I was looking through my notes and have decided to improve the detail in them. This will take me a while, as I’m not a supreme math guy.
As you do want derivations and the full math of Happer’s work though – which honestly is what my notes were about - but way simplified as I’m not a professor in physics … I’ll simply link you to a recent paper that Happer co-authored that goes into a lot of math detail here:
Phillip, I have blocked you now. You just seem to attack, but not really argue and I have no time for people like you.
This is your answer to why you support that guy? You should try and answer to @JayBird and me to try and save some reputation.
@JayBird great findings, I’am so glad we could destroy that fraud Happer, with not many years left and no career to save, it was obvious he is a bought fraud. It felt like we did a great job for the whole earth and all the people on it when we exposed him.
You should answer me and @JayBird and the claims on Happer as we destroyed him. When an economic bachelor guy like me so easily can destroy an physicist by pure logic reasoning without knowing anything about his subject, then there is something very wrong, either his brain don’t work as well anymore or he is payed by people that wants him to spread a certain message.
I’am not interested in his paper, I could have found that if I wanted. I’am interested in your knowledge because you present yourself as you have knowledge about these questions and economics like fractional reserve banking, but then you present low quality content that makes you look like you know very little about the subjects.
Do you know that you might be a puppet that run errands for puppet masters? Because i get the feeling you don’t.
That is why I will post this video about cyber warfare produced by the Swedish forces, even if they their own makes political manipulated statements in the video they are being very honest about disinformation and spreading false information. You can choose english subtitles in the video settings.
The title for the video is, “When the war comes, part two, the grey area”
The video of Happer’s talk is a more or less canned speech he gives to lay audiences. He’s not attempting to give the full math debunk of the CO2 mythology. The paper I linked does go through the math rigorously though. Nevertheless, science doesn’t prove anything true or false - the problem of induction forbids this. It’s just a tool to assist us individually in weighing evidence pragmatically.
Logic is important for science, but assuming the logic is good, it still doesn’t make anything true or false - problem of induction. I think (it’s fairly obvious to me) that you are falling prey to many logical fallacies in your argumentation - if you bother to read about any logical fallacies, you will see that even in your response to me you are using them.
The fact you won’t even look at the paper is also very telling.
Given these two points - your continual use of logical fallacies and your decision to evade looking at the evidence I presented I think you, like Phillip are simply wasting my time and energy. So I will block you too and we can be done. Good luck with it all.
We have exposed you, that you have very low quality/knowledge about the subjects you claim to know about. I will settle with that and make the posts and comments speak for themselves, you don’t need to comment any further in attempts to make this thread end up faster in off-topic.
Firstly, you are quoting wikipedia, which as you should know is controlled by left wing people and many even the honest ones on the left claim the CIA has it’s hand in it. Wikipedia is highly biased IMO and IME.
As to Happer’s politics, I don’t care about a persons politics, I care about the quality of their work - which I read and study for myself - so your attempt at character assassination (a logically fallacious attack on his work) is not helpful at all in assessing his work on CO2 absorbance in the atmosphere.
Please read his papers on the subject and argue the science.
You probably should, knowing if a person has a monetary or other incentive to say a certain thing can be quite useful. If someone is known to be untrustworthy in a certain area you can disregard what they write based on that instead of having to spend time and energy looking up every statement they make, which is what you’ll have to do with someone whose words you don’t trust.
As an example: do you also trust positive research about sugary drinks which is funded by Coca Cola? If you don’t, then you should consider if also Happer’s science might be untrustworthy. If you do—and if Happer truly does have ties to the oil industry or whatever it was—then I would personally consider any information from you regarding scientific papers as worthless. Especially science regarding climate, and sugary drinks.
I feel like both you and @tobbetj are a bit out of line. Neither of you seem interested in getting to the truth.
Saying it’s “telling” that someone doesn’t want to spend an unknown amount of time to read and try understanding a scientific paper feels unreasonable to me. People don’t have infinite time and energy. If the paper has such truths in it—and you’re familiar with it—why not just bring up an example so it can be debated? Maybe one related to a previously brought up point to keep things focused?
And @tobbetj, why not point out which questions the other party is avoiding and politely ask them to answer them? Or calmly bring up other reasonable points that questions the other party’s arguments? If they ignore any glaring issues you bring up in their reasoning, then that will speak very loudly on its own. Adding noise like “stop running” and “we have exposed you” etc. only serve as noise to drown out the truths, and can be seen by others as personal attacks, thereby lowering your trustworthiness in their eyes, even if those words might be warranted.
We’re all looking for the truth here, so let’s try to focus on that.
The science speaks for itself. I suppose if you aren’t good with understanding technical stuff, then you will fall back on relying on a persons reputation. But consider that the US gov. spent BILLIONS on global warming research (far more than any oil company ever has) … and there is a clear agenda within the oligarchy in regards to this particular topic … If you think you can trust the oligarchs (who control the government) to fund science to steer humanity on the right track, I’ve a couple twin towers to sell you … yeah, their dust now. I just watched “loose change” with my daughter tonight, so that’s where that example came from:
People have their heads buried in the sand I’m afraid. The oligarchy is always running some hussle to steal more wealth from the masses of those who won’t dig in and do the research themselves. There are plenty of “experts” who are happy to take some side door pay to say whatever you want to hear and no shortage of $$ looking to fund them.
Very few are honest enough to give you the truth. I have a lot of respect for Happer because I’ve read his papers and heard him speak many times - he’s the real deal.
This thread went off topic a loong time ago. I’ve split it before, but there is only so much the mods can do if people insist on ignoring the topic description in the OP. We have fish to fry and spam to sort out. I wish folks would just start new threads in off-topic themselves instead of waiting for the mods to move things around for them.
Maidsafe’s digital yuan?!?
Digital Yuan will be coming to the world soon.
Digital Yuan seems to have a similar aspect to DBC.
I don’t know the exact structure yet, but according to this person’s explanation, there seems to be a very similar side. Can we bring CDC into maidsafe ecosystem? we need stable coin in order to promote inter-business economy for sure.
Not sure why you had to quote me to say that - twice even. I think your personal politics get in the way of you being an effective mod frankly - not the first time I’ve experienced you playing games with my posts.
You didn’t need to show any contradiction to complain about us being off-topic. You are mixing your personal posting with your moderator responsibilities.
Moderators mostly post just like any forum member. Only the yellow color indicates we are using our “moderator voice”.
Since we are off topic already, what do you think my personal politics are? Although, it would be great if you could create a whole new thread for that in #off-topic, e.g. “Sascha’s personal politics”.
That quote was spot on as it shows he takes no care on how many people gets harmed, not even maybe his own daughter, as long as he can satisfy his needs to push his personal fantasies about the world.
… I’ll simply link you to a recent paper that Happer co-authored that goes into a lot of math detail here:
