SkepticLance

My response to Pascal's wager is : "What if all that praying and singing songs of praise actually annoys the crap out of the big fella? He gets all pissed off and sends those annoying pests to Hell when they die." Rather often, dichotomies fail because there is a third, unrecognised, choice.

I would suspect that, if the island is mostly underwater at high tide, the number of purely land animals would be minimal. You could easily postulate an ecology with large numbers of aquatic animals, and significant numbers of amphibious types, but zero purely land animals. The fun would come from designing all those amphibians. Of course, you need to say why they became amphibious. On a small island, there would be little nutritional point in gaining the ability to go on land. Perhaps it is reproductive? Laying eggs on land would give them protection from marine predators.

The problem with evolution in the modern context is that it is likely to drive in directions we consider disadvantageous. Genes for harmful traits that would have been removed from the gene pool just a couple hundred years ago will now survive. Many will increase in frequency. I do not think this will be a long term problem, though. As our knowledge and skill with genetics improve, we will be able to gene manipulate zygotes or early embryos to make sure that all are healthy. In fact, within another couple hundred years, all new born children should be genetically superior to any born today - with genes for high intelligence and athletic ability, and good health.

It is worth remembering that the film was not a science movie. It was a film made for political and environmental agitator purposes. Al Gore is not, and never has been, a scientist. He was a politician, and has moved into environmental agitator status. Both categories are not known for sticking to the proper scientific approach. Both categories are prone to 'manipulating' data to create their own version of reality. The film is an example of that. The errors are not those a good scientist would make. I have said that the underlying message is correct - that anthropogenic global warming is true. However, with films made for political purposes it is important that we are prepared to be sceptical of the detail.

iNow said "Where is your evidence that Al Gore was deliberately deceptive? " In fact, I said he did not do his homework or he deceived. Either/or. On the graph of warming. I am sorry if I was not clear in my wording. The graph of warming as has occurred over the past 30 years approximates a straight line. When Al Gore extrapolated that graph, he did not extrapolate by extending the straight line, or even curving it upwards. He simply added to the graph by putting another straight line in at about twice the slope. His graph states, in effect, that from 2005 onwards, global warming will go at double the rate. In fact, it has not done so, and there is no indication that it will do so any time in the next few years. Nor did Al Gore have any sound scientific reason for presenting his extrapolation of the warming graph in that way. For this reason, the graph is dishonest. Whether Al Gore intended to tell a lie or simply was carried away by his own enthusiasm, I cannot say. I do know it was most unscientific. iNow, I have, at times, criticized the tactics you use in debate. The statement below : "You are a condescending twit, Lance" is not a criticism of tactics. It is a pure insult. A pure ad hominem attack. Not a good look, and not something to attract sympathy for your views.

There are two kinds of fiction used in the movies. The first is honest fiction, purely for entertainment, where the fact that what is being shown is not true is fully admitted. Lord of the Rings is a good example. The second kind is known as lying. Al Gore did not do his homework, or he set out to deliberately deceive. I cannot know which. Those errors are not minor. They are massive. The tenth error, not mentioned by the judge was his projection of future warming. Anyone in science knows that graphs are rarely angular. Normally, the slope of a graph that is linear in nature will change, when it does, by a curve. Al Gore showed the warming we all know about over the past 30 years, at 0.18 Celsius per decade, which approximates a straight line. He then projected it into the future at something close to double the slope - perhaps 0.3 Celsius per decade, with the transition being a sharp angle. That was totally unjustified, and there is no evidence today of any increase of that amount - or any amount. Warming still continues at about 0.18 C per decade. The simple fact is that, while anthropogenic global warming is real, the way Al Gore portrayed it was unscientific, inaccurate and alarmist.

When I first saw Al. Gore's film, I was appalled and disgusted by how bad the science was. The only thing he got correct was that the world is warming, and human activity is likely to be the cause, at least over the last half century or so. He reversed cause and effect, with graphs of warming periods during the last million year long ice age, saying that increases in CO2 caused the warming, when the graph clearly showed the warming preceded the CO2 increase. He used a graph of current warming, which he extended into the future by doubling the slope, and said this was a scientific prediction. He was totally alarmist throughout, with no evidence to support that alarmism. When the film was sent to a large number of British schools, there was a court action brought by someone who felt as I do - that such lousy 'science' should not be taught. The results are below. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=486969&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source The nine errors of Al Gore listed in the Daily Mail article were : 1. Sea level rise of 20 foot in the near future 2. Low lying Pacific atolls have already been evacuated 3. The Gulf Stream will shut down 4. Graphs of warming and CO2 rise over 650,000 years showed an 'exact' fit. 5. Snow on Mt. Kilomanjaro being lost due to global warming 6. Drying up of Lake Chad due to global warming 7. Hurricane Katrina caused by global warming 8. Polar bears drowned due to swimming too far after loss of ice 9. Coral reef bleaching due to global warming

Yes. We have a research team here is lil ol NZ who have developed a means of growing bio-diesel algae in sewage oxidation ponds. They grow like crazy, and produce biomass that is 50% oil. They can be harvested easily and the oil converted to bio-diesel. Of course, we do not have enough oxidation ponds for all our fuel needs, but there are lots of ways of making biofuel, and all methods combined may do it. For example : if we want ethanol from corn, the smart way is to harvest the corn grains for food, and then put the rest of the plant material into a fermenter that will digest it to sugars for fermentation. Several research groups already claim to have the basic technology worked out.

And to admit my bias right up front. My bias is against any person who claims to be a scientist or at least think like one, who then manipulates or denies proper data. iNow knows that the pit bull population of the US is of the order of 1%, as reported by the Endangered Dog Breed Assn. So he 'manipulates' data so he can claim it is 30 to 40%. I am seriously biased against those who misuse data in this way. As I said before, I do not care whether pit bulls are banned in the US or not. 66 deaths over 20 years is still 66 too many, but we have more vital issues for social change. I do care about this forum being misused, and people who cannot think scientifically pretending to do so, and misusing the site to push illogical and irrational ideas. I have no bias against any particular dog breed, but I am increasingly feeling a bias against iNow for the reasons stated above.

iNow I am having a hell of a task nailing down exactly what your position is. You have made so many comments indicating strange ideas. The data clearly shows many more human deaths from pit bulls than any other breed, and as human deaths per million dogs, it is massively more, with the possible exception of Rottweilers, which is another story. The UK government was so convinced of this, they banned the breed. In NZ, it has been discussed in parliament with a ban being placed on the agenda, so sure were the parliamentarians. Australia I know less about, but I know that such a ban has been discussed by various authorities. To suggest that this massive disparity towards harmful attacks by pit bulls compared to other types of dog is caused by owners rather than dogs, seriously lacks credibility. All types of dog breed have some good owners and some bad. If bad owners were the problem, we would see it with other breeds also. Pit bulls were bred as killers of other dogs. And they are known as common killers of other dogs even on the street. The data also shows they kill people at a rate much higher than other breeds. If you believe all these killings and maimings of both other dogs and of humans is only because of bad training or bad handling by owners, then you have a very strange view. The data is not propaganda. Governments do not fall prey to propaganda, since they have very expert advisers helping them to avoid such, and the UK, NZ and Australian governments all clearly believe that pit bulls are especially dangerous. Remove the veil from your eyes and face reality. Pit bulls are a special danger because of their INHERENT tendency to violence. They were bred for it, which puts it into their genes. I accept that only a small minority are a real hazard to human life, but a small minority is enough to kill 66 people in 20 years. I am not so concerned about arguing for a ban on the breed. I think it would probably be the correct thing, but I accept that the decision to do so is subjective. I am more concerned about the fact that you repeatedly deny reality, and push a view that is plain wrong. It is your denial of the facts about the breed that especially keeps me arguing.

iNow I re-quote your statement in post 311 "The deaths of those 66 people had zero to do with type of dog, and everything to do with the negligence of the person in their charge." You have repeatedly suggested that pit bulls were not a greater danger than other dogs. The quibble about statistics can only be to push that message. Yet the data is clear cut. Tell me you agree that pit bulls, by their genes, are more prone to killing humans than other dog breeds and we can end this silly argument. I am not suggesting all pit bulls. We both know that the danger comes from a small minority. However, that is true for all breeds of dog, and the pit bull minority that is potentially lethal to humans is a larger minority than other dog breeds. Tell me you agree, and we can stop wittering at each other.

If iNow wants to use a good argument, such as the right to choice - ie. the liberty argument, his position is tenable. If he want to deny that pit bulls kill more people than other types of dog, his position is clearly untenable - it is unscientific to deny the data.

The key question is what needs and should be done? It is rather obvious that certain idiotic policies have resulted in idiotic responses. Kyoto has resulted in certain European nations importing palm oil to use as biodiesel, which has resulted in certain Asian nations cutting down vast areas of rain forest to grow oil palms. This has resulted in an increase in greenhouse gas emission, not a decrease. Idiots! This lesson, along with corn ethanol (also idiotic) shows the danger of precipitous and panicky action. What is needed is carefully planned, well researched, and well managed action. The action required also needs to be something that will be readily accepted by the population. For example : telling people they have to give up their beloved motor cars and switch to bicycles and public transport is not going to be politically acceptable. However, developing cheap battery powered electric cars for city commuting is far more likely to be acceptable. We also need non-greenhouse gas electricity production. I personally think that the big powers (US, EEC, Japan, China) should be cooperating in developing a nuclear power station design that is safer, cleaner and cheaper, and then mass producing it. We may need 1000 extra nuclear power stations. With abundant clean electricity, a heap of other clean options open up. Care and planning will achieve acceptable results, where panic and stupidity will not.

To iNow Of course the population is not 66. However, I was countering your assertion that there was no statistical significance since the number we were dealing with was 3, and that is a far more silly statement. The actual number of pit bulls would be of the order of 500,000. I am going by memory, so that may not be 100% accurate. I read a while back that the US dog population was something like 50 million. Since pit bulls are 1%, we are left with 500,000, plus or minus a smaller number since I cannot really be sure that I am remembering it right. But that is the correct order of magnitude. However, the numbers we are dealing with are numbers of human deaths caused by dog attack. Not the number of pit bulls in the US. So the statistical population is, as reported by John, about 140. Of that, 66 are deaths caused by pit bulls. Statistically very significant. iNow, I am certain in my own mind that you are aware of reality. You are arguing a position that you must realise is untenable. I have to assume it is only pride that prevents you from admitting the truth. Why don't you show your scientific credentials are actually good, by admitting that the figures show that pit bulls, as a type, kill humans at a rate way out of proportion to their numbers, compared to other breeds?

To JohnB The technique proposed here on Earth for sending radio messages to possible extra-solar listeners was to send a series of dots and dashes, in groups representing the result of multiplying two prime numbers. For example : you could send 77 dots and dashes in a bunch. Multiple of 7 and 11. It is assumed that the receiver would know how special the number of dots and dashes was, and then rearrange those dots and dashes in a diagram, with the two primes as the values on the x and y axes. So one axis would be 7 and the other 11. Dots and dashes would be arranged accordingly and form a picture. You can send an awful lot of data in pictorial form like this. If an alien species wanted to communicate by radio with a new civilisation, they might use that, or similar technique.

iNow When I did basic practical statistics as part of my degree course, our professor asserted than a population of 20 was sufficient to gain a statistically significant result, when using a T test. The population we are dealing with is 66. The number we are comparing it to is that of deaths caused by the next worst breed (Rottweilers) which is about half. The difference is statistically significant. Your action is taking 3 as the number was the cherry picking I was talking about. The number 3 did not even appear in the official statistics. You calculated 3 as the average per year over 20 years. It is NOT the proper number. In trying to use it, you are cherry picking in the worst possible way. iNow, I do not think you are stupid. In terms of pure IQ, you are probably smart enough. However, I think you are displaying a stubborn pride. Because you are not stupid, you already know you are wrong, but you continue to push an untenable argument purely out of this pride. As I said before, if you want to continue the argument on the basis of concerns about personal liberty, or some similar argument, I have no problem. That is your right to do so. But to try to distort the facts when you are on a science forum is not really acceptable.

iNow I am staggered by how far you will go to support an untenable position. First, you said the number was 3 dogs. It was not. It was 3 human deaths, and that was the tiniest part of the total statistics offered. To quote a number 3 like that is cherry picking of the worst type. I suggested that the true number was 66. This is true, but is also only part of the total. In fact, the 66 represented about a third of the total human deaths, which means the total number is approaching 200. 66 humans killed by pit bulls, compared to about half that killed by the next worst (rottweilers), from a total of almost 200. Those numbers are definitely large enough to be significant. According to the Endangered Dog Breeds Assn. in Australia, only 1% of dogs in America are pit bulls. This means that the deaths caused by that dog type run at 30 to 50 times that of the average, even allowing for expected error. Are you going to say that this is not significant? iNow, you really are avoiding reality.

iNow said "No. Not when your total population size is 3 dogs." Wrong on a number of accounts. The number 3 is human deaths from pit bull attacks per year, and comes from a 20 year population of 66, which is high enough to be statistically significant.

To Phi for All I fully understand. As someone who appreciates thoroughness in research, I think we should all follow your excellent example.

To MrSkeptic and dichotomy My earlier reference mentioned the percentage of pit bulls http://www.edba.org.au/courier.html For the time period they selected, 42% of all fatal dog attacks on humans in the USA were from pit bulls, and only 1% of the USA dog population were pit bulls. Fairly revealing, don't you think? To iNow, there is no psychoanalysis in my comments. I do not believe in it. Instead I refer only to the fact that you repeatedly deny something that is patently real. Whatever it is inside your head that induces you to do this is definitely beyond my comprehension, and I have no interest in any kind of psychoanalysis. And for the UK data you request, John has said he searched for it and could not find it. It may not exist. if the UK authorities never got round to collating that data, it is not available, no matter how often you ask for it. We do not need it. There is enough data elsewhere to show that pit bulls are the worst dog type in terms of killing people.

Re digestive tracts - and I know this is off topic. One thing I find interesting is that Homo sapiens has the smallest digestive tract for body weight of any primate. If you don't believe me, look at a photo of any skinny female teenage model in a bikini, and see how much space she has for gut. Over 90% has to fit between bikini top and bikini bottom. It is not much. Why can we get away with so little gut? Obviously, we do not digest cellulose. I suspect that our species has had fire and hence cooking for long enough for it to affect our evolution. Cooked food requires little digestion, and a smaller gut carries benefits in allowing a lighter body, and hence better running and more stamina. Of course modern humans stuff up that advantage by adding too much fat.

iNow With respect to your denial of being in denial, you said, in post 311 "The deaths of those 66 people had zero to do with type of dog, and everything to do with the negligence of the person in their charge." Do you deny that pit bulls are more likely to attack and kill or maim people simply because they are pit bulls?

Swansont said "an orbit including Mars could intersect the Earth without any deceleration" Such an orbit achieved by a rock sitting on the ground on Mars would require substantial energy input. This comes from the impact energy of a meteor or asteroid striking Mars, and so the rocks get to Earth. In a similar way, with a large enough impact, rocks from Earth can be flicked into a Mars intersecting orbit, though, as you said, less frequently than the reverse. As I pointed out, the dinosaur killer was one such impact. Fine dust can, indeed, be blown by the solar wind outwards, and bacterial spores can be a lot smaller than one micron.

To iNow repeating what my previous reference said : "42% of all dog related deaths in the US are from Pit Bulls - & they constitute 1% of all dogs." Do you still deny that pit bulls as a type are more aggressive and more harmful in terms of attacks on humans than other dog types? If so, you are in denial.

I would be interestd to see some good non human examples. Perhaps with a little explanation? To CDarwin Your contribution was interesting. Could you elaborate on the horse's digestive tract? To swansont Good point. I read somewhere that 80% of modern humans suffer bad backs some time in their life. Definitely not good design!