SkepticLance

Alan The wording of your question sounds almost religious. Not an accusation. I am probably misinterpreting it. Lots of people treat the 'balance of nature' as if it were some mystical truth established by the Goddess Gaea or something. There is, of course, nothing mystical or religious about it. It is simply the equilibrium that forms when a whole bunch of influences interact. The final result is just like a maths sum. A+B-C/D = ??? The various organisms each have their own impact, and the final result is called the balance. Bearing this in mind, you need to realise that nothing has to have a 'role' or a positive impact. All the components of the balance of nature are simply organisms. Some have an impact that can be called useful, and some harmful. Add another organism, and the balance shifts. Remove an organism and the balance shifts in a different direction. So do viruses have a role? Depends on how you look at it. Because they are such efficient little killers they work to reduce the population size of some organisms, preventing them dominating, and allowing others to survive - thus increasing biodiversity. In fact, they become much more effective at their trade of slaughter if their target grows in population size. In the ocean, each cubic centimetre of sea water contains 100,000,000 virus particles, which gives an indication of how important they are. Their impact on ecologies, for good or ill, is massive. From my own selfish viewpoint, I wish I could point a magic wand at them and wipe them out. Coming down with virus illnesses is such a pain.

Pangloss said, about the war in Afghanistan "I believe our response was warranted, we enjoyed international cooperation and support, and our effort there is noble and above-board." In fact, I did not say it was unwarranted. I said it was a mistake. The full truth of my statement will become increasingly clear over time. The reason it was a mistake had nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with results. Afghanistan is a lousy country to invade under any circumstances. The mountainous nature makes it perfect for guerilla resistance. And the tribal nature of the inhabitants means uniting them under a central government is pretty much impossible. You can have a properly elected government, and the outlier tribes will still attack you. Victory is almost impossible, but the cost of the futile effort to obtain victory can be immense. The British and the Russians left ignominiously and so will the current US/Canadian/other allied groups.

Rev The historical data shows more and more intense storms in the LIA. http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html I quote : "Western Europe experienced a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850 that brought dire consequences to its peoples. The colder weather impacted agriculture, health, economics, social strife, emigration, and even art and literature. Increased glaciation and storms also had a devastating affect on those that lived near glaciers and the sea." And also "During the LIA, there was a high frequency of storms. As the cooler air began to move southward, the polar jet stream strengthened and followed, which directed a higher number of storms into the region. At least four sea floods of the Dutch and German coasts in the thirteenth century were reported to have caused the loss of around 100,000 lives. Sea level was likely increased by the long-term ice melt during the MWP which compounded the flooding. Storms that caused greater than 100,000 deaths were also reported in 1421, 1446, and 1570. Additionally, large hailstorms that wiped out farmland and killed great numbers of livestock occurred over much of Europe due to the very cold air aloft during the warmer months. Due to severe erosion of coastline and high winds, great sand storms developed which destroyed farmlands and reshaped coastal land regions. " I don't know where you live, but if it is a temperate zone, you experience storms caused by temperature differentials. Warm summer weather can be one side of it, and the colder areas further north are the other. It is the difference in temperature that drives the air movement. That is why my earlier reference pointed out that storms in the North Atlantic were worse when Greenland was colder. If you do not understand the fact that hurricanes and this kind of storm are not the same, may I suggest you go back to your meteorology texts.

To CDarwin Chimps do not hang onto tools for long, and the moment they need to get moving at any speed, they drop those tools and do not look back. And if you think there is no significant difference between a mediocre tool and a great tool, then you are not a tool user! Our early ancestors did not make tools. They picked up what was lying around. Now and again, they would pick up a beautifully shaped piece of flint, or a wonderfully pointed length of hardwood. The difference in utility compared to your average stick and stone is utterly worlds apart. Tool use would have to precede any movement onto the savannah. If you look at the physical bodies of the early hominids, you will see that their natural defenses were negligible. A lion or similar predator would regard a troop of Australopithecus as merely smorgasbord. For those early ancestors to survive on the plains, they would need both social clustering and weapons. A lion or hyena would hesitate to attack 200 apes armed with long pointed sticks as spears. Especially after a few hundred thousands years evolving as tool and weapon users!

To Pangloss The argument is actually about the best way to approach a particular situation. Military intervention versus humanitarian aid. The invasion of Afghanistan was a mistake. It was understandable bearing in mind the lust for revenge after 9/11, but still a mistake. There was plenty of historical precedent to sound the warning in advance. Britain tried to invade and got its tail whipped. The Soviets tried to invade and got their tail whipped. Then the USA invaded. The USA was smart enough to work with a local faction. However, the lasting victory that was promised has not happened, and the fighting is, if anything, getting worse while the Taliban get stronger. I suspect that the USA is going to get its tail whipped also. In ten years, Afghanistan will be worse off than ever, and the USA will have abandoned them. The invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Before the invasion, there was a nasty bastard who ran the country as his own personal fiefdom and killed people. Some hundreds of thousands died over several decades at his orders. However, he was no threat to the USA or the west as a whole. Women were educated and freer than in most Muslim nations. And Al Qaeda did not get a look in. Today, we have seen over a million die within 5 years as a result of the invasion. We have seen women lose their previous liberty as religious fanatics become more potent. We have seen Iraq become a massive recruiting ground for Al Qaeda. We have seen a massive cost to the USA. There is now a book about this invasion called "the Three Trillion Dollar War". The USA cannot afford that level of cost! Please tell me what benefit, to anyone, these military adventures have gained?

Mr Skeptic said "Did you change you mind that global warming is not proven to lead to an increase in hurricanes, or not?" If you and iNow actually bothered to read what I wrote, you would know that no change of mind is required. I have said, throughout, that the theory would indicate an increase in hurricanes, but that the empirical data so far shows no statistically significant change to provide strong evidence that is the case in reality. There is a difference between evidence strong enough to be as close to 'proof' as we get in science, and something suggested by theory. I accept the theory. Currently the 'proof' is lacking. That does not bother me, because we are gathering data all the time, and if the theory turns out to be correct, then the 'proof' will come later. However, this whole argument started after a statement of mine about temperate to Arctic storms which are very different to hurricanes. iNow implied that I was telling an untruth, and I have tried to demonstrate that was not so. Hurricanes have nothing to do with that, and I am really quite annoyed that iNow should try to use hurricane data to disprove what I have been saying about a totally different type of storm. iNow said : "Precisely which of the citations that I shared in support of my arguments do you suggest are not accurate?" This is a good example of the irrelevence that iNow tries to bring to obfuscate the issue. He suggests I claimed his references were not accurate. I did not. I simply said that they were not pertinent to the issue being argued. Please, please read what I have posted before you come up with stupid rebuttals.

My personal theory is that bipedalism followed the retention of tools and weapons. Our ape ancestors made use of tools. Nothing too surprising there, since chimps do that in the wild today. However, what made our ancestors different is that they got into the habit of holding onto and retaining superior tools. There is a clear adaptive advantage to NOT throwing away a tool or weapon that is particularly good. Of course, the only way to hold onto a superior tool, in the days before clothing or the making of containers, is to use a hand to do it. Possibly two hands if there are two tools. Bipedal locomotion suddenly becomes highly advantageous. Note that I am talking about a time well before the MAKING of stone tools. These would be sticks and stones that were naturally good tools.

iNow Do you now accept that the type of storms I am referring to - that is; those that normally occur in temperate to Arctic regions - are likely to be more frequent and more severe when temperatures are lower - such as during the Little Ice Age?? If you are prepared to say yes to that, I am willing to concede that tropical hurricanes are likely to be more frequent/severe as a result of global warming. It remains unproven, but the theory is probably sound. As to the relevence - that relates to the tendency for those who push the stronger version of global warming ideas to ascribe every severe weather disaster to global warming. Proper science and a little intelligent reasoning should tell us all that sometimes weather is just weather.

To Rev I am surprised and delighted by the good sense you are putting forward in your posts. I could not agree with you more. Proper treatment of all these nations would have resulted in friends, not enemies. Incidentally, the poppy crop was offered to the US government some time ago - I think over a decade back. It could have been bought for the money paid to farmers, which is peanuts, and either turned into medicine or destroyed. Another opportunity lost.

To swansont This latest discussion was not about hurricanes. It began way back in post 147 when I said : "During the Little Ice Age, a series of massive Atlantic storms struck the sea coast of Britain causing enormous damage and loss of life. Entire fleets of ships and fishing boats were destroyed. As maritime disasters go, these were the worst in recorded history. Apart from hurricanes, nasty and damaging storms are more common in times of global cooling. And any increase in hurricanes is currently unproven." iNow replied to that over several posts essenitally telling me I was wrong, and coming close to calling me a liar. I have been trying to demonstrate that I am not a liar and that my statement was true as posted. I do not believe that iNow was innocently mixing up the two kinds of storm. I think he was continuing his attempt to prove me wrong, and deliberately using inappropriate data to do that in an illicit way. If that were not the case, then that indicates stupidity, and I do not believe he is stupid.

To swansont Here is a quote from my post of number 167, telling you my position on hurricanes. "There are two categories of storm. 1. Tropical hurricanes. Since these are, to a large extent, driven by warm ocean water, then in theory global warming will increase the frequency or intensity of hurricanes. The problem is that, though there was such an increase in 2005, overall there is no statistically significant increase to date. That does not prove yea or nay. But to say that hurricanes have increased as a result of global warming is to ignore the proper scientific data. We simply do not know." However, I have been telling iNow about the second kind of storm and he keeps telling me I am wrong while referring to material about hurricanes. I have been specific, and I have been utterly meticulous about ensuring that my discussion was about temperate to Arctic storms, not hurricanes, but iNow still keeps telling me I am wrong, using hurricane data. I would ask iNow, please, to actually read my posts before attacking them using utterly inappropriate data. Now, about hurricanes. These storms follow long term patterns that go up and down in both frequency and intensity. There was a recent trend that peaked in 2005. Some climate scientists claim that is evidence that global warming increases hurricane intensity and/or frequency. Other climate scientists point out that the trend, over a background of 100 years plus, is not statistically significant. I regard it as unproven empirically. In theory, global warming will increase hurricanes. Whether this is true in reality will, no doubt, be proven or otherwise over the years to come. That is my position on hurricanes. However, iNow confuses hurricanes with the other storm variety. Why? When I have been so careful to be specific?

On this topic Rev has excellent ideas. There is a very simple principle. If you do not want someone to hit you, do not hit him first. If you want to be friends with someone, and be in a position to influence him/her, then approach that person with friendship, and be good to him/her. The exact same applies to nations. If you want another country to be your friend and ally, and listen to you, and be influenced by you, then you have to approach that nation with friendship, and help them. The US administration is too strongly influenced by the military, who like buying and exploding bombs. So many times, the US had the opportunity to go to another country and say : "Can we help?". Instead, they went in boots and all, and started killing people. It is not terribly surprising that the US is hated world wide.

iNow I am resisting the temptation to indulge in a little ad hom of my own. However, I will not call you an idiot. Here are my lines, punishing myself for my own negative thoughts. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. Deep sigh. Trying to be a good contributor and refrain from ad hom attacks through writing lines on the blackboard is so tiring! Anyway, back to the patient explanation. iNow. I have said how many times???? that there are two kinds of storm. 1. Tropical hurricanes. 2. Temperate to Arctic storms. All my recent posts have been talking about the latter. So what do you do in argument????? You post a whole bunch of references about those damn hurricanes!!! iNow. Please read this carefully. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT HURRICANES. Do you now understand?????

iNow previously said "quit waving hands / putting up smoke screens / obfuscating already. This is the same damned thing you've done in every other climate thread, and it's representative of either your academic dishonesty or your personal ignorance" And in his latest post, iNow said "You accused me of ad hom, however, I was not attacking you personally" I am sorry, iNow. But if you tell someone he is either academically dishonest or personally ignorant, that is an insult, and thus an ad hom attack. As I have asked before, please stop it. This should be an amicable discussion. In a less insulting vein, iNow just said : "you're now arguing that cooling is what is causing the increasing intensity of storms in the present? " I must admit to feeling very frustrated. Maybe my own ability to explain is at fault? How is it that someone (iNow) can misunderstand so much? I have seen no evidence that storms, apart from the 2005 hurricanes, are increasing in intensity, and I have certainly not made that claim. As I said earlier, there are two kinds of storms. The tropical hurricanes, and the temperate to Arctic storms, which is what I was talking about in my last post. Restricting my discussion to the second type of storm - that in temperate to Arctic climes - we have a relationship which my last reference makes clear. When southern Greenland is cold, we get worse North Atlantic storms. This is a result of the temperature differentials I mentioned before. This situation is greater when world climate is colder. Thus more and worse storms during the Little Ice Age. Are the storms of this type less intense or less common today? That would be a logical deduction. However, I am not making that claim just now, since I do not have the empirical data. iNow, do you not understand how high temperature differentials increase wind speed, and therefore storms?? I can explain it again.

iNow Time to quit those ad hom attacks. They do not make you look good. Here is an interesting reference. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6M-4CRY726-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=bc9d4265760edfe3ff666fc46dff9a11 I quote : "Considered over the last ca. 2000 years, it would appear that winter storminess and climate-driven coastal erosion was at a minimum during the Medieval Warm Period. By contrast, the time interval from ca. AD 1420 until present has been associated with sustained winter storminess across the North Atlantic that has resulted in accelerated coastal erosion and sand drift." In other words, contrary to your assertions, storms were worse during the colder climatic period, and less during the warmer period - which is exactly what I have been telling you. The reverse may be true for hurricanes, but that still has not been proved, in spite of 2005 being a bad year.

iNow said "since we KNOW these "harmful weather" events are occurring, what precisely do you propose is causing them if not climate change?" As I have said before, harmful weather events have always happened. You do not need AGW to explain them. I could ask you about the periodic severe cold snaps that cross the USA. They have always happened, of course. And in spite of global warming, they still happen. Clearly nothing to do with AGW. And neither, as far as we know based on empirical data, have other harmful weather events.

I cannot give definitive explanations of how this data was calculated, since it was just a part of an article on electrical generation. I too have seen similar data before. I do not believe that it includes environmental costs, except for the 10 cents for coal burning with carbon collection. I know that the major costs for nuclear are in the capital cost of building and the cost of decommissioning. I seriously doubt that such a reputable organisation as the EPRI would quote 7.5 cents unless it included those major costs. Obviously the costs are overall averages, and will vary from site to site - probably substantially. The article mentioned that coal burning power stations in parts of the east of the USA, well away from coal fields, cost more than nuclear, due to the cost of transporting coal.

To iNow Re storms and global warming. There are two categories of storm. 1. Tropical hurricanes. Since these are, to a large extent, driven by warm ocean water, then in theory global warming will increase the frequency or intensity of hurricanes. The problem is that, though there was such an increase in 2005, overall there is no statistically significant increase to date. That does not prove yea or nay. But to say that hurricanes have increased as a result of global warming is to ignore the proper scientific data. We simply do not know. 2. Temperate to Arctic storms. The theory in this case is reversed. Since such storms are driven by temperature differentials, and since global warming actually reduces such differentials, then - purely in theory - global warming should reduce the frequency/intensity of such storms. Again, there is too little empirical data to confirm or dispute the theory. Pretty much the same thing can be said about floods and droughts. You can always find somewhere that has more floods or more droughts than the previous decade or three. And so, if you are cherry picking data, you can argue that one or the other or both are increasing. The total data does not justify this conclusion, unless you treat global warming dogma as some kind of pseudo-religion. Let's face it. Your belief in harmful weather changes from global warming stems from the dubious conclusions of a few computer modellers. And until these are confirmed empirically, they are just so much political hot air.

To CDarwin Re machetes. I read the same thing. I think it is true. You only have to think of the Hutu's in Rwanda killing a million Tutsi's and their friends. That was done mostly with machetes. To Rev. Your post was quite strident. How excellent! I agree with you.

There has been, at various times, a lot of discussion about various methods of generating electricity. In various arguments, cost is discussed. I have just read in my local paper (NZ Herald) an article on this, and they quote the US Electric Power Research Institute on the following costs. These are all in US cents per kilowatt hour. Coal 6 cents. But this rises to 10 cents if carbon capture is required. Wind 10 cents Nuclear 7.5 cents Solar panel 25 cents. Obviously, there will be a lot of variability. For example : coal rises in cost if the generating plant is a long way from coal beds, requiring transport. It is also true that these relative costs will alter with changing technology in the future, and things are changing quickly. This article did not mention natural gas or hydroelectric, but I managed to get data from other sites. Natural Gas 6 cents Hydroelectric 5.6 cents. Assumes it is a large facility with a lot of water resource. If we assume that the power generation must be as close to carbon neutral as possible, then this leaves us with ... 1. Hydroelectric at 5.6 cents - but only possible if the resource exists. 2. Nuclear at 7.5 cents. 3. Wind at 10 cents. 4. Solar, trailing well behind at 25 cents. Any comments???

To swansont. I am happy to accept your apology. I have to admit I am somewhat baffled. I do not know what I am supposed to have done????

Rev If you are happy to accept that storms and bad weather in general is a normal part of the Earth's variability, and there is no clear evidence of current storms being caused by AGW, then we have no argument here.

To Rev. There is clear evidence that the Little Ice Age was a reality here in New Zealand. The terminal morraine for the Franz Josef Glacier was dated at 1750 AD, and it has been in retreat every since. For those who do not know, the year 1750 was towards the end of the Little Ice Age. The LIA was definitely a reality in much of the northern hemisphere, including Greenland, Britain and North America. Those who claim it was a local phenomenon are right. It was local all over the world. I chose the LIA as an example of how weather based disasters are NOT dependent on AGW. In that I am totally correct. Indeed, colder conditions are conducive to more storms in temperate to Arctic regions. Even today, the worst storms on the globe are in Antarctica, though Siberia gives it a run for its money. Rev, if you want to argue that only a world under AGW can deliver storms, then you are totally wrong. New Scientist 16 July 2005 page 50 has an article describes a scene in Alaska dated 1879 at a Fjord now called Glacier Bay. A chart 100 years earlier (about 1779) showed no bay. Just glaciers. Alaska was warming since the LIA. New Scientist 27 August 2005 page 25 has an article about glacial melting. It includes a graph of average glacier length over 300 years. From about 1850 - the official end of the LIA, all the glaciers were in retreat. This includes glaciers from all over the world, including such places as the Andes and the Himalayas. Face it, Rev, the LIA was global. How significant was it? Very! The melting of glaciers before the year 1900 was very substantial. In the Alaska example above, well before 1900 it had been enough to create a bay where none existed before. The only reason I raised the LIA was to counter a claim that weather disasters were due to AGW. In fact, as I pointed out, weather disasters have always happened. History is full of accounts of such. Just think of the Spanish Armada - essentially destroyed by storms. While it has become politically correct to ascribe disasters to AGW, it is simply not justifiable scientifically to do so. We cannot judge a storm to be due to AGW. Storms have always happened, and always will.

To PhDP Not only can you do both, but it is normal behaviour. A 'masculinized face' person will take his opportunities sexually where he can. That does not stop him also getting married and having a full domestic life including nurturing his children. Take an 'ultimate' case like Brad Pitt. I have no doubt that he has bedded hundreds, if not thousands of women. I seriously suspect that he continues to do so even today, whenever he can get away with it. Yet he is married, officially happily, to Angelina Jolie and has children with her. Two tactics being used - both no doubt successfully from an evolutionary standpoint. Paralith is also correct in saying that every possible reproductive strategy is likely to be used, and these will change during a man's lifetime.

Not a concession, iNow. However, you may remember what happened several times recently when reaper entered a debate and applied sarcasm and insults. Twice the thread deteriorated so quickly into a flame war that the moderator had to close the thread. Rather than get into another such acrimonious exchange, I would prefer not respond to any post that involves insults and sarcasm.