B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Jan 31, 5:34 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
inadequate.
Once you've got that you don't have to be either egotistical or semi-
hysterical to get the point.
it difficult to get around to actually doing it. And I'd be inept if I
though that the Baxandall class-D oscillator was a simple 2-transistor
oscillator - Jim Williams (who wasn't inept) found it tricky enough to
justify publishing six Linear Technology application notes on the
subject - AN45, AN49, AN51, AN55, AN61, and AN65.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, his grasp of what constitutes "adequate grounds" isOn Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:31:19 -0800 (PST), mrstar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2012 22:19:34 UTC+10, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Jan 31, 8:21 am, mrst...@gmail.com wrote:
Try not to recite your dogma so uncritically.
It's not dogma - what I'm saying is based on the available scientific
evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma
Dogma "is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged
from, by the practitioners or believers."
Scientific evidence is fairly authoritative, but it is regularly
doubted, and disputed, and can be diverged from if you have better
counter-evidence, so it isn't dogma.
John Larkin's problem is that he treats denialist propaganda, which
purports to doubt and dispute the scientific evidence, as if it was
dogma.
"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization[1]."
AGW is the established belief for your particular religious group, so much so that you ignore all evidence which conflicts with it and try to pretend you are the only scientific ones. There is no science but your science.
Here is an even better definition:
a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds (Merriam-Webster)
inadequate.
Actually, all that's required is some grasp of the physics involved.You could learn something from King Canute. People have to be incredibly egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine the climate.
Once you've got that you don't have to be either egotistical or semi-
hysterical to get the point.
I'm not dithering. I know exactly what I want to do, but I'm findingAnd they have to be incredibly inept to dither for years over a simple
2-transistor oscillator.
it difficult to get around to actually doing it. And I'd be inept if I
though that the Baxandall class-D oscillator was a simple 2-transistor
oscillator - Jim Williams (who wasn't inept) found it tricky enough to
justify publishing six Linear Technology application notes on the
subject - AN45, AN49, AN51, AN55, AN61, and AN65.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen