bascule

(and so is evolution) http://www.fixedearth.com/ Did I mention this web site is backed by Warren Chisum, a Texas Republican who chairs the House Appropriations Committee?

I'd say it's a metric for our ability to assimilate discontiguous information and derive the underlying pattern, and that's something the neocortical column is better able to do than any other brain structure I'm aware of

I've sworn off eating fellow mammals, mostly for moral reasons (not to mention eating them is rather unhealthy). I also don't eat birds. I'm all about the seafood... fish and various crustaceans. I love king crab and sushi. I'm also all about the lox and creamcheese bagels. Mmmm. I feel the same way, but don't think the limbic system is a particularly relevant part of the brain. My metric is the neocortex, found in mammals, and particularly the neocortical column which to me represents the fundamental atomic unit of consciousness-stuff. I believe birds possess a brain structure with similar function, albeit implemented in a different way. I see the limbic system as being a rather primitive part of the brain and having much more to do with programmatic, genetically-driven behavior than the process of modeling and self-awareness/discovery that can be manifested through the neocortex.

Appropriate growth is growth which matches the ability of individuals to obtain the resources they need to live Under your typical natural selection model the population grows ahead of the available resources, then competition determines who dies. That's not exactly a moralistic model.

I think the best approach is growing meat without the body. This not only eliminates the moral qualms associated with eating animals, but also allows you to produce healthier meat (i.e. fat free)

The vegan grocer here sells honey wheat bread (although not actual honey, at least that I've seen). I'm guess honey is "debatable" among vegans, along with the raw food issue.

If you're asking what policy changes I'd make, it'd be better de-escalation procedures, so they don't wind up shutting down half the city over LED signs. Sure, treat it suspiciously at first, but examine it before freaking out.

Your argument seems to be that a bomb could come in any form and therefore we shouldn't criticize those who interpret something which local law enforcement in Seattle described as "so obviously not suspicious" in a Chicken Littlesque "sky is falling" sort of way. That's fine, but why did no one ask "Wait a sec, is the sky really falling?" Instead we saw rampant overescallation to the point that they shut down large parts of the city, to the tune of however many millions of lost dollars were involved. A bomb can come in the form of ANYTHING. Substances like C4 allow you to disguise a bomb in practically any form, and unless someone exercises the common sense to make sure a response is actually warranted, there's no way of telling what suspicious objects could possibly be bombs: So how bout, say, let's not freak out unless we really have to eh? Perhaps try living our lives as if not terrorized.

I agree, but then you have to admit that all science is inherently uncertain, and that unless the alternate views are able to present a scientific argument, they should be dismissed until that time.

(Thanks for not providing a link. Google to the rescue) Looking at this list: http://www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/2006510215450.CSCWhoWeAre.pdf Their scientific staff includes: A PhD chemist, a PhD geologist, a professor of atmospheric science, 3 non-PhD geologists, an electrical and mechanical engineer, a professor of philosophy, and two individuals with no listed academic background. So sorry, that site does not meet my criteria of "PhD climate scientist". But hey, you're welcome to try again... I would truly like to read the web site of a PhD climate scientist who does not believe CO2 is the foremost radiative forcing. Actually, what it demonstrates is how important the peer review process is. So they submit their papers to their peers for criticism. If they can't defend their viewpoints among the peer community, chances are those viewpoints aren't scientifically valid. Yes, that's how it works. You submit your papers to the peer review process. They are criticised, and you must respond to the criticism. However, you're still trying to downplay the fact that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, including many who are renowned skeptics of the climate science community (including my former boss) still recognize CO2 as the foremost radiative forcing. I have no opinion on that at present. I'm also guessing that wasn't what you predicted. I also don't have opinions on impacts, vulnerabilities, and mitigation vs. adaptation. I would only go so far as to say I predict water vulnerability will be a worsening problem which has the potential to impact the lives of millions of people.

ITER will hopefully teach us how to build a commercially feasible, efficient fusion reactor whose energy outputs exceed energy inputs. However, it will not be one in and of itself.

The site is run by a PhD climate scientist and includes collaboration from other PhD climate scientists. Can you find me a "global warming skeptic" web site run by a PhD climate scientist? The site is hardly "alarmist", he merely presents the scientific basis of climate change to the best of his ability. If you disagree with the scientific basis of climate change as understood by the climate science community, then your interpretation may vary.

I think dynamic languages with interactive environments are a great way to start out. This includes pretty much any functional language you can imagine, e.g. Lisp, ML/CAML/O'Caml, Erlang, and to a lesser extent Python and Ruby (Haskell may have one too, but I haven't really used it) Other languages like Smalltalk have interactive interpreters as well. Of all the languages above, I'd suggest Python or Ruby (and personally I favor Ruby) since they have the largest communities. Starting functional is a great way to get yourself thinking about programming. If you start with a clunky procedural language like BASIC, you're going to have to unlearn a lot of bad habits before moving on to a better language. If you start functional then move on to procedural languages, you'll witness what Paul Graham calls the "Blub Paradox" firsthand, namely that procedural languages will feel clunky and cumbersome in comparison.

Diazepam is the only water soluble benzodiazepine, to my knowledge

You can do two way conferencing on Skype with any reasonably powerful computer

I've heard them described as Herbal Infusions before

You can shine light through humans, just not in the visible spectrum. It's called X-rays.

While normally I'd insist that there's one way to take your coffee, and that's as black as possible, I have to admit I'm partial to mochas I'm really picky about coffee though... it needs to be strong or it's undrinkably nasty to me. Same with tea, I guess... It's that watered down flavor that drives me nuts

Why do you keep saying this? These are all model reconstructions (see how they're labeled "reconstruction"). The point of showing the instrumental record is to show that the models agree with the instrumental record (if they didn't, we surely wouldn't trust them, would we?) It's all model reconstruction, for the entire period. Yes, things like tree ring data do figure into the models, along with thousands of other types of data which the model must be able to explain and predict.

Not that I can find upon a cursory Googling. My problem would be with those who don't accept the scientific basis. In terms of vulnerabilities, impacts, and policy, those are all debatable issues. I don't think the scientific case for vulnerabilities and impacts is nearly as strong as the case for anthropogenic radiative forcings. My mistake Let's not let this descend into genetic fallacy territory

As an avid cyclist, might I suggest: a bicycle. One of the biggest emitters of CO2 worldwide is coalfire power plants. If the CO2 emitted by them (most of which are constructed away from large urban areas) can be mitigated using, say, bioreactors, then it would have a major effect, both in terms of reducing fossil fuels used by cars and lowering atmospheric CO2 emissions.

If it survived the same degree of peer review that IPCC AR4 did, then yes. IPCC AR4 was peer reviewed by over 2500 climate scientists worldwide. Something tells me this group isn't interested in a peer reviewed scientific report. I'm guessing they want soundbytes to feed to right wing pundits. But hey, if it survives the same peer review as IPCC AR4, I'm all for it. No, actually I'm pushing peer-reviewed scientific knowledge over punditry.

The only assumption we make is that a realistic set of model inputs will produce model output which matches empirical data. The IPCC, in the Impacts and Vulnerabilities section of the TAR. The Fourth Assessment Report has only published the scientific basis, and not their vulnerability assessment. No, it wasn't:

Science is, by definition, falsifiable and therefore inherently contains uncertainty

Bizzare. The majority of teas I drink are all Asian in origin (ocha and chai). I've never had a problem with them being too strong. In fact, it wasn't until I went to Japan that I realized that all the green tea I've ever had served here was unusually weak. On the way to Japan I was served green tea on a Japan Airlines flight, and was surprised by how strong it was and how much better it tasted. I had similar experiences with green tea served to me throughout Japan, to the point that when I ordered it after getting back to the US it was disgustingly weak.