Ophiolite

Exports grew last year by 4.3% There is a growing expectation that extreme weather conditions will become more common. The growth of the Himalayas began when the Indian subcontinent collided with Asia. Grow is not exclusively used for living things. Edit: Cross posted with Strange.

I believe we now have sufficient data to answer the OP. The answer is yes.

I am disinclined to accept your assertion as it is clearly the result of a complex concatenated string of stimulus and response. It really is.

I take it you have never managed a team. No team can be efficient, effective and happy, unless the strengths and weaknesses of each individual member are recognised and appropriately catered for. Attempting to create cookie cutter team members is a waste of resources because - even if their job is making cookie cutters - each one requires different levels of training, motivation, discipline and support. Once again I note a serious disconnect between your opinions and reality.

Looking through the window identified the hole in the ozone layer. Looking through the window did not identify the cause of the hole in the ozone layer. Models identified the cause of the hole in the ozone layer and therefore pointed to the solution that was then implemented. The model proved reasonably accurate and thus, with the solution implemented, the ozone layer is repairing itself. Since you do not believe in models then you must disbelieve that simple sequence. Which part of the sequence do you believe is inaccurate? You mentioned in earlier posts you want better flood defenses. Are you unaware that the location, structure and size of flood defenses are based upon models? Is your alternative solution to..... well, how do you plan to build these flood defenses effectively and economically without models? You don't seem to have thought this through.

This is the text of the recent Paris Agreement. While the agreement is limited in extent and is not legally binding, but rather a statement of intent, it is surely encouraging that 196 governments have demonstrated they are not so skeptical that they would avoid taking some steps towards addressing the problem.

Crap. The route to higher profits is to provide value to the customer. This generates repeat business, or new business by word of mouth and reputation. Higher profits in the short term, through application of immoral, or questionable practices, leads to overall lower profits.

Why do you say it is inevitable? What is your evidence for that? Many people overwork and die from entirely different causes, some of them decades after they stop working. Secondly, will you be addressing the points and questions raised in my earlier post?

Firstly, despite earlier reservations about the stability of planets in a binary system I believe it has now been established (through simulations?) that stable orbits could exist. I half suspect that at least one such system has been found by Kepler, but I may be imagining that! The issue for your tale is really how large do you want the second sun to be and how close. If it is as massive as the first, then I think, to avoid an unstable orbit, it may need to be placed so far away that it would appear as no more than a very bright star. On the other hand if it small enough to be able to be placed closer, then it will - again - appear more like a bright star than a dim sun. Of course you could include words to the effect that "Contrary to expectations of the early theorists it was possible for a stable orbit to exist in the system, despite the proximity of the twins." And I have read plenty of SF stories in which the issue is not even discussed and they rarely suffered from a suspension of suspension of disbelief. Edit: Wow, am I out of date! From 2007, for example, this abstract: The existence of planets in stellar binary (and higher order) systems has now been confirmed by many observations. The stability of planetary orbits in these systems has been extensively studied, but no precise stability criteria have so far been introduced. Therefore, there is an urgent need for developing stringent mathematical criteria that allow us to precisely determine whether a planetary orbit in a binary system is stable or unstable. In this Letter, such criteria are defined using the concept of Jacobi’s integral and Jacobi’s constant. These criteria are used to contest previous results on planetary orbital stability in binary systems. You will find several articles on google Scholar searching for "stable planetary orbits" AND "binary systems".

Ken, you make excellent points, but we are probably more closely aligned than you think. A key phrase, I think, behind your position is "Despite the refrains about falling back on appeals to authority, such deferring to experts is actually the most appropriate position for people without relevant expertise to take." (Emphasis mine.) At the risk of sounding elitist, this is a science forum and many of its members are practicing scientists, or persons trained in science. Therefore we have the expertise of knowing what constitutes good and bad application of scientific method. We have a clear understanding of the term consensus and how one is constructed. It is this expertise that can be applied to claims based on science and should be applied on matters with as much import as AGW. My doubts, listed in my earlier post, were addressed by reviewing the words of the experts and their consensus as presented in the IPCC reports. It was not a matter of taking them at their words, but - by assessing how they had arrived at their conclusions - satisfying myself that any reservations had been properly met. I think it is obligatory for anyone with science training to adopt the same position. For anyone without such training and lacking a natural scientific bent they should, as you suggest, rely upon the experts' positions. Alternatively, if they insist on unfounded challenges to expert opinion, they may be best to keep their mouths shut to match the status of their minds.

Certainly. Explicit in the second question in Petrushka's post is the conclusion that "some of the super-rich are the best philanthropists". It is not expressed as a possibility, but exists as a definitive statement within the question. Since the super-rich have considerably more money than the average person it is not surprising that some of them would make excellent philanthropists, in an absolute sense. Therefore, asking why this rather obvious situation is so, might reasonably be categorised as ludicrous. On a tertiary point, it seems to me that one cannot (yet) be a citizen of Scotland. One can be a resident of Scotland, one can be a native born Scot, one can be 'ethnically', or culturally Scottish, but one is a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not a citizen of Scotland. Citizens are those entitled to the protection of a sovereign state. Scotland is not a sovereign state.

Select, or combine as appropriate: 1. They need income to support their lifestyle. 2. They want to avoid boredom. 3. They like the social opportunities afforded by work. 4. They prefer work to their home life. 5. They like working. 6. Other. All people with Asperger's syndrome? Most people? Some people? How do rates compare with non-Asperger's people? A citation would answer those. I have no idea what this means. Do you wish to explain? In Dallas, Club Schmitz is said to do a decent hamburger.

Interesting, but in what way relevant? I strongly suspect there are many claims with "the Ancient Tibetan religion" for which there is no evidence, or contrary evidence.

In the 1960s I was taught that they could form compounds, which was why they were now called the Noble gases, rather than the Inert gases.

I am not saying you are wrong, but I am saying this is not my experience. Can you provide a citation to an example of such a diagram, lacking recognition of the importance of the biosphere, from a peer reviewed published article in a reputable science journal?

I could just link to the post I made on page 1 of this thread, where I laid out my view of skepticism. However, only 37% of you will follow the link. It is over forty pages back. So, here it is again. I think it is worth repeating. I would be interested to know how many of you agree, or disagree with me and to what extent. I am a global warming skeptic. I think it is not only plausible to have doubts, but essential, especially if we wish to honour the memories of Bacon and Galileo and Newton. We should doubt the data gathering techniques, we should doubt the analytical processes, we should doubt the conclusions. We should doubt the researchers, we should doubt their motives, we should doubt the peer review process. Doubt is a cornerstone of good science. Skepticism is an essential part of the scientific method. Having doubted all of these things in relation to global warming I am left with the distinct impression that global warming is very real and very serious. However, as a good skeptic, there is one area in which I have no doubt. I do not doubt the possibility that new research could turn our current understanding on its head - its just that that possibility is, on the balance of the evidence, extremely remote. In the meantime we should proceed on the basis that global warming is a real and present danger. Oh, and have a look in your dictionary. You will likely find that skepticism and denial are not synonyms. Skeptical? Just go ahead and check.

Thank you for finally answering a question. It is sad that your response lacks any substance, but is little more than unsupported opinion. Perhaps we cannot control the climate, but we sure as hell can stop fucking it up1. 1. There are occasions when thoughts are best expressed in Anglo Saxon/Middle English. I believe this to be one of them.

Gross and unsavoury stupidity! We have upset the natural world by dumping enormous quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. ( Do you deny this? If so why?) The intention of those you are arguing against is to reduce this dumping and eventually eliminate it (Do you deny this? If so why?), allowing the balanced, natural condition to be regained over time. (Do you deny this? If so why?) In short, those who accept AGW are committed to reducing human interference with the natural world, (Do you deny this? If so why?) while those who deny wish, in their arrogance and ignorance, to continue disrespecting the natural world. (Do you deny this? If so why?)

It is a serious challenge to my patience.

You are scarcely entitled to ask someone to answer questions when you have meticulously avoided doing so in the other climate thread. These threads are meant to be about the science of climate change. You have ensured that they have become about you, your dishonesty, your hypocrisy, your rudeness, your delusions and your ignorance. Congratulations!

Before the onset of civilisation badly formed perceptions would often prove fatal. Today one can indulge ones stupidity in a broad range of subjects with little physical risk.

Yes, it begins with careful, controlled observation. You have not done this. If you have please provide the data that show you have considered the full range of variables that would be implicated. What you have is an anecdote, that could be a useful spark for an investigation and the formation of a hypothesis, but the only thing that it is currently evidence of is that some people have diabetes and some have high blood pressure and some have both. Guess what, all the people I know with high blood pressure do not have diabetes and all the people I know with diabetes have normal blood pressure. [sarcasm] So, obviously you much be wrong. [/sarcasm]

Beautifully put dimreepr - you have nailed it.

Citation please.

Don't deliberately talk bollocks. That is rude and offensive behaviour. The questions you have been asked are about your opinion as to the reliability of certain theories. Are you seriously suggesting that you are unaware of your opinion on these matters. This persistent and deliberate avoidance of straightforward questions that relate directly to the discussion is a distasteful form of manipulation. If you are trying to provoke me into being rude you are damn well close to succeeding, now answer the frigging questions!