doG

Why is everyone acting like this is only about city killing nukes like those used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? This is likely more about tactical nukes, which are still bad but not the same.

This is only so they can use some of the new bunker busters in countries that don't have nuclear arms....

That never seems to bother me either, I think the body's tolerance to capsaicin is not just in the taste buds....

Yes, your body builds up an accumulative tolerance to capsaicin just like a tolerance to a regularly ingested drug. Fresh peppers off the bush that once tasted like firecrackers begin to taste like sweet fruits. You get to where you can taste flavors in the peppers you never tasted before because they were masked by the heat.

I wonder why Bill Harlow didn't get sued too. He confirmed Plame just like Rove did even though neither was the source for revealing her. Then again, Novak got her name from her husband's entry in Who's Who so I wonder why she didn't sue Who's Who as well. I sure hope she gets counter sued for all the legal expenses....

You can create linked tables in Access and build queries and reports on them just like the data was really there. It's like an invisble ODBC connection. It will be more work than just creating a query in Excel though and Excel would be easier for the users to refresh the dataset as needed. You original post sounds like this is a simple, one query report.

For no more than you're trying to do I would use Excel to connect via ODBC and create a refreshable query in a spreadsheet. You might have to install MS Query from the Office CD, it gives Excel the ability to query ODBC database connections. You will end up with a read-only query that any user can refresh as needed.

SQL is a language itself, i.e. Structured Query Language. Just how long are they willing to wait for you to learn SQL? You will need SQL to access the data in the database and some other programming language to generate the report with the dataset returned by SQL. PHP will work as the second language just fine.

Huh? You're saying they have actually studies how likely non-drug users are to try harder drugs when they DON'T USE ANY DRUGS to begin with? I find that a little difficult to believe.

I'm confused. Are you suggesting the theory of evolution is a law? The context of your statement sure makes it appear that way.

I personally don't claim that at all. I believe evolution exists because we can verify it in the lab. Even the annual evolution of the flu supports what some term micro-evolution. On the origin of man, I'm in the we-just-don't-know camp. We have the data to support that some species evolved from others. We have data and evidence to show how many species are related genetically. For many though we don't have any data or evidence to support any claim of their origin.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Bonobos are the only species like humans that engage in sex for recreation, unlike chimps.

No, i mean people that are not and have not used any illicit drugs vs those that have. There is a whole group of people out there that have never and will never use any illicit drugs for one reason or another......

You're still missing the point. Marijuana users are all users that were willing to try drugs in the first place vs people that aren't willing to try any drugs. Where is the comparison of marijuana users vs people that aren't willing to try any drugs?

Look at it from another point of view. There is a group that consists of, well, everybody. In that group are two groups, those willing to try marijuana and those that aren't. Now just because some that are willing to try marijuana will try other drugs too does not mean they are willing to try those other drugs just because they tried marijuana in the first place. They are simply in the group that were willing to try any drug in the first place vs those not willing to try any drugs in the first place. That's the fault of their mentality, not marijuana. The only thing that makes marijuana a gateway drug for them is that it was the first drug they tried. Had they tried heroin first then it would be their gateway drug.

You'll be wating a while since the only people spending any time or money trying to point a finger are the ones that want us to believe man is THE cause whether it's true or not.

Your statement didn't strike me as a theory or hypothesis. You said, "Anthropogenic forcings are the primary cause". That strikes me as a claim of fact and you have not proven that to be the case. I know it's a subtle point but there's a difference between facts and theories in my book.

This one? It sounds like Hansen et al are uncertain as well... Now, I agree that global warming exists and that man contributes, significantly, to a cycle that we know occurs naturally. I agree with suggested monitoring and continued modelling to better understand what we can do about it, if anything. I only disagree with concluding that anything is the number one cause. Even Hansen's paper does not confirm that the energy imbalance is not a fluctuation.

Uncertainties? Assumptions? Best estimate? Sorry, while I agree there are plenty of anthropogenic forcings I don't see how you can claim with any certainty that this proves total natural or anthropogenic forcings as a predominate cause.

No we haven't. I realize that the chart you're referring to reflects the increase in anthropogenic forcings. It does not reflect total anthropogenic forcings vs total natural forcings. The OP claimed that anthropogenic forcings are the predominate driver of global warming. That implies that total anthropogenic forcings are greater than total natural forcings and so far no data has been posted that supports that claim.

Is that a yes it does? Please point out the other natural forcings...

All I said is that it does not show a comparison of anthropogenic vs natural forcings. The OP claimed anthropogenic forcings are predominate, i.e. greater than natural forcings. That claim requires a bottom line comparison which I haven't seen yet. There is no doubt that anthropogenic forcings have increased as man has progressed in his industrial endeavors but is the forcings of man truly the greatest forcings of all. I'm not convinced the data that takes into account all of the variables even exists to make that claim. Do we even know all of the variables? Global warming is real, I just don't agree with the claim that we are the biggest cause.