Ophiolite

We would recognise that they are from Yorkshire and just ignore them.

I am not saying that feelings are not important. But, let's take an example. Member X posts a statement that "plate tectonics has been occurring on Mars throughout most of its 4.5 billion year history". This is wrong. There is no evidence that it is true and there is plenty of counter evidence that it is false. I shall post a correction saying so. It will be accurate, clear, on topic and helpful. It may also make X feel bad. He has been publicly shown to be incorrect. How embarrassing. What shame! So, should I think carefully about Member X's feelings and not make the post? That might be better for Member X's feelings today, but that means I leave Member X (and many who have read his statement) in a state of ignorance. I am more concerned about them being ignorant than I am about them feeling embarrassed that they have made a mistake. Frankly, if people cannot accept correction they will have a tough time in the world. (Personally, I am delighted when I am corrected since this means I have learned something.) So, while I will not seek to hurt someone's feelings, but if that is a side effect of ensuring the facts are known and accurately presented then their feelings will be hurt. And that is their problem, not mine.

In a current thread a member made a lighthearted comment. Another member took exception to it, since it did have a political slant, and asked the first member to keep "the political hogwash" out of the forum as it diluted the quality of the discussion. I posted a suggestion that the member lighten up - a little humour is not out of place here. I don't want to discuss that specific example - it's just what triggered this observation. I think occasional humour in the forum is a good thing. Now, am I right? Is it acceptable, occasionally to inject a pun, a quick, relevant joke, a witty observation, or should we stay objective and humourless at all times?

Come on. Lighten up. The occasional piece of humour is not out of place in a science discussion.

I am also, I think, a straightforward person. When I write I have these simple rules in mind: 1. Be accurate. 2. Be clear. 3. Try to be helpful. 4. Try to stay on topic. 5. Correct errors of fact posted by others. If someone is upset by something I post when I have been following those rules that is their problem, not mine. I have nothing to apologise for. If they are upset, they need to deal with it. It is not my responsibility to handle something they see as a problem when I have been accurate, clear, helpful and on topic. I recommend you follow the same approach. Focus on the subject being discussed, not people's reaction to that subject. This is a science forum. It is the science that is important.

If you had asked for information on the Big Bang it would have been possible to give answers that ranged in size from a single sentence up to references to thousands of research papers and everything in between. The Big Bang has been thoroughly researched and quantitatively examined. The questions you have asked are much more general and the answers to them are more matters of opinion than of fact. To properly answer them one would need to explore, in detail, such diverse fields as anthropology, history, psychology, economics, archaeology, evolution, religious practices, etc. How do you expect any of us to be able "tell you in the parts in detail"? One could explore this issue for a lifetime, write eighteen books on the subject and still not have provided a complete answer. Honest answer? Yes. I have already advised you to stop apologising, but you keep doing it. Please stop. I don't know if it irritates others, but is certainly irritates me. Most of the time you have nothing to apologise for and doing so is just distracting. Secondly, you keep thinking you have annoyed or angered people. You seem to think this every time someone disagrees with you. This is a discussion forum - it is normal for people to give different views. It does not mean that they don't like you, or that they are angry. It just means that on that point they think differently from you. It is not a problem. Stop thinking it is one. I realise this may be difficult for you since you are new to forums, but don't take things so personally. Relax and enjoy the conversations.

The preference for the scientific approach has led to modern technical civilisation. I think the survival advantages of this are obvious. The religious approach has often been associated with individuals who have a pre-programmed reaction to situations: their religion tells them what to do. Someone who can act promptly will often survive because their action has been prompt, not because it is the best solution. In contrast the science minded, who analyse the situation may react too slowly. Eventually they may have come up with a better solution, but if they are dead they never get to try it. This is a simplification of the concepts. There has been research into these things, but I do not have references at present. There is no problem with natural selection favouring two differing characteristics if the environment contains circumstances that favour first one, then the other.

What? I am not sure who that is directed to, but your response is disappointing. In the posts of Greg H. and myself we both took time to offer you advice. That is not done lightly. Our attitude was one of wishing to guide you towards more productive posts, help you avoid negative rep and enhance your experience on this site. Do you seriously feel that is a bad, unacceptable, unwelcome attitude? If you were targeting Arete, he didn't even have an attitude, just some concise, accurate facts. No one likes to be corrected, but if you choose to bury your head in the sand when you are mistaken you have many disappointments ahead.

There is survival value in both approaches and therefore these characteristics have both been favoured by natural selection.

Gosh, that sounds awfully like an ad hominem.

bweir, I urge you to read, re-read and then think carefully about the advice from Greg H. I see you have already attracted two negative reputation marks: that is quite an achievement after only three posts. I would add a little further advice that I hope may be of service to you. Your comments on junk DNA suggest that you are gaining your information from pop-science sources: Discovery Channel documentaries, articles in newspapers, science magazines, general biology books. If these are your sources it is not surprising you have such flawed ideas. Concepts in these sources are typically dumbed down, simplified and dramatised. Get a hold of some good textbooks and, as you study these, start to read relevant research papers. Or ask questions here, but please avoid arrogantly talking with confidence what you are obviously ill-informed about. Follow this approach and - as a side effect - that neg rep will quickly tun into a positive one.

Many people are uncomfortable with uncertainty. They would like answers that are clear, unambiguous and available today. Religion can meet these needs. Moreover the message delivered by many religions is a positive one for believers: immortality and a wonderful life after death in paradise. Also, religions provide a clear moral framework, identifying what is right and what is wrong. That removes the responsibility of working out what is right and wrong from the individual: they do not have to think for themselves. Others are gifted with the same desire for answers, but are ready to accept that they will never live to see all their questions answered. They often find that science provides an efficient means of answering at least some of the questions and of generating new questions. These people are comfortable with the uncertainty. They may not like it, but they accept it. Indeed it is the unknown that could be known that fascinates them. Scientists are not persons who know things, they are persons who find out things - that is a different and more exciting thing, for a scientist.

Nicholas there have been no moderator notes in this thread. Imatfaal, a moderator, has made posts, but these have been as a member, not in his role as a moderator. I do not know who voted down Cosmobrain's post - I do not care who voted down the post. I simply commented on the fact that I thought it did not deserve a negative rep. You have no reason to be "scared of the moderators". The moderators are almost always very fair in their actions. I do not know why you received a warning before, but you should not take it as some really bad thing. A warning is exactly that - advice that something you have done is against the rules of the forum. It is not the end of the world.

Then you should reflect on the fact that I only added it because I dislike lists with only two items on it. And why did someone give you negative rep for that post? Strange and inappropriate. @Nicholas - please stop apologising. It is unnecessary and ultimately annoying. (And whatever you do, do not apologise for all the apologies.)

The carbon dioxide is a by-product of the energy that powers our civilisation. If the expense were comparable, or even an order of magnitude less, it would be unaffordable. As John has said, do the calculations. Investors are looking for a return on their investment. So who pays the private investor for this work? Which 75% of current government spending are you going to abandon in order to pay for this? So follow John's advice and let us know what you find.

Nicholas there is no need to apologise. It is a very polite action on your part and I thank you for it, but it is unnecessary. It is easy to misinterpret what has been written. All of us do it from time to time. No harm was done. By the way, I think Delta1212 already gave you his opinion when he said "I don't think it makes all that much difference what we call it."

Nicholas, you asked me why there were objections to downgrading the status of Pluto. I gave you the main reasons I could think of offhand. I have no idea why a) you think that I object to calling Pluto a dwarf planet, or b) you think that these reasons are views that I hold. If you had asked me why creationists believe what they believe I could have provided a suite of reasons: it would not have meant that any of them reflected my views. Actually I do find the third requirement for a planet is technically inadequate and therefore not good science and not good taxonomy. Consequently I view all classifications under the present system to be flawed. However, since classification systems are ultimately artificial I don't really care what we call Pluto.

I shall watch at least some of the matches. I shall honour my Kentish ancestry and support England, while noting that any international competition that lacks a Scottish team can hardly be considered a bona fide event.

Why are there objections: 1. Nostalgia. Most of us grew up with nine planets; we resist change. Also, poor old Pluto was always something of a misfit, spending its time on the edges of the family, trying to sneak in occasionally nearer the sun. It attracted a lot of affection for the underdog. 2. The third requirement is vague and can only be quantified in a subjective manner. 3. We've spent all that money on New Horizons and now it won't even investigate a planet!! 4. The voting was with a quorum of delegates, but a lot less than a majority of those entitled to vote. (Google Gerrymandering.)

I am not a mathematician. My mathematics is weak. I am, however, skilled at detecting bullshit, although I have no academic qualifications for this. The paper is bullshit. Its impact on science will be about the same as last Wednesday's episode of Coronation Street.

Do you find it frustrating when no one replies, agrees, or challenges?

How are you going to generate the volumes of ozone required? How are you going to pay for the equipment and energy required to generate the ozone? And, especially, how are you going to get it into the upper atmosphere?

I am reasonably sure that you are incorrect for the reason noted by Janus: aircraft velocity is relative to the air and that is rotating with the planet. You would need to show some serious maths or peer reviewed references to convince me otherwise. Also travel times are often not the same each way. Lagos to Paris, roughly north-south , is the same in either direction, but Amsterdam to Houston is almost an hour longer heading west than east on account of the jet stream. And as a minor note, commercial aircraft will typically run with an airspeed of 500 -580 mph, not the 400 you quoted. (On one transatlantic crossing, with the benefit of a 250 mph tailwind we had a groundspeed that was supersonic.)

So, tell him what your interpretation is and in broad outline what you intend to write and ask him if that will meet his requirement. Asking questions is a proven technique for acquiring answers.

What is sensationalist about suggesting Cretaceous sea levels were 200m higher than today? Published figures run as high as 250m. Arguably one of the most thorough analyses is this one by Muller that estimates a +170m level, 15% from the quoted number. I think you owe iNow an apology.