanks for the corrections, all. I suppose it's not enough that they survive when other forms of power generation fail. To be considered viable, apparently they need to be able to operate fully in all weather before folks appreciate them fully. What a shame these limited devices have to "feather" (sounds like a snowflake thing to do) and can't operate at full capacity during a hurricane!

Most of these articles we're seeing mention that the wind farms can be switched to "hurricane mode", which generates less electricity but "soon provides" full power again. https://yes2renewables.org/2014/01/20/wind-turbines-survive-hurricanes-what-a-blow-to-doubters/ This study also implies that wind farms operate during hurricanes, since leaving them on removes energy from the storm. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/offshore-wind-farms-could-protect-cities-from-hurricanes-16813

Way out. From what I read, the wind farms were designed to run in hurricane mode. Even this article mentions the turbines were still running and providing power with 110 mph winds.

Do you have any data on that, or are you relying on what private utilities tell you about public utilities of the past? In my experience, we had plenty of electricity and natural gas from our public utility, and now we get to pay 40% more (adjusted for inflation) since it was deregulated and purchased by a private company.

Actually, solar is so efficient now that the electricity produced by it is too cheap to attract people interested in maximum profit. This is why private solar companies will never be the solution. The most efficient thing we could do now is develop a public solar and wind utility to flood the market with cheap, not-for-profit based electricity. MANY manufacturing opportunities could become reality for investors if powering your products is no problem. Frankly, I'm sick of private businesses that need public subsidies in order to turn the profit their stockholders want.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-power-turbine-storage-electricity-appliances/ It's being done. If people stop looking at each renewable as non-viable, and looked at solar/wind/geothermal together, they'd see we're already cost-effective enough to move away from fossil fuels fairly quickly.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferhicks/2012/11/06/cubas-two-wind-farms-survive-hurricane-sandy/#3bfa8f267ad1

He must eat pie 22/7.

! Moderator Note We were willing to let you start a discussion about a free book since you provided enough information that members weren't required to go offsite and read it, but you need to defend the concept you're promoting with more than your personal incredulity. It won't persuade anyone that there is a scientifically measurable connection. For that, you need evidence, and frankly that book is very lean on supportive evidence. It reads like most religious rants, full of assertive statements not supported by reality. Please do more than just wonder why nobody is persuaded.

interested has been banned permanently for an inappropriate attack on a fellow member, on top of past suspensions. Remember, if you find yourself posting foul language, you probably aren't attacking an idea.