SkepticLance

To GameBeth The fact that many gang members are black is not the issue. With humans, the genetic difference between different populations is effectively zero. It is cultural differences that are important. My point of reference has already been posted. It is dog-kill statistics. It is clear cut numbers. 32% of such deaths in the USA over 20 years were from pit bulls. Sure that is still not many dead people - just under 4 per year on average, versus nearly 40,000 per year as the road toll. Add another zero for the number killed each year by tobacco smoking. So it may not matter enough to warrant banning the breed. That is a subjective and political decision.

To bascule To try to answer your queries. I do not classify sunspot magnetism as electro-magnetic radiation, because it aint. Sure, there is a relationship, but magnetism is not EMR. You said : "but my initial research shows that solar wind affects high frequency variations in solar radiation, " I did not say the solar wind warmed the Earth. I just listed it as one non EMR result of sunspot activity. As I said, we do not actually know the mechanism, though theories exist. "I'd like to first know why you think that the types of solar activity you describe don't cause changes in solar radiation." In fact, it does cause changes in solar radiation. It is just that those changes are very small - only able to induce a warming of about 0.01 to 0.02 C. Since this is clearly insufficient to cause the warming observed, we look for an alternative mechanism. That is why I downplay the solar radiation effect. There is one theory based on the fact that the biggest increase in radiation during times of high sunspot activity is ultra violet. This theory says that more UV means more ozone which means more greenhouse effect. However, there are other theories also. The main alternative theory is based on the fact that high sunspot magnetic fields deflect cosmic rays away from the Earth. This has been demonstrated to be true by direct measurement. Perhaps there are several mechanisms.

Whispertome Check post 99

bascule said : "You've seemed to skip directly from the sunspot cycle to an assumed impact upon solar irradiance and thus global climate change without understanding solar irradiance. SkepticLance has done the same. Implying the former has an effect on global climate change without understanding the latter is nothing but a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy." And you have fallen into the fallacy of assuming a simplistic mechanism. As I have said before, many times, sunspot activity can influence the Earth in several ways other than via electro-magnetic radiation (solar irradiance). Sunspot activity has major magnetic effects, and causes substantial changes to the solar wind. It is very well established that cosmic ray influx to the Earth drops substantially when sunspot activity is high, and this is due to non electromagnetic radiation effect. Solar flares are more likely at such times, and the polar auroras are more active also. None of these are due to changes in radiance. There are several hypotheses as to how sunspot activity affects global climate. Since we do not know the mechanism, how can we calculate the effect? To search for an empirical correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature change is a perfectly valid piece of research. I doubt that sunspot number per se is the best approach, since sunspot activity depends on the number of sunspots, plus size of sunspots, plus intensity of activity within each sunspot. However, sunspot number may still correlate loosely with total sunspot activity, and I would be interested to see the results when graphs are complete. For those who might be interested, and hopefully have an open mind, read : http://www.environmental-expert.com/resultEachPressRelease.aspx?cid=20909&codi=20225&level=1&idproducttype=8

"So should I conclude that there are certain breeds of horses and races of humans which are more dangerous than others?" Humans do not vary much genetically, so the answer is no. However, there are serious differences between human cultures, leading to some (like city street gangs) having a dangerous culture. Anyway, I know that was a snide throwaway comment. Back to pit bulls. There is no doubt at all that pit bulls are the most dangerous breed of dogs. Since I am not a dog lover, I have no hesitation in concluding that they should be banned. I do understand that many people love their dogs, though, and will argue the other way. If they claim that the good pit bulls do outweighs the harm, they may be able to make a case. If you want to argue that their value exceeds the value of approximately 4 human lives per year in the United States, then please proceed. What annoys me, though, is the denial of the problem. The problem exists, in that pit bulls sometimes attack and kill people. More so than any other breed of dog.

This discussion is not going to go anywhere, due to the simple fact that too much emotion is involved. Pit bull owners refuse to believe anything is wrong with their darling breed. This is understandable, bearing in mind the enormous emotional commitment those people have with their child surrogates. For those of us who can look at this without emotional bias, because we do not own, and do not want to own a pit bull, there is a sense of bemusement, as the power of emotion is seen in action. The simple fact is, regardless of all and any of the contrary arguments seen here, pit bulls are the dog breed that kills more people than any other. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/23/MNGRODDH561.DTL I quote : "Attacks by pit bulls accounted for about a third of the 238 fatal dog attacks in the United States during a 20-year study, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pit bulls were blamed for killing 76 people, or 32 percent, during a study of dog attacks from 1979-1998, the study showed. Rottweilers were the second most deadly animal, reportedly killing 44 people, or 18.5 percent, during the same period. About 4.7 million people are bitten every year by dogs, resulting in about 12 fatalities a year, according to the federal statistics. About 500,000 to 800,000 dog bites require medical treatment annually." Pit bulls are the most dangerous breed. Full stop! Of course, to put it into perspective, dog attacks are a very minor cause of human fatality. Thus, you can argue that the joy pit bulls bring their owners outweighs the few fatal attacks. That's fine. Just don't deny the basic truth, shown clearly by official statistics, that pit bulls are the biggest cause of fatal dog attacks of humans.

Swansont said : "No, I don't. It's a strawman to state what someone else believes when you get it wrong." OK, fair comment. Let me reprase that, and simply say that scientists make human errors too. "and feel free to post links to all those peer-reviewed papers that contradict AGW, in the appropriate thread." This comment show that you, too, erect straw men. I did not say that the peer reviewed papers by global warming sceptic climate scientists contradicted AGW. In fact, I stated earlier that these climate scientists do NOT contradict AGW. They just are sceptical of the catastrophic extreme interpretation. On the reality of warming. I do not challenge that. As I said many times, I do not question AGW - just the more extreme interpretations.

Swansont said "The scientists and doctors were being skeptical until there was sufficient data to convince them. How's that for irony?" Actually, in the Helicobacter pylori example I used, the scepticism lasted for the best part of a decade after the final evidence had been published. That resistance to change was purely human, not scientific. "But, which decade?" In the Gulf Stream example, I was talking about this last decade. The 'glaciation for Europe' belief was overturned only 2 to 3 years ago. "Because what this ignores is that scientists themselves are, in general, skeptical." I think this statement is where you are I really disagree. You have the belief that scientists are somehow inhuman, and immune to human failings. Not so. Scientists are just as human as anyone else, and will resist changes to their favourite beliefs with some energy. Change occurs because, in the long run, the entire scientific community will change, and ultimately force the 'hold outs' to change. However, this process takes time - often a decade or more. There is a kind of social or psychological inertia which slows changes to existing scientific paradigms, even well after the need for change is obvious, as in my stomach ulcer example. The point is that there is a need for scientific sceptics. Even where there is 'consensus', it is unhealthy to have no scepticism. You should embrace those who are sceptical, since they are performing a vital service to science. On global warming, I am not talking about denial. I am talking about those, like myself, who do not swallow the entire catastrophist dogma. This includes a large number of climate scientists. Many of those sceptical climate scientists are highly reputable, and have published numerous peer reviewed papers.

To swansont I think there are a lot of people who will jump on you most heavily with your statement that 'medicine is not science.' While clinical practise often veers away from science, medical research is most definitely science - as robust and stringent a science as any. And what I was talking about was medical research. It is true that in both examples I gave, there was correction. However, in both cases it took more than a decade for that correction to occur, and for the accepted paradigm to adapt to new data. The point is that a majority belief does not mean something is correct. Another example closer to the subject. For the best part of a decade, it was accepted by global warming proponents that the Gulf Stream was slowing down, preparatory to stopping altogether, leading to a new cold period for northern Europe. This even became a big part of a major Hollywood motion picture. New data showed that to be wrong. Being sceptical, and questioning the current paradigm is healthy and is to the benefit of scientific progress. If the sceptic is wrong, then good data will make the correction. But sometimes the sceptic is proven correct.

To iNow Be careful not to over-react. Sure, what you said is correct. However, you are putting more into my post than I intended. I suspect it is mainly a result of the inadequacies of language. When we communicate, words can be interpreted several ways, and we all need to have something of a feel for context to reach the proper interpretation. I may have made an error in using the word 'command', but it is hardly a major error.

At the same time, consensus is NOT a scientific principle. Science is not a democracy, and the number of voters means exactly nothing. Science is based on empirically derived, objective data. If the data changes, science changes. Two good examples : 1. Plate tectonics. When the theory of continental drift was first mooted, it was essentially 'laughed out of court' by geologists. The consensus was that continents stayed put. 2. Stomach ulcers. Only 20 years ago, the consensus was that these were caused by over-production of stomach acid. Then some researchers discovered Helicobacter pylori - and used Koch's postulates to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that it was infection with this bacterium that caused those pesky ulcers. It still took an additional ten years before the paradigm changed. The point is that consensus has nothing to do with science - just politics. Consensus, where it exists, can be a detriment to science.

To bombus Nice interesting topic - sexual selection in humans - how much of the physical and behavioural nature of moderns humans came from this kind of evolution? I am inclined to think that gender specific behaviour has, to a degree, been selected for by the opposite gender. For example : the human female obsession with her own good looks - hours in beauty parlours, shopping for clothes, applying make-up etc - has been 'programmed' into women by evolution, because males are attracted to good looking females. Thus, a female who takes the time and effort to look good has a better chance of winning a desirable mate. Females have, on the other hand, 'programmed' males into becoming very competitive, because the male who rises above his peers has a better chance of winning a desirable female as his mate.

To Paralith Re male aggression. As a female, you should appreciate that this aspect of male nature is under female command. Human males are more competitive and more aggressive than human females mainly in order to win female approval and mating rights. It is only because women select aggressive males as mates that aggression becomes a male feature. Of course, the aggression or competitive behaviour females approve of is just that between male/male, leading to one male gaining status. The alpha male then becomes the preferred mate. The very sad fact that this aggression leads to war and large scale mortality is a side effect of evolution, as a result of the fact that current technology permits lethal results way out of proportion to the actual 'aim' of evolution. Perhaps in the future, human females may prefer more peaceable males?????

There is a very real difference between a sceptic and a denier. I am a global warming sceptic, but not a global warming denier. I agree that global warming is real, and that it is of anthropogenic origin. However, I do not accept all the interpretations of the more extreme promoters of global warming catastrophism. Thus I am a sceptic. Global warming scepticism derives from an alternative interpretation of the available data. Creationism derives from a religious interpretation. Science vs religion. Very different things. There are absolutely NO doctorate equivalent biologists who are non religious, and creationists both. Only religious types become biologists who push creationism. However, there are lots of doctorate equivalent climatologists who are non religious who are sceptical of the more extreme interpretations of global warming. I am not aware of any doctorate equivalent climatologists who are global warming deniers, in that they deny it is happening, or that human activity is totally unrelated to the warming. However, many are sceptics.

To Mr Skeptic Sorry to burst a bubble, or destroy a fondly held myth, but the Amazons were just a legend. There is no proper evidence they ever existed.

Bascule As I have pointed out before, the solar forcings from you 'favourite' graph are calculated, and do not correlate with sunspot numbers. The hypothesis here is that sunspot numbers correlate with temperature change. Your graph is irrelevent to this.

To Chemhawk Learning affects behaviour, sure. That is very basic and 100% certain. Thus, a girl learns that a dress is suitable clothing for her gender, and she becomes comfortable wearing it. In Scotland, the boys may learn to wear the dress! However, the effect of sex hormones on gender based behaviour is well demonstrated. Today, there are thousands of case histories of the behavioural results for dosing people with the 'wrong' sex hormone in preparation for sex change operations. Females who are treated with testosterone become more aggressive in conflict situations. Males who are treated with oestrogen become more interested in babies. And so on. Sex hormones are a result of genetics, when human intervention is not involved. Thus, behaviour that is mediated by sex hormones can be called nature, rather than nurture. One clue to distinguishing between nature and nurture in human behaviour is to look at cross cultural similarities. If something is purely learned, then it will vary tremendously from culture to culture. If it is genetic, it will show enormous similarities from culture to culture. For example : wearing dresses. Lots of cultures have males wearing robes, or kilts, or clothing similar to dresses. Thus, selection of type of clothing for your gender is learned. Example 2. Fighting. Who does most of the fighting? Universally, it is males. Thus, that kind of gender determined aggressive behaviour is genetic.

To Paralith I agree that humans are changing. Your reference, though, was referring to changes over the past 5000 years, which does not give data on whether evolution is happening right now.

Just a comment on the development of gender roles. I mentioned earlier about the central American tribe with lots of boys being born looking like girls - being raised as girls - but nevertheless behaving like boys. It appears that sex hormone balance in early life is enormously powerful in determining gender-typical behaviour. Nature more than nurture. I came across the opposite condition. Congenital adrenal hyperplasia. This is where, in a true XX female, the ovaries in the foetus do not make enough oestrogen, and the adrenal glands instead make lots of testosterone. These girls grow up as tom boys, exhibiting typical male behaviour, even though they are definitely female and raised as females. Some undergo 'sex change' operations to become male. Lots are homosexual. A testimony to the power of hormones in determining behaviour - nature more than nurture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation I quote : "Female homosexuality Girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (an autosomal recessive condition which results in high androgen levels during fetal development) have more masculinized sex role identities and are more likely to have a homosexual sexual orientation as adults than controls (Dittmann et al. 1990ab, 1992; Zucker et al., 1996; Hines et al., 2004). An alternative explanation for this effect is that the fact that girls with this condition are born with masculinized external genitalia leads their parents to raise them in a more masculine manner which then influences their sexual orientation as adults. However, the degree to which the girls' genitals are masculinized does not correlate with their sexual orientation, suggesting that prenatal hormones are the causal factor, not parental influence." It is more than just sexuality (and many such girls grow up heterosexual). Girls with CAH grow up exhibiting male behaviour in a range of things, from their choice in toys, to rowdy competitive behaviour, to a love of the technical aspects of cars etc.

The idea that human evolution has essentially stopped due to technology is a very controversial one. Opinions differ. We have no clear cut scientific data to take one position or the other. Personally, my own humble opinion is that evolution never stops. It may slow down, or speed up, or take a different direction - but never stops. I also think it does not matter. Our new understanding of genetics is leading us inevitably to the capability to change our own genetic make up. While there is a lot of moral outrage at the idea of genetically engineering humans, I think that, with the ability, inevitably we will will do it. Thus, new and genetically different humans will come into being. Some of these changes will be special adaptations. For example : when space travel becomes more common, and more prolonged, we will probably genetically engineer people to be more resistant to the harmful effects of cosmic rays. Evolution of humans in the future will probably be accelerated, and under our own control.

I assumed for this question that happiness equated to contentment. I see two main kinds of happiness. 1. Contentment - the general background feeling. 2. Ecstacy - the wonderful feeling we get from time to time when something pretty special happens - like the minutes after a sky dive when you realise you are still alive! Since type 2 is fleeting, it is probably not good for this question. Can we assume type 1 is what we are talking about?

I think the nature of this forum is to bias the intelligence result. Even if everyone is totally honest about that, it seems to me that unintelligent people will not be terribly interested in this forum and will be underrepresented. On another point, there have been surveys that shows above intelligent people to be healthier and longer lived than those who are below average. Intelligence here as measured by standard IQ tests, and lets not get into a discussion of what they might mean! I would think that good health correlates with contentment, if not happiness. Thus high intelligence would be correlated with contentment. In addition, other surveys have shown that wealthy people are more content than those who are poor. Intelligent people are more likely to gain wealth than unintelligent people, so there is another cause for correlation with contentment.

From iNow, who does not ever seem to read what others say very carefully. "You should really follow your own logic then, as above only 3 or 4 posts ago you said this: It is basically making a prediction that cycle 25 of sunspot activity, by the year 2022, will be weak, meaning lower solar forcings, and either less warming, or possibly a cooling globally. I think this has a very real bearing on any discussion of global warming. But yeah... Relative impact of solar forcing is still very small, regardless of whatever games you choose to play with words and logic". If you read more carefully, you will note that I said "has a very real bearing on any discussion", which it does. I do not know how true the prediction is. However, the fact that the prediction has been made is something that may affect our discussion, and it is appropriate to discuss it. To ChrisC About solar irradiance. This term is seriously misleading, and I have said before that I prefer it not to be used. The thing is that the sun has effects that are not based on electromagnetic radiation, which is what people mainly mean when they talk about solar irradiance. For example : the solar wind, and magnetic effects. These act as a kind of 'cosmic ray shield' at times of high sunspot activity, and that is not irradiance. When sunspot activity is high, we also see magnetic effects increasing dramatically, solar wind increases, ultra violet output increases massively compared to output of other wavelengths, and overall non-UV electromagnetic output also increases, though to a minor extent compared to UV. So how does all this mean global warming? Several hypotheses exist, and do not necessarily depend on irradiance. Thus, a measure of irradiance may have little meaning.

To iNow. Perhaps. I am not a medical doctor and can only go by what I have heard medical doctors discuss. My understanding is that this is not as cut and dried as you make out, and 'lying', in some circumstances, would not be considered unethical. Of course, we need to understand what is meant by 'lying'. My definition is any statement made with the deliberate intent to lead someone into believing something false. Thus, it is possible to lie while never, technically, stating an untruth. I have seen doctor lie to patients, in that they lead them into believing something that is untrue. If this is done for the good of the patient, I cannot believe it is unethical.

These arguments might just begin all over again. Sigh! They began with me disputing the graph iNow just posted, in terms of solar contributions to global warming/cooling. As I said before, no-one understands the mechanism by which sunspot activity affects global climate. Without that understanding, any attempt to calculate its impact is peeing in the wind. We do know that the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Little Ice Age correlate with changes in sunspot activity, along with lots of other global temperature changes in the past. We can therefore predict, that IF 2022 represents a period in which sunspot activity is at a substantial low, this will be a cooling effect. Whether it causes an actual cooling, or merely a reduction in warming is something else. As I said, without understanding mechanisms, how can we calculate degree of impact?