John, you write as if you believe that lying and cheating were the rule rather than the exception.

The scientists who lie and cheat are, in the main, those who have been paid to do so, usually by "big business" whose interests are diametrically opposed to the truth, or by certain moronic sects with more money than sense. To suggest otherwise is to do a great disservice to the objective pursuit of knowledge in which most of them are engaged.

Do you think that David Attenborough (whom I know we both admire) lies and cheats about life on Earth in order to make a few fraudulent quid from the BBC?

Well, actually, John's right about this one. It's why every IRB includes an ethicist. In fact, it's the whole point of IRBs and peer review and faculty handbooks. Humans are not angels. We put an extra half spoonful of sugar in our coffee, just because we're feeling like it that morning.

Thanks,

Bill

This is actually my favorite fact in the universe. In the beginning, there was no oxygen. Everything was anaerobic. Then cyanobacteria started taking advantage of the situation. They ate everything they could, and pooped out oxygen. For like a billion years, life was good. They partied like it was 1999. Then, the oxygen levels started pushing 20%. They literally poisoned themselves.

Everything does this. I could take some sugar water, put it in a jar, and pour in some yeast. Party time! I can just hear the little organisms saying "Pay no attention to all that gloom and doom. What do the experts know? I'm having fun, and they're just a bunch of condescending progressives anyway!" And they'll go on partying, all the while pooping out alcohol, until they drown in their own excrement.

But we're way smarter than that, aren't we? We tell ourselves we're more thoughtful than yeast or cyanobacteria. We tell ourselves we've been given dominion over the earth, and we've been told to take care of the garden. But who cares? It's more fun to party!

Thanks,

Bill

Bill, I make no claim to be any kind of angel, but I can promise you that I never put an extra half-spoonful of sugar in my morning coffee. Only three spoonsful per cup, and only four cups. Yes, I know - such unswerving virtue is almost unbelievable, isn't it?

Yes! Very well put. Unfortunately, it sums up both the problems facing the earth, and this idiotic thread. I really think the rest of you should invest your time in working on your poetry, and let John and Charlie talk to each other until they get into a fist fight. When I see the amount of time that good poets have devoted to trying to convince a few blockheads that the earth is not flat, it makes me want to weep.

Don't cry, Michael. Be happy. Your moral superiority is in excellent shape.

Janice, I clearly paid attention to what you said in post#71. I took it to heart and really was not being as flip as you posed in post#73.

You said: Science is about predictability of known fact that something else will happen and can measure the rightness or wrongness of that hypothesis, then it can be assumed as fact until disproved. I went with that. To my mind, the simplest explanation is the best one. Hence, my retort.

I don't own a Farmer's Almanac.(published continuously since 1792) A lot of farmers do though. They follow it religiously. They swear by it. It is their "Farmer's Bible." There isn't a whole lot of science to it, but there is a lot of experience to it gathered over hundreds of years. Would it be fair to say that it is a scientific book? Of course not. Is it accurate? Nope. But if you plant your potatoes by it I guarantee that 999 times out of a thousand, you'll have a successful tater patch. That's pretty damn scientific. No wait, I meant practical. There are many such examples in that little book.


When the meteorologist says it's gonna' be really cold. I dress for it.
When he says, "It's gonna' be really hot, I undress for it and get the sunscreen out and wear a hat.
When he says it's gonna' rain, I pack an umbrella.
You get the picture. He has a college degree, works with scientists, follows models, checks and double checks his information, yet, many times he is either outright wrong, or premature in his scientific predictions. In other words, he's fallible.

But you know what? I listen to him and act accordingly because he spares me hardship if I believe he's going to be right. That's practical.

So we come to hurricane forecasts based on American models and European models, which do yearly forecasts based on current weather patterns and historical patterns. For the past nine years— 3,420 days and counting, they have predicted 2 to 3 or more major hurricanes to hit the U.S. of A. In 3,420 days, not a single Major hurricane has come close to hitting us. You would think that a pattern has developed and that they would re-jigger their forecasts, but nope, it doesn't work that way. The scientists keep forecasting 2, to 3, to 5 major Atlantic hurricanes a year, scare the crap out of people, and when the scientists are wrong, no one says crap about it. And then, and then, when one major hurricane hits, the scientists beat their chests and say; '"See, we told you so." Those of us who live in the Midwest, South and Plains pay extreme attention to the weatherman when tornado weather is forecast. Or when major blizzards or ice storms are forecast. Sometimes they happen, sometimes they don't. The scientists have redundant systems and models to back them up, but they don't know for sure. Even if they did know for sure, they can't stop the weather from happening.

What irks me about the climatologists is they continually foster a state of fear for every season. Don't even get me started on earthquake forecasts and models.

I refuse to live in a continual state of fear and handwringing because of alarmists with less experience than a weatherman(or weathergirl) telling me that life is going to end if I/we don't give up our money to the government and East Anglia fabricators.

Some of you are being petty because we disagree, because I and 2.5 billion Christians basically agree with scripture that's been around awhile, way longer than your East Anglia Holy writ which has been debunked as a fabrication. I haven't called any of you names or refused to critique your work. I wouldn't stoop so low. You toss John aside when he departs from poetry into these discussions too. He is a well read, well published, well respected writer. Shame on you. You act like a bunch of high school kids. There is no excuse for it. None.

My moral superiority sucks, John. What I am relatively proud of is my ability to think things through a bit before trumpeting whatever crosses my mind. It's my semi-rigorous engineering training at work, and has nothing to do with moral superiority.

It really must be, with all that exercise it gets. And when I think about all the time some curmudgeon spends muttering in the corner of the pub that people shouldn't be talking about whatever the hell they feel like talking about, it makes me want to order another pint, and giggle some more!

Thanks,

Bill

Oh Michael I like to hear what crosses people's minds. What they think through is much less interesting. We are having an election in l'il' ole England. The politicians have all thought through their positions and the result is utterly dreadful.

A Brief History of The Thread
 

1. Calm - someone posts something.

2. Critique – people say "not really, you need to rethink that, rework that." Others reassure the poster that all might be well with just a tweak here and there.

3. Defence- poster says “no, that wasn’t what I meant at all, you don’t really haven't understood my intention.” Poster states that they are listening carefully.

4. Argy - Bargy - a few more people get involved to back the critics or to agree with the poster. Someone says "That's off-topic".The first aspersions flutter into the air. Someone offers up: "I find that offensive". Tensions simmer. People return to the thread and try to sound more careful, respectful and reasonable...

5. Escalation - ...it doesn't work. Veiled insults start to appear. Rumours spread. The Thread reaches 50 replies. Participants start to think of nothing but The Thread. They begin to ruminate over what they will say next in The Thread. They don’t go to bed before checking The Thread. When they wake they’re ready to re-enter Thread World.

6. The Fray – it starts to kick off. Plaintive cries of "why can't anybody hear what I’m saying?" can be heard. Participants in The Thread find themselves not eating, not listening to what their real-life partner is saying, not even noticing what’s on TV.

7. Affray - things said on other threads are brought as evidence. Brief satirical remarks on previous threads and the psychological profiles of other Thread users are made. People accused of using The Thread for their own agenda. Outraged noises off. Some good old-fashioned harrumphing. People are wrestling, pulling at each others' clothes. Some smart-aleck writes: "Isn't it all to do with sublimated desire?" General derision is directed at this poseur.

8. Flouncification - flouncing occurs. Threats to stop posting. More posts by those who’ve threatened to stop posting. The thread now has over 100 replies. It is expanding into a Thread universe, which may collapse into a Black Hole. Stephen Hawking posts an intervention. Nobody notices.

9. Chaos Theory - moderators hover. The Thread no longer makes any sense. It veers off the original topic. People take to off-roading vehicles. New topics are found. New participants are drawn into The Thread. Lone voices appeal for calm or plead for The Thread to stop. They are told they are nothing but Cnuts. Participants swan-dive back into The Thread with lovingly crafted ripostes.

10. The Steady-State Brawl - mention of 'cliques'. Mention of “newbies who know Nothing”. Spectacular flouncing. Shouting heard in the corridors. People start talking about “snark” and “trolls”. People make veiled threats to leave, hoping that someone will say “please don’t go.” Moderators hover.

11. The Civil War - multiple flouncings and furbelows blur and whisk through the air. Accusations made of “pulling rank” and “grandstanding”. Sounds of chairs being smashed. Bonfires are built. An innocent bystander is defenestrated. Grown men weep in corners. People Laugh Loudly .The Thread now covers multiple pages. Moderators intervene. Thread locked. Thread enters folklore.

I assure you Steve I never give more than two minutes'consideration to what I write on a thread. It is like a conversation. One says what is uppermost.

And if you don't agree with me I'll kill you.

Virtually.

John, I think we had already gleaned that.

I would have put the number much lower, though.

Steve - that's wonderful. Unfortunately, we're now somewhere between #7 and #8, so not enough people will read it - but as long as John breathes and Charlie rants there may be hope for a larger audience.

Steve, a while back Janice started a thread, 'secrets of the creative brain', it ended up with 446 comments and 21,083 readers. Wasn't locked, ended peacefully.

I think it unfair to say that Charlie rants. I find his posts interesting and quite unranting, if there is such a word. Ranting goes on here, but not from him.

Huh? Have you not heard of Hurricane Sandy? That was 2012, and was the second-costliest hurricane in US history, and it was the second major hurricane of that year alone. There are still people living in tents three years later. Your claim is simply and demonstrably ridiculous, so I won't bother pointing out the many ways your conclusions would still be illogical even if your claims were correct.

Roger, I beg to differ with you about Sandy. According to multiple sources including the Governor's office, meteorologists and insurance carriers, Sandy was not classified as a hurricane, but a post-tropical storm. Superstorm, if you will. My facts are correct, dude. Check it out. So please do regale me with my illogical conclusions, if you dare.

Wikepedia: I think it's splitting hairs to argue about how it was technically classified when it hit the US coast, given that it was a hurricane during much of its life and it did more damage and caused more havoc and loss of life than even major hurricanes tend to do in the US. And your original statement was that no hurricane had "come close" to hitting the US. You don't consider this to be at least coming close?

Roger, it doesn't matter what I think Sandy was. Go argue with the Gov of Jersey. The reason those folks are still in tents out there is that Sandy wasn't classified as a hurricane. I stand by what the reliable article say, not Wikipedia, come on, man, Wikipedia. Surely you can source better than that. Wikipedia? East Anglia. Anyone?


And another thing, you can't have it both ways when it doesn't suit you. You can't claim that science and Government are wrong when you disagree with their conclusions and turn around and cite them as authority when you do agree with them regarding the same related subject. That's a great recipe for losing a debate.

Of course you can. Both "science" and "Government" are abstract terms and are whatever you define them as.

No one has claimed that either are infallible. Therefore something that is "government" can be both right and wrong. Also science. You just have to say exactly what scientific source or what government source you are referring to.

My objection to your reasoning, Charlie, if I may respectfully say so, is that you do not really state your premises in such a way that that they can be verified or disproved.

It reminds me of a debate I watched the other night between https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

Ham never said anything that could be proved. When cornered he just fell back on his standard proof, the Bible. And of course for him that trumps everything else. As I think it does for you. So this thread is a pseuo-debate and leads nowhere.

Everybody go on an Easter egg hunt instead. Or eat some chocolate. Or write a poem. Or read the dictionary.

Best I think would be to read the dictionary while eating chocolate. That's what I'd do, but I don't have any chocolate in the house.

One dictionary definition. Hurricane - a wind of force 12 on the Beaufort scale (equal to or exceeding 64 knots or 118 m/h).

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL182012_Sandy.pdf


Sandy was a classic late-season hurricane in the southwestern Caribbean Sea. The cyclone made landfall as a category 1 hurricane (on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale) in Jamaica, and as a 100-kt category 3 hurricane in eastern Cuba before quickly weakening to a category 1 hurricane while moving through the central and northwestern Bahamas. Sandy underwent a complex evolution and grew considerably in size while over the Bahamas, and continued to grow despite weakening into a tropical storm north of those islands. The system re-strengthened into a hurricane while it moved northeastward, parallel to the coast of the southeastern United States, and reached a secondary peak intensity of 85 kt while it turned northwestward toward the mid-Atlantic states. Sandy weakened somewhat and then made landfall as a post-tropical cyclone near Brigantine, New Jersey with 70-kt maximum sustained winds. Because of its tremendous size, however, Sandy drove a catastrophic storm surge into the New Jersey and New York coastlines. Preliminary U.S. damage estimates are near $50 billion, making Sandy the second-costliest cyclone to hit the United States since 19001. There were at least 147 direct deaths recorded across the Atlantic basin due to Sandy, with 72 of these fatalities occurring in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern United States. This is the greatest number of U.S. direct fatalities related to a tropical cyclone outside of the southern states since Hurricane Agnes in 1972.

*************
http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/na.../11/239735.htm

HURRICANE? CYCLONE? TYPHOON? They’re all the same, officially tropical cyclones. But they just use distinctive terms for a storm in different parts of the world. Hurricane is used in the Atlantic, Caribbean Sea, central and northeast Pacific. They are typhoons in the northwest Pacific. In the Bay of Bengal and the Arabia Sea, they are called cyclones. Tropical cyclone is used in the southwest India Ocean; in the southwestern Pacific and southeastern India Ocean they are severe tropical cyclones.

STRENGTH: A storm gets a name and is considered a tropical storm at 39 mph (63 kph). It becomes a hurricane, typhoon, tropical cyclone, or cyclone at 74 mph (119 kph). There are five strength categories, depending on wind speed. The highest category is 5 and that’s above 155 mph (249 kph). Australia has a different system for categorizing storm strength.

etc.

*******

Beaufort wind scale HERE http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/beaufort.html
A hurricane is defined as 64+ kph.

My premise is exactly that GW/CC cannot be proved or un-proven as man-caused.You have a case for pollution, not heating and cooling of the earth that is caused by men.

Going back to the climate debate about global warming causing more intense hurricanes and more hurricanes in general, Global warming was blamed on Hurricane Andrew in 1992, along with every other hurricane since then. People went into hysteria over Katrina, but Rita was barely mentioned. And now, to cover their asses and their jobs, scientists and meteorologists claim Global Warming is deflecting hurricanes from our shores. If they don't make the claim, then they can't continue with the false science of it, which is where the East Anglia fiasco comes into play. They deliberately falsified evidence and cooked up models to reinforce untenable positions they took so that they could further a false agenda and keep their cushy jobs. It is clear no one here wants to talk about their (E.A.'s) deceit in an adult manner. It was minimized earlier in this thread and on down the road you guys trucked. Truth doesn't need to be manipulated. Lies do though. I haven't disparaged anyone here, just the lack of truthful, provable evidence that is missing from the conversation.

Bringing Christianity into the discussion to deflect from the debate is unhelpful, because you (some of you) seek to disparage me by doing so. It doesn't make sense, if you were being sincere, to do so. Throwing anti-Christian bombs doesn't bolster your position.

My advice to you would be to clean up your East Anglia mess before casting stones at Christianity. You won't do that though. I know why.

Tilt on.

Does Global Warming really exist or is it a fallacy? Even the so-called "experts'' can't agree on such a complex issue; there are so many variables. At this late stage in the thread I'm not going to start spouting my views... to be honest, I'm not even 100% sure what they are...

...but not having chocolate in the house is unthinkable.

It's nearly 1am and I'm much too tired to add any serious comment to this meandering thread so I'll go to bed instead, ...having just eaten 5 chocolates thanks to you, Janice :p

Jayne

Charlie, I haven't disparaged you for your faith. If you think I have, I will unreservedly apologize. You know I don't share those beliefs but that isn't important. What is important (to me) is that your arguments (IMO) are statements of belief and not grounded in verifiable argument.

I can't clean up something I am not responsible for. I hadn't even heard of it until now.

I can't say if this is a reliable source or not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...il_controversy
but I've always been wary of conspiracy theories.

Proof at last.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/mel...es=og. shares

:D

I hate to be *that* guy, but Irene and Sandy were both pretty bad. I spent quite a bit of time cleaning up after each of them. The damage on Long Island Sound was spectacular. All that water came sweeping through our row of beach cottages. Some of them will never be rebuilt.

If anyone wants to do some fact checking, here's a place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_o...tic_hurricanes

Best,

Bill

PS: Pics here, here, and here.

I don't understand why such reliance on Wikipedia. Why do such intelligent, thoughtful, reasoned people whom I like and admire personally, keep sourcing with an unreliable information vehicle?

The NWS and NOAA stepped on their own morning wood explaining Sandy.

I am not calling them reliable, mind you, but their sourcing is from the horse's mouth.

I cannot begin to shovel the buckets of irony here.

Climate Central, Feb 12th, 2013. —Check it out.

I don't know how to ref. this info to the discussion. I'm not qualified.

Many cities have heavy air pollution, that is climate change, the air we breathe has changed. In the poorer suburbs of Sydney, 1 in 4 children suffer from asthma. Asthma kills.
Added to air pollution, is light and noise pollution, you can split hairs and say that is not the climate that is just living conditions but the effect is the same.
And water pollution is also a major problem in many countries.
So we are fouling our own nests at an alarming level even if it doesn't produce hurricanes or presage a new ice age.
We all know the answer is cleaner energy sources, whether it will happen in time is any one's guess.

Charlie,

Wiki is crowd-sourced, and therefore much more reliable than articles in traditional encyclopedias, which were often done by single authors. Take any serious subject. Let's just randomly pick Cicero: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero

Nice page. Longer than any article a paper encyclopedia could possibly include. References, citations, footnotes, everything.

And there's a whole group of people who care deeply about Cicero. If there's any vandalism to the page, it gets noticed and fixed with incredible rapidity. You can check this for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...action=history

I've been a part of creating encyclopedias. We would have given our eye teeth for a process like that. We'd be lucky to have two or three people checking our work. Right now that Cicero page has 380 watchers: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...einfo-watchers

You can bet your bottom dollar a bunch of them have Ph.D.s in Rhetoric. Not that I would know anyone like that... ;)

Pick any serious subject. Let's try Martial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial

Obscure, perhaps, but a personal favorite. Should there be more there? Yes, but that page give me links, further reading, context, etc. It's at least a clear path into the woods.

And speaking of paths into the woods, have you seen the page for the Battle of Teutoburg Forest? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...utoburg_Forest

Oh, my goodness. Those military historians are thorough! I bet they sit around arguing about every line.

In short, if you're researching serious subjects, and you're not using wiki, you're doing yourself a disservice. The more serious your subject, the better it gets. Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha

One could lose oneself for days just going through the information and links.

Sorry to go on so long, but I use wiki constantly. It's the greatest repository of human knowledge the world has ever produced.

Best,

Bill

(PS. For an example of non-western subjects, try the Chinese history portal. Here's one way in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kingdoms

Charlie, I must respectfully contest your implication that all 2.5 billion Christians "basically agree" that the idea of anthropogenic climate change is contrary to Scripture.

Quite a few of those 2.5 billion Christians you mentioned are Catholic...

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2012/0...graphic-02.png

...and the Catholic Church has been expressing concern about manmade climate change for decades now. Way back in 1990, Pope John Paul II--generally considered a conservative--said in his World Day of Peace Message:

Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis have continued to emphasize the moral imperative of concern for the environment. In fact, Francis took the occasion of his inaugural homily to say:

Leaders in a wide range of other Christian denominations have made similar statements. The United Methodist Church's 2008 Resolution on Global Warning said that "as a global church community, we call on our members to reduce human-related outputs of greenhouse gases." The Presbyterian Church (USA) produced this guide in response to the "General Assembly 2006 Resolution Calling on all Presbyterians to go Carbon Neutral as a Bold Christian Witness to Help Combat the Effects of Climate Change." In January 2013, 200 self-identified evangelical scientists and academics signed a letter urging the U.S. Congress "to pass meaningful legislation during this Congress to reduce carbon emissions and protect our environment":

Yes, I'm aware that the conservative political pundit Pat Robertson, although Catholic, is vehemently opposed to the ideas that climate change is a.) happening, b.) manmade, and c.) not just a fictional crisis that the godless lefties have made up so they can take over manufacturing. But in view of the above examples and many others, it's definitely misleading to suggest that 2.5 billion Christians are standing united with you against environmentalists, and that only atheists think that climate change is affected by human activity.

Julie, I thought Pat Robertson was a Southern Baptist?

Excellent presentations, Julie and Bill. Well researched, well presented, well argued. There have been any number of good and detailed posts in this thread (Janice has been another steady contributor), and what is particularly important is how they utilize the internet and the huge resources available. There are about thirty or more links in various threads to internet sources. It's become one of the basic ways we communicate.

Setting up a link is not very complicated. If you're going to have a detailed discussion it's a great facilitator. What I find interesting is that there are only two participants in this thread who don't appear capable of doing this. Charley and John. John has indicated for quite some time and in many threads that he can't be bothered to put up an actual link - he just waves you in the proper direction. And it seems Charley has the exact same problem (see his most recent post, above.)

There's a message there.

Julie, You misunderstood me.

I wasn't saying that all Christians and Catholics agree with me about GW/CC. I was saying that they all have the Bible in common, and for the most part, believe it.{the Bible} Even so, the scripture says that God created, not man, and that God will destroy, not man. Man will not destroy mankind, that is reserved for Him. Daniel, Isaiah, and Revelation comes to mind. Other prophets in scripture reference this also.

Ross, I beg to differ. Climate change is the direct involvement and consequence of man to change earth's temperature, either by cooling or warming the planet. Pollution is different. Pollution affects the way we breathe, our health. It's a different thing. Men do cause lots of that, no denial here, but so do volcanic eruptions and prevailing winds. Climate, temperature, affects pollution, not the other way around.

Pollution doesn't cause global warming? Phew, that's a relief, Charlie. I learn a new, scientifically proven, and utterly irrefutable fact from you every day. And there was I, foolishly thinking that all those megatonnes of CO2 with which we pollute the planet might have had a hand in global warming. Now I can sleep easy.

In all seriousness, I think we all agree that there are two schools of thought. The first (an overwhelming majority) believes that global warming on the current scale is man-made, and if unchecked, will lead to irreversible damage. The second (the "Dubbya" school of science) denies it. Now, if the second group is right, cutting emissions and taking other action to counteract global warming may not be necessary, but certainly won't do the planet any harm. However, if the first group is correct, then we are heading for disaster on a massive scale in just a few decades. Do you really want to gamble the lives of future generations on the cynical, get-rich-quick assertions of the Dubbyists and their paid "scientists"?

But Brian, even if you are right, nothing we can do will stop it. The Chinese and the Indians will go their merry way. We had better hope that this scare is like the other ones. If it is not we're DOOMED.

Well you and I are not doomed. We will be dead.

Hope. Ah, yes.

Remember when Pandora opened the box and let out all the evils of the world? Death and the rest of it?

Then she slapped the lid on and heard a little voice, let me out, let me out. Look again, there in the bottom was hope.

But remember--it was a box of EVILS and hope too, was one of the evil things. It keeps people from acting when they should.

A useful myth, better than that one about parents sacrificing their children like Abraham and the Big Guy.

Anyone who agrees with Scripture will agree with the angel in the Book of Revelation who says "Hurt not the trees..."