JohnB

:doh: That'll teach me to look at the dates.

Thanks.

Sorry guys, I didn't realise the thread had been split. Mokele, I'll dig them up and post them, they're in a cupboard somewhere as it was a few years ago. He is trained in Chinese medicine and studied there for some years before returning to Australia to practice. He classes himself as a "Sports Therapist". His methods are not that different from those used by a physiotherapist. A lot of heat with manipulation. The main differences are the application of poultices which are made from Chinese herbs and some sort of herbal pill. In the case of my L5, it bulges out and presses on the nerve running down my right leg. Something similar to sciatica I uderstand. Small damage, intense white hot pain. Seriously, I had a ruptured appendix and it was a doddle compared to this. When it first hit, I spent 2 days crawling around the house, it was impossible to stand or sit. I recall reading somewhere that a new treatment is being tested for this condition that uses a laser to heat the disc. Apparently if the cartilage is heated enough it becomes maleable and can be reformed. It will then hold the new shape when it cools. It strikes me that this could be what he's doing. How the poultices effect the equation, I don't know. The bottom line is that he can heal conditions that the local GPs can't and it seriously p*sses them off. They call him the "Witch Doctor". I find it odd that none of them seem interested in how he actually does it. If you were booking a patient in for surgery one week and the next week they walk in cured, wouldn't you be a little bit interested in how that happened? Agreed. In my wifes case we used those methods for months with zero effect. It was only when we changed methods that results were immediate and lasting. What is important to remember here is that we went to see the specialist who concluded from the MRIs that surgery was the only thing that would effect a cure. Is that why Thalidomide was declared a "safe" morning sickness drug? It of course helps if clinical trial data isn't faked, which does happen. I think that one thing that gets forgotten is that nobody is going to spend the money on a clinical trial if they can't make a buck out of what is being trialled. A new patentable drug, sure, but a freely available unpatentable herbal concoction, nope. Honey has been used as an antiseptic for millenia and is on the shelf for $5/kilo, but medicinal honey is $8/50 grams. The alternative guys are money grubbing quacks? Pot, kettle. PS. Could a mod please delete my post number 11 as it is redundant. (Yes. - Cap'n Refsmmat)

Bullshit. 2009 - 8 years is 2001, not 1998. In every one of these discussions I've gone to great pains to avoid 1998 as a starting point for exactly the reason you say. If you're going to argue, then at least have the courtesy of actually arguing against the point made, not some strawman. Lucia plotted the temps here. Since 2000, slightly positive, since 2001 slightly negative. Personally I doubt either result are statistically significant. Either way, we ain't making the predicted .18 degrees/decade, are we? I would add that 2000 is a reasonable start point because that is where the model runs used in AR4 started. A point BTW that is conveniently left out in the IPCC TAR summary. And you still haven't answered the question; "What exactly is "incredible" about the temp change in the second half of the 20th century?" Mokele. As I understand the current "State of Play":-), the warming in the first half of the 20th C is put to natural causes. Around about 1940 particulate emmissions came into play causing a slight cooling trend. At some point in the 1940-1970 period CO2 forcing overtook the natural forcings and was eventually strong enough (combined with reductions in emmissions due to "Clean Air Acts") to bring about the second warming period. Say 1980-2000. You might note that the quote from Meehl et al states; Change from trends, or change from projections? We have already severly departed from the projections and the most current estimates I've seen are that warming will not recommence until circa 2015. How many years of statistically blah do we need to suspect the projections might be wrong? The conversation went for a number of pages, I simplified. Bottom line, the graph is claimed to be based on 2 papers, I was able to find one of them and there is nothing in that paper that could generate the graph. The exchange starts on about page 4 of the linked thread. I take your point, but I think in this context the line between "developed" and "developing" is rather blurred. Just using Wiki. US population 1900: 76,212,168 US population 2000: 281,421,906 In 1900 there was no air conditioning, no aircraft, virtually nobody owned a car and there was only 1/4 of the population. The city of Washington alone went from 3 million in 1960 to 6 million in 2000. I put it to you that in terms of UHI, all western nations were "developing" during the 20th C. Consequently the UHI effect during the 20th C has been seriously underrated. I didn't ignore the full quote, but since you mentioned it. What Jones found was that out of the .81 degree rise in the Chinese region more than .5 degree was caused by UHI. Hence warming by natural or CO2 forcings account for .31 degree or less than half the observed warming. The sun? If there was a natural reduction in cloud cover over the period, then it would get warmer over that period. It all comes back to the models really since they are what show that CO2 must be the big bad. But if their sensitivities are wrong? Spencer and Braswell 2008 in the Journal of Climate show that: We know that CO2 increase is enough to account for the warming if the climate sensitivity to CO2 is as high as we think it is. However, if the sensitivity is lower than assumed, then CO2 is no longer enough to account for the warming. You may be interested in this article by Dr. Spencer (the full paper is in review). Where he shows that: So the models say high CO2 sensitivity and the satellite data says low sensitivity. Which do you believe? Everybody please note. At no time have I said that CO2 has no effect. My point is that if it has negligable effect, then efforts at CO2 reduction will also have negligable effect and are therefore pointless. (Although that is not to say that we should not pollute less.)

Um, wrong. This isn't something that Bush did, it's been going on a long time. America does not now and never has trusted her allies. As a consequence, we don't trust you all that much either. Again this is not new. "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard" has been a staple of American foreign policy for decades. Strangely enough this tends to foster resentment amoung the people that the bastard oppresses. To then insult the intelligence of people by claiming to spread freedom and democracy just adds to the fire. Americas foreign policy has always been based on the perceived best interests of America. There is nothing wrong with this, as it is true for every nation. The difference is that we don't lie to ourselves about it.

Actually no. I have an L5 that prolapsed. The only treatment on offer from western medicine was to remove the disc and fuse the vertebrae with the attendent loss of mobility, etc. The therapist was able to fix the problem. And yes, I have the CAT scans showing the initial damage. We first went to him because my wife had torn the miniscus in both knees and was reduced to using walking sticks. (at age 28) We tried all western therapy for 6 months without effect. We were down to the final option of surgery and had seen the specialist about the operation when we were put onto this guy. He healed her in 10 days. And to forstall any other snide remarks, we have the MRIs showing the damage and ones taken later showing no damage. It's called "evidence". Whether you like it or not, his methods worked. BTW, he doesn't claim to be able to fix everything and is not backward in sending people straight to the Dr if it's something he can't work on.

I'd say your Achilles Heels are arrogance and the fact that nobody trusts you. (As a nation, not individuals.)

I'd call it stupidity personally. And people seeing things in a Black/White, either/or fashion, which is unreasonable. I happily go to an "alternative" therapist, for the simple reason that he can fix some things that western medicine can't. OTOH, if I get an infection and need antibiotics, I go straight to the quack and get some. The correct course of treatment depends on what is wrong. It also means trying something different if the current treatment isn't working.

Funny, I always thought it was consonants you lot had trouble with. You did have a "T" party, didn't you? Where all the Ts were thrown into the harour? Glider, what's wrong with; "Participants didn't know what the hypothesis was"? Why is it unacceptable? (Sorry for the extra derail, but I honestly can't see why it's wrong and would like to know.)

You speak of a "blip" as if it's a short term thing. The trend has been negative for more than 8 years now. How long does it have to continue before it stops being a "blip"? AGW is supposed to be about the science, the more CO2 the higher the temp. I can dig that but the problem is that CO2 has been rising and the temp hasn't. Where has all the energy gone? We are talking god knows how many joules here, where are they? Bascule, we both tried to find some supporting evidence in the published literature for that graph and came up blank. Remember this exchange? There is no mention here of using actual measured values. (Something that I have asked for before.) Loose translation of the first sentence above: "We did 1 run using our estimate of each individual forcing, then 8 runs where we varied our estimates." [/i']Wanna bet they compared each run to the climate record before varying the estimates? I'm willing to be wrong here as the actual paper is behind a paywall, so if someone can provide the methodology used in the paper (with quotes) I'll concede the point. Just because the graph's a pretty picture that gets your message across doesn't make it right, for that is true of all propaganda, isn't it? In general. I've yet to see anybody here saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, it is. I think the differences of opinion concern how sensitive the climate is to CO2 and more specifically, how the feedbacks behave. Have we underestimated some forcings and therefore have attributed too much power to CO2? A simple example: Is cloud cover percentage a positive feedback or a negative forcing? Or both? Is CO2 the "big bad" it's marketed as? Do we need to reconsider land use and UHI in light of Jones et al 2008? IPCC TAR relied on the Letter to Nature by Dr. Jones to conclude that UHI effect is minimal; AR4 puts it at; (IPCCAR4WG1 Chapter 3 Page 237) However in Jones 2008 we find; Previous assessments were based on .006 degrees/decade but new research by the same person now puts it at .1 degrees/decade. Have we underestimated the UHI effect?

Exactly what is "incredible" about it? The climate has changed naturally far faster in the past than in the last 100 years. I would also add that the warming from circa 1910 to 1940 is easily comparable to the 1970 -2000 period, as your own graph shows. Even staunch AGW proponents accept that the warming of the early 1900s was natural. (Although I did see a rather well argued point somewhere that the CO2 increase may have been responsible. If I can find it again, I'll post a link.) Why not? The AGW side have no problem with doing it. Isn't that the standard reason for the current hiatus? That natural forcings are "masking" the CO2 warming signal? Nobody has yet put forward a hint of what these forcings actually are, but they must exist because the CO2 signal is being "masked". As for the "Attribution Graph" that is so loved here, it's been shot to pieces before. The discussion ran for a couple of pages in this thread. I again quote the IPCC; Suphate pollutants have been dropping yet the graph has an increasing negative forcing from them. The graph cannot be reconciled with the observed facts. Why is it still being trotted out when it's veracity is so poor?

I believe there is indeed a reputed triangle in the Sea of Japan. The most commonly quoted disappearance there was a large japanese scientific vessel (whose name eludes me ATM) over 30 years ago. The ship vanished without a distress call or wreckage being found. Some say it disappeared "as if transported to another dimension". Personally I think the simple fact that it was an oceanographic research vessel investigating the birth of a volcanic island might lead to a more mundane explanation.

What, somebody will make them sit up straight and walk properly? Or did you mean deportation? (Couldn't resist.)

China's been having trouble with NK for years, this test was probably the final straw. Rather than being pally with NK it should be remembered that Chinese border Guards have had "Shoot to Kill" orders for quite some time. Refugees from NK have been an ongoing problem for Southern China. Also, a nuclear nut with short range missiles is more of a danger to China and SK than anybody else.

He can't. "Loose lips sink ships", doncha' know.

Finally. Something actually worth resurrecting a dead thread for. Welcome back.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1096959/Mystery-century-old-Swiss-watch-discovered-ancient-tomb-sealed-400-years.html Okay, so how does a 100 year old Swiss watch finish up in an unopened 400 year old tomb? The best guess I've seen is that it was deposited by some sort of animal, a rat or some such. Still........... I love the outre.

I think some posts got lost with the move. I could have sworn that someone asked if the Biblical quotes were the only ones used. Looking at the lower left hand side of each slide we see the dates that Biblical quotes were used on "Daily" reports. Since this is the case, then the Biblical quotes were used on reports dated; 17 March 03 19 March 03 20 March 03 31 March 03 01 April 03 03 April 03 07 April 03 08 April 03 09 April 03 10 April 03 11 April 03 This would mean that over a period of 26 days, 11 Biblical quotes were used. iNow, I've come to agree with your position if only Biblical quotes were used. If only Biblical quotes were used on the covers of the reports, then I think your interpretation of the SCOTUS would be most probable. However, if other quotes were used as well as Biblical ones, I don't think that the separation would be an issue because the Bible simply becomes one of a number of source quotes. I'm smelling "Media Beat up" here. The other sources were not contraversial and are being ignored in the hunt for a good "story". The tpmcafe story is interesting but why suppose some wide group of people vetting the quotes and using different Bibles etc when the it's quite possible that someone picked them by using, Oh I don't know, Google? I would also like to point out that Donald Rumsfelt has been copping the heat over this, but reading the actual article we see; iNow, I don't know where this leaves your "Separation" argument. It had teeth when it appeared to be Government documents, but I don't know if it applies now. These were documents prepared by the Military for their Civillian (Government) boss. I won't pretend to know how it works in the US, but down here the Military is not part of the Government. Government documents are one thing and Military documents are another. I think a very messy grey area.

Not really. I haven't seen anybody arguing for creationism here.

The Onion News Network article about the youtube contest.

That is sad, but with only 4 psychiatrists in the whole nation, there aren't a lot of options, are there? As to the other vid, I think it's a fake.

Not to be picky, but that should read "allegedly perpetrated war crimes". Your phrasing assumes that crimes were actually perpetrated, whereas they are only alledged. Or is it to be "Judgement first, then Trial"?

Actually I watched the full video. Are you sure they weren't auditioning for the WWF? Seriously, struck repeatedly with a shovel and the guy gets up without difficulty and adjusts his trousers? Notice the camera angle for the "beating" doesn't allow you see if the "victim" was actually hit or not.

iNow, thanks for that Treasury link, that was interesting. (A 3 cent coin? Really? Fascinating.) I'm surprised the usage on paper money is so recent (1957), for some reason I thought it was much older than that. Oh well, live and learn. The laws are different here. Where a "lead" quote is from is less important than it's relevence to the subject matter. Quote the Bible, Terry Pratchett or MAD magazine, so long as it is relevent to the subject at hand and those to whom the presentation is made, nobody gives a damn. Perhaps a difference in attitudes towards this matter stems from the seeming fact that the "religious right" has far less pull in Oz than the US? To us they are simply wackjobs with little to no political power. Ours simply aren't as dangerous as yours. We'll get some silly bugger standing outside a "Family Planning Clinic" holding a placard and singing hymns. Yours will be more direct in their disapproval. So it could be a cultural thing. On the SCOTUS ruling, I have to agree with Pangloss. I don't see how the usage of these quotes contravenes the ruling in the Everson case. Could you elucidate? (My "Word of the Week".) The other two cases concerned City Seals, truly apples and oranges when compared to "Top Secret" internal briefings, surely.

Mokele, I was refering to this incident. I agree with stereologist that a mountain is being made out of a molehill. I don't see how this is some sort of "attack" on the separation of church and state when every person involved with these reports (in any fashion), right down to the grunts who do the legwork on the battlefield, are paid in US currency that has "In God we Trust" printed on every bill. Church and State have never been separated in the fashion that bascule and iNow seem to think it should be. This is not to say they are not correct in their views and that more separation is needed. However this current "incident" is nothing more than the continuation of the Status Quo and is therefore quite ordinary. (IMO) Religion has been used in propaganda before and will be used again. That's life.