JohnB

At least we can translate for Americans.

Shot by a 25 year old jealous husband when I'm a hundred and ten.

Well if Australia stops responding sometime Friday your time, then you might start to worry.

There are no secret organisations. Now just watch this little red light.

Then watch the UK over the next 10 years and see "future paradise" in reality.

Marat, then Bertrand Russell should have been shot. What he was suggesting was in reality to save the white population by sacrificing the jews and other "undesirables". The crimes of the nazi regime were known in 1940. A good movie about what might have happened is Fatherland. Phi, men believe in what they fight for, home and principles. Politics reminds them that the world isn't about principle but about accomodation. Try to imagine how those who liberated Dachau felt to be told that the guards were to be treated as normal POWs and not mechanics of a machine for mass murder. To fight for a principle and to see the result diluted for political expediency leaves a great distaste for politics. To quote George S. Patton; Better to fight for something than live for nothing. His words as applied to this thread; It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived. And in general; Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.

Just a few quick points. SMF, on that "97%" of scientists that agree. In the interests of total truth, rather than spin the numbers should be looked at. The survey was sent to 10,257 scientists of whom only 3,146 bothered to reply, so it would appear that looming climate doom isn't high on the priorities for about two thirds of them. Of that number only 5% or 157 described themselves as "Climate Scientists". The 157 were further culled; So the "97%" is in fact 75 out of 77 and certainly not out of thousands. You might be interested in this SPPI pdf about the paper which examines its methodology and the numbers. (Although it's rather insulting to warmers) A much better look at the methodology can be found here. A rather interesting point is that the blog author sent the questions to widely known sceptic authors and has their replies. People keep saying that. Did you say the same before Soloman 2010? Although her team showed Stratospheric Water Vapour may be responsible for 30% of the recent temp rise I don't seem to recall it being mentioned in AR4. How about GCRs? Since they admit that the extent of the effect is currently unknown perhaps it isn't "significant"? Funny how people keep saying that "all the significant factors have been accounted for" and yet we keep finding new ones that nobody knew about. It makes one wonder about the finality of the original statement don't you think. For many it's even odder that each time a new factor is added to the mix (PDO, ENSO, NAO,AO, maybe GCRs) the models still give almost exactly the same answers. A reasonable person would think that if the inputs change the output would change. Edtharan. We are not overdue for a glacial period. The closest analogue for the Holocene is the fourth one back, or Stage 11 in the literature. The evidence is that it was between 20 and 40 thousand years long and had the most similar orbital forcing to now. Based on the Milancovich cycles we are not due a new Ice Age for at least 6,000 years. Any assumptions that anthropogenic forces have somehow "delayed" an Ice Age are therefore wrong. Dr. Jerry McManus from Woods Hole has some good papers on this. (h/t Gavin Schmidt) Can you provide a cite for that? All the data I've seen shows three warming periods since the mid 1800s, each lasting for 30 years and with statistically identical slopes. Even if we assume the latest one was entirely due to CO2 it is not outside the bounds of natural variations as demonstrated by the earlier two. The bottom line is that there is nothing particularly unusual about the warming from 1970-2000, it's the same as the period from 1850-1880 which is believed totally natural. One of the biggest difficulties in navigating the "climate debate waters" is distinguishing between what the advocates say the scientists say, what the journalists say the scientists say and what the scientists actually say. A paper correctly using the terms "might" and "could possibly" becomes "We're all going to die" in the hands of the advocate of journo. Similarly the more activist sceptic sites will take "might" and "could possibly" to mean "We really don't have a clue", a totally inaccurate summation of the position. Another big problem is that people don't listen to what is said. Taking Greenland as a case in point, areas that were permafrost in the 20th C were not in the 11th C and the vikings could farm there. This doesn't tell us anything about the mass balance of the glaciers in the interior, it tells us only about the permafrost on the coast. Not does it mean that the coast was neccessarily warmer in the 11th C than now, (and I've been guilty of this assumption) simply due to lag. Local environmental changes always lag the climatic changes. It takes time for the new equilibrium to establish, however since the climate is always changing the equilibrium is never established. Similarly the debate is often couched in the phrase "The climate is warming/changing and man is primarily responsible". I point out that this is not one statement, but two. A person can agree that the world is warming without agreeing that man is primarily responsible, hence graphs of sea ice cover etc are rather pointless. They show the world is warming, big deal we know that, they do not give evidence of attribution. I find the debate from warmers is often about providing evidence that the world is warming and they then think the sceptic isn't listening. We are, it's just that the evidence isn't relevent. Proof of warming is not proof of attribution. Perhaps if I changed the phrase the point would be clearer. If I were to say "The world is warming and God is responsible" and then trotted out all the proofs that the world was in fact warming, would that thereby prove the existence of God? Of course not. Neither does the existence of warming prove the responsibility of man.

The best dating method for rocks depends on the type. Igneous have a firey disposition and the direct approach works best. Just ask for the date and take it out to a "hot" nightspot. Appear "hot" yourself but keep an eye on the sweat factor, igneous and water don't mix well. Also be gentlemanly and polite, but keep an undertone of "bad boy". Sedimentary rocks are the easiest to date as they like nothing more than a quiet lie in with drinks and a movie. Definitely a "chick flick" type of rock. Don't be afraid to let the rock see your deeper side as it will appreciate that you too have many layers. Metamorphics are very complicated and changable. Try opening with a coffee followed by dinner and a movie for the second date. Always remember that it was once something else and could be a sedimentary exploring its wild side after sharing a bed with an igneous for a while. As to where to meet nice rocks, you could try geologicalmatchmaker.com as I've heard there's a wide variety of ages and types there. If all else fails you could try the advice on the Wiki page for "Rock Dating".

I thought the fins looked rather big.

Considering the number of whale fossils in the Sahara, maybe you should.

Not quite. Water is virtually incompressible which is why we use it for pressure testing containers. A rupture in a vessel containing air at 3,000 psi results in a large explosion, a rupture in a vessel containing water at 3,000 psi gives a (very) short spurt. Scuba and other high pressure vessels are tested this way all the time.

Yes, the smell of cooking human flesh is quite distinctive, isn't it?

Okay, genitalia aside. Lyndale, you have two problems with your discovery. The first is the human predisposition to see shapes in random patterns. This is called Pareidolia and a link to an article about this is in pwagens comment. This facet of the human mind is what allows us to lie on the grass on a warm sunny day and see the bunny rabbits and dragons in the clouds. The bottom line is that just because you see a shape, doesn't mean it's really there. The second problem is that the lake that all these things are in is an artificial lake. This means that none of those shapes were there before man put them there. As you say, you didn't take a shovel and dig the shapes, but man decided to put a dam there and man decided how high to make the wall. This means that the shapes are the result of mans actions and are not natural, without the dam they wouldn't exist. For example if the lake level dropped 30 feet your "Eve" would be attached to the shoreline and no longer an island. Similarly if the dam wall wasn't built as high as it was, the shapes wouldn't be there either. Can you surmount these problems?

I have relatives from New Guinea and I'm anecdotally informed that "Long Pig" is accurate. During the early 1940s meat animals were taken from the natives by the Japanese army so meat was in short supply. After a couple of decisive battles a new source of meat was available for the natives. It might sound terrible, but what do you expect starving people to do? I should add that only some tribes in some areas were involved, it wasn't a general thing.

AFAIK research has also shown that rates of domestic violence are the same in the gay and lesbian communities as in the general population as well. I think that this is why no nation at the moment can actually have a discussion on the topic. The politically correct "Victimhood" industry won't allow it. You can't keep claiming the people you represent are victims of the nasty wider community if it's shown that they are just as nasty to each other. The other point is that men and women use different weapons when arguing. Verbally men are far inferior to women in an argument as women are far better at the "cutting remark" that goes very deep. Watch groups of males and females ejecting a person from their group, the males will tell the ostracized one to "P*ss off and don't come back" while the women will verbally and psychologically tear strips off the person and make sure that they simply can't face the idea of coming back. As to which is the worse type of violence, pysical or psychological, I really can't say. Both are bad.

Sorry, but I have to ask. How do you make the military more "self sufficient"? I mean aside from piracy and the odd bit of "rape and pillage", there is no way you are going to get them to pay for themselves. As an international point concerning the problem. It is increasingly obvious that America will have to cut spending and that part of cuts will be in the military. This has implications for those of us who have relied on the "Pax Americana" in the Pacific region. Cuts in US military spending will result in a decreased presence in the Pacific theatre thereby leaving a power vacuum. In another thread I mentioned that many nations including mine have taken you yanks for a ride. While your mega fleets wandered about the oceans, we didn't need to have them. So we down in Oz could build schools and hospitals and infrastructure and survive with our military only getting some 1.8% of the budget because "Uncle Sam" was there to help us fight if the need arose. Seriously, our "National Defence" strategy is based on "Holding out until America arrives.....about 3 days." It would appear that all sides of Oz politics (except for the loony left) realise that this situation cannot continue. We'll have to start spending what we need to and pull our weight. Interesting times indeed.

Ophiolite, you need to read more "Doc" Smith.

Lemur, could you please clarify? I thought you were saying that the concept of ghosts/spirits are intuitively implausible, but you then seem to be saying that calling something intuitively implausible displays opinion rather than critical thought. In general from both my reading and experience these "phenomena" fall into two distinct categories. "Ghosts" appear to be some sort of recording as they tend to follow the same pattern each time they are seen, "Spirits" appear to be conscious entities that can interact. If this is the case, then the methods for detecting one will probably not be suitable for the other, it would be like trying to detect radio waves with a microphone. The main problem for ghost hunters is that except for some extremely vague "spiritual" concepts they have no underlying theory. If a ghost is a recrding, as a number surmise then the obvious questions are; 1. What is the means of recording? 2. What is the recording medium? 3. How does "replay" occur? 4. What is the recording "played" on? By analogy, say I have a film to show. Unless I have the film, a projection machine, a working light in that machine, a power source to run the machine and a screen to project the picture on, I cannot show the film. A number of independent factors must come together in the right way and at the right time for the film to be viewed. In the case of ghosts we don't even have a basic theory as to what the factors are, let alone a knowledge of how they must be combined for the ghost to be "viewed". The case is worse if spirits are in fact conscious entities because they can choose not to participate. (Note that this problem is true for all science into human psychology and physiology, if nobody chooses to participate in the experiments, then they cannot be replicable.) I have gone out with ghost hunters and been singularly unimpressed with the methodologies and attitudes involved. Aside from a large number of "Orbs" (glowing balls that show up in photos but are not visible generally) there was nothing. I must add that "Orbs" tend to show up at night when a flash is being used and I think that rather than ghosts or spirits they are simply getting photos of the flash being reflected off the wings of small bugs.

Not too fast. We haven't had a decent loony in here since Gentleman Farmer. It's been getting boring.

Lemur, fair enough. Another thread maybe. Doc Josh. The thing that will hold them back are their "Brothers". While there is a lot of talk about solidarity against the infidel and the like, each and every one of the nations that provide any comfort to terrorists will fall over themselves to tell you about a possible nuke threat. For all the talk it is quite well realised that if a nuke goes off all bets will be off. If an American city takes the brunt there is nothing the Americans won't do to avenge the act, and the ROW will not even try to stop them. This goes for every Western nation. Any nation with connection to the terrorists will cease to exist in short order and the various politicians know this. They will rat on the terrorists just to ensure their own survival. Also note that the majority of attacks are on Muslims in marketplaces and Mosques and the governments of Muslim nations don't want a nuke going off in their nation either.

Lemur, you make good points. Have you considered that nationalism, rather than being encouraged as a top down affair is a natural consequence of bottom up tribalism? People can identify with groups of varying sizes for defensive purposes. At the lowest level a person identifies with and is fiercely loyal to their family. The next level up is the tribe which can take many forms, the most obvious being sports teams. The behaviour of the supporters of two opposing teams is classic tribalism at work, complete with "war paint". This ladder continues up through support for your City, your State (as in "State of Texas", the geographical subdivision of a nation), your nation, your "race" (whatever that is supposed to mean) and finally your species. The police officer or firefighter exemplifies the idea of someone who values the safety of his/her City and its citizens above their own life. The war fighter places his/her nation or political system above themselves. How far up this ladder a person can go is of course an individual thing and is innate to that person. Assuming a bell curve distribution then at one end we have the most basic tribal behaviour while at the other we have those who put humanity first, people like Mother Theresa. Now there must be a median point on this curve and I think that it is around the size of "Nation" or the next step down, perhaps "political party". Note that there is little difference between the Democrat/Republican tribalism and the tribalism between two sports teams. Actual numbers could be a factor here as well, since smaller nations don't have the same sorts of divides. Your thoughts? Marat, I think you have a point about the "Fleet in being" idea. The only thing that prevented a Third World War was MAD. With both sides having nukes, if a conventional war started nukes would be used at the end because the losing side would have no other weapons left. This being a major strategic factor meant that a conventional "all out" war had to be avoided at all costs. In the case of terrorists and nukes it is a "hostage" situation, but so was MAD at the bottom. "If you destroy our cities, we'll destroy yours". In wars cities and their civillian populations were always hostages and I don't see the terrorists as any different "Do as we say or your civillians and cities will suffer". While certainly not politically allowable, I think a reasonable response to a nuclear terrorist threat is "Use it on one of our cities and you'll be making pilgrimage to a radioactive hole in the ground". "Destroy what we value and we'll destroy what you value."

Quite possible. The rounded end would serve well for smoothing the cement between layers of bricks. The plating worries me a bit because it would wear off rather quickly and be thus rather pointless, but it would make the thing look pretty when sold. The plating can give you a hint as to the age. Clean with a solvent like methylated spirits to remove the dirt and get a good look at the plating. If it appears to have a bluish tinge to it, it's probably a nickel or nickel-silver, if it has a yellowish tinge it will be a chrome plate job. If it's from an airbase, when was the airbase commissioned? That would give you an "earliest possible" date. The airbase could be new which would put the artifact from say the 60s, or it could be built on an old RAF base and be from the 30s. The chrome/nickel question can help here as nickel was more common in the 30s and chrome more common after the 50s. Looking at Google images for bricklaying tools there are some that are quite similar to the artifact. The thing is that like the casting tools, none seem to have that turned up end the artifact does. It makes the identification more interesting. So far all the pics I've seen for both theories are "almost but not quite" which arouses curiousity. Keep us informed. Cheers.

No problem. You can see a similar effect with the two tropics. The Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn were named for the zodiac signs that the Sun was in at the Summer Solstice when they were named. Due to movement this is no longer true. At the Northern Solstice the Sun is now in Taurus and at the Southern Solstice it is in Scorpio. One of the main reasons for the "end of days" misunderstandings is that people tend to think the planet is constant when it isn't. They think that how it was recently is how it's always been and will always be in the future. Everything changes and moves. Some of the movements are slow, but others are quite quick. Again using the Tropics as an example, people think of them as a line on a map dividing the world like the Equator does. The truth is that they move. A lot. A Tropic is the most Northerly or Southerly point where the Sun is directly overhead at midday on the Summer Solstice. As the Earth wobbles on it's axis, this line moves by a few metres each year. This is a great photo from Mexico where they mark the movement each year beside the highway. (I didn't embed it as it's a huge pic.) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Tr%C3%B3pico_de_C%C3%A1ncer_en_M%C3%A9xico_-_Carretera_83_%28V%C3%ADa_Corta%29_Zaragoza-Victoria%2C_Km_27%2B800.jpg North of me near Rockhampton are two markers for the Tropic of Capricorn. The old one from the 70s and the new one put in a few years ago. The new one is about 500 metres North of the old one. Cool, huh?

I believe that lemur is correct. While there might be more bombs now than in the 60s, there is less total megatonnage. When you needed an ICBM to destroy a target but only had an accuracy of 5 miles, then you needed a bomb that would take out everything within 5 miles of ground zero. As accuracy increased, the size of the bomb required to neutralise the target got smaller. In modern technological warfare if you need to neutralise an enemy airbase, taking out communications and radar make the base almost useless. With the accuracy of modern cruise missiles etc., this can be done quite simply with conventional warheads. Conventional warheads are also easier to use due to the lack of international condemnation if you use them rather than nukes and they are far cheaper to make and store. People often forget that the purpose of warfare is not to kill as many as possible of the opposition. The purpose of warfare is to destroy the enemies ability to continue the conflict. While it is true that wholesale destruction can accomplish this goal, it is like killing ants with a sledgehammer. Far better the "surgical" strikes that destroy his warmaking ability without causing massive destruction. It lessens dislike for you after the conflict because you aren't percieved as a no holds barred mass murderer and it makes the rebuilding faster, easier and cheaper. The aftermath of the conflict is always figured into war strategy with both tactics and weapons being restricted by this factor. zapatos, the problem is that you can't remove the tool, you have to fix the people. It's not like a nuke is hard to make, the knowledge is out there and can't be hidden again. Put enough Uranium in one place and it goes "Bang" all by itself, you don't even need a detonator. IIRC Mother Nature worked out how to do it about 50,000 years ago in South Africa. Uranium being heavy like gold washed to the lowest part of a lake and when there was enough in one spot, "Bang".

Jasper the "Precession of the Equinoxes" is always occurring, it just takes 26,000 years for the full cycle. It's not something that happens suddenly. Polaris is currently the "Pole Star" but it will gradually move away from that position moving in a small circle. In 26,000 years it will be the "Pole Star" again. There are two words here that are quite similar and very different. There is "Precession" which refers to the movement of the Earth due to it's spin in the same fashion that a gyroscope "precesses" but there is also "Procession" as in a parade. In some ways both can be used when talking about the Equinoxes. The precession of the Equinoxes refers to which star constellation the Sun rises in at the Spring Equinox. For example we are now at the beginning of the "Age of Aquarius" due to the Sun rising in Aquarius, the one prior to this was the "Age of Pices". Each Age lasts for a little bit over 2,000 years. The movement of the Sun was noted by the early Astronomer/Astrologists when they realised that over time the place that the Sun rose on the Equinox actually moved by roughly a degree every 72 years. A Temple with very precise alignment made 500 years before was hopelessly out of whack. They realised that the Sun would progressively rise over a period of time in each of the signs of the Zodiac, thereby signifying the different "Ages". Over a period of 26,000 years the Sun will rise in each of the signs of the zodiac, one after another. 500 years ago it rose in Pisces, now it rises in Aquarius and in 3,000 years it will be rising in Capricorn. An interesting historical situation is that during the Age of Pisces, the last 2,000 years, the symbol for the dominant mode of thought was the fish. Prior to Pisces was the Age of Aries when the Greeks were dominant and they had a big thing in their mythology for rams. The golden fleece and the like. The age prior to that was of course the Age of Taurus the bull and at that time the "Apis Bulls" were worshiped in ancient Egypt. One of the arguments for the redating of the Sphinx is that if the geological evidence is correct it would place the carving of the statue at around 9,000BC which is dead centre of the "Age of Leo". It would make sense to have a statue of a lion facing the Sun rising in Leo, as it did at that time. Note that the statue itself faces due East and therefore looks directly into the rising Sun on the Spring Equinox. However the bottom line is that the Precession of the Equinoxes has less effect on the planets mantle than the daily revolution does. The Sun rises in a different sign of the zodiac and the lines of the tropics wander up and down a bit, but that's all.