JohnB

I think you are reading way too much into it. The Lib-Art work (for example) was painted in 1520. Your argument rests on the artist having a symbolic knowledge of evolutionary theory, something that is highly unlikely. A far more likely, albeit less prosaic explanation is that the artist was going to paint Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve are people and all the people he ever saw had belly buttons. Therefore he painted them with belly buttons. Your Cain and Abel idea is pure conjecture. The first books of the Bible were first written, as far as we can tell, around 800BC. The transition to combined agriculture with dedicated farmland occured at least 8,000 years before that. (A recent report using genetics put the movement of farmers into Britain at 10,000 years BP.) For the idea to stand up, you have to presume that the oral history was passed down quite accurately for 8,000 years. Highly unlikely. You are also presupposing that the storytellers of 10,000 years ago understood the societal relevence of the shift to agriculture and thought it worthy of recording in the oral histories. In essence, you are suggesting that one of the first things developed by a stable, farming culture were rather advanced thinking cultural historians. I doubt the truth of this idea. jimmydasaint, while I generally agree with your comment, some of the ancient artisans were at least as good as those who came after. Recent excavations in alexandria came up with this statue a couple of years ago. It's in black granite and dates from the Ptolemaic period and is roughly life size. Notice the form and musculature showing through the thin veil of material. It is clearly a woman wearing a semi transparent dress, but carved out of granite? I believe this to be one of the under rated wonders of the ancient art world. It is simply magnificent. For those in the US who are interested, the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia will have a collection on display from June 5th 2010 to January 2nd 2011. Link here. This piece is among the 250 odd items on display. At $26 a ticket, this is extremlt cheap and I'm frankly bloody jealous. I would urge anybody here to make the time to see this exhibit as it is going to truly be a "once in a lifetime" opportunity.

Hmmm. You may be going through what we did some years ago. Voters were so sick of the options that when a new party "One Nation" came along they got votes. Despite being universally derided by both sides of the political fence and crucified in the media, One Nation gained 23% of the primary vote in their first election outing. This had a number of effects; 1. It removed a lot of deadwood from Parliment as the really poor performing politicians got voted out. 2. Government was, um, "difficult" for one term. Mainly because we had a bunch of new members who knew little of government and had little in common except a dislike of the major parties. The upside of this was that they didn't go along with the "established" ways of doing things and were quite vocal about it. It shook things up. 3. It scared the beejeesus out of the established parties because it was shown to them that they either listen to voters or an alternative party will arise and be voted for. 4. It put the final nail in the coffin of widespread partisanship. While for decades it hasn't been as strong as it is in the US, it did and does exist. However the rise of One Nation showed many supporters on both sides of the fence that they had more in common than they differed. Both sides also realised that they were each disappointed in the performance of their respective sides in Parliment. One Nation has since virtually vanished, but the lessons it taught our politicians do linger. The sooner your political powerbrokers on both sides realise that they can no longer depend on the unquestioning partisan support of a large section of voters, the better for the people. Those behind the scenes work on numbers. They "know" that no matter the policy, X% will automatically support them, Y% will automatically oppose them and Z% are swingers. The demographics are more finely tuned than that, but it illustrated the case. The smaller X and Y are made and the larger the shades of Z, the more responsive the political parties have to be and the more they have to listen. Good luck.

A few points. I think people are arguing past each other. Mooeypoo is not arguing that all sightings are false, but simply that even good sightings are unlikely to be alien visitations. Not impossible, just unlikely. The "pro" side are arguing that there is enough prima facie evidence to warrant further scientific study into the phenomenon. Not that the sightings are aliens, but that there is enough evidence to reasonably say that there is something odd going on that warrants further investigation. Part of the problem is that sceptics argue that these things have been investigated, but the pro side can just as easily show that the investigations were not scientific in any usage of the word. They were designed to arrive at a conclusion and some of those involved have stated such. So the argument that the phenomena have been ivestigated in any systematic, thourough and scientific fashion really isn't valid. Investigations into individual sightings have been done in many cases, with inconclusive results. However, what arouses the suspicions of the pro side is that the easier the sighting is to explain, the more likely authorities are to talk about it. As the sightings get harder to explain, the more likely that authorities will deny any detailed knowledge of the incident. Note that the USAF denies that it recieved any extra report from the Iranians about the Tehran incident. We are faced with a simple choice. Either the Iranians are mistaken or the USAF is. If this were the only case, then there would be no reasonable way to decide which is the true state of affairs. Unfortunately it is by no means isolated and we are now faced with a different choice. Either a number of other organisations are incorrect, or the USAF is. The probability now shifts to point to a systematic policy of denial by the USAF. Note that I don't say "proves", but "points to". The apparent disappearance of "difficult" reports is consistent with the concept of a deliberate policy. Should such a policy exist, then there may be many reasons for it, some of which I outlined earlier. There may be extremely good reasons, or it may be simply long habit. The Brookings Report commissioned by NASA in the 60s made some salient points that set policy then and since "continue the policy" is pretty standard for most governments, it may continue today. While the report did not call for the withholding of "proof", it suggested that further study into the advisability would be a good idea. I've never heard of any further studies, but that doesn't mean they weren't done. The pertinant passages are; And; The relevent pages are 215 and 216. We shouldn't read too much into this as consideration of alien contact took 1 1/2 pages out of a 250 page document. If you are considering the implications of space exploration, then you have to mention the possibility of finding artifacts that confirm an ET existence, even if they have long passed. To further muddy the waters, the sceptical side will often latch onto anything that "explains" the sighting, regardless of how unlikely or impossible. Note the "explanation" of the Tehran incident mentioned on the Wiki page. That Jupiter would be picked up by airborne radar is certainly an "extraordinary" explanation. It is unfortunately by no means unique. The New Zealand films of 1978 suffered a similar fate. This time it was Venus that was picked up and tracked by the radar at Wellington airport. Wellington airport advised the aircraft that they were being followed by an unknown object, which is to say the least an unusual activity for Venus to be engaging in. Much is also made of "extraordinary" claims, Mooeypoo made an interesting list earlier. I will however counter it with another list. Those who think that none of the sightings might be an ET craft must believe at least one of the following; 1. Earth has the only life in the Universe. 2. If there is life elsewhere it has not gained intelligence. 3. If intelligence has developed, it has not reached the levels of creating science. 4. If science has developed, then it is not as advanced as ours. 5. Development beyond our level is not possible, no matter how much time you have for research. 6. If our science cannot understand how something might be done, it cannot be done. ie Human science is supreme in this Galaxy. 7. It's a big Galaxy and they haven't got around to coming here yet. All except the last one are extraordinary things to believe or base conclusions on. Another thing that muddies the water in this area is the abundance of anecdotal evidence. Seriously, if all the accounts of the differing types of visitor were true, then this piddling little planet would be the Grand Central Station of the Galaxy. That we would be such an object of interest to so many different races is unlikely in the extreme. A far more likely possibility was outlined in the book "Those who watch" by Robert Silverberg. Simply put, we are being watched by at least 2 factions involved in a "Cold War". As we advanced technologically, then more ships were required to properly observe us. Once we reach the required level, then contact could ensue. As a general point. To deny that many of the sightings reported as "craft" are exactly that is to call a large number of experienced observers deluded or mistaken. For what reason except personal predjudice would you argue that a pilot who reports seeing a large, metallic object flying without visible means did not see just that? Why do we assume a police officer to be a trained and credible witness except when he reports an encounter? This is an "extraordinary" change in attitude that can only be produced by personal predjudice. My beliefs about mans stature in the Galaxy are not threatened by the idea of somebody else knowing things we don't and doing things we can't. To others I ask "Are yours?" and "Why?"

Not quite. MAD was a concept that came later when the arsenals became huge. During the 50s and 60s a conventional war with a nuclear sideshow was still a possibility. Both sides believed that there were "winnable" scenarios. This was exactly the reason that Stalin was murdered, he intended a nuclear first strike against the US for the glory of communism. Fortunately his underlings weren't so sure. Also note the movements of Soviet nukes into Poland leading up to the spring of 1976. A nuclear war forestalled by a very brave and patriotic Polish officer of the General Staff. Also note that MAD only works if the destruction is mutual. If the US had such a craft and could reverse engineer the tech to the point of being able to make a number of their own capable of extreme speeds, then the Soviet arsenal becomes obsolete. The missiles could be shot down by these "Super Planes" and the war would be over. The only way to prevent being so technologically outgunned would be to attack immediately, before the US had time to take advantage of the tech that had fallen into their hands. I add that the reverse situation is also true, we would have attacked to prevent Mach 25 Soviet bombers appearing in our skies. Either way the choice would have been simple. Fight now while we have a chance, or later when we have no chance.

Thanks bascule, I do appreciate that. Swansont, the article is from 2007. There is some sort of mix up in the headline dating. CharonY, yes, I do know that this sort of rediculous rubbish is not part of any accepted model. I add that I think bascules cartoon is probably pretty accurate and that reporting standards have slipped greatly. However. I posted the link mainly out of frustration. While both sides of the debate see this as stupidity and fear mongering it is only properly ridiculed by the sceptic side. The warmers say nothing. From one side of the debate the silence is deafening. I think that this is why so many on the sceptic side view warmers as intellectually dishonest. They will speak out and attack strongly the moderate sceptics but remain silent when faced with the extremists on their own side. (Granted, many sceptics are in the same category when faced with the "It's all a socialist plot" idiots on our side. Although they are called out more often.) (Mind you, a "Green" plot I'm not so sure of. It's really hard not to wonder about them sometimes. Talking to some yesterday I pointed out that for their wonderful organic world to come about, some 4 billion people would have to die, as 7 billion can't live on subsistence agriculture. The response was "And? Would that be so bad?" People that can be blase about that number of human deaths scare the hell out of me. with that attitude as a starting point, is it really so hard to imagine that they might work to help bring it about? They're "Saving the Planet", you know.) The Himalyan Glaciers claim in AR4 was wrong. It was objected to by multiple reviewers on different occasions during the drafting process. No reputable researcher believed it. Yet it was still in the report and nobody spoke up against it. Silence again. Is "Not speaking against the Consensus" now more important than truth? Where were the Glaciologists? Speaking out against something they knew was wrong? No, it took a bunch of amateur sceptics to go through the paperwork and find out the claim was bullsh*t and publicize the fact. A reasonable person has to ask himself. If the Glaciologists stayed quiet in the face of known falsehood, how many others in other disciplines are doing the same? I put this thread in politics because it is more about politics and truth than AGW. It's an appropriate forum for a topic where defending your "side" is often more important than defending scientific truth and probity. My "side" is, was, and always will be scientific truth and honesty. What is yours?

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html I hope the 3 out of 4 of you that are due to die in the next 18 months enjoy the time you have left. And for speaking out against this sort of utter bullsh*t we get called deniers.

If I might butt in wrt the scientific studies. I have long thought that a large element of psychology has been ignored by the UFO community. The various studies undertaken by the USAF and others were, as is now apparent, whitewashes. The question has to be asked "Why?" Why go to the effort? Now consider the historical context. The Cold War was in full swing and Communism was gaining in many nations. The peoples of the West were reliant on their militaries, and specifically the US Military to defend their airspace. Neither militarily nor politically would it have been acceptable for a study into the phenomenonto come to a conclusion that in effect said "They are here. We don't know who they are, we don't know what they want. We have no idea if they are hostile or not. And if they are hostile, we can't catch them or do anything about them anyway. But everything is fine." Such conclusions would not have gone down well with anybody. Given the historical context, are the results of the studies any real surprise? A study of incursions into Western airspace by supposedly unknown and possibly hostile vehicles could not come to any other conclusion. I would add that after 50 odd years of continuous denial and debunking it is now psychologically impossible for any Western military to change their tune. Likewise, whether or not the USAF was in possession of a "crashed" object, after 1949 it had to be vigorously denied. If the Soviet Union had for one minute thought that the US indeed had such a craft, WW 3 would have followed instantly. Immediate Soviet attack would be required simply because if the US had such an object and had time to study it, they would gain such a technological advantage as to remove the Soviets as a military force. Instant attack would be imperative to avoid giving the US the time to study the craft. UFO or not, truth or not, denying the existence prevented nuclear holocaust. Yes, governments lie, but don't assume that this is done out of malice or stupidity. There can be very good reasons if a bit of thought is given to the topic.

And now for the "Climate Change News" and levity break from our friends at "The Onion". Article on the unsuspected results of Climate Change. http://www.theonion.com/articles/melting-ice-caps-expose-hundreds-of-secret-arctic,2806/ And it's not just Earth. http://www.theonion.com/articles/jupiters-liberals-worried-about-their-ammonia-foot,17419/ Another impending disaster, the upcoming rock shortage. http://www.theonion.com/articles/geologists-we-may-be-slowly-running-out-of-rocks,17341/ From the Galactic News desk. http://www.theonion.com/articles/laser-pointer-aimed-toward-space-in-1997-finally-a,17031/ And in Space News, an upcoming NASA Mission that may have profound results for geeks everywhere. http://www.theonion.com/video/nasa-scientists-plan-to-approach-girl-by-2018,14400/ Fav quote is from the first link: While Climate Change is an important, contentious and sometimes emotional topic, an injection of levity doesn't hurt. And now back to your regular debates.

Just as a point of interest, the records contend that while in India Alexander was shown a Dragon in a cave. Shhhh. Don't tell the Egyptologists that, they'll have fits.

Not a great set of responses though. Can they provide proof of this statement? I doubt it. Introducing an unproven multiverse hypothesis as an argument is not a "proof", or even a good argument. The second sentence is okay, but the first? It repeats the unproven claim of the "scarcity" of life and makes unfounded assumptions as to timescale. I would think that any entity or group that could influence the structure of a Universe would axiomatically be thinking on vastly different timescales to us humans. While it might argue against an Omnipotent creator, it does not argue against a designer per se. Will that do for a start?

The funny thing is that I'm a Pagan and find the Old Testament an interesting historical document. Much of it appears to be the written form of a much older verbal history. I'm not saying that it is a factual history, but that many parts are based on factual history. Some is corroborated by other sources, some is not. Many peoples and places mentioned in the Bible are only now being found or correctly identified and attributed. However it must always be remembered that we are looking at a book that tells factual history by way of story telling that would engage an audience way back then. In a time without widespread literacy, storytelling was King and good storytellers could and did travel, recounting their tales in exchange for food and shelter. The story of the destruction of Jericho is far more interesting in the Bible than the basics of "We laid siege to the city for a week, then on the last day, the attack was sounded and we stormed the city." The story in the Bible is embellished, but this doesn't change the fact that the Israelites did storm and destroy Jericho after laying siege to it. Like many legends and stories, the Biblical ones often have the kernel of truth inside.

Short answer. I kind of like the idea. Looking at the website, it appears to be more for city use than anything else though. It might have wider acceptance if there were a network of Bikeways? http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_934 That is the Bikeway maps for my home city, Brisbane. The Bikeways are quite extensive and expanding all the time. (My suburb, The Gap is on map 4 and the Bikeways are at least double what the map shows.) It is easy to go for a ride around various suburbs and between suburbs just using the Bikeways. Many of the "on road" Bikeways are on back streets that see little traffic and have a dedicated Bike Lane marked on them. But you can ride from the city's far south west to the centre and only use "on road" lanes for about 300 metres all up. I wonder how your new system could be adapted to work here? I think it might be worth looking into. I do think $70/year and only 1/2 hour free is a bit steep, but you do have a concentrated system. I think $70/year and 1 1/2-2 hours free would be good for a more spread out Bikeway system like we have.

Meh, they're not even trying. I used to sell Life Insurance but got out when the Oz Federal Govt passed 200+ changes that totalled over 2,500 pages of Legislation, Rulings and Explanatory Notes in 87 days of sitting. (And if I didn't know all of it, I could be fined) One question though, So how often have "progressives" done it? Seriously though, you guys do indeed have a problem.

With your background, your nightmares must be doozys. I found the sulfanilamide thing interesting. How could a chemist not know that adding a poison to something makes it poisonous? Joe Blogs would know that since you shouldn't drink anti-freeze, you shouldn't drink it no matter what was mixed into it. It seems a remarkable oversight. How could he not know the properties of the solution he is using? In some ways, this is part of the debate on vaccinations. People look at the ingredients and then look up their local FDA equivalent to see what they say about the various substances included or used as fillers. It comes as a bit of a shock to find a number of the fillers are declared as "toxic". Many have trouble understanding that one part of a Health Dept. is saying "Inject these into your children", while another part of the same Dept is saying "These substances are toxic". The vital difference is of course the concentrations, but if you think about it for a second, asking caring parents to have known toxic substances injected into their children is a big ask. I know a number of parents who are "on the fence", so to speak. They acknowledge the benefits of vaccination, but are concerned about injecting known toxic substances into their children. The medical fraternity doesn't really help the situation by saying that "severe" side effects are rare. Rare or not, it is still an evident, avoidable danger from the parents POV. It's all about weighing the risks, side effects v. getting the disease, etc., but when your childs health is at stake, it can be like asking to choose between two different versions of Russian Roulette. It's a small wonder that many are confused and worried.

Since it has been shown that such things have happened in the past, it is only prudent to ensure that it doesn't happen again. It is not enough that things be above board, they must be seen to be above board, which was my point. Someone in an "approval" capacity leaving the FDA and going to work for Pharma is of course going to engender questions. The person may have done nothing wrong, but to not ask the question is the height of folly. Of course they know. It's not anecdotes, it's their sons and daughters. Real people, with real problems. Until you understand that, you will not understand what they are asking. "Something" happened to their children and they want to know what. So they ask "Was it this?", when told no they ask "Okay, then was it that?" This isn't shifting the goalposts, they are trying, rather imperfectly, for a process of elimination. As I said in the earlier post, the timing of the onset of autism does coincide with the vaccination, but this appears to be a pure coincidence. However, do you really think that a parent dealing with the sudden illness of a child is going to listen to "Correlation is not causation"? Try treating them like caring parents and hurting human beings rather than opponents in a logical debate. To a great degree, science tells us that everything has a cause. These parents are getting 1 of 3 answers. 1. Random chance. 2. We have no idea. 3. Act of God. If it were your child, would you find any of those sufficient? Of course not. They are frightened, and not a little bit angry that there isn't an answer. Almost by definition, they will not be logical. Stop castigating and deriding them because their concern for their children overrides their logical mind. I also wonder how many of those parents are blaming themselves? How would it feel to think that you are doing the best thing for your child, only to have it go horribly wrong? Could you forgive yourself? Please note that the above refers only to the parents of autistic and otherwise severely handicapped children. It does not apply to those parents who choose not to vaccinate their children. While the arguments used by the two groups are often the same and they certainly support each other, they are two distinct groups. Remember that in the case of the autistic children, those parents chose to vaccinate their children. Don't lump them in with parents who refuse vaccination. ewmon, I'll see your Polio and raise you a Thalidomide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G7UKLczVaU Any reasonable person would have to ask "How was this missed?" The drug was given to pregnant women for the treatment of morning sickness and nobody noticed the deformed children during the tests? Mate, I'm old enough to know the value of the Polio vaccine, kids wore the leg braces when I was a boy, I've seen it first hand. I've also seen the results of Thalidomide first hand. I've seen the immense benefits of vaccination (which reminds me, I'm due for a Tetenus booster). WRT the improvement of quality of life and life expectancy, I would put vaccinations as second only to clean drinking water and good sanitation. But I've also seen that just because numerous Health Authorities declare something as "Safe" doesn't mean that it actually is. One thing that did occur to me while watching the program. Since the Danish records are so complete, many of the arguments might be solved by comparing the illness rates of children fully vaccinated with those who are not. If there is no difference in the rates, both the vaccines and the innoculation regimens would be exonerated. It would take a lot of wind out of sails. You'll note that I said I agreed with him that it was irrelevent, however possible conflicts of interest should never be ignored. Like justice should not only be done, but be seen to be done, so financial interests should be seen to be acknowledged. I mean just that, nothing more, nothing less. Just in case you missed it, I'll quote myself concerning immunisation and money; While I agree it would be a problem if the only advocate had a financial interest, in medicine this is generally not the case. The guy made a great vaccine, preventing much illness and made a quid out of it. Good on him.

My apologies bascule for not making the 5 x 5 clear. CRU uses a 5 x 5 degree grid for their global temperature sets. A 5 x 5 grid, so to speak. In the case of Bolivia, Grid A encompasses from 65-700 West and 10-150 South. Grid B is from 65-700 West and 15-200 South and Grid C is from 60-650 West and 15-200 South. Basically a 50 x 50 grid is the standard size when a reference is made to "gridded data". From the CRU site linked to in my last post; Again, I apologise for not being clear.

They must have got three wise men as well.

Firstly, sorry for the delay, but RL can get in the way. I was also following a methodological path that I now realise is unnecessary. I was working on the basis that to provide fully gridded data I would have to locate extra stations from the surrounding nations to include them into the grids. This would mean individually locating stations in Peru, Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina and Chile. I realised recently that for the purposed of this exercise this data is not needed. As can be seen from the picture, Bolivia encompasses either fully or almost fully 3 5x5 Grid cells, designated A, B and C on the map. A has 7 stations, B has 6 stations and C has 6 stations. To raise the average anomaly of grid A, the small area of Peru included in the grid would have to warm enough to raise the average anomaly of all stations by at least 10 which would mean that if there were two Peruvian stations they would each have to warm by a whopping 80 to bring the grid square anywhere near the GISS projection. I view this to be "highly unlikely". So for the purposes of this exercise, if we concentrate on the Grids A, B and C, we can ignore data from the neighbouring nations. If we were to expand the study to any of the other grid squares, then the data from the neighbouring nations would have to be included. (Click for full size image.) Gridded Data. Okay, so we have the grids with the stations mapped out, how do we turn that into "Gridded Data"? This turns out to be surprisingly easy. The method used by the CRU is oulined in Brohan et al 2005 which references Jones and Moberg 2003. From Brohan et al; Jones and Moberg; This methodology appears to be commonly used, GHCN says; GISS, use a different methodology unfortunately. They use the "Reference Method" as outlined in http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf They appear to have refined the method as described in the original paper. Figure 2 in Hansen and Lebedeff show the world divided into 80 spacial zones, whereas the current GISS GISSTemp page says; One could argue that we are comparing apples and oranges, since I'm using the "Anomaly method" of Dr. Jones and GISS are using the "Reference Station" method of Hansen and Lebedeff. The response could be argued that I'm using the Anomaly method to check the calculations of the Reference Station method. TBH, I'm not too sure on this, so any input and advice would be appreciated. Anyway, back to the grids. Grid A, stations and anomalies; 4. Cobija = .2 7. GUAYARAMERIN = -.6 13.RIBERALTA = .5 15.RURRENABAQUE = .1 16.SAN BORJA = .1 17.SAN IGNACIO DE MOXOS = 0.0 22.SANTA ANA = 0.0 Total anomaly for Grid A = + 0.3 0 Divided by No of stations (7) = .0430 Anomaly of Grid A compared to 1961-1990 baseline is +.0430 Grid B stations and anomalies; 1. Ororo = .5 5. COCHABAMBA = .7 8. LA PAZ - CENTRO = 2.2 9. LA PAZ - EL ALTO = 1.3 11.POTOSI CIUDAD = 1.1 23.SUCRE = -.1 Total anomaly for Grid B = 15.60 Divided by the No of stations (6) = 2.60 Anomaly of Grid B compared to the 1961-1990 baseline is +2.60 Grid C stations and anomalies; 2. ASCENCION DE GUARAYOS = 1.5 6. CONCEPCION = -.4 18.SAN IGNACIO DE VELASCO = -.8 19.SAN JAVIER = -.1 21.SAN JOSE = -.2 26.VALLEGRANDE = 0.0 Total anomaly for Grid C = 0.00 (Now I'm stuffed, aren't I?) Divided by the No of stations (6) = 0.00 Anomaly of Grid C compared to the 1961-1990 baseline is 0.00 The first thing that really stands out is Grid B. Why is it so high compared to the other two? Only 4 stations recorded anomalies above 1.00 compared to the baseline and Grid B has 3 of them. Two of those 3 are in La Paz, the largest city in Bolivia, while the third, Potosi, is a regional Capital and major mining centre. Metro La Paz, as it is now known is the result of three cities expanding into one large city. Originally La Paz, El Alto and Viacha, the cities are now one and reside in a bowl like depression surrounded by higher regions. I think it quite reasonable to assume that the very high (compared to the rest of the nation) anomalies could be the result of UHI. I'll not defend this idea as fact, but it seems a reasonable hypothesis to explain the anomalous temperates in those locations. Arguments, refutations and suggestions are welcome. The other reason that I won't argue strongly for the idea is that my stance is well known here and I would accuse myself of a form of "confirmation bias" and arguing for the result I want to see. I can only show as an impirical fact that the Grid B anomaly is very different from the rest of the nation. The explanation for this must come from further debate. So, back to the basic idea of this thread; "Are the GISS extrapolations falsifiable?" I think they are. Referring back to the maps in the original post, it is quite apparent that GISS overstate warming by at least an order of magnitude. Grid A falls into the area listed as a 1-20 anomaly and is shown by the data to be only .0430. Grid C seems to fall into the area with a .5-10 anomaly and the data shows 0.00. I therefore submit that the "Reference Station" methodology used by GISS in the preperation of their Global Temperature Maps is falsified and is therefore wrong. (At least from a first approximation using the Anomaly Method and the data as gleaned from the relevent Meteorological Department of Bolivia. Bearing in mind that no adjustments for UHI or other possible effects have been done.) I still have trouble with the idea that I've found something that shows GISS wrong. I mean, come on, I'm an uneducated plebian and they are NASA ffs. I guess I'll have to write this up in a more condensed form and ask GISS or the guys at CCC for their comments. I must be wrong somewhere, but I can't see where.

I use the squeeze technique and it does work, after a fashion. The soda still goes flat, but takes longer to do so. As it was explained to me years ago, the CO2 will come out of the fluid until the equilibrium is reached. By sqeezing the bottle there is a smaller volume of air that has to reach equilibrium and therefore less gas comes out of the fluid. Less CO2 is required when there is only 10 ml of air than if there is 200 ml of air, so less gas is lost from the fluid. I have no idea if it's right, that's how it was explained.

I'll probably get shot for saying this but... Is the disc fully herniated or just a bulge? If it is just a bulge pressing on the nerves then it quite possibly can be fixed without surgery. Mine was either the L4 or L5 (I'd have to check the scan reports to be sure) and I can attest to the pain being absolutely unbearable. The pain when my appendix ruptured wasn't even close. It took my practicioner about 3 weeks to fix. Heat, manipulation, some little black pills of chinese herbs and a poultice. I have no idea what was in them, but the fact is that I no longer have the disc bulging into the nerve. I add that I'm well aware of the surgical answer because it was recommended I have the proceedure and I had been to the specialist to tee up the surgery before this other option was suggested. I tried it and no longer needed the surgery. P*ssed off my GP no end, because he had no idea how I could have recovered so quickly and permanently.

TBH, I have the same problem with this letter as I do with things like the Oregon Petition. (Or whatever it's called lately;)) It comes across as simply "I can get a lot of people to agree with me, therefore I'm right". I think that this is damaging to science because it is the opposite of how science is supposed to function. It can also be counter productive and provide fodder for the "other side". Peter Gleick has already blogged a couple of times on this letter, a good version is here. Note that "Blackbird" has a look at exactly who some of the signers are and their areas of expertise. He notes, for example, that two of the 26 checked are political scientists, how that transfers into being climate "experts" is a mystery. There is the obligatory response from Dr. Gleick and I'm sure the argument will run for many posts, comments and days. To a great degree though, I think that it is beside the point. Every time one of these things comes out, the argument always starts about who the signers are and whether or not they are "qualified" to comment. It becomes a simple "Appeal to Authority" debate which is, in the end, pointless. I think it also worthwhile to note that the "sceptics" have come out strongly against the actions taken by a certain AG with respect to Micheal Mann. I'm sure that Dr. Mann was quite surprised to have Mc Intyre attacking the investigation. There is a middle ground here, but playing the "I can get lots of signatures" game isn't the way to find it. There is a definite "trust" problem now and part of the problem is the denial;) in some areas that there is a problem. The "mine, mine" attitude to raw data has to change, or Joe Public is going to come down very hard on science funding. This would be doubleplus ungood.

Why there?

And how many of those who "enforce" those rigid rules and approve drugs as safe go on to very high paying jobs with the Pharma companies?

Tnad, you are ignoring feedbacks. These are built into the IPCC models and are what give the extra temp rise in the projections. I would also add that you are being a bit simplistic with respect to the Sun. There is no question that it effects our climate, however the correlation between temps and sunspots dropped off after around 1980 and hence can't be a "driver" of climate. They may be an indicator for something else though. (Thor knows what) You should also not ignore internal forcings of the climate. Considering the "null" hypothosis is also vital. From Climate-Skeptic. You will note a good correlation between the recorded temps since 1870 and a simple model using a .3880C/Century linear temp rise with a superimposed 60 year alternating cycle. Ignoring the NAO and other major oscillations and just using the PDO cycle superimposed on the linear rise he got this graph. Frankly, I think that the null hypothesis is alive and well. Whichever side you choose to argue for, do so using facts.

And you don't see a conflict between this and trusting a scientist who is for immunisation and who has also personally made millions out of vaccinations? I happen to agree with him that the fact he made money is irrelevent, but the conflict of interest is obvious. Far too many people remember Thalidomide to take Pharmas word on "safety" at face value. Whether you like it or not, parents have real concerns. Declaring them silly, uninformed, etc is insulting and does not further the debate or the push for immunisation. Here's a novel idea. Instead of being insulting and dismissive, listen to what they have to say and then answer their points. As I said above, this is not being done except in very limited ways. Ms Mc Carthy and many other parents have children that are "suddenly" autistic or "changed" and they want to know why. Calling them names does not lessen the very real grief and anguish they are feeling. It's not so much about immunisation. You have thousands of scared, upset and confused parents asking questions because they want a reason for what has happened to their children. Immunisation, because of the timing, is the obvious candidate and so they target it. Not to remove immunisation, but to prevent other parents enduring what they went through. The sad fact is that we don't really know enough in certain areas to answer the very basic question these parents are asking; "If immunisation didn't do this to my child, then what did?" Answer that question and the "battle" is over.