SH3RL0CK

I don't disagree with this; it is a reasonable explaination. More data (and more time) will indeed clarify the direction and extent of the climate change. Hmmm. After reading this, I'm not encouraged. The actions taken and explainations provided in defense of these actions seem rather lame to me. See for example: I'm going to have to look into the issue about the tree-ring divergence more. I'm curious as to why would this data be valid 1000 years ago, but not considered valid (even given that we have more accurate information) 60 years ago? Really now. Why not simply ask the colleage to foward these e-mails directly to the person requesting the information? That is the same amount of work. Granted the skeptic will no doubt look for "gotcha" statements, but that goes with the respect they have been given such that various governments are going to spend $billions (or $Trillions) based on their work. If they were acting in good faith (and I still think they were) these "gotcha" statements would be easier to address than then current credibility crisis and they should have realized that at the time. His statement is absolutely wrong. Of couse the IPCC need to reassure people about the quality of its assessments. Why else is this man being interviewed? And besides, various governments are intending to spend $Billions based on their data. Sorry, he doesn't get to brush aside these questions that easily. I also notice the "lost data" wasn't addressed in the interview...I wonder where the daily mail got that from the interview? I'm still not doubting some level of AGW exists, based on the above I am more skeptical than before about the projections. I agree we must take action. However, I have always questioned the accuracy of the projections and the apparently extremely urgent need to enact futile (and expensive only to the USA and to a lesser extent EU) attempts to correct what might or might not be a serious problem. A better idea might be a gradual shift to renewable energy that both the West and 3rd world countries could afford rather than increasing the CO2 output by shifting all manufacturing to inefficient factories in India and China.

Depends is a good answer until you make your question much more specific. You could also consider the efficacy of the drugs. For example, some drugs might well be 'safe' as determined by both animal and human studies. But while the drug worked in the animals as expected, perhaps the experimental drug doesn't treat the disease (at least as well as current drugs) in humans as the researchers had hoped. This would be a conclusion that the animal studies were inaccurate. Despite the fact the drug is safe for both humans and animals, it only treated the disease in the animals and did not treat the disease in humans.

We truely are living in a golden age. Up until the last 100 years or so, a really healthy person was rare and everyone struggled with some disease or other. Consider that an infection from a small scratch could, and often did, kill.

Check out this news story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html (emphasis mine) If true, this news story would appear to change everything. I still think GW is still occuring (what else would the excess atmospheric CO2 do?) but without accurate data we simply know much less about this issue than we thought we did. And with no warming for the past 15 years, no original data previous to this timeframe for verification checks, should the public be expected to enact expensive behavior modifications and carbon trades? I would think not. It is also fuel for the skeptics:

I notice the screen name (kerry@LabNews) is similar to the address for the link and for the signature;http://www.labnews.co.uk...is this spam? Or is this legitimate considering it could be considered a valid question?

I have always found it interesting that despite socialism being associated with the liberal (left) side of the political spectrum, people today almost invariably equate the Nazi (National Socialist Party) with the conservative (right) side of the political spectrum. There are good reasons for that, but in my mind various elements of the Nazi party is demonstrated in both the Republican and Democratic parties in the USA. People, at least in the USA it seems to me, tend to see things as two-sided: right or wrong, black or white. Issues are rarely black and white, there are lots of shades of grey and lots of other colors too. Rather than "orange with green polka dots" the choices are between black and white and people wind up with a shade of grey. Perhaps, in our two party system with an either-or mindset, that is the closest we Americans can get to what we really want.

Certainly, the prefered form of government can be different for different people. And it can be argued that one should not have to submit to a particular form. However, anarchy is not government at all, see the above definition. It is the complete and utter lack of any government at all in any form whatsoever. Anything else is not anarchy. I don't think it is possible for a society to exist in an anarchist state. In anarchy, the strong will take what they want from the weak (as there are no consequences, and no reason not to do so) such that a "government" is formed by rule of the strong.

By definition, anarchy cannot be a form of government. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy (emphasis mine)

I think $1.6B is wildly optimistic. You can't launch a single object the size of a nuclear submarine, the rockets available don't have the weight capacity. Therefore you would need to include the price of assembly of this station on the moon. Construction in space is orders of magnitude more difficult than on earth and the costs astronomically more. Which is probably why NASA has placed the cost at $100B, and even this is probably an underestimate as NASA programs typically cost considerably more than initially thought. Helium 3 is possibly useful for nuclear fusion (clean energy). But since we can't really make nuclear fusion power generation happen in a way that is cost effective, there is no point to adding greatly to the cost of nuclear fusion by going to the moon to harvest He3. The people in the Forbes top 50 list didn't get their money by poor investments.

I think perhaps we are seeing an example of evolution between the spambots and anti-spam software. They are, and probably will always be, in a sort of natural balance. If the spammers kill the internet (i.e. people stop using it) they also will stop using it. If an anti-spam software finds a way to eliminate all spam across the internet, the spammers will find a way around it.

How exactly do they make someone pay after said person leaves the hospital and all the information he gave the hospital doesn't match? They can't find the guy and the hospital isn't even sure the man put his real name down on the forms? How exactly do they make someone pay who doesn't have any money (or at least any they can find since many illegals work and live on a cash-only basis)? How do they pay when, as you say, the person simply declares bankrupcy? Not that I am saying do not treat these people, of course they should be medically treated. And I agree that many, possibly most (though I don't have the statistics) people who go to the ER do pay. I'd like to look into the question of how many ER visists aren't paid when I get more time...

Its not as mean as the marketplace. Scientists may shoot down dumb ideas and possibly even ridicule and mock those with dumb ideas. But someone with a stupid idea who invests heavily in said idea could go bankrupt and lose everything.

Agree completely. This danger is still well off in the future. But if our politicians don't change, it will probably someday come. At least when hyperinflation hits, the Chinese will stop pegging their currency artificially low to our dollar. Not sure I completely agree with you. First, if the Democrats have their way, we will get something. We will be able to buy a (small) coffee once a month with our SS check. That will be useful while we figure out which real bills we are going to decide not to pay this month. Secondly, privatization (the Republican plan) is not necessarily a guarantee of default the idea being that a private investment group will be able to grow the fund faster than can the government. That will be true as the politicans will then be less able to raid these funds. But you are probably right, the growth that will be necessary for a meaningful improvement would require risky investments...and I think our luck here will run out leading to default before we would be in the clear. The choice is bad either way. But it is still a long time before the consequences really hit, IMO.

Well its quite obvious that unless the demographics drastically change, at some point, social security and medicare won't be helping anyone. One root of the problem is the demographic shifts of people living 20 years longer than they used to while at the same time having 2 children rather than six reduces the relative number of workers. Another root of the problem is that both Democrats and Republicans have been stealing from the surplus funds for pet projects and otherwise mismanaging these programs over the past three or four generations. Separating it from the federal government would allow these to eventually default, probably in a large crash, without shutting down the federal government (which involves too many important functions to be considered) since there would be a very clear separation. This is what I think is the real plan of the republicans. The democrats plan, on the other hand, seems to be to allow these continously collect more and more taxes from the public while paying out less and less. A default by a million cuts rather than one large crash, in other words. So which is better, being shot or strangled? I find neither option appealing, but either way I'm not expecting these to be around when I need them.

See JohnB's post, # 105 which explains far better than I can why I personally take the UN ruling with a grain of salt I once had a parking ticket. It was a mistake of me to not return to my car when I had planned. This is an official rebuke by the community I lived in...my point is that a mistake might not rise to the level of a crime. AFAIK, Israel isn't accusing the commanders of war crimes. An error in judgement or execution of the plan, but not war crimes. because you fail to see and to take into consideration the entire context of this conflict. In other words you ask if killing someone is wrong? Most people here would respond that yes, of course it is. But in my opinion, your statements are equivalent to failing to mention, or even acknowledge that the person was killed, not only in self defense, but to also protect the lives of children. Would most people say it is wrong to kill under that circumstance? Because, after all, is it Hamas (and by extension the Palestinians as they elected Hamas), not the IDF which deliberately launches rockets at schools filled with children. Certainly, it has not been said enough that you are clearly, and rightly concerned about injury to innocent civilians. There is no arguement from me that in this conflict, the goal should always be to minimize this. We simply differ a bit on how best to accomplish this objective, and by extension, whether the IDF is minimizing civilian injuries. I hope you did not feel I attacked you but in case you did I do apologize if you felt backlash from me on that point. It was never my intent to attack anyone. It can be difficult to express differences without it becoming personal in an emotional topic such as this.

This is a good plan, IMO, but perhaps more ambitious than can be acheived. I don't think there will be a silver bullet that will fix all the problems associated with fossil fuels, but I do think these problems can be overcome by a variety of sources including nuclear, biofuels, wind power, solar, etc. Biofuels, by themselves won't replace all the need for oil. But perhaps we can replace a large percentage in this manner.

IMO, commercial spaceflight will be dictated by the money (unless Bill Gates wants to underwrite it of course, and I'm not sure even he has enough money to do so). And the money to be made would be from satelite launches and space tourism. A satelite launcher does not need to be sufficiently large to launch what is required to put a human into orbit (especially considering we have to return a human safely). And its probably more cost effective to launch a second satelite to address the occasional unplanned failures than develop and maintain a manned program in the hopes the satelite can be repaired. As far as tourism, that can be done with a sub-orbital craft (as IIRC was done to win the X-prize). This technology will fall far short of what will put people into orbit. Its entirely a different ballgame to re-entry from a real orbit than it is from the much slower sub-orbit. And the profit from taking tourists into a real orbit is probably no different than a sub-orbit assuming a clever marketing strategy. As such, I'm skeptical that tourists will actually get into a real orbit commercially. Therefore I don't think human spaceflight will come from the commercial sector, despite the wishful thinking. I just can't see any money to be made from doing so.

That is true, but so what? Hamas launches rockets, not towards military targets which might be near civilians, but directly at civilians. Shall I put up graphic links to show how people (i.e. Israeli children) might be hurt by these? As has repeatedly been pointed out in this thread, there is very clearly a difference in intent between Hamas and Israel regarding civilians. Yet for some people it is Israel who are considered evil while Hamas receives no condemnation at all. Certainly there is room to criticise the IDF here, but the context is that the IDF is in a no-win situation regardless of what they do. Had they not used WP, I'm sure they would have been criticised for using lead, rather than rubber bullets. Or for using guns and bullets rather than flowers and feathers to retaliate... I understand your concern for civilians. But I really can't understand why you condemn the IDF so severely. Is there something personal about this?

Thank you, that was an informative link.

What kind of artillery? I bet they could easily be droped within 100m by 100m (or did you mean 10 m by 10m?). Either way, it appears from the picture the shells landed in the basketball court where they were intended as no buildings appear hit... Deployment means aside, what size officiallyqualifies as an "open area"? I really don't know if/where these terms are defined, so until we have a definition in the treaty or convention, its just a matter of opinion (which is why I bolded part of your statement). For what its worth, I agree that the use of WP this close to what are apparently civilian apartments does have a significant risk of civilian casualties. I'm not at all comfortable with that and I do tend to agree they should not have been used here. But I think we must also take into consideration the difficult position the IDF are in, their choices range from bad to worse considering Hamas deliberately engages in urban warfare to generate these exact ethical dilemas. Its one thing to sit in our safe chairs behind the computer and speculate about possible alternatives to avoid injuring the civilians intentionally dragged into the conflict by Hamas. Its quite another to be calling a mother, father, wife, daughter, etc. to regretfully inform them their loved one has been killed (or captured and tortured) in combat. Then to further have to explain that although the use of WP might have saved their life, probably even without hurting any Palestinian civilians, you just couldn't take that risk. Its an impossible choice either way.

I don't think it is as conclusive as you say. What constitutes an "open area"? Thankfully, the original picture (post # 1) is still up. I see what looks like a parking lot/basketball court with possibly more open area behind and to the sides of where the flares are dropping (maybe this is where the IDF are retreating? Or maybe they are retreating behind the photographer?). Is there a definition of "open area"? I'll grant that this sure looks like a place where civilians could be found, but is also about as open as you will probably find in a city. Especially considering the fact that Hamas will only fight in urban areas? Just to play devils advocate a bit, I'd also like to point out that smoke cover would be much more effective between the tanks and the attackers, than simply on top of the retreating tanks. If you are in the tank being shot at, I bet you'd personally want every possible advantage you could get to get the H-LL out of the crossfire. I know I would.

In this case it is because neither the Democrats nor Republicans want to curb spending. They are both addicted to it. The Democrats, however, can't openly oppose their President. The Republicans can openly oppose a Democratic President. So the Democrats will let the Republicans threaten a filibuster then say "oh, well we can't stop them so I guess we just have to not have a panel limiting our spending. The Republicans gave us no choice "

Ah, that explains it, thank you.

IA- he does bring up a good point that deserves a better answer. I can't tell for certain without actual data, but just from looking at the past 1000 years, there is very clearly a much larger area between the deviation lines and average on the low temperature side than the area between the deviation lines and the average on the high temperature side. If they were equal, the areas between the deviation and the average line would be equal. Even the 1880 to 2010 graph appears to show a larger area under the curve on the low temperature side than on the high temperature side. If the average is correctly chosen, shouldn't the areas between the deviation lines above and below the average be equal? Take off the last 70 years or so and everything is below the average. This is clearly not possible since the influence of the past 70 years isn't enough to bring the average that high. I suspect you are correct and the global "average" may be taken from a much longer timeframe...but I don't have time right now to look into it further. Jryan - Your observation appears correct to me, however I'd like to point out it indicates that the "warm-up" is actually more severe than is being claimed...again I don't have time now to look into it further, maybe over the weekend...

That too, might be a good reason to not simply re-build the Saturn V, although I would also suggest it might be easier to incorporate engineering advances with the Saturn V rather than design a new system. I have no way to know which would be easier to do. This might account for the different lift values between the Saturn V and Ares V. Or not... Maybe its me, but I just don't understand a decision to spend a vast amount of money to design something that isn't substantially (IMO) different than what we already have (had). There should be some clear scientific reason why. It could be increased safety as DH suggested. It could be easier to implement advances in a new system as Sisyphus suggested. Anyone know for certain? Edit: Or maybe the extra payload is considered substantial and I am mistaken in my presumption?