JohnB

How fascinating, but totally irrelevent. The figures I quoted for infant mortality were not from the WHO report. They were from the CIA. The definition used is: "This entry gives the number of deaths of infants under one year old in a given year per 1,000 live births in the same year." IOW, out of all the live births, how many make it to their first birthday. How a nation defines "live birth" becomes irrelevent. BTW, before you tout "cancer survival rates" between nations, it might be a good idea to also compare how those rates are calculated. ie If a patients heart packs it in from treatment complications, do they count as a "survivor"? After all, it wasn't the cancer that killed them, was it? I would add that my data for life expectancy is also from the CIA. Note that the CIA reports are done by CIA analysts and are not sourced from the WHO report.

Navigator, for all the arguments against the WHO report, there are two factors that can't be challenged. From the thread that iNow linked to previously (and shamelessly quoting myself:D): Talking about WHO criteria is beside the point. Your infant mortality is way too high and life expectancy is way too low. While it is certainly OT for this thread, I would strongly suggest that navigator and stereologist read iNows linked thread. There are a hell of a lot of facts and figures there comparing the US to other systems, from many different sources. Sorry, I took it the wrong way. I thought you were more worried about the tactics of the "antis". TBH, looking at things from the outside, I see a number of points. Firstly, the US system is sick and badly needs reform. I would think that most Americans would agree with this statement. However, I think that President Obama is going about this the wrong way. A 1,000 page (or however big it is) Bill that is too big to read and discuss before voting on it is just plain silly. Hold your Town Hall meetings to ask what things the people want, then write the damn bill. Take examples of how things work in the ROW and find out which bits people like and want. Rushing legislation through that makes major changes to a system is a recipe for disaster. Secondly and possibly the most important. Bloody grow up and put this bullsh*t partisanship behind you. FFS both sides of the political divide can have valid points. Just because an idea comes from the left does not automatically mean that it represents some form of creeping socialism and just because an idea comes from the right doesn't mean that it represents entrenched power. (or whatever the left thinks the right represents) By not having constructive dialogues, you ensure that any change to the system is going to be ideologically biased. This means that as soon as the political winds change and the other side gets in, it will be changed along ideological grounds. This is a certainty because the original change was made ideologically rather than logically and with consultation. I would also point out that this is the net. The silly games that you played in your Town Halls were okay when it was kept "inhouse" so to speak. However, when you spread your dirty laundry for the entire world to see, and demonstrate so effectively that you can't debate with each other in a civil fashion, then it reflects very badly on your entire nation. I finish with the words of a man far greater than I could ever be: John F. Kennedy - January 20th 1961

Very interesting idea. Makes you wonder if it was intentional. Perhaps Menkaure decided that building a larger pyramid would absorb too much time and labour and so intentionally changed what was important. Due to the principle of Ma'at, keeping so much for himself might have gone against the rules in his opinion. If he decided to change things, few would gainsay the living Horus. I wonder if there's any way to check.

I've heard this idea before. How does the fact that the grandsons pyramid (Menkaure) is the smallest of the Giza pyramids fit in? As far as we know there wasn't any major social disruption at that point of the 4th dynasty. There would seem to be no logical reason for Menkaure to make his smaller than the other two. Phantom. You bring up good points, it's just that they back what I and Edtharan have been saying. Because there is no societal context to put the markings into, any meaning is just a guess.

iNow, just so that I've got this right. Someone (perhaps organised) is using the same tactics that the political left and unions have been using for the last 30 years or so and you're crying "foul"? It would also appear that these tactics are still being used to disrupt opposition. Nancy and the Astroturfers. I note that the "antis" arrived with hand made placards while the "pros" were obviously far more organised, with loud hailers and professionally printed placards. There is indeed some astroturfing going on, but I would suggest the "pros" are better at it. (Which would imply that they've been doing it longer.) Sorry mate, but I find the level of political discourse in the US to be laughable. Both sides often use certain tactics while complaining about the other side using them. It's like watching kindergarten kids fight.

So what would the spiders, sharks, monkeys and lizards represent?

Am I the only one that noticed the two groups spread out in the audience? One group in orange t shirts, the other is in red. They appear to be at or near an outburst when it is caught on camera. As a point, the tactics iNow describes are nothing new. The green movement in Australia has been using them for decades. I would think that they're standard fare for any form of political activism.

I think it's more about scoring political points than anything else. For the proponents of the current bills, an admission that you can be for reform but against the bills is an admission that the bills might not be the "only" or "right" way to reform the system. Nobody in politics wants to admit that their opponents can actually have a sensible idea. Don't worry, the malaise is not restricted to the US.

Did you mean sources or fluxes? You stated that anthrop sources outnumber natural. That statement is wrong. Fluxes are a different matter. That's why I said; One could for example quite truthfully say that "Natural sources of CO2 far outweight the anthrop sources both in number and amount. However the sequestration afforded by the natural system more than equals the natural emissions." I do try to be exact in my phrasing, hence my assumption that when you said "sources" you actually meant "sources". I would add that a discussion on sources in general is a very different thing to a discussion on the source of the increase in CO2.

iNow, how about just listing a couple of the facts that are being denied? bascule at least gave it a go. (And one of his was wrong) His other points were not so much about "denying" facts but rather about stating wrong things as facts. (Something I see on both sides of the debate) The point of the question is that quite often I see things like "shrinking glaciers" put forward as evidence. (The vid you linked to does this) The problem is that such facts, while proving warming (which is not being denied anyway) do not prove an anthropogenic cause for the warming. Mokele, I agree with much of what you say however given recent papers like Swanson and Tsonis 2009, I do wonder if we know less than we think we do. It's the whole "unknown unknowns" thing.

Okay, thanks. I didn't get it. So the "abundance of evidence" is the fact being denied, but you're not willing to say what that evidence is? I'm a nuts and bolts kind of guy. I'm afraid I don't see much difference between your comment and one made by a Theologian about the abundance of evidence that points to a creator.

iNow, sorry mate, I didn't realise how many intervening posts there were. I was referring to this; Although rereading the post I can see how it wouldn't look like a directed question too. Apologies, my bad. Bear's Key, sorry but wrong. Regardless of the forcing, the climate has a lag built into it. This will vary for each factor. The bottom line is that should a forcing change, by the time the system has adapted, a different forcing will have changed. The climate will always be playing catch up and can never be "in balance", ever. I thought I'd take the time to really look at the vid iNow linked to. Here is my appraisal; 0:00-0:45. Intro and Appeal to Ridicule. 0:45-1:02. Snide remarks and further Appeal to Ridicule. 1:02-1:41. Interview and statement of the purpose of surfacestations. (Is there anything in that interview bit that is not factually correct?) 1:41-2:29 Denigrating comments. "Junior woodchuck society" etc, basically an ad hom that the volunteers are amateurs and therefore unreliable. "surfacestations has compiled a list that volunteers feel do not meet published standards" Falsehood. "Feelings" have nothing to do with it. NOAA has published a set of standards that require nothing more than a tape measure and open eyes to see if the standards are met. It does not require a degree to see whether a sensor is in a parking lot or not. The standards are quite unambiguous. 2:29-2:40 I do not understand how he finds fault with the concept that if the initial data might be biased, then predictions based on that data would be biased as well. GIGO would seem to apply. The sensible thing would be to actually look at the stations and see if there is data bias. And isn't that exactly what he's complaining about? 2:40-3:27 "He's in league with the evil tobacco industry". Poisoning the well. 3:27-3:33 "Defending smokers is a thankless task, but somebody has to do it" Deliberate mis quote, pause the vid and read what is really said. 3:33-3:49 "Those evil people who make a profit". I thought that was what business was supposed to do. "Advocating one death dealing industry to yet another" Appeal to emotion. 3:49-4:03 Accusation stated as fact. Let's see if he provides any proof later. 4:03-4:15 False Statement. NOAAs integrity was not "being attacked". I've yet to see NOAA "attacked" on the topic of siting. The general feeling I see is that NOAA was given money for new sensors (MMTS) but not enough to allow for correct siting. They did the best they could with what they had. I fail to see how asking the question "Is your equipment properly calibrated?" could be honestly presented as an attack on integrity. 4:15-4:49 Recap of NOAAs position. Which is fair enough. (Aside) It brings up a point I find profoundly illogical in Climate Science. Exactly how does a thermometer measuring temps for "Climate" differ from a thermometer measuring temps for "weather"? It strikes me as saying I can use a tape measure to find length but not width. I'm open to ideas on this, but I frankly can't see the difference. The thing measures temp, it's a thermometer, that's what they're for. What you do with the data afterwards is up to you. (/Aside) 4:49-5:06 CRN network. Watts did not make "accusations", he simply reported the results of checking the GHCN network. Since when is checking data or equipment an "accusation"? 5:06-5:57 "According to leading scientists at NOAA". The interesting thing about this report is that it isn't a report. It's a "talking points" internal memo that BTW, doesn't actually say who wrote it. The original version did have the name of the person who made the pdf, but that has since been removed by NOAA. So who exactly are these "leading scientists" again? The ones who won't put their name to a report? 5:57-6:28 Strawman. Since nobody is arguing that the temps haven't risen this is an attempt to misrepresent the other side. Changes in ice cover point to a warming world but are not proof of an anthropogenic cause. 6:28-7:16 "90% of changes in a direction expected as a response to warming". Another strawman. Nobody says it isn't warming FFS. 7:16-7:30 The lesson here is that the natural world has no agenda, but climate deniers do. Appeal to emotion. The lesson here is that the natural world adjusts to change however (and again) this does not prove an anthropogenic cause. 7:30-7:40 Ooooh, now we get a link to WMDs and those nasty Republicans. Give me a break. 7:40-End. Alarm!! The consequences are DIRE!! Appeal to emotion. Note my comment for 3:49-4:03. Was any corroborating evidence of this grand conspiracy presented? Nope, just a personal belief stated as fact. On the title of the vid. "Deniers" did not try to ban it. Sinclair used copyrighted material that didn't belong to him in his presentation. As a commercial artist who copyrights his own work, it's surprising that Sinclair doesn't know just how that particular law works. George Monboit obviously misses the point. Either that or he would rather see a grand conspiracy than a simple case of copyright infringement. Roger Pielke also has something to say about this vid, but I suppose he doesn't count as a "Climate Scientist" to people like Sinclair. If you want to find out what actually went on, Anthony Watts posted the full sequence of events. Those interested might find some similarities with the accusations made against Spiked. The usual "In the Pay of Big (Insert industry here)" garbage. A final point of this vid. At no time does the creator even hint that NOAA was aware of the surfacestations work. Anthony Watts has given presentations to NOAA on exactly what surfacestaions had been finding. This is an example of "omitting with intent to deceive" in my books.

John, you've missed the point. BMI was never intended for the use it is put to. It was developed to further the junk scientific idea that a persons behaviour could be pedicted from the relationship between their weight and their height. Read the link in my post above. BMI is junk science.

Nothing like a good conspiracy theory to get the day started is there? Would you care to actually answer my question in the post above?

Hear him! Hear him! Pseudo scientific claptrap that comes from the period where it was believed that weight (Or the width of your eyebrows) could predict social problems. See here for a history of BMI. For those who feel compelled to spend good money on such things, I offer a very reasonably priced Retro-Phrenology service.

Interesting. We also wait in the lobby for around the 10-30 minute mark. This is generally because while appts might be scheduled every 30 minutes (or whatever) some will run overtime. Nobody cares about this wait. A very big difference here is that the Dr comes out, gets your file from the nurse and walks you to the examining room. There is no waiting at this point. Do you think there is an element of "This is America, the greatest country in the world and we therefore have the best healthcare in the world"? I ask because in conversations with Americans here, it is not an uncommon line of thinking. Up to and including accusing the WHO of being politically motivated to make the US look bad.

Our States have rights too. However they have forgone some of those rights in the cause of the common good. Not just health, control of air traffic and other things as well. And let's face it, it's not like you have to have a referendum to change your Constitution. Let the Feds put up some sort of deal, with the caveat that the only States it applies to are those that cede certain rights in the area. If the State govs demand total authority over health care, give it to them. But with authority comes responsibility, so Federal funding should dry up.

Love them. Do you have one for SECAM too?

How many light sources do you think there are on the moon? But do a search and see what Klaynos means. We have discussed and debunked this story before.

I was referring to the Holocene in general, not the last few years. If you look at the graph I linked to you'll see the previous interglacials were quite short and sharp. The Holocene followed the general pattern until circa 10k BP when temps stopped rising (short of previous maximums) and just sort of levelled off. (Give or take a degree or 3) I'll try to find them again. They're just papers I came across while looking for others so I'll have to go through my history file. No, I don't think I would dispute that at all. The vast majority of the increase would be due to human emissions with some small amount due to CO2 release as the oceans warm. I would think the isotope analysis would easily demonstrate that. I think where we mostly differ is in respect to climate sensitivity to CO2 increase and the possible results of any temp increase. I will add that I think anybody who talks about a natural "balance" is operating from a false premise. Nature has never been in balance and never will be. When people say to me "The Climate is changing", the only logical and sensible response I can give is "No sh*t Sherlock. Was there ever a time when it wasn't?" If anything, rather than skeptic, I would probably classify myself as an extemely "luke warmer". Yes, the world has warmed. Yes, humans are probably partly to blame. No, I don't think the world (or human society) is going to end. I'm always mindful that while 2+2=4, so does 1+3 and 6-2.

Actually Mokele, if you read the books on the Bermuda Triangle you'll see that there is a higher incidence of ships disappearing. However, further reading and some diligent research will also show that most of the "extra" missing ships never existed except in the books on the Bermuda Triangle. Hell, I've seen the "Marie Celeste" listed as a triangle mystery and she was found in the bloody Pacific.

hemantc007, rather than just repeating what someone else has said, why not have a look for yourself? http://apollo.sese.asu.edu./ has 7,177 photos from Apollos 15, 16 and 17 for you to browse through. Knock yourself out.

Life insurance is a very different thing, and the stats have been collected for a lot longer. They can't tell you which 45 year old non smoker, whos uncles wifes sister had polio as a child will die next week, but they can tell how many of them will. Life insurance is also a single payout situation whereas health insurance can have to keep paying for decades. Health insurers can make a profit, the Australian ones do. TBH, I wonder if the biggest obstacle to decent HC reform in the US isn't your state governments and their insistence on "States Rights". You're one nation, they should accept this fact and begin acting like it.

bascule, if I seem incredulous, I suppose I am a bit. I've lived with the sort of service I described in the last post all my life. I just find it hard to believe that your health service is so bad. I've seen the stats, but having to wait a week for a consult drives home the point. I'm sorry, but I can't think of any other way to describe the way your system is except to say it's second rate at best. There are villages in the New Guinea jungles with faster access to Drs than waiting a week. Why have you put up with it for so long?