AdamSmith

There is even a good lot of news-gossip that Sessions & Rosenstein have formed an odd-fellows bond over both having to put up with DJT's abuses & outbursts.

I have said this before here: After my mama, fully as much a nerd as I (who do you think taught me?) had walked out of the film in 1969 and driven 10 miles home, she finally said the first words between us; 'Maybe it is just that the unnkowable is always beyond us.' My 9yo head exploded.

Stanley Kubrick: 'I want to change the form.'

https://books.google.com/books?id=MLeDrZBn2ncC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=wallace+fowlie+aubade+commedia+dante&source=bl&ots=4oxCC7n5lq&sig=udrH-ocHKS4lDrmRM71ZvPHAguE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWr6n5n8PcAhUJIqwKHYHmBqEQ6AEwC3oECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

I don't think that is right. i almost always agree with you. But I think this use of satire is right for the times.

Obviously from my behavior here I always veer toward that danger myself. The tonic, as you say, is to remind myself: I am the least knowledgeable person in the house tonight. Ask, listen, learn.

In Cambridge MA where one was resident for 30 years, one got to know everyone's celeb neighbors just through being asked to one anothers' dinner parties, small or large. No one I observed ever asked Alan over.

Couple of thoughts... Can your hosting company give you participation metrics (of any kind)? And do they have any way for you to make a 'membership' page (like here) where readers 'register' in order to get email notIces of new posts by you?

I do, without cynicism and with realism, agree with both those accurate observations. I would wish for the fight-energies to, as I said just earlier, lunge forward in pursuit of geoengineering capabilities that are today impossibly out of reach. But are the only hope I can see. We shall, certainly, see what is within our capacities.

The hard invaluable learning from my last month living on the streets of Manahatto... ...the true wisdom of Blake's 'The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.'

A little bit less sexy than Harry Styles.

Extending your astute observation here to its general case: If Trump says anything about anything, one can be instantly sure that precisely the opposite is the truth.

Your first paragraph above is to suggest that short-term benefits are worth risking species extinction. I don't know why that view unsettles me. The only 'solution' I any longer see as even remotely viable, given the all-but-irreversible changes and collapses we have already triggered, is development of technology for planetary-scale geoengineering. Now, yes. That frightens me more than anything us clever apes have yet conceived. There is possibility -- likelihood, indeed almost certainty -- of catastrophic outcomes from our 'tests' before we get it right. But what else remains in sight as an escape hatch, however remote, if you accept my end-time views? (Which I accept that you do not.) There are some scientists and others trying to promote the idea of a worldwide 'Manhattan project' to develop geoengineering technology to this end. I am not holding my breath.

Climate change means the end of our species in like 200-300 years, or likely sooner, so one wonders why they (and we!) are even wasting breath on it.

So it must be a modern-day left wing conspiracy.

...climate-change is supported by evidence so strong as to be virtually incontrovertible. The scientific consensus is that our climate is changing rapidly, with the unmistakable fingerprints of human meddling making it clear we’re responsible for rising global temperatures. The mechanism behind this has long been known - French Polymath Joseph Fourier hypothesized human impact on climate in 1827, with effects of greenhouse gases demonstrated experimentally by Irish Physicist John Tyndall in 1864. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/21/mobile-phones-are-not-a-health-hazard

One of my Duke profs, in re: Proust... https://books.google.com/books?id=t7Ug36454tUC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=moi+monsieur+je+suis+Jupien+wallace+fowlie&source=bl&ots=7Ic76lYdhn&sig=oRPOluBs_08GRFSEvBZ31A2hJ6I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwij7OrVubbcAhUtja0KHd1pD04Q6AEwAHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=moi monsieur je suis Jupien wallace fowlie&f=false

That is just nonsense. The extant research is exhaustive and conclusive. As @mvan1's citations above document.

In Conversation: Billy Joel The superstar on his songwriting silence, the country today, and his ideal farewell. By David Marchese http://www.vulture.com/2018/07/billy-joel-in-conversation.html

I am talking known carbon/atmosphere science. I was a chemical engineer first year of college. What are you talking? Your discourse does not have concrete content.

Your use of the word as an apparent derogative is most puzzling. Theory From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search For theories in science, see scientific theory. For other uses, see Theory (disambiguation). Part of a series on Certainty Approximation Belief Certainty Doubt Determinism Fallibilism Fatalism Hypothesis Justification Nihilism Proof Scientific theory Skepticism Solipsism Theory Truth Uncertainty Related concepts and fundamentals: Agnosticism Epistemology Presupposition Probability v t e A theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.[citation needed] Depending on the context, the results might, for example, include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several related meanings. Theories guide the enterprise of finding facts rather than of reaching goals, and are neutral concerning alternatives among values.[1]:131 A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge.[2]:46 As already in Aristotle's definitions, theory is very often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a Greek term for doing, which is opposed to theory because pure theory involves no doing apart from itself. A classical example of the distinction between "theoretical" and "practical" uses the discipline of medicine: medical theory involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.[a] In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that scientific tests should be able to provide empirical support for, or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[3] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis).[4] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and from scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature behaves under certain conditions. Contents [hide] 1Ancient uses 2Theories formally and scientifically 2.1Underdetermination 2.2Intertheoretic reduction and elimination 2.3Theories vs. theorems 3Scientific theories 3.1Definitions from scientific organizations 3.2Philosophical views 3.3In physics 3.4The term theoretical 4Philosophical theories 4.1Metatheory 5Political theories 6Jurisprudential theories 7List of notable theories 8See also 9Notes 10References 10.1Citations 10.2Sources 11External links