bascule

So you're okay with atmospheric science being classified as a biological science? Most of the threads in "Ecology and the Environment" are about global warming. If we're classifying the containing topic by what we expect most of the threads to be, then why doesn't climatology/atmospheric science deserve its own forum which isn't under biology? Geology is most certainly not a biological science.

I see, the "go fish" approach to defending your assertions. Would you care to cite the appropriate passage from this paper which substantiates your assertion: The paper does contain the phrase "global cooling has occurred since 1998" in the abstract but I am not seeing what data is used to support that statement. Specifically I'm looking for a calculation of the trend line between your cherry-picked El Nino endpoint and the present. I'm not seeing it in this paper. Sorry. -- As a counterpoint: http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_805_en.html NASA GISS cites 2005 as the warmest year on record, edging out 1998

I think the larger issue here is that while Goldman Sachs has repaid the bailout money they received directly, they also received additional money by way of the AIG bailout/buyout which they don't have to pay and is adding directly to their profits.

I would really like to see charges brought against Goldman Sachs. It's my belief they have a history of creating unstable markets and cashing in on them when they collapse. It seems like this might actually happen soon, at least from what I gather in this Bloomberg article: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aFeyqdzYcizc I also think the government buyout of AIG had an awful lot to do with preventing the demise of Goldman Sachs after Bear Stearns failed. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI've since discovered that Paulson was at one point CEO of Goldman Sachs... ugh.

Many different independent sources, including data NASA collects themselves with remote sensing.

Ok! Well here's a thread to discuss this aspect of the story: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/11/cheney.surveillance/index.html?eref=rss_topstories Congress was never briefed on a still-cloaked-in-mystery CIA counterterrorism program, under orders from Dick Cheney. Is this right? Should at least one member of Congress know about these sorts of programs? I think so. How about you?

I don't want to "highlight the 'Global Warming' concept". I just think climatology/climate science is a substantial part of the discussion in this forum and thus deserves its own home.

My main beef with Pelosi is she had knowledge of waterboarding but failed to recognize what it represented at the time. Of course this in no way excuses the Bush administration for being the perpetrators of torture, for which I wish they were still held accountable but so far Congress has been likewise incompetent to prosecute. I'll be happy when Bush and Cheney are jailed.

Oh really? I think you're wrong. Can you find a source that backs this up? Despite cherry picking endpoints, I still say you're wrong. I want evidence. I want calculations. See, this is what a real skeptic does. They don't take blind shots in the dark as you're doing. They look at an assertion and demand evidence. I demand evidence. Please present me evidence. And to reiterate: you are not a skeptic. You are a propagator of disinformation, which is about as far from a skeptic as you can get. I am a skeptic. I am looking at assertions others are making and asking for supporting evidence. This is what skepticism is about. But please, defend your assertion and show I am wrong in questioning it! Present evidence to defend it. I am waiting.

I think it'd be fine with it is if the people being notified (e.g. Pelosi) were more competent.

Golden boy with feet of clay! If people are this quick to turn on Obama I really doubt they understood his platform in the first place. Also: he's been in office about half a year now... he still has a lot of time to address these problems. Obama is doing a lot of things I'm unhappy with but I'm certainly not out there projecting my own political views onto Obama and then getting angry when he doesn't live up to them. I'm mostly unhappy with various campaign promises Obama made which he is yet to honor. Some he has done the outright opposite. But that's politics for you. Overall I still think he's doing a good job and support him.

Your argument seems to be littered with hypotheticals. For what it's worth this issue doesn't bug me. Certainly not the way things like preventative detention and domestic spying do. I still think overall Obama is doing a good job but he is certainly not without his foibles. Obama is not immune to moonbat rage

When making claims like "vast spending on health care" I think it's important to consider how much health care spending in the US will be a decade down the road unless we do something to fix Medicare:

I'm really confused: Why? I'm really not sure what you're getting at here. Whose civil liberties are being violated and how? Also, this would seem to be the larger issue at play:

Note that nothing presented on either of those sites will help you target an architecture like CUDA.

Well, that's where the final statistic comes into play: "And virtually all of the scientists who say these claims are true – 71% of scientists overall – believe that these practices occurred more often during the Bush administration than during previous administrations."

This was a rather interesting: http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549 According to a Pew Research Report: I agree with the majority of scientists. Do you?

Okay, my mistake. This is still wrong, and to reiterate, it's a claim so audacious even the rather misinformed WSJ author in the OP didn't even make it. That author merely said it "flatlined", which is still wrong.

And you're wrong. This is disinformation. It's disinformation that even the incredibly misinformed author of the WSJ didn't even have the audacity to state. At least she claimed warming has "flat lined", and only for the most recent decade. That's wrong, but even she didn't claim there was cooling, let alone a 30 year period of cooling. You're actively disseminating disinformation. That doesn't make you a skeptic. It makes you a liar.

Well: 1) It's under Biology. As much as I love biology atmospheric science is an earth science, not a biological science 2) If you do a search for global warming you'll find that many of the threads don't end up in Ecology and the Environment. As I said earlier they end up in Other Sciences or General Discussion

Okay please look at this graph, starting at 2001, and if you think it's level, you are an idiot: My evidence against the claim is present in the graph. Yes, the trend line for the past 10 years, much less the past 30 years is positive. You pretend this graph is a lie? A graph based on two independently measured date sets which correlate. If you are honestly arguing that this graph does not reflect an increasing surface temperature, I am sorry, you are hopeless, you are a nincompoop who is distorting emperically measured reality, and in such case you are not even worth listening to, you are a climate change denialist who discards emperical evidence for politically convenient assumptions. Actually: Read harder, Homer. You seem to suck at maths, so I will reiterate: *sigh* To reiterate: Yes please, embellish El Nino but pretend La Nina doesn't exist. It only bolsters the argument of the ignorant, such as yourself. I mean seriously, I'm trying to explain things to you, but you sit here and ignore me and regurgitate the arguments of the uninformed. I can only reprimand you for being a ignoramus, much akin to Rush Limbaugh. Shame on you. Try to actually study the facts, not partisan talking points. Oh poor, poor redheaded stepchild. You have much to learn. Fortunately there is a very, very patient bascule to teach you.

So, one of the hot button topics on these forums is global warming. I'd say it's definitely in the top 10 most discussed topics. I mean seriously, there are 85 threads with "global warming" in the title: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/search.php?searchid=843042 But where to discuss global warming? It seems to be spread out between General Discussion, Other Sciences, and Biology (Ecology and the Environment). How about a separate subforum for Earth Sciences? This would include things like Geology, Geophysics, Oceanography, and the Atmospheric Sciences/Climatology. Then finally these global warming discussions could have a real home!

Let me just go ahead and say this sounds, umm, excessively ambitious. Also: why exclusively solar as opposed to wind, nuclear, or a combination thereof?

Conscious entities create their own goals

Watch out, the water you drink may contain poisonous heavy metals in trace amounts too! Does that mean you should stop drinking water? Hell no. The material doesn't matter... it's the quantity you ingest. These "ingredients" are not present in sufficient concentrations to cause harm.