bascule

You're right, the 16 words weren't a "lie"... they were carefully crafted to defer all blame to the British Government. Bush was just fearmongering with unsubstantiated intelligence reports that turned out to be false

When did anyone call the Bible a myth save for the atheist commentator in the article whose comment begins "I don't know the circumstances, but..." So you think it would be wrong for a professor to frame Galileo in the light of 20/20 hindsight to make a point about shifting authority of knowledge away from religion towards science? That's what I see this professor as doing. No teacher these days would (or at least should) place the authority of the church ahead of science and claim the solar system is geocentric. In Galileo's time that was really the only option. Galileo's was a case where science usurped authority about the way the world works that was previously the Church's. I see nothing wrong with saying the Church was wrong. They've since admitted they were were wrong. They've since come out against creationism/ID (at least the Vatican). How is this teacher doing anything that the Vatican hasn't already? History should not be taught in a vacuum, and proper perspectives on it cannot be obtained until decades after the fact. Providing context in the form of modern knowledge and trends perpetuating from a major historical event is an essential part of comprehending it.

It seems Valerie Plame was involved in operations to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, before certain individuals in the administration outed her in response to her husband's declaration that claims about Iraq's attempts to acquire uranium yellowcake were fraudulent. The exposure of Plame's contacts in response to her being outed can't be ascertained, but Plame has implied (in the linked video) that it's, well, bad... To put it bluntly, this administration sacrificed CIA counter-nuclear operations in Iran to spread lies about Iraq...

Who was that?

That's one of many causes, and therapy with telomerase (an enzyme which reconstructs telomeres) never bore out the initial expectations... that's why all the initial media buzz about using it for aging therapy simply died down and we've heard little since. It is, however, listed by leading longevity researcher Aubrey de Gray as one of the causes of aging (cell senescence) The only clinically proven method of life extension, caloric restriction, operates on the mitochondria, and the specific mechanism by which it extends life is currently the subject of intense research. Life extension therapy will need to target multiple causes of aging. There's no single cause nor silver bullet.

So again I ask: what's the resolution of your graph paper GCM, and what's the granularity of its timesteps? If you were replying from any kind of scientific background rather than ignorance, you'd know it's thoroughly impractical to model the climate system without a computer to perform the calculations.

Well, you seem to think it objectionable to present scientific truth in the light that it's incongruent with a literal interpretation of the Bible, something which even the Vatican has come to accept. When you argue for a reverence of a literal Biblical interpretation that even the Vatican rejects in the face of scientific authority I'm sorry, but you are being anti-science. If anyone's preaching political correctness it's you... James Burke's synopsis: Not seeing any political correctness there, are you?

That, sadly, remains the case. I'm certainly hoping Ron Paul runs on a Libertarian Ticket, in which case I'd gladly vote for him over Hillary or whatever totalitarian stooge the GOP manages to shell out, considering that's all that's presently on the ticket otherwise...

The Catholics, i.e. the majority denomination on Earth? See, funny thing is since the time of Galileo they've reversed their position, to the point that they'd seem to favor the professor in this case. See: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21926 And: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16125 Indeed, the Vatican, or at least its scientific members, have evolved a great deal since the days of Galileo, and have begun embracing the scientific truth of Darwin. On the contrary, they're accepting the truth of science, and suggesting the Bible be interpreted accordingly. Scientific truths have little to say about a religion as a whole, for the very reasons you state. However, there are claims about the universe that religious texts like the Bible make which have been shown to be wrong, at least if interpreted literally. The same religious authority which persecuted Galileo has now come out in defense of science, and suggested that in such cases the Bible should be interpreted allegorically.

That's certainly not what I was getting at... the controversy Burke presents is ultimately that of science vs. religion, science being a combination of evidence gathering, inference, logic, and reason ultimately resulting in what Burke referred to as "demonstrable truth" If there's something I'm sickened by, it's the idea that after centuries of persecution (and in the case of Galileo, imprisonment) scientists have not yet won the right to claim their demonstrable truths trump religious dogma. That the earth goes round the sun is a demonstrable, scientific truth. Galileo spent the remainder of his life fighting against the Church for that simple idea, and I believe it should be taught as such.

I'm surprised that you can be a fan of James Burke and oblivious to the conflict between religious authority and logical, fair-minded people which is a recurring theme of shows like Connections and the Day the Universe Changed. Burke presented a juxtaposition between the Copernicuses of the world: those who would treat scientific discovery as a useful albeit unrealistic tool when it conflicts with religious dogma, and the Galileos of the world, who are willing to step back and go "No, how science sees it is how it really is, and religious dogma is wrong." For this refutation of religious authority Galileo underwent trial as a heretic and received imprisonment (in the form of house arrest) for the remainder of his life for his refusal to recant his ideas about heliocentrism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair There's two ways to present this in a modern context: 1) Galileo and the Church both had their opinions, and regardless of what transpired between them both are to be respected 2) The Church was wrong and Galileo was right. Galileo was unjustly imprisioned by a dictatorial Inquisitionalist Church who sought to maintain their dogmatic authority even in the wake of scientific discovery How would you prefer to teach it? Has science yet to substantiate the idea that the Earth goes round the Sun, or should we respect both sides of the controversy, including the idea that the Church was correct in their imprisonment of Galileo?

You discount all of cognitive science. Cognitive scientists have performed repeatable double-blind experiments on the observation of various phenomena, with results which substantially outweigh those of chance. While not "directly observing consciousness", cognitive science experiments generate repeatable results based on the accounts of (supposedly) conscious observers, i.e human participants. And an unscientific one, as there is no third party to mediate the results Not being privy to the consciousness of others, how can you know your experience is unique and exclusively your own? And what's to say that control center isn't subject to the actions of physical phenomena? I'm not going down that road... It's impossible to scrutinize the anecdotes of an individual scientifically, at least in the same way it's possible to scrutinize the statistical distributions of anecdotes of multiple observers as performed under the context of a double-blind scientific experiment. [quiote]The point is, however, that there aren't any other source of information about consciousness. That assumes things like physicalism, materialism, epiphenominalism, and functionalism are false... Or we seek to solve the mind/body problem scientifically. There are several potential routes. One is modeling the human brain computationally and producing a conscious entity.

The 9/11 conspiracy, err, "truth" movement is like a cult. They've lampooned independent thinking... you're either with them or you're a "sheeple"

I'm amazed at common ground being found today, specifically between "the left" and Ron Paul. Here's a paleoconservative to the bone, arguing a radical Libertarian agenda, and his greatest support is among the "far left", not just brainwashed Alex Jones zombies but also among their greatest enemies: sane liberals/liberaltarians who are tired of the massive power Bush has amassed and his ravaging of our Constitutional rights. Bill Maher and Jon Stewart both eat this guy up with a spoon. He's an opponent of abortion and doesn't support many spending bills lauded by "the left", not to mention several other nitpicks trumpeted by liberal bloggers like Kos, but "the left" doesn't care. They see him as bringing about change which is desperately needed in the wake of the Bush administration's savage disregard for everything this country considers holy. Ron Paul seeks to restore limited government and the sanctity of the Constitution, both of which the Bush administration has spat, trampled, and shat on. If conservative Libertarians, paleoconservatives, sane liberals/liberaltarians, and crazy Alex Jones-loving conspiracist liberals can all unite under the same tent, there's something seriously wrong with the status quo...

Leading longevity researcher Aubrey de Gray has identified 7 primary causes of aging: http://www.livescience.com/health/050411_aubrey_interview.html

If you get a rise out of someone they're part of the conspiracy

So wait, you're saying the last 30 years of the global climate can be simulated using a pen, ruler, and graph paper? Can I ask what the resolution of your graph paper GCM is, and what's the granularity of your timesteps? Are you doing your calculations on a stack of graph paper that could go from the earth to the sun? To answer your question, model output has successfully been used to replicate climate for the past century, which can be verified against instrumental record: Paleoclimactic researchers do focus on historical changes in the solar cycle far more than those researching the modern climate do or need to. But that's a red herring... Present climate science knowledge is sufficient to perform accurate multi-decadal simulations. It's pretty arrogant for you as a layman to say it isn't, especially when you're so clearly clueless about the actual science. There are many potential problems that are discussed at many conferences. Perhaps the fact it's being discussed at conferences should suggest to you that they're addressing the problem? By the way, you misspelled modeling... Modeling operates on empirical data, and allows climate scientists to observe the complex interplay of different forces in a complex dynamical system... things that can be directly substantiated by the data, but would be extremely difficult to discover without them. There's not some hard separation between what is empirical and what is modeled like you seem to be suggesting. And what sort of thing would you like climate scientists to "test empirically"? Actually you just said they could be replaced by a pen and graph paper... *sigh* yeah think it's time for me to resign from this thread again. Arguing with SkepticLance never goes anywhere...

Despite the perception of Congress having the "power of the purse" (which speaks more of their ability to levy taxes), Congress has typically been a follower when it comes to the actual creation of the budget (architected largely by the executive's OMB, or the "budget man" as Bush refers to it), and of course the President's veto power has been the typical method by which a President can regulate overspending by Congress... something Bush hasn't chosen to exercise in regard to a spending bill until SCHIP... the rest of the time watching the national debt skyrocket up 60% from where it was when he took office. In the past I've preferred to simply ask questions pertaining directly to the topic of the thread and let it go its own way, rather than injecting my personal editorial. I stopped doing that when you requested I give my opinion in a 72 point red typeface. I'd certainly be happy to go back to simply asking questions, rather than editorializing. Your call.

You're right... there's no reason to bring Bush into this discussion... (and to avoid a cum hoc ergo propter hoc, I'll repeat my point from the original post: lower taxes, increase spending... SURPRISE IT DOESN'T WORK)

I just did support work for a climate research group for five years. I pay little attention to nonscientific information sources on climate change...

SkepticLance, I'd really prefer you ignore the rest of my post and answer this one question: If GCMs are as error prone as you seem to be alleging, how is it they've managed to reconstruct the historical record so accurately? I'd really prefer you answer that question than respond to anything else in this post. But, if you wish to continue this pointless argument that never goes nowhere, feel free to respond to the following: Because I am arguing against something you said... you're simply missing the point... And as I said, they calculate the margin of error... That's a funny claim, considering I did support work on a project which was using observations from clouds performed by half a dozen satellites to help improve the accuracy of GCMs... You are completely out of touch with reality if you think that climate models do not account for the effects of clouds. Non-linearities and feedback loops in the climate system are emergent from the models themselves. They do not need to be built into the model directly. In fact modeling is how many feedback loops have been discovered. Climate scientists know far more about the degree of error in their models than you. How high do you think the error rate actually is?

Source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np (I haven't seen anything on this in the news... strange) Yeah, don't tax and spend beats tax and spend any day... Is Bush the most fiscally irresponsible president in US history? Is he squandering America's present economic prosperity? I'll go ahead and say yes to both questions.

Sooo... is there any paper available describing this yet? Or is it still just paraphrased from talks they gave?

No Apparently the government was too busy respecting the fourth amendment

I'll defer to the opinion of SCOTUS: So yeah, guess I'm just one of those crazy lefties who thinks the government should respect the establishment clause (and case precedent) and remain neutral on religious issues, including Christmas. I believe the establishment clause has served us well in creating an ecumenical community where we can put aside issues of gender, race, and creed and work together to promote the common welfare. As for the general public and Christmas? Hell if I give a damn. In the words of Mr. Garrison: Merry f*cking Christmas