iNow

Source?

That seems to be a pretty blatant misrepresentation of the actual position, aka a strawman. They never said that the link between the sun and climate came to an end, they said that there is no possible way that the sun is responsible for the current increases we are experiencing, and that those who argue that the current change is the result of the sun are wrong. I have not yet looked for one, but perhaps you can tell me in which peer reviewed journal the Svensmark and Friis-Christesen reply was published, and which issue? Once I get more familiar with the validity of the rebuttal, I will spend more effort finding a rebuttal to that. For now, I'm comfortable with the journal Nature as a more valuable source than a random .pdf (that is why I want to know where their rebuttal was published, if even was in the first place). I suppose it's possible that I did this and was not aware, but can you tell me which reference of mine to which you are referring? I've shared quite a huge number of them. I'd like to see if the data of theirs which I shared here was at fault, or if the fault of theirs is contained to just their opinion on NOAA. Thanks for the references. I'll need to look more closely at those. I find it strange ("it would appear not") since I shared so many references suggesting that intensity was increasing. I even posted pretty graphs. Surely, both of our references cannot be correct, and one of us must win this argument. Either the intensity of storms has increased, or, it has not. Upon cursory examimation, your references seem to be discussing frequency of storms overall, which was not my point. However, I will say that I need to look more closely at them than my quick scan to be fair to you and your assertions. I suppose it's possible that they are arguing against an increase in intensity, not just overall frequency, but I'll need to spend more time tunnelling through their data to be sure. I tried to be cautious to make clear in my previous posts that I was referring to storm intensity, and not overall storm frequency. You're ducking the question. I'll take that to mean that you don't have a problem with any of the citations I shared, that my assertions are valid, and that you concede my points. Your concession is also implicit in your need to call my posts "stupid" instead of addressing the actual arguments being made or answering the questions asked of you. If I have mistaken your points, and you've been talking about other types of storms , not hurricanes, then this was not intentional. I've also kept calling "hurricanes" storms which may have added to the miscommunication. However, I've made clear all along for the past several pages that I, myself, was, in fact, talking about hurricanes all along.

It must be a forced choice questionaire then, as that's exactly what you have to do in a choice experiment to separate and independently measure the various options. More on this type of modelling at the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_Modelling

The key factor is who gives said donations, not how much he gets overall. We'll have to wait and see, but right now the vast majority of Obama's money is coming in $20-50 chunks from regular old Joe's like you and me, and that's not exactly something I'm all that concerned about.

Have you seen YT's cool thread over here? http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32912

You're very strange. You are suggesting that the naval measurements are false and your own memory is not. I suggest you realize that you are mistaken and move on.

When I read the thread title, I thought immediately about how they eat all of those crackers/wafers and gain weight, hence becoming more visible in the rifle's sights. Who knew you all were talking about marriage and prenups.

You must not be to college yet, as I remember homework being "we started to show you what you need to know in class, and this assignment is the way you're going to learn what you ACTUALLY need to know for the test." We got LOTS of homework that forced us to go well beyond what was covered in class, and we were expected to understand it all before the next lecture (which is why teachers have office hours). Ah... good times.

My first thought was that coffee and tea have caffeine, so speed metabolism. This would mean that the drug is metabolized more quickly, and wouldn't get into the cells as much. Coffee is also a diuretic, so it will pull water FROM the cells to be extreted, and would likely take some of the medicine with it. Also, water would dilute the medicine, and saturate the cells, so the medicine couldn't get in as well. Plus, all of them make you urinate more often and more quickly, so the drug would be extreted before it has a chance to act. Let me be clear. These are all speculations on my part, and I'm not trained formerly in biology or medicine. I just wanted to share my initial thoughts in the hopes that it would stimulate some new thoughts in you. Good luck.

I often wonder if all of the vibrations at the atomic level could be interepreted by microscopic organisms as "song," but I'm not sure if that relates to discussion you are attempting to have.

That's the kind of post I was hoping to drive you toward. Thank you. You've raised a good point, and I can see that you don't disagree that it was a factor, but you'd like something more than heresay to go that extra step and say "yes, it was about oil." Again. Thank you for putting forth an articulated and respectful argument. I do appreciate it. I will see about finding that testimony from a White House official. Please note that I may have to come back to this thread after Bush has left office though.

Great point, MedGen. Pioneer has missed this in nearly every post regarding DNA he has ever made on this site and others. Thanks for clearing up some of the misconceptions for other readers not as well versed on the topic as you.

Ah. Of course. The classic "challenge credibility," "lump into ideological box," full dismissal approach. I should have guessed. Implicit in your posts is the suggestion that they were not involved. Implicit in your post is the suggestion that our statements that they were are without merit. Implicit in your post is a reminder of why I question your authority as a moderator in the politics forum. So. You brought up evidence. Please define what evidence would satisfy you so we can all go work like little busy bees to go find and supply it. Then, once we have, you can dismiss that as political spin and ignore it by ending your post with the word "whatever" again. Shouldn't be a problem, since nobody here has suggested that "since Kuncinich said it, it must be true."

You still have not addressed the "why" question posed to you by Rev. You have simply reasserted your previous point with no substantiation of it.

To WHAT effect? There is evidence of the meetings, and also of the actions of those involved in said meetings. I think I must be missing your meaning here. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06272008/watch3.html

Precisely which of the citations that I shared in support of my arguments do you suggest are not accurate? Thanks, but I'm not holding my breath on this one.

And what consistent and repeatable parameters do you place on those subjective labels of "fun" and "good" and "devastating" and "treat?"

While I appreciate your point, the answer really is "no." Evolution has much more going on than just sexual selection. Like, being eaten, or falling off a cliff, or being sterile, but I think you already know this, so I won't beat a dead horse. CDarwin has raised a lot of really good points, and I'm inclined to pivot to his knowledge on the topic. He's brought up some really good points, and raised questions to which I don't personally have ready answers. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That's a good point. The only thing I can think to say is that there would still be some members in the group more likely to survive than others. With that said, however, your point about stealth seems to negate my point suggesting a "scare crow" effect. This triggered in me a new thought. Bipedalism frees the hands for weapon use. Instead of just running away from predators, just "climbing up a tree," those that were bipedal could travel while carrying weapons, and use those weapons against predators. They then could kill the predator instead of simply fleeing from it. If they killed it, it would also bring another source of food. Just a thought. Being on all fours doesn't really lend to carrying or using weapons, and these guys didn't exactly have back packs or thigh holsters.

The OP (which stands for opening post) made mention of them drinking insulin, and I was agreeing with zule's post )#5, this thread) that this would not do anything since insulin is a protien which would be metabolized if ingested, and hence have no effect if someone attempted to drink it. That's precisely why it gets injected. Hope that helps to ameliorate any confusion.

Please refrain from further speculations regarding my motivations, as you are, in fact, incorrect with the beliefs you've espoused above. Now, how does the idea that cooling has made storms stronger during past epochs have any relevance on the current discussion regarding the impact of a warming climate on weather patterns in the present?

Have you ever seen those electric toothbrushes, like sonicare? They get charged just by resting them on the charger. It's the same principle, and is called magnetic inductance. http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node181.html

Could it be something as simple as, "the girls just liked taller guys better?"

Hmm... Sort of like how dogs raise their hair on end, arch their back, and raise their tail in the face of opposition to make themselves appear as more of a threat. That's an interesting point I wasn't considering, Rev. It makes them perceptually bigger, and hence will demotivate a greater percentage of attack. Not likely a key evolutionary pressure, but certainly one to include in our considerations.

I accept your point, but there is a difference in opportunity. Those that stand all of the time still can duck so as not to be seen. However, those that are on all fours most of the time are still more frequently surprised by attack from (and eaten by) predators. Over time, those that were more upright more of the time had a selective advantage. I'm speculating here. Let me make that clear. If I'm wrong, I'm okay with that, but I'd like to know why.

So, I think the issue is not so much "what is a military target," but instead, "what is an appropriate way to attack that target?" If YOU are my target, I should not blow up your house while your wife, three kids, four cousins, grandparents, and friend from college are all there.