bascule

I think it's highly dubious that we experienced any real economic growth, but rather a higher dollar amount due to inflation.

Actually, we're in a recession... see: http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2008/06/16/daily44.html http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/06/16/daily70.html http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSNAT00415020080620

Since you ignored me the last time, let me take this opportunity to reiterate the facts: Halliburtion was awarded $7 billion to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. This included not only rebuilding the infrastructure, but operating it too. Yes, operating it too. Halliburton makes money off Iraqi oil, not just US government contracts for rebuilding the infrastructure

In the hypothetical situation that McCain didn't accept his agreement, how is it wrong? The perception, regardless of what it may be, actually is spin... what we're stating is merely our own opinion... I care very little for the perception, whatever it may be. I care much more about the facts.

Good question! For starters, I'd want to know if McCain actually accepted his agreement.

When did he do that? The only reference I'm seeing to it is this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/politics/02fec.html

"Climate Change" is a more apt description, especially when we have people showing up here going "Global warming? It's colder than ever where I live!" Also, if you're looking for hosting for something like this, I'd be more than willing to provide it

An interesting side effect of this is that he'll be able to spend an unlimited amount of money in the general election, apparently...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece Wow look, it's a Milton Friedman protege agreeing with all those long haired Alex Jones worshiping hippie freaks... Worlds are colliding... Perhaps this will even convince those who despite past protestations continue to deny that oil played a major role in the Iraq War (hint hint: Pangloss)

Those people do not represent me Ample prior art demonstrating such may be found using the forum's handy dandy search feature

Both have a history of nasty accidents. The difference is modern nuclear technology, particularly negative void coefficient reactors and modern computerized control systems have rendered the dangers of nuclear power mostly moot. Chernobyl was a positive void coefficient reactor, none of which exist in America. However, offshore drilling accidents remain common: http://home.versatel.nl/the_sims/rig/usumacinta.htm Even if offshore drilling were legalized in areas where it's presently banned, it'd still be years before this would actually result in oil production: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7460767.stm It sounds to me as if offshore drilling is being touted as some magical stopgap measure for current oil prices, but that isn't the case. We're talking about a solution that won't come to fruition for years.

I fully support massively expanding our number of nuclear reactors. That'd work quite well with swansont's suggestion of plug-in hybrids. It would appear Bush is now pushing offshore drilling as well: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/18/bush.offshore/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

"dire need for self-flagellation" is certainly an interesting way of describing "catastrophic environmental impact"

I think it's somewhat suspicious he recanted his confession weeks before the UN report was released, a report which potentially links the stolen weapons plans to AQ Khan's cohorts. Although the report says nothing definitive about the plans being in the hands of the black market, it certainly implies that it's a strong possibility.

AQ Khan, father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb, recently recanted his confessions regarding selling centrifuge technologies, including plans and parts, to Iran and North Korea. Now, he's denying claims that complete plans for nuclear bombs were sold by his group to the black market: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jprNveWzuD_a9kRZ9Spjt5VY_UMgD91BU8700 A recently released report by the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, reveals that digital copies of nuclear weapons plans are unaccounted for and may be in the hands of the black market. According to its author David Albright, a former UN arms inspector: Khan claimed Albright's report was funded by the CIA and was an attempt by the United States to spread negative propaganda about Pakistan. This is some of the scariest stuff I've ever heard, but inevitable, I suppose. It seems like there's a fairly good chance that nuclear weapons designs are no longer a secret known only to existent nuclear powers.

That looks like a composition fallacy, namely: corn-based biofuels are a crock. That says nothing about biofuels as a whole. I see enormous potential in algae-based biofuels. You might want to read the original link re: Obama http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060228-energy_security/ He's certainly pushing (mandatory) hybrids as part of fleet requirements for automakers, although not necessarily with the plug-in option.

McCain says: LET'S DRILL FOR MORE OIL! http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/17/mccain.energy/index.html?eref=rss_topstories Obama says: that doesn't make sense http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060228-energy_security/ Obama calls for drastically reducing our consumption of oil by ratcheting up fuel efficiency standards and also heavily promoting biofuels as an alternative to oil. At least to me, it's sort of feeling like... McCain: More of the same! Obama: Change!

Well, the question here was whether upper air observing systems are suitable for analysis of the long term variabilities that a climate model wishes to expose. The latter begins to seem more likely if you consider that the satellite observations are calibrated against the radiosondes. The methods aren't independent at all. Nobody's suggesting we do that. There is a problem here, and you're correct, it's a case where the models are contradicting empirical data. However as you noted originally, it's empirical data which is suspect due to measurement errors ultimately stemming from the sun heating up the temperature sensors on the radiosondes (and satellite data calibrated against the radiosondes). On the contrary, if there's a reason to believe the data are wrong every month, and a sound methodology for performing a correction, I'd rather they correct the data rather than continuing to use incorrect data. I entirely agree. There are also things affecting the climate system which are underassessed, such as land use (something which becomes difficult for a GCM to model). When you begin looking at a combination of regional effects which play into the climate system, it becomes difficult to form a gestalt model of them as they are so different around the globe. However, that's not to undermine the successes of GCMs to date... I've read quite a few articles from angry statisticians with no climate science background. These tend to be FUD-laced articles operating under the premise that climate science groups and agencies don't employ statisticians and that climate scientists are making a bunch of amateurish mistakes. This certainly isn't the case.

Linux is a great server OS. I wouldn't recommend it on the desktop, but some people try anyway. That said Vista is thoroughly horrible. If you think Linux feels sluggish in comparison it's likely because the graphics drivers Linux was using weren't hardware accelerated or something like that.

To the best of our knowledge, yes, and that's the best answer science can ever give. The problem here is whether or not the "real world obs" are a suitable data set for the type of analysis being performed. Here's RealClimate's take: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=179 And getting back to the topic at hand, the question is do these data errors actually affect the model output? RealClimate concludes... no:

I like all kinds of music, except country What I've been listening to lately: KATY PERRY, Crystal Castles, Royksopp, Scroobius Pip, Chromeo, Kraftwerk

Heh, the Gap Cycle rules... As I understood it in context (having read the series some 12 years or so ago) "tach" and "tard" merely referred to acceleration and deceleration, although of a sort that could only be performed by the Gap drive, or whatever....

Here's a Wikipedia article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat One of the best pontifications on the subject I've ever read is Daniel Dennett's "Where Am I?"

You can't. That's the point, and has been since Kant. This typically takes the form of a "brain in a jar" analogy, where nothing you're seeing is real but all an illusion, yet to you it all feels completely real, because sense data is how you construct your reality.

Welcome back... I loved your thread on evidence of human common ancestry. Glad to see you've returned.