bascule

So honoring the establishment clause is lefty behavior?

No, wrong. Galileo made meticulous observations of how gravity operates, by rolling balls down inclines and timing how long it took using water droplets. Newton didn't get hit on the head with an apple: the falling apple inspired him to think about how gravity is universal, specifically that the same force that was holding the moon in a stable orbit was the one acting on the apple.

Yeah, speaking of which, I should bump another thread I'm interested in

Seems more like a case of overconscious advertisers and the government honoring the establishment clause Pinning it on lefties is an O'Reillyism

Oh, my bad, this is the same one I posted earlier this year :/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/25/starsgalaxiesandplanets.spaceexploration 1.5 times the size of Earth and the right distance from its star to have liquid water

Actually, your argument has been that model-tested theory showing that the greatest radiative forcing since the late 1950s is greenhouse gasses is actually the work of: And that its mathematical basis is: Of course, that doesn't imply that all those calculations are wrong! However, you go on to say: Without providing any evidence for this accusation, of course. It seems like your argument is that they're doing sooooo many calculations that there must be an error in there somewhere! There's noooo possible way that they could do so much math and actually be right. It guess it makes more sense to say that there's a certain abstraction limit on the amount of math you can do and still get accurate answers, and the scientists obviously don't know what that is, and you do. Yes, atmospheric scientists don't concern themselves with the precision of their calculations! Oh wait, perhaps they do... and perhaps it is for that reason that they quantify their answers with a degree of error. That's why they're only over 90% certain of the very claim you seek to discredit...

Thank you

Can you give an example of which "lefties" were trying to do that?

Yet another example of a Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece propagandizing a tragedy to make a cheap political point? Not to cheapen the circumstances of Alex Jimenez kidnapping, but these events occurred in May, and the role of the FISA court system in delaying a response to the kidnapping is debatable.

My bad for not mentioning: The Clash, Tom Petty, Michael Jackson, Prince, The Cars, Elton John, Billy Joel, Squeeze, Stray Cats, Billy Idol, Brian Eno, Elvis Costello F*ck NOFX. The rest are quality. Also, you stick the Danzig crap in there, but not the Henry Rollins crap (i.e. Black Flag) What about the Melvins? Or the Meat Puppets? Or the Vaselines?

All I have is the Tegmark paper to go on. Here it is again: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009 There's no evidence of non-classical quantum behavior in the brain. To the best of our knowledge the brain behaves as a classical system. While there remains the possibility that non-classical quantum behavior have an impact on the brain's operation it is this far so insignificant and undetectable that it has gone unnoticed. I didn't see your examples... do you have any reason to speculate why they would have an impact on the brain's behavior and if so, why they have gone unnoticed by the neuroscientist and quantum physics communities, particularly physicists like Penrose who are grasping for straws trying to find a way to scientifically substantiate the quantum mind hypothesis?

You might have a look at Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars)

That statement is an enormous non sequitur. Premise 1: The global mean surface temperature fell 0.2 Celsius Premise 2: Greenhouse gases increased Premise 3: ??? Conclusion: Greenhouse gases did not have the strongest radiative forcing during the time period in question You seem to be implying that if greenhouse gases are the strongest radiative forcing than they must be greater than all of the others combined Don't lead him down that road, that's just a strawman he uses to confuse the issue

Please do not engage in deliberate deception. You are as aware as I am that any warming from 1960 to 1976 is trivial. The real warming happened after 1976. Well likewise... when you make statements like: while writing off: as: You are engaging in deliberate deception.

Can someone please prune the pioneer pseudoscientific bullshit into the pseudoscience forum where it belongs?

Humans are large classical systems. Individual waveform collapse events generally don't concern us unless we're studying them explicitly.

Nice, I'm a fan of Duran Duran's hits, at least Rio, The Reflex, Ordinary World, and Hungry Like the Wolf. I'm a big fan of new wave/darkwave in general. This includes Devo, Tears for Fears, Joy Division, New Order, Depeche Mode, The Cure, and about a billion one hit wonders like a Flock of Seagulls (two hit wonder), Crowded House, Modern English, Johnny Hates Jazz, Cutting Crew, Mr. Mister (another two hit wonder), and a number of non-New Wave bands like Twisted Sister, Quiet Riot, and uhh, to continue... The Firm, Van Halen, Rush, Genesis, Triumph, Dire Straits... I like the '80s

This implements "the ring problem" in Erlang, i.e. construct a ring of N nodes and send a message M times around it, then benchmark the performance: -module(ring). -export([around/2]). start(0, Parent) -> Parent; start(N, Parent) -> start(N - 1, spawn(?MODULE, child_loop, [Parent])). child_loop(Parent) -> receive Message -> Parent ! Message, child_loop(Parent) end. around(ProcCount, Times) -> Pid = start(ProcCount, self()), Pid ! Times, parent_loop(Pid). parent_loop(Pid) -> receive 0 -> void; N -> Pid ! N - 1, parent_loop(Pid) end.

No, but I have a friend in the Marines who's on his second tour of duty in Iraq. Also: how is that remotely relevant to this thread?

A barrage of ad hominems. You're off to a great start. So's the standard model. The calculated forcing inputs represent the culmination of decades of research into the climate system. They're used as inputs into climate models, and successfully reconstruct the instrumental record. Do you think the models were deliberately designed to make those forcing inputs work? Why can't any of the naysayers develop contradictory forcing inputs and models which reconstruct the instrumental record, develop models where accepted forcing inputs don't work, or *gasp* develop forcing inputs that can reconstruct the instrumental record from existing models? Let me borrow an argument from you: This is not true, for the simple reason that the current warming trend started in 1960. So why do you say 1976? Simple. It better fits your agenda. Yes, and we've been down this road before, and it got us nowhere. If you can see why the earth's radiative balance is dependent upon the complex interplay of multiple, constantly changing forcings which operate within a complex dynamical system, you'll realize why that argument is bullshit.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/ Ron Paul is trying to turn Roe vs Wade into a states rights issue. He has a rather unique perspective on this: He's an OB/GYN and also a libertarian. I can certainly see where he's coming from. However, I feel this is an extremely difficult issue and that the ramifications transcend states rights. What this calls into question is at what point humans receive the protections of the Constitution and come under the rule of law. Are these things States should be deciding? I certainly don't think so...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071010/pl_nm/usa_security_democrats_dc Democrats refused to grant retroactive immunity to telcos that participated in Bush's illegal spying program, and pushed through a bill that rolls back some of the sickening provisions they passed in August as part of a compromise with Bush and other Republicans, reinstating FISA oversight and requiring 1 year blanket warrants for surveillance involving American citizens. My take (as an avid EFF supporter): ABOUT F*CKING TIME

You mean 1960? Hint: There's more than one radiative forcing Yep, "someone" did, and: Decreased solar irradiance, increased volcanic activity, and increased UV blocking by ozone. Again: There's more than one radiative forcing. Nobody's saying it did. It varies *gasp* Ever heard of volcanoes? You are aware the other forcings fluctuate too, right? Do I need to paste the graph again? Here you go: Look at them, all moving up and down like the complex dynamical system that they are. Temperatures don't stabilize, they fluctuate, because they're resultant from a complex dynamical system. Do you understand the concept of non-linearities? Actually they started rising again in 1960. Still not sure where you're getting 1976 from. Your ass? I've asked you dozens of times and you've never responded. Soooooo... no response to my post? I hope you don't mind me bringing this up again because you've only brought it up a few dozen times and I'm tired of hearing it: So, this means the blue line is on top. Have a look at this graph. Is the blue line on top? Why yes, the blue line is on top! Can you drop that argument already? You're wrong. Seriously SkepticLance: The graph I linked answers all of your questions, disputes, etc. I don't know why you keep bringing them up again and again and again. You seem to either think you know something the climate science community doesn't or that the climate science community is being dishonest. Do you dispute the forcing inputs used in that graph or not? If you don't, then it answers all the tiresome questions you've raised again and again and again.

How do you know energy hasn't always existed? How can existence have a cause? Wouldn't that cause have to exist?