iNow

QFT. A very fair assessment, indeed. But, therein lies the rub. The constitution... like any other document or object... is subject to interpretation. Different people will read the exact same words in the exact same context and rather often reach vastly different conclusions and hold disparate interpretations... even though the set of data... and where that data is found... remains consistent across groups. The left/right divide is in part a direct result of human nature and our evolved cognitive mechanisms.

Via PZ

Add an attachment to the first of the two posts. Viola. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged When a friend invites you over to their house for dinner, is the first thing you say to them when you arrive, "I see you have a coat rack here, but I really don't like it. Can you kindly remove it? Thanks for your quick action."

He was in an accident 23 years ago and has been in a vegetative state since. How much detail do you need? It's the same story all across the globe, dude. My god...

He basically "pulses" his hand while someone else holds it... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120762270 "It was especially frustrating when my family needed me. I could not share in their sorrow. We could not give each other support," he wrote, punching the words letter by letter into a touchscreen with one finger held by an assistant at the 't Weyerke institute in eastern Belgium.

What's the mood been like over there, Severian? Has everyone been in high spirits and all amped up this week?

It's called a hand-boiler. I answered him in another thread already: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46234

Oops... I (of course) meant Mos Def above, not Omar Epps.

My guess is that the stroke resulted in achromatopsia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achromatopsia

It's called a hand-boiler. http://www.google.com/search?q=hand%20boiler

The worst part is that I don't really feel I can even blame those in Congress. I have no recourse but to blame my fellow citizens... The voters. Hip hip hooray for the broken US system of governance!

You're right. We need more staff members who disregard objective reality in favor of their personal ideology and worldview.

The data itself would be inconsistent and show different things depending on who ran the test. We'd be able to identify it because two people running the same test would obtain different results, and it would direct further attention on to figuring out the source of the discrepancy and which conclusions and set of data are actually correct.

Maybe we'll have to hook you up to Braingate like Taub did with Omar Epps. http://www.braingate.com/

Thank you for taking the time to review the video I posted, walkntune. I had a strong feeling that you would not... that you would ignore it... and I'm glad to see that it meant enough to you to spend a few minutes to make it a part of your experience here. That's a step in the right direction... most definitely.

That's ridiculous. Are you sure they weren't just out of stock?

Very spooky, indeed. Ever heard of locked-in syndrome? Similar phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locked-in_syndrome Interestingly, it's these same types of people who watch Fox news everyday. Whether they start out that way prior to tuning in or only end up that way after watching, I'm unsure. [/ ]

Now that we've had some fun... Why did you create this thread, Genecks? It sure sounds like you believe the decision to make Moo a Mod was in error, and further elaboration/elucidation would be greatly appreciated.

Again... Pure nonsensical rubbish. I want you to watch this: T69TOuqaqXI Now... Any chance you will address insane_alien's post in a meaningful and relevant way?

Unless (of course) his/her sacrifice offers a better chance for their offspring to have offspring of their own, or further, if his/her sacrifice increases the chances of survival of their genetic relatives and their children.

It's pretty silly. If this is all they've got to attack the science, then they've got nothing, really... http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/comment-page-3/ As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the University of East Anglia webmail server were hacked recently (Despite some confusion generated by Anthony Watts, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Hadley Centre which is a completely separate institution). <...> More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though. Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking. <...> No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens. The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it. But, wait... There's more: http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html In the skeptic blogosphere, there is a disproportionate preoccupation with one small aspect of climate science - proxy record reconstructions of past climate (or even worse, ad hominem attacks on the scientists who perform these proxy reconstructions). This serves to distract from the physical realities currently being observed. Humans are raising CO2 levels. We're observing an enhanced greenhouse effect. The planet is still accumulating heat. What are the consequences of our climate's energy imbalance? Sea levels rise is accelerating. Greenland ice loss is accelerating. Arctic ice loss is accelerating. Globally, glacier ice loss is accelerating. Antarctic ice loss is accelerating. When you read through the many global warming skeptic arguments, a pattern emerges. Each skeptic argument misleads by focusing on one small piece of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture. Further... http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/on_those_stolen_cru_emails.php The global warming denialists have predictably gotten very excited about the emails that were stolen from CRU, declaring that they prove that there's a big climate scientist conspiracy (presumably to install a COMMUNIST WORLD GOVERNMENT). We don't know whether or not the thief altered the emails, but since there isn't really anything incriminating it's likely that they are all genuine. Most of the fuss has been generated by taking emails out of context and bad faith interpretations of what was written. And if you want the real take on all of this which really offers perspective, go here: http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/ If you own any shares in companies that produce reflecting telescopes, use differential and integral calculus, or rely on the laws of motion, I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the calculus myth has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after volumes of Newton’s private correspondence were compiled and published. For those who are only paying minimal attention, that last one is satire... a parody of this ridiculous nonsense applied to the works of Isaac Newton... but it's damn funny. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFor those of you who wish to explore some more of the actual content of the emails, this link does a nice job of bringing much needed context: http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/climate-deniers-hoax-themselves-again/

I don't disagree. I do, however, wish to reiterate my point that the laws are in the math, not the science. The science uses the math.

I couldn't disagree more, and the close-minded ignorant arrogance of your comment turns my stomach. Pure nonsensical rubbish, not to mention a pure strawman and conflation of words.

Here ya go: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/search.php?do=finduser&u=27409