JohnB

I've been pondering whether to bother since conflating ideas seems to be the standard ATM. John, the point I want to make very clear is that in a discussion about western values and traditions, non western values and traditions are not relevent. It has no bearing on any part of the discussion. I've been going on about it simply to get it cleared up or else as we go on we'll be getting objections based on the marraige practices of eskimos in 540 AD. So doG, it wasn't prevarication. I was just trying to get you to agree to keep a discussion about western values about western values and that we wouldn't get sidetracked by irrelevencies. What the Mayans or north american indians did or did not do simply isn't relevent, so were we going to finish up discussing the eskimos or keep it in the west? If the former I'd give up instantly and not waste any more time, if the latter then the discussion was worth having. That was literally all I wanted, an acknowledgment from you that indian and mayan practices are not relevent in a discussion about historical western practices. But I guess that was too much to ask. John, yes you can get married in England without the church having a say. It's been that way since 1835, however if you got married in England in 1834 then you were required to have the church present. Similarly you gave an example for the French showing the religious ceremony to be not needed. Also true, but only since the French Revolution. Prior to that the church held sway and did so again after the Restoration, however with the second Republic the power of the church over marriages in France was broken for good. Similar things are found in the histories of Spain and most other European nations. The best thing that I can say about my position on historical marriages is that I was both wrong and right, but far more wrong than right. The power and influence of the church waxed and waned throughout Christendom during the last 1500-2000 years, depending on whether you want to start the christian era with Christ or Nicea. The power waxed far more slowly than I thought and waned rather more rapidly than I expected. Indeed Martin Luther was arguing against the church becoming involved in marriages in the early 1500s. Taking England for example the church requirement was removed in 1835, but it was only brought in in 1753. So the time that the Church had total power over marriage was only about 80 years or so. Note that this power was reserved for the "Church of England" only and oddly didn't apply to jews. If we look at the strongly Catholic nations like Spain and Portugal their populations would have paid far more attention to the Council of Trent and its proclamation that a religious ceremony was required for Catholics to get married. The Council was in 1566 so even that came into force much later than I thought. So doG and John, I was wrong for the most part. Religion has not dominated marriage rules for most of the last 2000 years. The most that can really be said is that it did dominate for relatively short periods of time in different nations at different times and those times were generally between circa 1550 - circa 1850. And if either of you are wondering where conflating comes into it the answer is simple. Just because I was wrong about the power of the church doesn't make me wrong that the practices of the mayans are irrelevent. They are two totally different topics and why they got put together is beyond me. John, going back to yout post #44 we actually aren't that far apart in ideas. I happen to view "marriage" as a word, but it does have power. The current situation is that a very small minority of the population want the right to "marry". These people are generally backed by a sizable minority. Just using Wiki and the ABS, Wiki says that 1.6% of Australian males identify as gay. So if the "right" is denied then we p*ss off 1.6% of the population. Their non religious supporters would be miffed but they are roughly 25% of the population. Meanwhile if we do grant the "right" then we will p*ss off some 69% of the population. This is assuming that all gays and non christians are in favour and all christians are against. I don't think that this is the case, but it is a starting point. Figures are from the 2001 Census of the Australian population. It was the sheer numbers that make me suggest a "Marriage/Civil Union" idea. Take the term "marriage" away from the church and you won't be irritating a small minority but probably more than 50% of the population. Marriage is important to the church? Fine, they can have it then. So long as they don't allow marriages that society won't allow as a Civil Union nobody cares. The downside is that about 3% (maximum) won't get to say that they are "married". Life sucks. I'm not talking about giving the church power over who can or cannot be paired. All the church gets is that the word "marriage" is reserved for them, like "Baptism". All power as to who can be paired is with the secular authority so society decides who can and can't, not the church. So if society decides that pairing can only be between "Two consenting adults" then that is who can get a Civil Union and churches are limited to "marrying" only couples who fit the criteria. Actually Baptism is a pretty good example to follow. If it is officiated by the church it's a "Baptism", if it happens outside the Christian church it's generally called a "Naming" ceremony. Two different names, but the same thing before the law. Let's face it, the kids name is official when it's put on his/her Birth Certificate anyway, baptism or naming is just gilding the lilly. I must stress though that the "marriage" and the Civil Union" must be of totally equal value in the eyes of the law. And "De Facto" rules should apply equally. A final point, in post #44 you said; But isn't that exactly what you are trying to do? According to the US Census Table 75, some 173,402,000 Americans out of a population (2008) of 228,182,000 identify as "Christian". Somehow this does not strike me a percentage that the word "minority" would describe. US figures are interesting as they are drawn from the sex of the partner and not from a direct question. But from the results we can see that "minority interest groups" would certainly apply to the gay community. In an ABC article we find that; 6 couples per thousand is definitely "minority" territory. In short. It would appear that defining "marriage" as "between a man and a woman" is important to a large percentage of the population while those who push for "two consenting adults" are in the minority. Those that back the "between a man and a woman" generally do so on religious grounds. Fine, so we give the word "marriage" to the religious for their use and the rest of us use another term. While this sucks for the minority it upsets the least number of people. BTW I personally view the "Two consenting adults" thing as referring to two people over the age 18 (or 16 with parental consent). It is ageist and discriminatory but tough luck and if you don't like then go some place else to satisfy your kiddy fiddling urges. ("Your" in this case referring to NAMBLA and their ilk and no person on this forum.) I'm not fazed in the least to be called any names due to opposing child brides. (or husbands)

Well, that'll teach me for trying to offer a simpler description of a complex problem, won't it? Xellos. Yes, I'm sure. All climate models treat cloud as a feedback only. While the effect is measured in the same units as a forcing they aren't viewed a forcing in their own right. The standard theory is that clouds change in response to warming or cooling and therefore their radiative effect changes as well. The term "Radiative Forcing" as used in the IPCC graph refers to the value of the radiative effect expressed in w/m-2, it doesn't separate forcings from feedbacks. First, read what a person writes before responding. I never claimed water vapour is "the" main leg, I said "a" main leg, as in, "one of many". All except the fools agree that "all other things being equal" the temp rise directly resulting from a doubling of CO2 will be about 1.1 degrees C. Climate models used by the IPCC currently use a value of around the 2.4 degree C mark. The extra 1.3 degrees comes from the WV amplification. This amplification is required by warming theory because othwerwise there is simply nothing to get concerned about. If there is no amplification, then of the 1.1 degrees expected we have already had some .8 degrees with out any ill effects. Okay, the ice fairs on the Thames got cancelled and people no longer have to dig themselves out from under 20 feet of snow in the winter, but I view these things as basically positive. There has been no increase in extreme weather, ACE is down to the lowest levels in decades, but rainfall patterns have moved around and changed. Queensland for example is down about 100mm of rainfall per year compared to the 1970s, but the tradeoff here is that we no longer get smashed by cyclones every year all the way down to the New South Wales border. Cyclones in general in the Australian region are much, much milder and less common than in the 1970s. Pretty much what you would expect to happen as the climate changes. It's called basic mathematics. If 300w/m-2 reach the surface as a baseline and the cloud cover (Albedo) changes to increase that figure by 1% then an extra 3w/m-2 will reach the surface. As the IPCC estimates the total change at the surface to be about 2.4 w/m-2 the figures are a rough match. If you think that a change in cloud cover could not have contributed to the warming experienced since circa 1850, could you please link to your cloud cover data for the first half of the 19th Century? I thought not. The idea is simply there to point out that it may have contributed some of the warming since 1850. Climate modellers disagree with the idea because that would make clouds a forcing in their own right and all models treat clouds only as a feedback to temperature. I disagree with this on the basis that clouds can change in response to things other than only temperature which makes them a feedback for the other factor and also a forcing for temperature. Wombat. AFAIK Earth isn't actually a black body. The generally accepted figure is 1.1 degree C for the pre feedback change due to a doubling of CO2. If you don't believe me go ask at realclimate. Hair splitting. By comparing the published literature with travel brochures and some high school essays the IPCC estimates what they think the values will be. More to the point, they will simply choose what they reference so that it shows the answer they want. That the recently "on hold" and possibly "retracted" paper by Gergis et al is cited by the IPCC before it was even published is a case in point. This is another example of not reading what people actually write. Please learn the difference in connotation in the usage of the word "a" as opposed to the word "the". At best your comment is a strawman, at least in the first part. As to WV amplification actually being measured in the climate system, please post a link to the paper that demonstrates this. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath. The amplification effect has not been measured, it has been estimated by climate models. And as much as it galls some people, the output of a model is not "real world data" or "measurement". More hair splitting. The physics and theories behind the AGW theory are built into the assumptions of the climate models. Some of this is straight physics and maths and some of it is assumption. One of the assumptions built into climate models is that cloud cover only changes as a result of changes in temperature. Hence clouds act as a feedback for a temp forcing but not as a forcing in their own right. If however, Henrik Svensmark is correct with his Cosmic Rays ideas the situation changes dramatically. Changes in cloud cover would now become a reaction to changes in cosmic rays (so a feedback response for GCRs) but would be a forcing effect on temperature. Which is what I said and repeated above. I'm quite, quite certain of what the difference between a feedback and a forcing is. I was trying to keep it simple because the tone of the OP suggested a lack of knowledge of the climate system. In going for simplicity I have to drop off some of the detail.

John, so since it's sterile it doesn't matter. (And yes, I was aware of that) But you are arguing bullshit. You are telling me that if there are two cafes side by side of equal quality and one has a pool of piss for you to walk through to get inside and the other is clean, you would walk through the piss, sit down in the smell and order breakfast. I call bullshit on that. You would turn your nose up at the poor cleanliness and take your business next door. So it can certainly harm a business can't it? Therefore the practice cannot be considered "harmless". Somebody has to clean the mess up. Why should you or your pisspot friends expect some other poor sod to start their working day by cleaning up your piss? Or are you and yours "special" in some way and better than everybody else? Your friends friend can't get a job, not because of the charge but what it shows. He spent the evening in an establishment with full facilities. Instead of using those facilities before heading home he chose to urinate in the street because he got "caught short". This tells a prospective employer that he has the forward thinking ability of a 4 year old and will need to be constantly metaphorically or literally reminded "Make sure you go before you get into the car". As an employer paying adult wages I expect to hire an adult, not some overgrown child. Argue all you want, but the truth is that for the vast majority of people; They will walk around it and not through it. They will not sit down to eat in the smell of it. And they expect such a mess on the footpath to be cleaned up quickly or they will go elsewhere. The practice does matter and it isn't harmless.

"Western" refers to the transplanted European culture, not the indigenous culture in a region. Australia is a "Western" nation due to the transplanted English culture, not because of the paleolithic aboriginal one. Brazil etc are "Western" due to the transplanted Spanish/Portugese culture and not due to the indigenous Mayan/Aztec/Toltec ones. Consequently when discussing the history of anything in "Western" culture what the indigenous populations of nations now known as Western did or did not do is utterly irrelevent. doG, I'm sure that you are well aware of this, why you are attempting to ignore it is frankly beyond me. Mayans are not now and never have been part of Western culture, there is no logical reason to include their practices when discussing the history of western culture except perhaps to mention their destruction. If we were discussing the history of crime and punishment in western culture would you be insisting on including the Australian aboriginal practice of "spearing" as a punishment? Of course not. This is the same thing. This has been my point. Repeatedly.

It's late but... doG, why bloody bother? You are obviously incapable of reading and understanding what I'm writing so I doubt a link will educate you. You must be the only person on the planet who thinks that native Americans and Mayans are somehow to be classified as part of Western European culture. I said "In the West" f*cking twice! You even quoted it and then ignored it. So I ask again, why bloody bother?

Just quickly for I must get to bed. But if Mooney is correct and it has something to do with the actual makeup and/or wiring of the brain, then the Republicans can't help but be that way and have no more choice than choosing their sex or race. You can't have it both way. You can't claim that voting a particular way is a choice and at the same time put forward the argument that people vote differently due to their physiological construction. The brain wiring is literally in hte genes, there is no choice. Mate, if 200 years of sanitation development has passed you by, it ain't up to me to educate you. You either think streets running with p*ss are acceptable or you don't. You might want to compare life expectancies in England from the 14th to 18th centuries to now. Perhaps you might inform the developing world (who are frantically trying to get modern sanitation) that they are wasting their money because it really doesn't matter. You might view the world as your personal tiolet, but please allow others to disagree.

I think that you are forgetting human nature. If we use logical arguments then we tend to respect logical arguments and those who make them. It is simple human nature to then consider those who do not or can not use logical arguments as inferior. We consider their argument to be inferior and this attitude will follow on to be applied to the person. Once a person or group is mentally defined as inferior we now no longer have to bother listening to them. Why should we? It's beyond reason to expect them to have anything worthwhile to contribute. They are inferior and therefore everything they might think of, we superior types have already thought of and have dismissed for one reason or another. This is just how humans tend to think and behave. Every "reason" given in the "Nyah, nyah, my side is better then yours" books or vids is just another "reason" not to listen to the other side. We can go around arguing likelihoods and tendencies versus certainties, but the bottom line is that if you are convinced that the other side is "less likely" to put up a reasonable, cogent argument then you are also less likely to pay any attention to what they say. If it's an odds on bet that their argument won't make sense, why should you spend your valuable time dissecting it? Did I overstate the case WRT certainties and attitudes? Probably. But also, just as probably many attitudes will finish up exactly where I said they would as a result of reading this book. The conservative generally feels superior to the progressive and the progressive generally feels that they are superior to the conservatives. There is an old saying that "You can never win an argument, you can only convince yourself that you are more right." Missives like this only exist to reinforce those views. It still leaves the question of the double standard however. Why is it acceptable to use the word "Republican" in this way, when if we were to substitute the word black or women, the book would immediately be classed as racist or sexist? I believe the word we need is found in the "H" section of the dictionary.

Did you miss the phrase "in the West"? What happened in the near, middle and far east is not relevent. Are you trying to claim that the Christian churches especially haven't had a near monopoly throughout Christendom for at least 1500 years? Were there secular marraige officials wandering around? There seems to be a great lack of mention of them in historical records. Out of curiousity, who else was providing marraige services throughout the Christian world if not the religions? Wrong. Mainly because I wasn't making a comparison of the situations, but of the arguments. Gay marraige is something between consenting adults, on this we agree. Now give me a logical and valid reason that it should be restricted in that way. If parents want to marry off their 6 year old daughter, they are legal guardians and quite capable of deciding all other aspects of the life of that child. If push comes to shove, what reason, beyond your own personal disgust, can you give for not allowing it? What reason, besides our own predjudices, can we have for defining "adult" as over 16? Or 18, 21, whatever. This varies from nation to nation and from State to State but you get my drift. Remember that it wasn't all that long ago that women in the West were married at 12. (Some of them, at least) The very fact that "Age of Consent" laws vary from place to place demonstrates that they are not based on any factual reasons but are the result of purely person predjudices. For that matter, many societies have operated without "informed consent" for many years. Please give a factual reason why your version of "informed consent" is the correct way to go and why your opinion should over ride the adult informed consent of some parents. You'll give these parents the right to say yes or no to life saving surgery and so literally decide whether their child lives or dies, but won't let them decide who their child should marry and when? I'm not against gay marraige, but I'd like you to justify decrying discrimination against one group while practicing discrimination against another. A further point, for what reason except your own personal views should marraige be limited to "Two" consenting adults? Why not 3 or 4 or 10? Won't that make life interesting for bigamists? Do we go for "If the second spouse is aware then it isn't bigamy"? How do you prove what the second spouse did or did not know? The idea of using marraige and civil unions is my first approximation at answering all the questions I asked you. Let the religions have the word "marraige" to do with what they will. We will keep the Civil Unions as part of our society and as a society we will decide who can have them. It leaves society free to define the Unions as "between two consenting adults" and society gets to define "adult". When NAMBLA or whoever come along and complain "Why do you let the Gays have the Union but deny it to us?" we as a society can answer "Because gays are consenting adults and valuable members of our community and you lot are a bunch of child molesting perverts. That's why. So P*ss off." The slope can be quite slippery and the only people who can't see the possibility of a big mess are those who are too busy handing out insulting labels to bother to think the whole thing through.

They've had for quite some time in the West, a couple of thousand years or so. We have to deal with how things are, not how they were. It doesn't matter that Normans have only had control of England for 1,000 years, we accept that and work from there. The Christian churches have had the monopoly for a couple of thousand years, start with that reality and work from there. Otherwise you just finish up going back and back until we have no records at all and really have bugger all idea of what really went on. I think that the only thing we can truly say about the distant past is that marraiges were important (at least ruling class ones were) and the priests of the dominant religion or God made sure that they were in on the deal. I do think the "gay marraige" bit and religion is really an attempt by many deal with something by not dealing with it. People are afraid of opening a very large can of worms and are hoping that keeping it in the religious region will delay the opening. My personal thought is that the word "marraige" should be reserved for the religious and that there should be a secular "Civil Union" that carries all the rights of marraige for other couples that the secular government decides it should apply to. This both opens the can and solves the problem be redefining the concepts. iNow did a great post on the 14th Amendment and walked around the edge of the problem. "Marraige" was, is now, and always will be discriminatory in some fashion. If we are going to have discrimination (and we will certainly continue to have it) let's make it government sanctioned where the arguments are out in the open. The thing nobody wants to mention and is avoided by couching the debate interms of "Who we love" or genitalia is this. Every single argument for gay marraige can be modified and used by NAMBLA or similar groups. To paraphrase iNow "What relevant secular reason do you have to treat couples of very different ages differently than couples sharing similar ages?" Or even, "What relevant secular reason do you have to treat couples sharing similar genitals differently than couples sharing different genitals?" "Different genitals" Some farm boys sure do love their goats. Note that iNow effectively demolished the argument about ability to produce offspring. If you want to run the debate in terms of "What right does society have to interfere wih personal relationships? Blah blah". Then you have face the obvious result of this. What right does society have to interfere with a 40 year old marrying a 6 year old? And in the days of easy divorce, he can get rid of her at 12 and have himself a new bride. Or is it wrong to discriminate on the basis of sex but is alright on the basis of age difference? Or age for that matter, why can't two 7 year olds get married? There is a very slippery slope that nobody wants to admit exists. If there are rules, then here will always be somebody who feels that they are discriminated against. If there are no rules, then there are no cohesive societal values and shortly afterwards, no society. This is the lesson of history. And to be very clear. The gay community is not made up of perverts like NAMBLA and other groups are and would be totally horrified at their arguments for gay marraige being used by such groups to advance their cause. But the fact remains that no argument so far put forward in support of gay marraige cannot be used for perverted purposes and the only defence against those arguments is to be discriminatory. Messy, very very messy.

The entire premise of Mooneys black is white book is that conservatives think too emotionally to be swayed by either logical argument or fact. The silly part is that traditionally the "progressives" have been the emotional dreamers and the "conservatives" the dyed in the wool supporters of the status quo. Progressives have an emotional drive to want change, (it's sort of a requirement for the position) this emotional drive is then legitimised by logical and pseudo logical arguments. Conservatives are emotionallly reluctant to change, generally operating on the principle "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". This position is then legitimised by both logical and pseudo logical arguments. In a democracy this does make the job of the progressive harder as they have two tasks to achieve change. Firstly they have to convince the conservative population that there is indeed a problem and a need for change and secondly that their proposed change is in fact the correct solution. While this does slow progress it also improves the solutions, so in general I find it a trade off that works. Perception is also part of the problem. Quite often a progressive will think that they are putting forward a logical argument, when it is in fact emotional. The example first to mind is health care. That the American system is shot to hell is an undeniable fact, but the idea that the best solution is a universal system is emotional, not factual. I personally don't see how, but it remains possible that a non universal system that really works could be devised. Proof that there is a problem is not proof that the proposed solution is correct, they are two very different things. The bottom line of Mooneys premise is that it is a gigantic ad hominem. Rather than arguing the facts he is attempting to show that conservatives are incapable of forwarding a logical argument and says he can prove it using scans etc. This bullsh*t "science" has been put forward over the decades for use against women and blacks, anybody who a particular group don't want to argue with. Rather than face their arguments it's just sooooo much easier to declare them inferior and then you can just ignore them. For bonus points you get to call anybody who disagrees with your position "anti science". I see very disturbing parallels with the "repressed memory" fad that psychiatrists were putting forward some years ago. Junk science at its best. "You're suffering from repressed memory syndrome" "No, I'm not." "Aha. You're suffering from repressed memory syndrome and denial." "You're a conservative. I have scientific proof that it is harder for you to think logically" "Um, no. I doubt that is correct." "Aha. You not only find it harder to think logically, but are also anti science." The problem with Mooneys science is that it is unfalsifiable. There is no "I might be wrong" option. You either agree with the premise (because it's from "science", doncha know) or you are "anti science". Presumed infallibility is the mark of the religious looney, not the perveyor of science. The problem John, is that the definition of "not mattering" in this case is purely subjective. If the survey declared that wife beating or slavery were "disagusting but harmless" would you still agree? The things chosen "didn't matter" in the opinion of the researchers, all they did was show where people disagreed with the opinions and values of the researchers. But if you think they "don't matter" then that does tell me quite a bit about you. Well I guess we've all cursed our parents at some time or another so we are pretty even there. However if you think it doesn't matter if you betray your family, then you certainly won't have any moral compulsion against betraying me or anybody else. From this I can correctly presume that the word "Honour" has no meaning for you and you are basically untrustworthy. This is the logical result of feeling that "betrayal" doesn't matter. You must also have a very poor sense of personal and civic hygiene. If urinating in public doesn't matter, then the world is your toilet. What that says about your preferred surroundings and personal practices is best left to the imagination. (Still think it "doesn't matter"?) Actually no, I don't. The point I'm trying to make here is that Mooneys argument isn't that the conservative argument is invalid, but that the conservative "mind" (I suppose) is invalid. This thinking started in the USA and is spreading and I'm trying to stop it. If you disagree with someone, then argue the points, not the person. This spreading disease of labelling your opponent with a derogatory name specifically to avoid a debate on an issue is not good for discourse in any nation. What Mooney is trying to do is not to fight facts or debate, but instead is trying to delegitimise the right of a large percentage of the population to be viewed as having viable opinions. It's a more sophisticated version of the fool conservative who says "Don't listen to him, he's just a tree hugging hippie." "Don't listen to him, he's just a conservative. And you know how science has shown it is just simply harder for them to be logical and reasonable." Do you see it now? It's not about debating your opponent, but about delegitimising your opponents right to even have an opinion that can be considered valid. It's not about showing the other side is wrong, but about demonstrating why you should not consider the possibility that they might be right. It's not about winning a debate but about having "science" reasons why the debate is a pointless waste of time in the first place and should be avoided. I did like the "Thank you very much Captain Obvious" bit in the article; Well dur. If you are disgusted by something then you think it morally wrong, if you didn't think it was wrong, you wouldn't be disgusted. This needs to be put alongside the Australian research that showed "Depressed people are more likely to commit suicide than happy people." (And it only took 9 months or so of research to work that one out.)

Yeah, right. According to the book one side of American politics rejects logic and the other side doesn't. Sh*t. We can't even use a brain scan to work out why some bloke goes troppo and massacres people, but we can use them to show why conservative brains are inferior? The other one has bells on it. It should also be noted that the basic premise is a logical fallacy. Appeal to "Consensus" is a version of "Appeal to Popularity" or "Appeal to Authority". There was a "Consensus" some time ago that women, bless their dear little hearts and simple minds just weren't up to the task of understanding politics and so shouldn't be allowed to vote. The Consensus was once that things burned because of Phlogiston. The consensus was once that people with black skins were inferior to whites and leared papers were published to back the bullsh*t. During the reign of Stalin anyone who didn't agree with the consensus of Lysenko seemed to disappear. How many more examples do you want? To then presume that there is something somehow wrong in questioning a "Consensus" is simply insane. Is there a valid reason for questioning a consensus? Yes, they have been wrong so many times before, to simply trust in the consensus is to place total faith in a concept repeatedly shown to be flawed. Please pardon those of us who think for ourselves for not following the rest of you lemmings over the cliff. How about exploring some other options? Rather than deciding that those who disagree are medically unfit to cogitate to an acceptable level, consider that the "Consensus" might be wrong, you might be wrong, the rewritten history might be wrong. Actually look at things yourself instead of letting people like Mooney do your thinking for you. I know that those pesky facts can get in the way of a good story, but that's reality. Deal with it.

And it wasn't that long ago that American "scientists" were putting out papers that demonstrated that negroes were mentally inferior to whites. The old Soviet Union used to declare dissidents as "insane" and lock them up. It's nice to see Chris Mooney and the general left continuing the proud traditions of their intellectual forebears. Rather than admit that the other person might be an equal and have a valid point, it is far easier to class them as "mentally subhuman" and attempt to ignore them. This of course leads to the next question "What do you do when those noisily inferior people just won't shut up and do as they are told?" Silly question, that's what the left want "re-education camps" for. Anybody that doesn't react to Mooneys concept with repugnance has just left the bounds of civilisation. In essence his argument is that it can be scientifically proven that "Those who agree with my way of thinking are intelligent and good problem solvers who consider aspects of a problem carefully. Those who disagree with me are mentally inferior subhumans who respond to emotions and not logic who are barely out of the caveman mentality." Substitute skin colour or sex (which have more in connection with genetics than political ideaology) and see how it sounds. "White middle class males are intelligent and good problem solvers who consider aspects of a problem carefully. Women and blacks are mentally inferior subhumans who respond to emotions and not logic who are barely out of the caveman mentality." Eugencs, anyone?

No strawman at all. I'm saying that it doesn't matter for the vast majority of people for the majority of the time. And if you don't enquire as to whether your local mechanic is a creationist or not, or your plumber or elecrician before you agree to allow them to work, then it doesn't bloody well matter to you either, does it? iNow, what absolute rubbish. I use a one sentence throwaway and you've got me nicely classified? Bullshit. What pop psych comic did you get that sh*t out of? I'm not even sure I'm right, I question my beliefs every single day, which I'm willing to bet is a heck of a lot more than you do. Summarising my view in one sentence is as informative of the entire concept as calling Gibbons "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire" a "book about Rome". There you go, I've just saved you days of reading, you should be able to get all the information you want from my description. Anybody who has read enough history is well aware that every generation or so sees charlatans and true believers who think that they can influence the weather. That's why religion started in the first place. Yet from your POV it is inappropriate to view the latest bunch of Canutes with some scepticism. Well go right ahead, enjoy the giddy feeling of your bloated ego as you go along and "Save the Planet". Is it more comfortable than realising that we humans are mere insects on this planet and what we do makes little if any difference? There has always been a fraction of the population that cannot reconcile just how unimportant they are in the great scheme of things (if there is a scheme)and so they adopt ways of thinking to magnify their personal importance. Look around, read history. Priests telling the populace that they will go to hell unto the seventh generation, predictions of unverified climae models going out 2,000 years. "Do as you are told or the crops will fail and your children will starve". I've read half a hundred variations on the theme from over 4,000 years of history. UFO enthusiasts that make this pissant little planet seem like some sort of Grand Central Station for the Galaxy. So many different races coming here we should have traffic lights in orbit. Then we have the "New Agers" who want to raise the consciousness, believing that what happens on little old Earth will direct the evolution of the Universe. What a bunch of ego trips. How about dealing with reality? What we do on this planet makes no difference at all to the Universe. It doesn't care and we don't matter. I know that some with a religious bent think that climate change won't be a problem because God won't let it be. Fine, but just because there are some loony yanks doesn't mean the rest of us think this way. Except in small and localised ways there has never been any evidence that mankind has had any control over the weather and climate of the planet, regardless of constant claims to the contrary. If you want to say that this has changed, well extraordinary claim srequire extraordinary evidence. Where is it? And don't get me started on hiding data and work and other shoddy practices. Have an AGW religion by all means, you've got the "Holy Oracles" and a priesthood already, complete with heaven, hell and penitence, sh*t you can even buy indulgences, sorry "Carbon Credits". But don't drag the rational scientific community down into the mud by calling it a "science". And especially don't imply other people are somehow defective or mentally lesser beings because they don't share your apocalyptic religious beliefs.

So John, that would mean that you would answer the question I asked iNow in the affirmitive. An atheist car mechanic is a better mechanic than a theistic one. Really? iNow, you missed my point. It doesn't matter, it's not a proxy or filter, it's just not relevent. Whether a person is an evolutionist or a creationist has no bearing on how they view their local councils efforts in garbage removal. Being a sort of "guided evolution" type myself has exactly what bearing on how I feel about the bloody stupid carbon tax that Gillard wants? If I was a creationist I'd be in favour? We recently turfed out an incompetent State Gov in the largest landslide in Australian political history, I mean these people were a joke. Would I view them as less incompetent if I were more atheistic? Nope. Like I said, it's not a proxy or filter, belief or not in creationism is simply not relevent to the day to day lives of 99% of the population. Will I buy white or wholegrain bread? What would a creationist do? Full cream or reduced fat milk? Which one fits better with my belief in evolution? It really doesn't matter.

But nobody does that for me. I choose which Dr to see and when I want to go. (Within the usual restraints of appointment availability, but you can't always get a restaurant table when you want it either) If I have concerns I can change Drs or go to the GP for a referral to a specialist. I don't see where these limitiations that you think apply come in at all. I keep giving examples of exactly how I get medical treatment and Drs appointments under our system, where in any of them has there been any indication at all that anyone other than me gets to choose the who, why, where and when of my appointments? (Within the usual booking parameters of course) My local medical centre has 10 Drs working out of it. I don't work 24/7/365 and neither do they so if I want to see a particular Dr then there are booking constraints, but this is true of any business. If I get p*ssed at one Dr I can go to another, hell, I can go to a different medical centre if I want to, there are no restrictions on me at all in this. I choose to use the centre I do because it's been around a very long time and has been my family centre since before I was born. A couple of the Drs there were giving me vaccinations when I was a kid. I know them, and they know my complete family medical history so I choose to continue giving them my business. I can't say it strongly enough, nobody dictates to me the how, what, why and where of general medical attention. Even thinking of it as a subsidy really isn't correct. The rebate side of the system works exactly the same way as normal insurance. You pay a premium as part of your taxes and when you incur a cost you get cash back from the insurer, in this case the Gov. but it works like any other insurance. Pay premium -> incur cost -> make claim -> Get refund. I add that the only reason I have to go to the Medicare office is because I keep forgetting to give them my bank details. If I do that the claim is lodged electronically by the medical centre and the refund placed directly into my account with no paperwork. The free hospital system does have some waiting, but that is triage and is also normal. Okay, you don't get a room to yourself and you will be seen by the Dr on duty rather than picking and choosing your own special Dr, but if you want these things then that is why we have private health insurance. You get a checkup, with blood tests and lung function for $20?

They may be the top 100 but they sure as hell ain't in the right order.

iNow, I have to ask. Why is it important? This, I think, was what Xitten getting at in the early part of the thread. Classifying a group as heading for "thermo stupid" (love the term BTW) based on their views in one area makes no sense. To a great degree evolution v creation isn't something that people even think about, it simply has no relevence to their lives. It isn't that they won't consider changing their opinion, it's simply that they see no benefit in devoting any effort in the area. For example, how would changing his opinion from creationist to evolutionist make a man a better mechanic? Will getting a deep and profound knowledge of evolutionary principles allow him to service your cars air conditioner in a superior manner? Nope, it will make do difference at all. Whereas reading the latest literature and manuals will help him service the car better and increase his chance of promotion. Rather than being stupid, he is being smart by spending his time increasing his knowledge of things that are of direct material benefit to him rather than wasting time reading about irrelevencies. The simple fact is that for 99% of the time for 99% of the people the whole creation v evolution argument is not on their radar. The power bill is, health insurance is, taxes are, little Jimmys school grades are, putting food on the table is, putting petrol in the car is. I'm probably a bit of a "guided creation using evolutionary principles" myself, but unless I'm actvely debating the concepts with someone then I doubt whether it absorbs more than one hour of my time every 3 months. I don't think about it as it is not relevent to my day to day life. There are only two groups to whom it is important and they are the evangelists on either side. The ones on the creationist side are boring and the ones from the evolutionists are arrogant egotists. (in general) Dawkins is a bright boy who has many who respect him, etc, etc. Does he use his influence to create an atheistic version of the Red Cross or similar humanitarian organisation? Nope, he uses it to travel the world and show how the "intellectual giant" Richard Dawkins can smash another creationist. Obviously in his mind the world is greatly benefitted by having a large number of people tell him how smart he is. Ego, pure and simple, the same thing that drives the tele-evangelist. But to the original point. Please do explain to me why an evolutionist, since he isn't in the "Thermo stupid" ranks makes a better car mechanic than a creationist. Or doesn't it really matter? This also has a bearing on waitforufos comment. If the question is not important to people and from their POV it doesn't matter, will they really answer phone polls truthfully? And are their answers what they truly believe? I've posted this link before from an Aussie show. They went to the Dallas and asked people if they thought the Bible was true and the things in it should be followed. Those that said "Yes" were put to the test. What they said they believed and what they did believe were worlds apart. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLfWJ5mNgw8 Personally I wouldn't stress all that much over what people say they believe in a 2,000 year old book.

I just thought I'd add that if you're really in a hurry for a checkup that doesn't cost, go to your local airport. You'll get a free x-ray and breast exam for the ladies and if you mention terrorism they'll throw in a free colonoscopy. There's always a cheap way out.

Justin, the PBS doesn't "deny" anything. The bottom line here is that it is a subsidy scheme, some products and drugs are subsidised and some are not. This is no different from any other subsidy scheme. Thinking about it, you could consider a lot of our system as a subsidy scheme. We are basically saying that we will subsidise your medical costs. Wednesday morning I was short of breath (had been for a few days) and decided to see the Dr. So I phoned and got a 10.45 appontment. A full checkup, with blood workup and lung function, ECG, blah blah came to about $160. After paying the bill I went to the Medicare office and go the refund of about $140. So you could say that I was subsidised to the tune of $140 for that visit. Does thinking of it like a subsidy scheme make it more understandable? And as to freedoms etc, exactly what freedoms does your system give you that our system doesn't give me? If you think that you will have to give up freedoms to have a UHC system then you must think you have more freedoms than I do. What are they?

Young whippersnappers! Using thorium to reanimate dead threads. Back in my day it only took an assistant named Igor and a really good thunderstorm.

You've stepped into the lions den with this one. This is a area of great contention. But going back to basics we know that for a doubling of CO2, and everything else being equal, then temps should rise by about 1.1 degrees. The IPCC estimates the rise using climate models to be somewhere between 2.4 and 4 degrees due to water vapour enhancment. The amplification of warming by water vapour is a main leg of AGW theory, however it has not been demonstrated in the lab or by any real world experiment to exist. WV is a much more powerful GHG than CO2 and logically if the world is warmer then there should be more WV and therefore the warming should be amplified. However, as you rightly point out, more WV means more clouds and depending on type, clouds can have a tremendous cooling effect. Watch the temps drop on a sunny day when a cloud passes in front of the Sun. AGW standard theory also requires that clouds be feedbacks of temperature and never a forcing. This is disputed in the literature by a number of climatologists, but mostly by Dr Roy Spencer who does the UAH satellite temperature series. Put simply, the sats show us that warmer years tend to have slightly less cloud coverage than cooler years so the question being argued is this "Is there less cloud because it is warmer or is it warmer because there is less cloud?" If the standard theory is correct then the first is the case and clouds are a feedback, if the standard theory is incorrect then clouds can be a forcing in their own right and the second part is correct. Messing the whole question up is the fact that clouds most certainly are a feedback effect from temperature, but can they also be a feedback effect from another factor besides temperature and therefore become a temperature forcing? This is probably the least well understood part of the climate system and the quantities we are dealing with are quite small. The energy figures themselves are large, but the change in the budget is less than 1% since 1850. For example a change (drop) in average annual cloud cover of less than 1% between 1850 and 2000 is quite enough to allow the extra energy into the system to explain all warming since 1850. Since we have been putting CO2 into the atmosphere since 1850 and therefore must have caused some rise in temps this cannot be the only answer, but it is a reason why we sceptics are sceptical of climatologys claims of confidence in their attribution. I hope that the above has helped a bit, but this is a very complex area of climate.

Since dinos died out some 65 million years ago, how do you propose to "directly measure" their methane production? I would also point out that one of their basic assumptions is quite possibly incorrect. The last I heard the jury was still out as to the flexibility of the saurapod neck. The most recent views I'm aware of are that unlike earlier thought (and depictions in movies like Jurassic Park) the larger saurapods did not raise their heads much at all, but browsed on lower fodder by sweeping their head and neck from side to side. The head stayed roughly at shoulder height and while this is still perhaps 20 feet or so is not enough for "high tree foliage". Apparently it's a matter of blood pressure. But I don't think that the article was intended to be taken seriously.

The best description I've ever read is this: "English is not a language that borrows from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, hits them over the head and riffles their pockets for loose grammar". I have no idea who said it, but it is so true.

Airbrush But what is healthy? How do you measure it and how do you ensure that there aren't long term disadvantages? It's all very well to say "Tax the lazy, the healthy are looking after their bodies" but what happens when you find that the healthy things they do have negative effects in the future? Since step aerobics are linked to more knee injuries than any other exercise, shouldn't we also be taxing the people who do that more than the general public? After all, through their lifestyle choice they have probably increased their need for medical attention down the road. Justin, Maybe we should go back to basics then rather than bounce around. Three groups are responsible for health care provision down here, the Federal Gov, the individual State Govs and the Individual. Federal funding for health comes from the Medicare Levy and as much as is needed out of "Consolidated Revenue". From this money the Feds pay the rebates I've mentioned earlier, the PBS and sundry other schemes and give a large amount of cash to the State Govs for Healthcare. The Feds also provide co-ordination for bulk discount negotiations. An individual hospital won't get a discount on an MRI machine, but when the Feds are talking about buying 50 or 60 of them the companies talk discounts in a big way. They also do the leg work for bulk discounts from Pharma for drugs, something I think your Health people are actually banned from doing. It's an "economy of scale" thing, if I want to buy one car I talk to a dealer, if my country wants 10,000 cars, we talk to the Head Office. Here is also where the reverse side of your "rationing" coin comes in, we have a department dedicated to the idea of getting everything it can for the lowest possible price. This doesn't mean playing the "inflated tender" game, it means going to the various companies and screwing their arse to the wall for the cheapest price. "You want $40 per pack of pills? ABC over in India will do them for $24 a pack and give a discount. Care to try again?". The philosophy behind the PBS is not that all medicines should be free or subsidised, simply that paying for medicines needed for continued life should not cause unreasonable hardship. A good example here is that I've had my thyroid removed and will be on pills for the rest of my life. While the pills are now required for my continued existence, the cost is only $80 odd annually and is therefore not considered to be worthy of PBS inclusion. This would be a different matter if the cost was higher. This is constantly being assessed WRT annual incomes (with age taken into account), costs of drugs, alternatives, etc. Note that the cost of administering the scheme isn't part of the deliberations which sinks your "rationing" line of reasoning. The individual States look after the actual running of the hospitals and set the standards for both public and private. They also look after the ambulance services. Ambos are paid for either by direct levy as we do in Queensland ($75 per annum is added to our power bills) or are paid out of a States Consolidated Revenues. Most Doctors and Surgeons are private practice and some do rotating clinics in various hospitals. Virtually all clinics outside a hospital are purely private practice and there are heaps of them. I probably have a choice of 30 doctors within a 10 minute drive from my house, all are private practice and charge different prices, but I still get my Federal rebate of the same amount regardless of which one I go to. To illustrate how this all meshes together, I burst my appendix some years ago. Aware of pain in the side but not concerned I didn't do anything for a day or so. By the second day I was sick of the pain so I went to the Drs (private, so I paid $50 and got a $40 rebate from the Feds) who ordered blood tests (private clinic that bulk bills Federal Medicare, so free). Third day no better, fourth day back to Drs (private and another $50 and $40 rebate) who sends me to the Royal Brisbane, (Ambulance, State gov, free) where they prep for surgery. (State public hospital, mucho Federal funds, free) On discharge I was given a prescription for anti biotics and got them from the pharmacy on site and paid whatever for them. Our system isn't supposed to pay for everything, it's just supposed to ensure that a medical problem doesn't become financially crippling as well. Other oddities include that if a Dr orders a test, say a CT scan it is free, but if I decide I want one, I pay for it. This isn't a problem as I Just phone around the various clinics that do CT scans and find one with an appointment time that suits me. Any time I've needed something like that it's never been later than 2pm the following day which I think is reasonable. (Same for untrasounds BTW) So that's what we get for our 1.5% levy and some money out of Consolidated Revenue. If we want more, then we can get private insurance as well. This gives us a choice of Drs in hospitals and private rooms rather than a ward. Since two of the last three times I've been in hospital I've had a room to myself anyway I don't see much benefit in this. Same thing with "Doctor of your choice", my local GP isn't going to be cutting my appendix out and I'll be unconscious anyway so what do I care who cuts the damn thing out so long as s/he is competent? If they aren't competent then this is a question for the Medical Revue Board but has nothing to do with health insurance. Private will also cover optical and dental, massage, some cover aromatherapy, there's pretty much a plan to cover anything that you want, even what we call "Gap" cover which gives you the extra little bit back between the Medicare rebate and what the Doctors consult actually cost you. As I said earlier most of the "choice" in private insurance is an illusion, a fantasy. You take your child to the ER bleeding from a head trauma, they fell off their bike. Are you going to be loudly demanding a Doctor, any doctor look at your child or will you contact your GP, so that s/he can come in and go through the CVs of the various Doctors on duty to work which one to choose? There is only real choice in elective surgery because you can plan for it. Not as much as you might think, our Doctors are paid quite well, if we don't pay them well they would bugger off and start a private clinic. Just because the Gov is involved doesn't remove the competition, it just makes the Gov one of the competitors. You have to remember that GPs can make between 150k and 800k PA down here. Hospitals have to pay well to get and keep staff, and the various States are competing against each other. See above. Of course they do, our hospitals are bidding for the services of staff so they need the terms to be attractive. I said "change to our system", which has nothing to do with Obamas one. The simple fact is that we provide as good or better healthcare than your system does and we do it for less than half the per capita costs that you have. If you changed to our system it would automatically halve your costs. Yes, it would take a great rewriting of laws and a number of States would get all precious about their "rights", but the savings would be huge. I somehow get the feeling that admitting that somebody else had an idea for a better system than an American did would stick in the craws of many people and the wailings and gnashings of teeth would be great and long, along with comments containing the phrase "Our Great Republic" and great lamentations for lost "freedoms".

Do they speak it there? That last I heard they hadn't used it in years. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wxdCApymG0