Double K

Your statistic of 0.5% is not correct. "A fundamental relationship is that between flood recurrence interval (T) and probability of occurrence (p). These two variables are inversely related to each other. That is p = 1/T and T = 1/p. For example, the probability of a 50 year storm occurring in a one year period is 1/50 or 0.02. The probability of occurrence and probability of nonoccurrence are related by the fact that something must either occur or not occur, so p + q = 1 and pN + qN = 1. From basic probability theory, qN = qN. Substituting to get an equation relating pN and p: 1 - pN = (1 - p)N. This can be rearranged to: pN = 1 - (1 - p)N." http://www.brighthub.com/engineering/civil/articles/41744.aspx This would make your calculation of 0.5% quite off when in reality it would be 0.005% which is significantly different. Also your ascertation that design storms do not use confidence intervals is not correct. http://iahs.info/hsj/340/hysj_34_01_0041.pdf Your GW model is entirely affected by random events, be they natural or human influence, but you're not willing to include random events that will alter these outcomes. Lets see if they have now factored in the giant plumes of oil entering the ocean in the mexican gulf. Black patches which will absorb more light and heat and warm large portions of the ocean, not to mention the chemical and eco damage this can do which will likely affect climate (such as destroying large sea structures, kemp beds, reefs dying etc... I bet they didnt factor in this random event. How about the volcanic ash plume blocking sunlight and cooling portions of the globe - again random events which will affect the GW model and have not been factored in. Which must somehow make them invalid? "some pretty standard denialist claims" It's anti-denialist because it's a nonspecific criticism and implies we can't trust any denialist, because denialists have been wrong before. "Denialists have been wrong before" is one of the stock anti-denialist arguments. Do you see how circular this argument is?? No, I didnt say that. You said that, is that what you think? It's not denialist to say that science must stand up to the proper testing until it can be accepted. Medicines have a track record of working, and are rigorously tested, I in fact do have access to testing done on any given medication if I so choose to search for it, I can see the double blinds etc done for any medication if I want it. Now you could take that a step further and say but you didn't actually perform the experiment yourself, so why trust it, and that's also fair. Why do we trust so blindly in science?! This is a sociological issue, not just an issue of science being right or wrong. I would definately go to say that "we can't trust any science, because science has been wrong before - until it is shown to be correct" but just leaving out this last part of the sentence certainly changes things and I wonder if this intentional omission is perhaps grasping at straws? No, this is a fallacy, the science that is taken on faith makes sense, is proven to work, and is stands up to rigoris testing. Again, also something I did not say. No, this again is a misrepresentation, or referred to as in irrelevant conclusion (Ignoratio elenchi). I don't believe denialists blindly trust someone questioning the science. They simply continually see scientists saying "Shut up imbecile, I'm a scientist, a self important and self proclaimed (or proclaimed by my social caste) expert and you shall take what I say as true because I spent a long time studying maths and such." Rather than offerring a true demonstration and backing their claims they use the authority figure stick to try and drum in their hypothesis as truth. Whether it be true or not, this method only begs the question. Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. The word beg, when used in this phrase, does not mean "asking for something", instead it means to dodge or avoid.[1] Begging the question is related to circular argument, circulus in probando (Latin for "circle in proving") or circular reasoning but they are considered absolutely different by Aristotle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question X is an unkown quantity, and a spurt is an uncontrollable drip. Uhm...I guess you just proved the Ignoratio elenchi present, and both sides of the fence are implicit in perpetuating this argument, which - I put to you yet again, detracts from the integrity of the science. "Why is vicious circular reasoning unacceptable and fatal? Genuine method proceeds from the known to the unknown. Vicious circular reasoning proceeds from the known to the equally known. Vicious circular reasoning therefore, violates genuine method. Vicious circular reasoning does not add anything new, it does not advance learning, and it does not add knowledge. Vicious circular reasoning goes nowhere, and leads nowhere -- hence, its descriptive name "circular".... ... The rest of us have to learn about them [logical fallacies] on our own in order to make and detect sound arguments. Note that the word argument applies to all reasoning regardless of form, and thus it includes hypotheses, models, arguments and studies." http://www.numeraire.com/download/WhatIsCircularReasoning.pdf

It's well acknowledged that christianity has it's roots in paganism, or at least some pagan ideals were incorporated in to make it more palatable to the masses who were transitioning from this pagan system - perhaps that corruption happened without the influence of the true teachings it may have simply been incorporated by the masses so they could understand the teachings, who knows! To re-dress the symbolism of the cross... The simplest psychological division is probably that which divides the septenary constitution of man in three parts: an uppermost duad which is immortal, an intermediate duad which is conditionally immortal, and a lower triad which is unconditionally mortal. (See Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy, 1st ed., pp. 167, 525; 2nd rev. ed., pp. 199, 601). "The hieroglyphic representation of the tat is that of a tapered pillar surmounted by four crossbars, said to represent the branches of a tree, and to be connected with the four cardinal points. It was a favorite form for amulets fashioned out of lapis lazuli and carnelian. "The top part is a regular equilateral cross. This, on its phallic basis, represented the two principles of creation, the male and the female, and related to nature and cosmos; but when the tat stood by itself, crowned with the atf (or atef), the triple crown of Horus -- two feathers with the uraeus in front -- it represented the septenary man; the cross, or the two cross-pieces, standing for the lower quaternary, and the atf for the higher " source

He forgot to add (My personal favorite) Rickrolling in his list of spamming techniques.... Seriously tho, isnt cyber crime pretty easy to trace? usually there's an isp trail and surely death threats are taken pretty seriously. I know in Australia we have a "cybercrime" police division of the federal police...

But the thyroid regulates hormone release. The pancreas is an endocrine gland, it releases hormones such as insulin Glucagon (which is effectively the opposite of insulin) and another which regulates growth hormone, I forget it's name now but it's not relevant to your question anyways. Diabetes as already explained is insulin dependant

Man himself is a trinity and a septenary, as well as a unity. Let me expand this statement. St. Paul divides man into Body, Soul and Spirit. He leaves it there, except for the statement that “there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” (1. Cor., 15, 44). Proof that one functions in a multiplicity of bodies or vehicles is not difficult to attain by personal experiment and experience. It can be reached without any very great knowledge of the three methods or stages laid down for practice by Mas ters of this most ancient of all Sciences: viz. Concentration, Meditation, Contemplation. Yet another Triad! This trinity of Mental, Desire and Physical Bodies is technically known as the Personality. We find it illustrated in the gifts brought by the Wise Men to the cave in Bethlehem (The House of Bread). Gold is the material nature to be consecrated to the service of God and Man; Frankincense is the emotional nature, desires and longings which must rise like incense to God. It is also the symbol of p urification, of that cleansing fire which removes all dress and leaves only the pure essence for the blessing of God. Myrrh, bitterness, is related to the mind, through which, as human beings we suffer. The further the Race progresses are develops mentally, the greater becomes its capacity for suffering. Only when seen in its true light and dedicated to God can suffering be used as an instrument of conscious approach to God. This three-fold Personality is, then, of vast importance. PER SONO, “I sound through”; it is a wonderfully expressive term. source

Apologies, I was multi-tasking and attempting not to link red herrings by hastily posting something only slightly assosciated

I think it's you who's misrepresenting the models here. In fact the first real GW model 1896 which admittedly looks at warming relating to humans, however 1896 whilst being the 1800's is pretty much at the turn of the century, lending you almost 100 years of implied study into the topic. 1896 Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2 Arrhenius's 1896 paper spurred Chamberlin to publish "a paper which, I am painfully aware, is very speculative..." Chamberlin's novel hypothesis was that ice ages might follow a self-oscillating cycle driven by feedbacks involving CO2. The gas was originally injected into the atmosphere in spates of volcanic activity. It was steadily withdrawn as it combined with minerals during the weathering of rocks and soil 1930s Milankovitch proposes orbital changes as the cause of ice ages 1956 Ewing and Donn offer a feedback model for quick ice age onset "but it involves such a bewildering array of assumptions that one scarcely knows where to begin." "Your initial idea was truly a great one," a colleague wrote Ewing years later, "...a beautiful idea which just didn't stand the test of time." So it seems your 1900 model doesnt suggest warming due to humans Secondly, just go back a page and read my comments again as I was still editing that when you responded and hopefully my continuation will clarify my comments and make you think I was less misrepresenting you rather than going off half cocked.

That's impressive given our first real car was invented in 1769, so we were able in just 31 years to pollute enough to have a noticeable effect, that they began studying that? With probably what, like 6 cars in production? Would have thought we'd see some more damage by now. Two generations, wow, thats what like 60 - 70 years? how old is the planet again? 12 billion something? We are an insignificant speck on the face of an ancient entity (I'm going to call it Unicorn Earth - Gaia (the deity)) There has been catastrophic events and ice ages before, and there will be again - innevitably. We had nothing to do with the previous events, and all it will take is one super volcano to pop and you're looking at instant global climate change. Unicorn Earth has more power than puny humans and their pollution. It's still blind acceptance, you've taken on faith that the science is correct. You've taken it on faith because you have not personally analysed all the data, and no one expects you to, just don't be so quick to label someone who isn't prepared to accept it just because it's scientists who say so. Sometimes they get it wrong you know, it's happened before and it will happen again. Descriptive relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts obtain and the same consequences seem likely to arise. http://www.justearth.net/publications_climatechangepaper "The warnings on global heating go back a long time, but not that long. The Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius published On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground in 1895. George P. Marsh’s classic, more general warning about environmental deterioration, but not climate change, appeared in 1864: Man and Nature, or Physical Geography as Modified by Human Agency." http://ireswb.cc.ku.edu/~crgc/NSFWorkshop/Readings/NSF_WkspReport_09.pdf "Like all social scientific approaches, political economy research acknowledges that climate change is not merely rooted in planetary physical systems, often the main focus of natural scientists, politicians, and the general public." Environmental sociologists use quantitative and qualitative methods to explore the social and cultural processes that shape attitudes, discourses, and ideological dimensions of climate change in public debates and policy processes.... ...Of particular importance here is the degree of public acceptance of natural science evidence as a guide to policy formation. Research on cultural and meaning systems assesses the attitudes, people, and organizations like the media, public relations firms, and political think tanks that shape public knowledge and opinions about global climate change, examines the social organization and rationales used by activists to promote and challenge scientific claims, and documents how these groups exert their influence to shape national agendas. Emerging work in this area asks, what are the social and psychological factors that cause individuals to internalize, react to, or deny the realities of global climate change? Strengthening research capacity to study these issues will be essential in programs designed to mitigate and adapt to climate change" "His work shows that the public have little ability to independently determine what scientific arguments and empirical evidence are sound or not. Hence the public takes clues and form their policy position based on their particular reference groups. Hence if you are an individual more aligned with environmentalism you are more likely to take your cues/positions and attitudes from environmental organizations. Likewise if you are more conservative in your political views you are more likely to take your cues from conservative individuals and organizations. Hence the position of these reference group organizations matter tremendously in shaping public attention and attitude toward these important issues. In a democracy, the ability of these groups to sow misinformation and confusion is difficult to counter. This leads to a secondary issue on the misappropriation of civil society legitimacy that I will not discuss here." (pp 44. - same article as above) I'm trying to demonstrate to you that the issue of GW is not just based on pure (mathematical) science - in fact there is science out there analysing this fact yet you disregard it as unimportant. I could link a load more from that document however I wont as the whole thing is pretty much relevant to this discussion.

A few thing that can cause this. Multiple Sclerosis Muscle misfolding Muscular distrophy Muscle tetanus MS. (multiple sclerosis) is a well known cause, where the myelin sheath surrounding the axon of a nerve cell is basically scarified. This causes misfiring of the nerve. Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease that affects the central nervous system. http://www.healthinsite.gov.au/topics/Multiple_Sclerosis "In multiple sclerosis, the body incorrectly directs antibodies and white blood cells against proteins in the myelin sheath, which surrounds nerves in the brain and spinal cord. This causes inflammation and injury to the sheath and ultimately to the nerves that it surrounds. The result may be multiple areas of scarring (sclerosis) and eventually this damage can slow or block the nerve signals that control muscle coordination, strength, sensation and vision" Muscle misfolding (which is a pretty new idea) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2140035/ "An overactive neuron can cause protein aggregation in its target cell, according to new work by Susana Garcia, Richard Morimoto (Northwestern University, Evanston, IL), and colleagues, indicating that actions of one cell may disrupt protein homeostasis in another. The authors discovered that mutations in a transcription factor found only in neurons increased aggregation of polyglutamine-containing proteins in muscle cells in C. elegans. This factor, UNC-30, boosts synthesis of GABA, which inhibits neuronal firing. Increased protein aggregation also resulted from other GABA-reducing (and thus neuronal stimulating) mutations, including one in the muscle cell's GABA receptor.GABA's normal actions are counteracted by the stimulatory neurotransmitter acetylcholine. Mutation-induced overactivity of the acetylcholine system had the same effect on polyglutamine aggregation as too little GABA activity. Small molecules also had similar effects: nicotine, which stimulates neurons, promoted aggregation, as did an insecticide called lindane, which inhibits GABA." Muscle tetanus You can also read about muscular distrophy and Myasthenia Gravis at the link below. http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Muscles.html#Tetanus "Another one is muscle twitch & tetanus response (not the disease Tetanus) The process of contracting takes some 50 msec; relaxation of the fiber takes another 50–100 msec. Because the refractory period is so much shorter than the time needed for contraction and relaxation, the fiber can be maintained in the contracted state so long as it is stimulated frequently enough (e.g., 50 stimuli per second). Such sustained contraction is called tetanus."

My bad, I for some reason read that as 0.5% on any given day. I'm human, unlike you oh lordliness iNow, I am not perfect and I humbly beg your pardon so that I may aspire to be the awesomeness that you embody. It is possible to make a mistake without "misrepresenting" as you misrepresentedly put it, I just wonder if you see the irony, as the same arguments you guys use against me you yourselves do. Regardless if it's on a day or year basis, thats still saying there is a 99.5% certainty that it wont happen on a year basis, which as swanson mentioned earlier 95% is readily accepted as virtual certainty, and this is even more certain than that. If the idea of planning for a 200 year storm event is so hard to accept then I just boggle at how you can arrive at agreeing with interpolated data that predicts years into the future, and yet can't accept a 200 year model that is based on historical evidence and would be the same storm data etc that they use to create their GW model. There seems to be as much blind acceptance as blind disagreement, it just depends on which side of the fence you want to sit.

You stated that there is a 0.5% chance of a 200 year event happening on any given day (which is statistics and really unsupportable anyways) Which I'm not sure how you arrived at anyways, because statistically wouldnt it be more like 0.5% per year, (200 years, half a percent chance per year - that would make sense but on a day basis I don't think your stats are correct.) You're saying that there is a 99.5% chance that it wont happen on any given day, in which case your 95% chance = virtual certainty argument from earlier should be applied meaning that a 200 year event is fairly reliably going to happen every 200 years.

The trinity is all to do with sun worship, if you look at the crown of radiating light that jesus is usually adorned with, it's not a crown of thorns, but a crown of rays there seems to be clear misinterpretation of Sun to Son. Constantine forced the trinity in 325AD and anyone that didn't conform to the ideal was killed, or at least driven underground. Constantine himself was Sol Invictus, the high priest of sun worship. "Egypt During the New Kingdom, the cult of the sun god Ra became increasingly important until it evolved into the uncompromising monotheism of Pharaoh Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV, 1364-1347 B.C.). According to the cult, Ra created himself from a primeval mound in the shape of a pyramid and then created all other gods. Thus, Ra was not only the sun god, he was also the universe, having created himself from himself. Ra was invoked as Aten or the Great Disc that illuminated the world of the living and the dead. The effect of these doctrines can be seen in the sun worship of Pharaoh Akhenaten, who became an uncompromising monotheist. (worshiping Aten - the "one god") Aldred has speculated that monotheism was Akhenaten's own idea, the result of regarding Aten as a self-created heavenly king whose son, the pharaoh, was also unique. Akhenaten made Aten the supreme state god, symbolized as a rayed disk with each sunbeam ending in a ministering hand. Other gods were abolished, their images smashed, their names excised, their temples abandoned, and their revenues impounded. The plural word for god was suppressed. " http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/egypt/a/locegyptmonothe.htm

But I thought 95% certainty meant it was reliable?

Isn't the US and it's military arm responsible for most of these drugs anyways? (creation and distribution?) Air America etc...

I thought this had already been achieved though?! Forgive me if I'm wrong my knowledge on this one is pretty limited, but there has been a few experiments involving "data teleportation" I hope this is along the right track? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3576594.stm http://www.physorg.com/news79265847.html The concept of quantum teleportation - the disembodied complete transfer of the state of a quantum system to any other place - was first experimentally realised between two different light beams. Later it became also possible to transfer the properties of a stored ion to another object of the same kind. A team of scientist headed by Prof. Ignacio Cirac at MPQ and by Prof. Eugene Polzik at Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen has now shown that the quantum states of a light pulse can also be transferred to a macroscopic object, an ensemble of 10 to the power of 12 atoms (Nature, 4 October 2006). This is the first case of successful teleportation between objects of a different nature - the ones representing a "flying" medium (light), the other a "stationary" medium (atoms). The result presented here is of interest not only for fundamental research, but also primarily for practical application in realising quantum computers or transmitting coded data (quantum cryptography).

The two seperate images is actually what gives us depth perception...very useful tool for predators when hunting "depth perception, the ability to judge depth or the relative distance of objects in space and to orient one's position in relation to them. Binocular vision is essential to this ability. Also called stereopsis" http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Visual+depth+perception

Insulin is injected for T1 diabetes patients, although having said that I'm not sure if it's just injected into the stomach/fat and then absorbed I'd have to check that one.. (Update) - yes it is injected into fat tissue and absorbed that way not straight into the blood stream. I don't see much need to have an insulin inhibitor, other than being pretty dangerous, it's also just laziness. Simply put energy out > energy in = weight loss (in most cases excluding thyroid problems) Eating things like watermelon, celery contribute to weight loss because it actually costs you more energy to digest it than you gain from eating it. I think actually something like an anabolic steroid would be a better choice than an insulin inhibitor, what you want to do is encourage anabolism so that fat stores are being used up and promoting lean muscle mass...but this too has a huge down side and I dont recommend this one either

There does seem to be conflicting evidence surrounding this: http://www.medicinenet.com/caffeine/page3.htm "Some research has shown that caffeine intake can also affect our fluid balance. In one study, 12 caffeine consumers were told to abstain from caffeine for five days and were then given 642 mg of caffeine in the form of coffee. Their urine output increased when given the caffeine. Another study done on eight men tested the effect of 45, 90, 180, or 360 mg of caffeine on urine volume. An increase in urine volume was seen only at the 360-mg dose of caffeine. One limitation to these studies is that they did not evaluate the impact of caffeine when consumed on a regular basis. A onetime dose may affect the body differently than daily consumption." http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/559762_2 "Caffeine (in coffee, tea, and soft drinks) and theophylline in tea stimulate increased renal glomerular filtration and inhibit reabsorption of sodium (Na+) within nephrons, thereby stimulating an increased Na+ and water excretion." (This is actually not a true diuretic, but theoretically should stimulate greater urination rates) There are about 5 or 6 experiments listed in the article above in relation to caffeine acting as a "diuretic" and the article concludes that: "The reader also should note that the hydration state, and the amount of fluid consumed during the previous 12 h, of test subjects was generally not controlled in these studies. This suggests that the negative values in Figure 1 (i.e., representing a net fluid loss) result from overhydration before experiments began, because even placebo trials resulted in a net fluid loss." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19774754 RESULTS: The available literature suggests that acute ingestion of caffeine in large doses (at least 250-300 mg, equivalent to the amount found in 2-3 cups of coffee or 5-8 cups of tea) results in a short-term stimulation of urine output in individuals who have been deprived of caffeine for a period of days or weeks. A profound tolerance to the diuretic and other effects of caffeine develops, however, and the actions are much diminished in individuals who regularly consume tea or coffee. Doses of caffeine equivalent to the amount normally found in standard servings of tea, coffee and carbonated soft drinks appear to have no diuretic action. CONCLUSION: The most ecologically valid of the published studies offers no support for the suggestion that consumption of caffeine-containing beverages as part of a normal lifestyle leads to fluid loss in excess of the volume ingested or is associated with poor hydration status. Therefore, there would appear to be no clear basis for refraining from caffeine containing drinks in situations where fluid balance might be compromised. I stand corrected - although I can tell you I had a big bucket o' coffee this morning, and I need to pee! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedJust to address the point regarding the amount of caffeine to kill you: http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/caffeine/caffeine_health.shtml "Caffeine doses of 200 mg or higher can cause unpleasant symptoms including nausea, headache, and irregular heartbeat, while dose of 750 - 1000 mg can cause severe toxic symptoms. Severe caffeine intoxication can result in nausea, vomiting, anxiety, tremor, seizures, tachycardia, dysrhythmias, hypotension, hypokalemia, and metabolic acidosis. Several fatalities resulting from caffeine overdose have been documented, but they are extremely rare relative to its widespread use. In the case of a massive caffeine overdose, vomiting often protects against fatal poisoning, but some deaths have still resulted. Fatal dose range in humans is believed to be between 3 - 20 grams, approximately the amount of caffeine found in 20 - 130 cups of drip coffee or 15-100 common caffeine tablets (200 mg each). Blood caffeine levels greater than 80 ug/mL have been associated with death, but data is limited. It is difficult to ingest such high levels of caffeine accidentally, and many of the documented fatalities appear to be suicide attempts involving the ingestion of a large number of caffeine pills. In one extreme case a 41-year-old woman was successfully resuscitated after ingesting 50 g of caffeine (see Holstege et al., 2003 below)." Fatalites Alstott RL, Miller AJ, Forney RB. Report of a human fatality due to caffeine. J Forensic Sci. 1973;18(2):135-7. [ Abstract ] An individual (age unknown) died after consuming between 6.5 and 12 g caffeine. Garriott JC, Simmons LM, Poklis A, Mackell MA. Five cases of fatal overdose from caffeine-containing 'look-alike' drugs. J Anal Toxicol, 1985; 9(3):141-3. [ Abstract ] Mixed ephedrine and caffeine fatalities, showed blood levels of 130-344 mg/L caffeine and three also had 3.5-20.5 mg/L of ephedrine. Holmgren P, Norden-Pettersson L, Ahlner J. Caffeine fatalities--four case reports. Forensic Sci Int, 2004; 139(1):71-3 [ Abstract ] Four cases reported: 54 yr old male died after taking 100 x 100mg caffeine tablets resulting in 173mg/L in femoral blood. 21 yr old male died after ingesting 200 x 100mg caffeine tablets resulting in 210mg/L in femoral blood. 31 yr old male died after ingesting 100 x 100mg tablets resulting in 153 mg/L in blood sample. 47 yr old female died after ingesting 100 tablets containing both caffeine and ephedrine resulting in 200 mg/L of caffeine and 4.8 mg/L of ephedrine. Kerrigan S, Lindsey T. Fatal caffeine overdose: two case reports. Forensic Sci Int, 2005; 153(1):67-9 [ Abstract ] 39 yr old female found dead with 192/mgL caffeine in femoral blood. 29 yr old male had taken 'a bottle of caffeine pills the day before' died while in hospital and had 567 mg / L caffeine in femoral blood.

I agree with most of your points here. I also think that a certain level of "paranoia" is not a bad thing, and is actually a natural state (just watch how jumpy a cat is!) And it also means that some things masquerading as science are put through the proper testing and questioning. It's more to do with survival and being cautious than anything else. I think the problem with alot of scientific debate is that some science is good and the general public have a certain level of knowledge, but as soon as you start presenting something like a climate change model, or quantum theory, or string theory people (in general) just look at it and go whaaaaaaaaaat?! I will try to illustrate this point using a real world example. If I presented someone in the general public with some construction documents, they would be completely baffled by it, and yet I could show an engineer and in several minutes he could point out design flaws, areas where I may find trouble or areas that need unusual details to be produced for construction. This plays out with scientific debate, and scientists are baffled by people making wild claims that are simply unsupported (but only if you have the knowledge of the particular thing being presented) The person making the claim feels completely justified and feels hurt when told they are stupid, the debate then escalates into argument as the name calling ensues, and all debate on the topic is now lost or clouded by the argument. The problem is ego (on both sides) when it comes to these debates. If there was some way to present the highly technical document without being condescending, to the general public so that they could understand the item enough without needing the technical expertise to comprehend it, I think this may be the key. The example of your phone vs climate change illustrates this well - people can understand the phone, its already existing technology in use, the upgrades are really just expanding on an already understood or accepted item, and - they are not all that expensive in the grand scheme of things. Where-as climate change is a new topic (relatively speaking) and people can not see an immediate benefit, in fact they see an immediate disdvantage to their pay through new taxes and more expensive living costs. It's pretty hard to sell something with no intrinsic value, and a benefit that can't truly be gauged. Not only that but someone, somewhere is making money out of it and it sure isnt me! I don't know the answers, but rest assured those who release the media on it, and those who release media opposing it are well versed in the psychology of herd mentality and they exploit this to achieve their ends. For anyone with a slight understanding in the psychology behind those points, you immediately begin to question the motive (which is unrelated to the science) and yet that gets interpreted as the science being bad. Science is the messenger, but people can often be very quick to shoot the messenger rather than go after the source.

I would now like to revise that statement to include the band also.. they enrage me...

Caffeine is a diuretic, which means it causes you to urinate more frequently. When you urinate you pass minerals that would normally remain in your system a bit longer allowing more absorption. Minerals that can become depleted very easily include calcium, magnesium, sodium, phosphate and potassium. There is speculation that caffeine inhibits iron and some A and B group vitamin absorption, although I can't say I've ever seen a study with results presented, which doesnt go to say that one doesn't exist, just that I've never seen it. PS. you can also kill yourself with caffeine...more than 10 cups a day is becoming dangerous (depending on the individual)

I've deliberately not quoted anyone else in this post as it does seem to escalate arguments. Firstly can I just ask, why does it have to be an argument? Can't it just be a discussion? Argument implies that someone is already right, and someone wrong, and that it needs to be aggressive. Discussion just seems a little more civilised. In my profession, we plan for 100, 150 and 200 year storms or storm events (flooding, quake, etc). It's factored into design and our designs must meet "predicitons" (based on past records) of these rare events. It's prudent planning to account for the possibility of these events. I agree that if this is all climate change science is trying to achieve then it would seem imprudent to ignore them, IF the science is sound. (I'm not saying it isn't!) I'm also not saying it is! Q100, Q150 and Q200 storm events are based on past data, it is not interpolated data, the main problem I have with a model predicting future scales is that it is interpolated from past trends, and as was well pointed out there are simply too many unknowns that could skew this trend one way or another. I can also tell you that there has not been a Q200 storm event for over 200 years (at least in my region), which means there is a strong likelyhood of larger storm events happening which times quite nicely with the release of Al Gores agenda to push this ahead - because he knows that he can demonstrate increased storm activity in this time, it may well be that these storm events fall under the scale expected of Q200 scales yet no one from this time is alive to say oh yeah that happened in 1820, actually I remember it being worse. Some of these Q200 scale events began occuring in the early to mid 90's and you can expect them to continue over at least the next decade. This of course does not disprove the GW model, or the risk presented in the GW model, but it does raise the question if these recent events are simply part of a "natural" cycle, or if we are seeing true escalation in frequency and scale of said events.

I misrepresented your quote about strawmen as 1. it was an obvious verbal attack, as was your prior comment where you had not contributed to the entire discussion yet waded in with some slander. 2. you then proceeded to misrepresent my statements, and label my argument as a strawman argument without grasping my intent, or quite possibly grasping it but taking a pot shot regardless. 3. I took your statement out of context to prove the point to you, and it obviously worked. Welcome to my world.

I'm answering your question, what exactly is your problem?

*yawn* It is my understanding that some portion of this vaccine was untested. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/28/2884576.htm The Federal Government has been accused of making flawed decisions because of its overly "cosy" relationship with flu vaccine manufacturer CSL. Health officials are investigating the death of a two-year-old Brisbane girl and more than 250 reports of adverse reactions among children who have received the seasonal flu vaccine, and Australia's chief medical officer has issued a warning to doctors to stop using the CSL shots on the under-fives. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/mr-yr10-dept-dept300410.htm http://www.healthemergency.gov.au/internet/healthemergency/publishing.nsf/content/health-swine_influenza-index.htm Health Authorities continue to put seasonal flu vaccine on hold for young children http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-28/csl-vaccine-probe-widens-in-australia-after-seizures-update2-.html