JohnB

Essay, I'm officially fucking bored. I'm sick and tired of quoting peer reviewed literature only to be answered with fucking blog crap. I'm also tired of being constantly misrepresented.

And now for the very hard truth. The climate changes over time, it always has and always will. This will mean some areas become less attractive and others will become more attractive. The insurance companies exist to make money and will use any excuse to pump up the premiums. This is the adult world. Deal with it. Understand that if we could magically stop emitting CO2 and magically reduce the amount in the atmosphere to pre industrial levels tomorrow, the climate would still change. Housing prices and insurance would still vary. And welcome to the forum.

Are you freaking mentally deficient? Seriously? I've been arguing that there must be something suspect in the figures for a number of posts and every responder has disagreed with me. How can you in the name of freaking sanity ask that question? If you don't think the bloody figures for the USA are correct, then why in the name of Thor are you arguing? Jesus wept.

Sorry Cap, I wasn't out to dismiss or even argue the points. I was making an observation concerning another factor that needs to be added to the equation. People are not cut and dried and so move according to many factors, a major one being belief. (Although now you know how I feel a lot of the time. ) People who are confident in their intelligence and knowledge are quite unlikely to change their stance even when shown to be wrong. To admit to being wrong if to admit to being inferior and many people just can't do that. Intelligent people are also more easily fooled because they have confidence in their abilities, but mostly because they believe that only silly people get conned and since they are smarter than most of the population they are not silly and therefore cannot get conned. Most especially they believe they are smarter than the conman involved, and that is their downfall. On the political front, Democrat supporters believe themselves to generally be intelligent and educated and therefore "wise", they also believe their opponents to be uneducated and unintelligent, possibly even a majority are young earth creationists. People such as these cannot possibly have anything intelligent to say or a decent idea to add to the conversation as they are obviously far too dumb to think beyond their 2,000 year old book. Given that as an opening mindset, why would a Democrat even bother listening to what the inferior Republican has to say? More to the point, how could any argument sway him? To do so would be to admit that the "always wrong" right, might actually be correct on something which leaves the door to being open to them being right on a number of things. And this cannot be so, for the superior must be correct always.... The above point isn't so much about left and right as it is about the inevitable result of acute partisanship. If you cannot admit fault on your own side, why do you demand that those opposed admit fault on theirs? Even the Alvin Green thing in SC was blamed on the Republicans and they had nothing to do with it yet the only left of centre commentator who spoke out runs a comedy show. It's pretty sad when your best political reporter is a comedian. Where did Maddox (for example) question the Democrat Senator that said the situation had "Elephant dung all over it" and call him out on such stupidity. How about Hank Johnsons fear that the isalnd of guam would "tip over and capsize"? Is it only those on the right that think he is an idiot? Partisanship means that you will sacrifice "Truth" on the altar of "Political Solidarity", but once you sacrifice the truth, do you really have anything left? What is even sadder is that I've seen Stewart interviewed on real news and current affairs shows and they treat him like a newsman, especially the left leaning cannot tell the difference between the Daily Show and a real news show, a point that Stewart himself keeps making. The first part is incorrect though, indoctrination can be quite subtle and based on an ideology rather than a person. The second part is certainly true for the harder sciences, but do students in the humanities and other soft sciences pass if they disagree with what the professor says? iNow, I'm not sure the figures do show this. They show that the States with the most University graduates tend to vote Democrat. I don't know about US Unis, but in ours the hard sciences are losing out to the soft ones. Physics, Chemistry and Engineering are losing out to Humanites that produce people with PhDs in medieval folk dancing. The vast majority of social worker types are in government jobs, as are many lawyers and many from a lot of other departments. All those who do not have qualifications of value to the private business world would vote for the party that will keep them in a job, the Democrats. I'm not saying that this is the case, but I think it is very likely that the truth is far more nuanced than the raw figures would seem.

And again the main question is sidestepped. Ringer, even if what you say is true then it would apply to all or most developed nations and so the rate for electoral fraud would be similar in all nations. The point here is that it is not. The question is "Why?". Either there is a reason or the figures are suspect. People keep saying the figures must be right, but cannot supply any sort of logical reason in explanation. This isn't about whether electoral fraud is less common in the US compaered to murder, nor is it about comparing apples to oranges. It is comparing the rates for various crimes across international boundaries. The murder rates across boundaries are similar, as are the rates for rape and robbery. You are about as likely to be the victim of a crime in the USA as in any other developed nation. Yet supposedly when we compare the electoral fraud figures Americans are hundreds of times less likely to commit this crime. Really? Why? Other nations have laws against it and fines and imprisonment for committing the crime, so what makes the USA special for this one crime only? It takes just as much forward planning to commit electoral fraud in Australia, some would say more since we have an independent body looking after elections. I'll try putting it another way since it appears that people are constantly missing my point. While I tend to dislike two value logic it does work in this case. The figures are either right or wrong. Given that american rates for all other crimes are roughly in step with the rest of the planet then the expectation would be that rates of electoral fraud would follow the same pattern and also be in step with the rest of the planet. This is not the case. So we have a choice, either the figures are right and therefore America is somehow different and special in that they will commit all forms of crime at the same rate as everyone else on the planet except electoral fraud and there is a good and sufficient reason for this discrepancy. Or the figures are wrong. So far nobody has even come close to providing a decent reason for the discrepancy. All the "reasons" given either apply to virtually all developed nations or apply to many crimes. I'm willing to bet that a drug cartel does way more forward organising and planning to get their stuff in from Columbia than a political party would need to do to fake some votes.

Unfortunately Cap, it has been my experience that they are often the easiest to fool too.

And quite misses the point I'm making. akh, people do things for "the cause", and they do terrible things. It wasn't that long ago that white hoods and burning crosses were seen in the US, are you suggesting that a population containing people who would lynch a n***** wouldn't do voter fraud? The point is that it is out of step by such a margin that a really good explanation is needed. Using the UNDOC figures, (scroll down for the by nation/per 100,000) you find Australia for homicides is 1 and America is 4.2. On a purely statistical basis I am 4 times as likely to be murdered in the USA than here. akh, if you really want the stats, then go here. (I hope the link works) The point is that America scores middling to high on every single major crime when compared to the ROW yet you claim it scores orders of magnitude lower than the ROW on voter fraud. You can't provide a sensible reason for this beyond some vague hand waving about penalties. On any sane planet there would be only two options, either the figures are real and there is a good and logical reason for them or the figures are suspect. I'm suggesting that you have a serious under reporting problem going on. But the rest of us poor plebs would really like to know the secret. Why will Americans murder, rape and rob far more often per 100,000 population than most of the developed world but are supposed to be 100s of times less likely to commit voter fraud? The closest analogy I can think of would be for the Governors of the various States to have a meeting to compare crime figures and they all roughly match until we get to car theft and while 49 States report 100 thefts per 100,000 cars Arizona reports 1 per 100,000. Wouldn't it be reasonable to either question the figures or ask what the reason for the discrepancy is? And the reason I keep saying "roughly" similar is that while the US murder rates is 4 times ours, the practical difference is nothing. 1 in 100,000 or 1 in 25,000, neither are worth worrying over. Edit: I forgot the link to the UNDOC figures.

And my Dining room one has blown again....

iNow, does that prove that better educated people lean to the left or that Universities are indoctrination areas for left wing thinking? I'm not arguing either way, but I'll bet a case can be made for the second.... ydoaps, the onlt problem I have with your answer, and it is quite possibly due to the differences in our systems is that you are essentially saying that when the Democrats control both Houses and the Presidency but fail to pass their Bills, it is the Republicans fault. So when the Republicans hold both Houses and the Presidency and fail to pass their Bills, whose fault is it? On a much lighter note (and to appease the Hurricane Gods);

Then you assume wrong. It also goes to show that you know so little about my nation that you need an education before commenting on it. If you, a Brit thinks that Australia is just Aboriginals and convicts, then you are a maroon. How about addressing my points rather than making offensive personal comments? Or is it that you can't and personal insults are the only weapons in the locker? Nor did I say at any point I was against immigration from anywhere, a nice little strawman there but utterly silly and useless in the conversation. How about the "Left" down here not supporting policies that have directly led to the deaths of over 1,000 people? Or is it that this number of dead is a tiny thing in the "Big Picture"? I don't want an end to immigration, I want an end to policies that encourage illegal immigrants to pay people smugglers $10,000 a head to try the trip in leaky boats. The death toll is way too high. We had an answer that worked, the numbers say so. We changed that because of left ideology and not any reasonable reason and people are dying. Funny how the left was very vocally against the Vietnam war, which killed 521 Aussies in 13 years, but actually defend a policy that has possibly 3 times as many people in less than half the time. I wonder if it's because those dying aren't white? Hypocrisy stinks.

Got it. The figures are right and America has the bestest and truest system in the world. Americans will kill, rape and pillage at the same rates as the rest of the world but won't cheat at election time. This is because cheating in an election is just so much more wrong than murder, rape and importing illegal drugs from South America. The wider point that you avoided is that the stats for fraud are so far out of line compared to other crime stats that there must be a problem. Other crimes have similar rates across the developed world, why is this one different? Please divulge the secret Oh Great Ones as to why the American populace are just likely to kill, steal or rape (per 100,000 population and within a few percentage points) but are orders of magnitude less likely to cheat on a vote. The data diverges and this makes me suspect the data, if you don't agree then what is the reason for the divergence? It's that simple.

Well that touched a nerve, I wonder why? Rather than a correlation, I based my comment on a lack of correlation. Those putting forward the idea of this extremely low rate have to explain why it is an outlier. Your argument is essentially that Americans will defraud, steal, rape, murder and assault at similar rates to the rest of the First world but won't cheat on elections. I'd like some sort of explanation as to why this is. If out of 50 States you had one that tracked with all the others on all figures but car theft was orders of magnitude lower, wouldn't you question as to why this is? Either there is a good and sufficient reason for the discrepancy, or the figures are suspect. I perhaps should have phrased it better and more completely. akh, I should have said "convicted", there were, by the report I read over 1,000 investigations. Some hundreds admitted to the fraud and were given summary fines, other cases were dismissed and others went to court. As to the idea that a larger population makes it less worthwhile to cheat, this is simply wrong. The question is not how many people are in the electorate, but by how many votes is it won. That is the vital point that people forget. TBH, every tme you blokes have an election I'm profoundly grateful for our Australian Electoral Commission, which is totally independent and looks after these things. They check the rolld and issue the voter cardss and they check them at the polling booth. They do everything and the only thing a political party representative is allowed to do is watch the count after polls close. You may watch, you may point out "spoiled" ballots, but your hands must never cross over the top of the table or you will be thrown out. Cheating is made harder by each party aving a scrutineer at every polling booth. 3 or 4 people around a table and the only person trusted is the AEC vote counter. It's hard to slip in some extras if you are being watched closely. And I wouldn't be too concerned about the different IDs thing. Our aussie passport is viewed as the ultimate proof of identity in every nation except ours, you can't even open a bank account with only a passport for ID. But having the passport means that you can get a photo ID drivers licence and that plus the passport is fine. Government rules, not making sense since they were invented.

Phi, I wouldn't be so sure. We prosecuted about 80 people at the last Federal election with some 14 million voters and the US is claiming about 90 prosecutions for 300 million votes. Either Americans are unusually and almost unbelievably honest, or someone is fudging the numbers.

No offence, but I doubt it. He had the lower House numbers for the first two years of his first term and didn't seem to do much with them. (But that could be a wrong impression from far away.)

Firstly I doubt that the OP poster has the foggiest about Nauru. While the nation does have a small police force, the guards at the new detention centre are quite numerous. Add to that, we are spending some $150 million on new facilities on the island and won't want to lose them. This means that if someone wanted to take over, "The Regiment" would be having a word with them. I can assure those interested that the conversation would be very short and extremely painful. Until we can dump our "progressive" government, we need Nauru, and after we dump them we will use the facilities until they are no longer needed. It's not big, bad Oz pushing a little nation around either, we pay very good money for them to have the centres. The icing on the cake is that when the detention centre in Nauru was run by that nasty, racist, exploitive, conservative government the Nauruans were paid some $400 per week, but under the new, caring plan by the compassionate progressives they will be paid $4 per hour, or less than half the old rate. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/locals-paid-4-an-hour-at-nauruan-detention-centre/story-fn9hm1gu-1226505683189 If I sound p*ssed by all this, I am. The policies of those incompetents in Canberra, the policies demanded by all the moronic, non thinking, touchy, feely left wingers have directly resulted in more deaths than any other policy by any other non wartime government in my nations history. Even the government now admits that it is probable that more than 1,000 asylum seekers have drowned while attempting the crossing to Australia. I say this to every Australian here who voted for Rudd to get rid of the "Pacific Solution" then the blood is on your hands too. You wanted the policies and you got what you wanted. I hope you're proud of yourselves because you make me sick, I've yet to meet a single one with the moral fibre and backbone, even the basic human humility to admit that they were wrong and be sorry about it. And if any want to doubt what I say, then look at the official government figures of boat arrivals; 2001 43 5516 2002 1 1 2003 1 53 2004 1 15 2005 4 11 2006 6 60 2007 5 148 2008 7 161 Year Number of boats Crew Number of people (excludes crew) 2009 60 141 2726 2010 134 345 6555 2011 69 168 4565 2012 (to 9.7.12) 75 138 5459 The Pacific solution was begun in 2001 ans we saw the boats go from 43 to 1 and illegal immigrants from 5,516 to 1 in 2002. Rudd was elected in 2007 and changed the policy during 2008, just as all the little lefty luvvies wanted and by 2009 we had 60 boats with 2,726 people on board. Note the 2012 figure is Australian dating and is current as of the 9th of July 2012. It is estimated that 1 in 10 have drowned so the figures are only 90% of those who tried the crossing. /rant

It is true and a bit odd. The great Pyramid Age of Egypt was circa 2,400 BC or some 600 years after the joining of the "Two Lands" under the Scorpion King (yes, there really was one. ) in about 3,000 BC. At this time the Egyptians only had a sort of proto pulley that wasn't much more than a groove in the rock. The earliest known wheels were actually potters wheels from Mesopotamia dating from 3,800 BC or so, it took a further 600 years before some bright spark thought of turning the potters wheel on its side and using an axle. Maybe his wheel fell off the bench and rolled down the hill, thus sparking the idea, we'll simply never know. But the wheel and cart appeared circa 3,200 BC. What is truly remarkable is that the Egyptians remained oblivious to the wheel and its incredible weapon of war, the Chariot for over 1,000 years. (However this could be due to a complete lack of horses in the region.) Horses and chariots were introduced into Egypt by the Hyksos invaders in about 1,800 BC, who then ruled northern Egypt as Pharoahs for 100 years or so. It was only after the descendants of the "original" Pharonic lines who held southern Egypt adopted the chariot and built them in large numbers were the kingdoms again united and the Hyksos rulers deposed. However, to directly answer your questions. About 3,200 BC and somewhere in the region of Mesopotamia.

Such as? Are we running out of something?

Anders, why not? The humble old flouro tube is getting left out of this conversation. A good 36W slimline flouro with a clean diffuser panel will light up most rooms very well. They also come in round for more compact fittings. While perhaps not as efficient as the newer CFLs, they will outlast the then new CFLs by a large margin (in my experience) so are less fuel intensive in the long run. So why don't people want normal flouros? I grew up with them as household lighting and they were fine.

John, I'm saying that the graph does not appear to match the known data. And FOR THE THIRD FREAKING TIME I agree with you that the graph appears to be steeper on the right. @iDevonian, learn to bloody read. I've said twice that the graph appears steeper on the right, did you miss them both? The question that you are avoiding is this "Why is the graph steeper on the right when the literature says there is no acceleration?" The quote from Douglas again; My eyeball says that John is correct in his quickie estimate and the graph shows the rate as roughly double. So, why is that? Swansont, it is informative to look at the abstract the article is based on as it includes a very pertinent point; (Emphasis mine.) One of the problems with the Tide Guage record is that it is effected by isostatic changes in the land. The Northern Part of the US and Canada were under some 2 miles of ice 15,000 years ago, this weight depressed the land significantly. I don't know the figures for North America but Scandinavia is estimated at 900 m depression due to ice weight. While the area under the ice was depressed and is therefore still rising now the ice is gone the areas around where the ice was was actually higher in the past, the weight of the ice created a bulge at the ice perimeter. This region is still sinking now the ice weight is removed. So whether sea levels relative to the land are rising or falling is a very localised question. The abstract doesn't actually say whether the sea is rising or the land is sinking, but it may be covered in the actual paper. (paywalled) The upshot is of course that from the human POV sea level relative to the land is the only thing that matters, it is not a very good indicator of what the global sea level is actually doing. Essay, Not quite. The Hadley cells distribute heat around the planet, and have been getting rather bigger for some time. Strangely enough these operate 24/7/365 and are independent of CO2. Or does the distribution of heat only happen during the daytime? My point is that predictions that occur as a result of warming only indicate warming and are not proof of cause. I notice that you avoided the question about the very plain prediction of the "Hot Spot" and its abject failure. I'll say it again. If your theory does not produce falsifiable predictions then it is pseudoscience. Cut the crap. Or can I say that you'll find any way to avoid a question on the science and try to make ad homs instead? And if climate sensitivity is "observed", then what is it's specific value? Either provide the value or admit that it is not "observed" at all, but is inferred or estimated from climate model runs. I also suggest you aquire a dictionary and learn the meaning of the word "stable". the climate has not been stable, ever. The Holocene is "stable" if compared the D-O events during the last Ice Age but that is about it. The 20th Century is no less stable than the last few thousand years. Temps go up and down as this recent rework of the Tornetrask tree ring series shows; In Scandinavia at least, the 20th Century was probably more stable than the last two thousand odd years. Face it, without the now defunct "Hockey Stick" there is nothing at all to indicate that the change in temps in the 20th C were in any way unusual or outside the standard for normal, natural climate variations. But just so that everyone can see how wonderfully stable it has been over he last 10,00 years or so, Oh, wait.... This is more a political rather than a scientific point. We have some 1.5 million people living in a region with a water supply for about 1.2 million. We were going to build more dams, both for supply and mitigation, but these were deemed environmentally unsound and so with a long drought we nearly ran out of water. The answer was of course to build a power guzzling desal plant which was hailed as environmentally sound by the people who protest against dams and want us to cut our CO2 emissions. But we are about 1/3 prepared. The Wivenhoe Dam which caused the flooding in Brisbane last year was supposed to be the first of three dams to be built after the 1974 flood for supply and mitigation. The second and third were never built as we were advised by "experts" that rainfall was decreasing and the chances of another flood was miniscule. In a similar vein the dam was allowed to exceed the maximum levels because expert climate advice was that the drought condition would continue and we would need the water. Unfortunately the drought broke and the dam became so full that it was in danger of collapse and so the gates were opened at the worst possible time for those downstream and raised the flood levels by about 4 feet. Nice deflection there. This has nothing to do with complexity at all. It has to do with the logical impossibility of following mutually exclusive advice. To be advised to prepare for more floods is advice that can be acted upon, as is to prepare for less flooding since you can then spend the mitigation money on other things. But to be advised to prepare for both more and less flooding is as useless as tits on a bull. If highly trained experts with millions of dollars in funding can't come up with better advice than Jimmy the Village Idiot, then the problem isn't Jimmy is it? I can pay climate "scientists" a couple of million or Jimmy $50 and get the same advice. Only one is giving value for money though. I'm certain that they need to learn more about the mechanisms, but unlike you I think they should shut up until they do. Advice from "experts" that is mutually exclusive is useless. My complaint here is that there is way too much "Science by Press Release". I would also point out that if there are all these factors that effect the final analysis that are poorly known then high confidence in the accuracy of that analysis must be misplaced. Given that a climate models yearly result is based on the previous years prediction and that these predictions are at best 90% accurate, then the idea that more iterations of the program you do the more accurate it bocomes is "novel" to say the least. Taking hurricanes as an example one could argue that the increased warmth would increase the strength of hurricanes, warmth leading to more evaporation. One can also argue that increased warmth lowers the temperature differential between the Equator and the Poles (Due to polar amplification) and therefore will reduce the severity of hurricanes. What we have now is a bombardment of press releases each time someone makes a finding on either of these concepts. To me the better approach is to say that there are at least two competing mechanisms and we don't currently know which will be dominant under what conditions. It might be one, it might be the other or it might swap depending on other factors and more research is needed. This is, I believe, the honest approach. No. I don't believe the Moon landings were a hoax or that 9/11 was an inside job either. So how about dropping the logical fallacies and arguing the science?

Felix Baumgartner is today attempting to break the world records for Highest Freefall Jump and to be the first person to break the sound barrier without a vehicle. If anybody asks where the real men have gone, tell them that one of them is in a balloon more than 30 kilometres up. Those with "The Right Stuff" are still with us. Good Luck Felix. Gods speed.

Hi KimberleyH. Might I suggest a "Don't know" option for the last section? I found I had to choose Neutral as an answer simply because I didn't know.

Ophiolite is correct. Europe does indeed deserve a "Peace Prize". When was the last time they went 60 years without warring with each other? But seriously. Ophiolite, if you think that the prize has any meaning, could you explain what Obama did to earn it? We're talking about the political prize here, not the ones where paeople actually do amazing things in science and technology. Did he create peace in the Middle East? Lead a world wide revolution resulting in a better life for millions? Or did he just win and election? Parts of the prize have become highly politicized. Calling it out as such is neither "kneejerk" nor "agenda driven", it is simply telling the truth.

Actually I was pointing out that the peer reviewed literature contradicted what was posted on the blog. But try two more studies for size http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1992/92JC01133.shtml Gee, maybe JGR needs to look at their review system as well, too many papers getting through that Stefan won't like. As I said earlier, my Mk1 eyeball would tend to agree. But it isn't my fault that CSIRO put out a graph that doesn't appear to match the literature. Maybe they use "adjusted" sea levels? Strawman, or a silly question. At no point in any of these threads have I ever even implied that temps have not risen and to imply that I had or that I refuse to acknowledge such a rise is unbecoming of one of your intelligence. I specifically spoke of "scary stories and predictions of ecological and climate disaster" that have been around for decades. I say that not one has come true and therefore the track record of those who make these predictions is so poor as to be beneath consideration. If you want to argue the point rather than making vague smears then all you have to do is supply some evidence. Islands sunk? Ice Ages started? 50% of animal species disappearing? Come on, the list is extremely long over the last 60 years, surely you can find one that came true? One? Unfortunately these are all things that will happen in a warming world and as such are independent of cause. How about the very specific claim that tropical troposphere temps would increase faster than the ground temps? You know? The hot spot predicted in AR4 WG1 9.2.2, Figure 9.1? Pity it's not there, isn't it? But of course if we use Sherwood 2008 and conclude that ground speed is a better indicator of temps at 15,000 ft than the actual thermometer carried by the balloon, then we can make it appear again. All that money and time to develop instrumentation for weather balloons over decades and all they really needed to do was measure the ground speed. Meteorologists should be hanging their heads in shame... Fair question. Adding heat will warm things up, I think that this is a given, it's what follows afterwards that is less well known. Does the warmer world have more convection thereby moving more heat from the surface to the higher atmosphere? We don't know. Increased warmth should increase evaporation , thereby increasing the WV content of the atmosphere (the idea behind the acceleration effect of AGW), but this WV will become clouds and as such will shield the Earth from some of the Suns energy. Will this be a nett warming or cooling effect? We don't know. Is there really such a thing as "Climate Sensitivity"? We define it as the increase in temps for a doubling of CO2, but is it real? By definition the climate is a non linear system and yet one of the basic assumptions we are making is that it reacts in a totally linear fashion to forcing. Our lack of precision in predictions could be very well leading us astray. Will we be preparing for one predicted form of trouble and instead get hit with another? We in Oz were bombarded for years that drought was to be "the new normal" according to the models. Well guess what? The drought broke, the dams are full and the extremely expensive desal plants we built are in mothballs. Except for the one in Victoria which they couldn't finish due to too much rain. It might seem parochial to you bu to me it illustrates two points. Firstly that many in the AGW crowd will jump on anything that they think will advance the cause. Down here the drought, the fires which killed amny people and the floods were all "proof" of the extremes to come. (Americas Kevin Trenberth was one of those, we hadn't even found all the bodies before he was trying to make political capital out of it.) But because the "experts" were warning govs about drought we spend billions on desal plants that are now rotting and nothing on flood mitigation dams which we actually needed. If the best advice they can give is to prepare for floods and droughts, then shut the dept down because they are of less use than Ronnie the village idiot, even he knows that and doesn't cost as much. I know, as an unlettered person I really should listen to and follow the instructions of those smarter than me, but which of these highly educated groups of people do I choose? 1/ The people from the Belgian Royal Observatory who say that Global Warming will cause the Earth to spin slower? or 2/ The People from the Max Plank Institute who say that Global Warming will make it spin faster? How about I go with option 3? As the predictions are based wholly on models, neither group have the foggiest idea what is actually happening and are inhabiting a computer generated circle jerk? So I'll ignore them both. But I urge people to peruse the wonderful list at Numberwatch and see for themselves all the things linked to "Global Warming". Note that GW is linked to both an increase and a decrease in fog in San Francisco. And Essay, this is the problem. When the theory can predict absolutely everything and all results are "consistent with" the theory then it becomes non falsifiable. On this, a science forum there will be no shortage of people who know what an unfalsifiable theory is. Pseudoscience. It doesn't matter how pretty your theory is or how complex the models you use, if the theory cannot be falsified it is not science.

Sorry to digress, but am I the only one finding the subtitles on those clips extremely funny? "What we should run the government on is the whole in Colorado"

How about that the definition of "Sustainable" seems to be quite variable.