Neurath

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating.

This is not true, for 20 years now, and the rest is a scario based on the part that is not true.

The US Department of Defense does not lie.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal?

Target and completely destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel has done it twice and stopped two different nuclear weapons programs in their tracks.

Iraq's was one of these programs. In which case it was a complete lie that Iraq had them in 2003 and a complete lie that Iraq having them justified the Iraqi war. If Iraq did have them - or a viable program to have them - then the Israeli strikes didn't stop the program in its tracks. Pretty much one or the other: Israel's strikes did work in which the pretext for the war was a lie, or they didn't work in which there's little to suggest that they would with Iran.

Everyone should have nukes.

ISIS would strongly agree with you.

Nukes don't kill people, people kill people. Just because there are few crazy actors out there doesn't detract from the fact that everyone would be safer if everyone had them. Stands to reason, just as it does with guns.

And now global warming is causing the permafrost to explode with huge methane blasts!!!!

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/sci-tech/scientists-know-there-are-more-giant-craters-in-siberia-but-are-nervous-to-even-study-them-20150226-13q7b5.html

I suppose it means that you've got to destroy the village to save the village?

Everyone should have nukes. Absolutely everyone. History has proved that they work as a deterrent. The only safety is the certainty of absolute mutual destruction. Israel knows this as well as North Korea. Iran does too. As does the the US the UK, France, China, Russia, India and Pakistan. Nuclear weapons are peacekeepers and only tree huggers and foolish pacifists say differently. The more the better as far as I'm concerned. Proliferation is peace. In our time.

Well, I suppose it comes down to who you're going to believe: every single national academy of science in the world and the US Department of Defense or ... well, take your pick:

Quadrennial Defense Review: US Department of Defense

http://www.defense.g...14_sdr/qdr.aspx

"Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating. These changes, coupled with other global dynamics, including growing, urbanizing, more affluent populations, and substantial economic growth in India, China, Brazil, and other nations, will devastate homes, land, and infrastructure. Climate change may exacerbate water scarcity and lead to sharp increases in food costs. The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world. These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions – conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence." p.30. http://www.defense.g...ense_Review.pdf

Every country is free to have it's own laws. Other country's have nothing at all to do with that.

And every country is free to find another country's laws, and the inconsistent application of them, abhorrent, hypocritical and barbaric.

It’s a shame that these two men don’t have 3 lives each so that they can each be executed three times. This situation would at least have the virtue of providing additional opportunity to appear uncompromisingly tough on crime whilst displaying the manly and un-Christian virtue of showing no mercy or sympathy.

3 Reasons given suggesting that these three deserve to be shot dead by firing squad:

1. Drug smugglers deserve to die and they’re drug smugglers

2. Law breakers deserve to die and they’re law breakers

3. If you know a possible consequence of an action and you’re action brings with it that consequence then that consequence is justified, i.e., you deserve it. For example, you know that a possible consequence of playing cricket is that you might be hit on the head by the ball and die. If you are hit on the head by a ball and die, then you have deserved it. RIP Phil Hughes. Another example: every woman knows that it’s dangerous to walk home drunk and alone late at night but no-one would say that the woman deserves to be raped or beaten.

Number 2 above is plain nonsense. Nobody believes that all law breakers deserve to die. After all, prostitution is illegal in Thailand.

Number 3 is also nonsense – foreknowledge of a consequence does not justify that consequence.

So that leaves number 1. They deserve to die to because they’re convicted drug smugglers and convicted drug smugglers deserve to die and should not be shown any sympathy. This has the virtue of not being nonsense, but is it just? I suppose the principle here comes down to this: heroin smugglers knowingly or unknowing cause so much pain and death that they deserve to die for the pain and death they have caused in the past and might cause in the future.

Primal narcissism I guess.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Quadrennial Defense Review: US Department of Defense

http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0314_sdr/qdr.aspx

"Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating. These changes, coupled with other global dynamics, including growing, urbanizing, more affluent populations, and substantial economic growth in India, China, Brazil, and other nations, will devastate homes, land, and infrastructure. Climate change may exacerbate water scarcity and lead to sharp increases in food costs. The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world. These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions – conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence." p.30. http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf

Is human well being threatened by our current activities? Would seem that the US Department of Defense has answered with a resounding "Yes".

Would seem that the US Department of Defense has answered with a resounding "Yes".

Ah yes, the people that paid $600 for a toilet seat and $7,000 for a coffee pot. Not the best source to believe about anything width=32 alt=cheesy.gif> width=32 alt=cheesy.gif> width=32 alt=cheesy.gif> .

Nothing that you say has proven that mankind has caused the problem, and you make no suggestions as to how to "fix" it.

NB you are contributing to the problem by using electricity, and I hope you don't drive a petrol driven car!

If you think I'm "contributing to the problem by using electricity" then doesn't that prove that YOU think mankind has caused the problem?

Perhaps I would like to see "the problem" intensified to the point that the Earth becomes sterile and Venus-like and is declared a Protected Park by the inhabitants of Gleise 581C

No, I don't think that using a car is causing CC, but the people that do believe that CC is man made must do, and as you appear to believe so, I'm asking what YOU are doing to avert the problem.

Prior to injecting my love liquids into women, I had myself sterilized. After all, no point scrimping on the petrol engine if you have sprogs that will grow up to burn carbon. Hell, I reckon not having children entitles me to drive at least 10 cars before I ever catch up to the damage caused by one single breeder.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Quadrennial Defense Review: US Department of Defense

http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0314_sdr/qdr.aspx

"Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating. These changes, coupled with other global dynamics, including growing, urbanizing, more affluent populations, and substantial economic growth in India, China, Brazil, and other nations, will devastate homes, land, and infrastructure. Climate change may exacerbate water scarcity and lead to sharp increases in food costs. The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world. These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions – conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence." p.30. http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf

Is human well being threatened by our current activities? Would seem that the US Department of Defense has answered with a resounding "Yes".

Would seem that the US Department of Defense has answered with a resounding "Yes".

Ah yes, the people that paid $600 for a toilet seat and $7,000 for a coffee pot. Not the best source to believe about anything width=32 alt=cheesy.gif> width=32 alt=cheesy.gif> width=32 alt=cheesy.gif> .

Nothing that you say has proven that mankind has caused the problem, and you make no suggestions as to how to "fix" it.

NB you are contributing to the problem by using electricity, and I hope you don't drive a petrol driven car!

If you think I'm "contributing to the problem by using electricity" then doesn't that prove that YOU think mankind has caused the problem?

Perhaps I would like to see "the problem" intensified to the point that the Earth becomes sterile and Venus-like and is declared a Protected Park by the inhabitants of Gleise 581C

Quadrennial Defense Review: US Department of Defense

http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0314_sdr/qdr.aspx

"Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating. These changes, coupled with other global dynamics, including growing, urbanizing, more affluent populations, and substantial economic growth in India, China, Brazil, and other nations, will devastate homes, land, and infrastructure. Climate change may exacerbate water scarcity and lead to sharp increases in food costs. The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world. These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions – conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence." p.30. http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf

Is human well being threatened by our current activities? Would seem that the US Department of Defense has answered with a resounding "Yes".

In 5-10 years time there will be no real debate about humans causing climate change through C02 and other greenhouse gas emissions

Excuse me, but to anyone following the debate at more than a superficial level, that point has never been in question, trivial as it is.

You're more correct than you could ever know

"Gov. Bush seems to be a detail-oriented person, a policy wonk highly involved in the details, and less of a gut-instinct player," said Peter D. Feaver, a former special adviser at the National Security Council in the George W. Bush administration. "That would distinguish him from his brother."

Wow, is that a slap to the face of GW when he's not looking or what? Does he mean to say that Jeb and GW would come to the same conclusions and make the same decisions but one do it wonkishly and the other by gut? If he does, then that hardly distinguishes between them does it? Or, more menacingly, does he mean that Jeb is more careful, more considered and hence would come to different conclusions and make different decisions? That is, better decisions - In which case he's calling GW a gutted twit. Hardly a nice thing to say.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

...and not one single link to support his ridiculous hypotheses.

But let me ask one little quickie question. If it started out being called "global warming", why was the name changed to "climate change"?

If global warming actually existed as you insist there would have been no need to change the name, unless of course global warming wasn't really a reality.

Edit in: No snow in the Rockies? Horrible!! Did you tell Michelle Obama and the girls? They are in Aspen as we speak, spending some of that unlimited expense account money on the slopes.

Answer: Frank Luntz decided that the term global warming was nasty suggesting even nastier connotations so, under direction, came up with a nicer term suggesting the annual movement of the seasons.

Frank I. Luntz (born February 23, 1962) is an American political consultant,^[2] pollster, and "public opinion guru"^[3] best known for developing talking points and other messaging for various Republican causes. His work has included assistance with messaging for Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, promotion of the terms death tax instead of estate tax and climate change instead of global warming, and public relations support for pro-Israel policies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

12 long years ago Frank wrote a memo for President Bush with regard to climate change and the appropriate language strategies to use in discussing it. Here's what Frank said:

"In a 2002 memo to President George W. Bush titled "The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America", obtained by the Environmental Working Group, Luntz wrote: "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.... Voters believe that there is noconsensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."^{[20]"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz}

But that was 13 long years ago and the window of opportunity has closed so much that there's hardly any wiggle room left at all. Still, any port in a storm.

In 5-10 years time there will be no real debate about humans causing climate change through C02 and other greenhouse gas emissions - there will still be some outliers of course, just like there still is with the notion that HIV causes aids. But in 5-10 year's time the left and the right will have taken up other perches from which to squawk at each other. One side will be ramping up the notion that we should use climate modification technologies in all their glory to counter global warming (whilst continuing to burn carbon as we damn well please) while the other side will be screaming for an immediate and drastic reductions in carbon use. That will be as much fun and as productive as this debate. Can't wait.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

...and not one single link to support his ridiculous hypotheses.

But let me ask one little quickie question. If it started out being called "global warming", why was the name changed to "climate change"?

If global warming actually existed as you insist there would have been no need to change the name, unless of course global warming wasn't really a reality.

Edit in: No snow in the Rockies? Horrible!! Did you tell Michelle Obama and the girls? They are in Aspen as we speak, spending some of that unlimited expense account money on the slopes.

Answer: Frank Luntz decided that the term global warming was nasty suggesting even nastier connotations so, under direction, came up with a nicer term suggesting the annual movement of the seasons.

Frank I. Luntz (born February 23, 1962) is an American political consultant,^[2] pollster, and "public opinion guru"^[3] best known for developing talking points and other messaging for various Republican causes. His work has included assistance with messaging for Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, promotion of the terms death tax instead of estate tax and climate change instead of global warming, and public relations support for pro-Israel policies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

Thai Tourist bus carrying Koreans

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

He will die of internal injuries. The kidneys will be the first to go.

The injuries he's sustained already could be enough to kill him.

Have you watched the video of one set of 50 lashes?

You can hear them and count them:

I'm sure they hurt but I think your mind is assuming they are being administered like in a scene from a British public school film where the headmaster takes a run-up and lashes out with all his strength.

This here is not the case.

Count them. 50 little taps on his legs, backside and back. Ooch, ouch.

Looks more to do with the public humiliation of being hit I suppose - dragged out once a week for 50 public smacks.

Still, given the prison sentence and the fines for this Saudi citizen, the punishment does seem pretty harsh compared to 15 years in a Thai prison for being a naughty blogger.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Of course consensuses resolve and dissolve in the normal course of science, but that in itself is no argument against the truth of a current consensus position. The formation of a different scientific consensus is however. Seems there's pretty much a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. Lot's of interesting dissent too - as there is within any scientific consensus.

If you think that paragraph is articulate, then you must have very low standards, especially in the grammar and spelling departments. I might "savor" it, but only because it is unintentionally funny.

The pamphlet "100 Authors Against Einstein" was published in 1931, that is, 26 years after Einstein had proposed the Special Theory. His theory was described as "an accumulation of naive errors" and a return to 16th and 17th century ideas. His critics included some very influential and well-known scientists.

The point is, to make it clear to the meanest intelligence, that a consensus about a scientific point of view does not by itself make that point of view more likely to be true.

As Einstein himself wrote regarding the 100 Authors: "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough."

Commenting on the matter, Hubert Goenner described the attacks on Einstein's theory as a mixture of mathematical–physical incompetence, hubris, and the feelings of the critics of being suppressed. Rather like modern-day climate science, in fact.

And don't call me "dear boy". People might think we were acquainted.

You've not even been able to copy/plagiarize from Wikipedia accurately hombre.

Here's the address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity from which you copied your notes and here's the actual quotation - one that you have mangled by misunderstanding that to which it refers. No wonder your history is wacky:

"For example, Hans Reichenbach described the book as an "accumulation of naive errors", and as "unintentionally funny". Albert von Brunn interpreted the book as a backward step to the 16th and 17th century, and Einstein is reported to have said, in response to the book, that, if he were wrong, one author alone would have been sufficient to refute him:^[1]"

So you see, it wasn’t Einstein’s theory that was described as an “accumulation of naïve” errors and nor was it Einstein’s theory being called a step back to the 16^th and 17^th Centrury. No, it was the book “100 Authors Against Einstein” that was being so described. The rest of what you have above is similarly mangled, but I will leave it to the readers to easily checked your mangled paraphrase with what is actually said. It's very poor research and reading here I’m afraid. I do hope this isn’t systemic with you?

Look, just give up on the idea that Einstein was battling against an entrenched consensus in 1930. He wasn’t. Those collected in 100 Authors Against Einstein were battling against a consensus - one that just happens to be correct and true to the best of our knowledge.

You even cribbed the term “unintentionally funny” from the Richenbach quote above also hence saving the trouble of thinking up something for yourself – so good on you J

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Why do they feel the need to pay a bonus? Tell them to bugger off.

It's more of a delay in salary payment. This way (holding back salary until the end of the year) the employer can be better assured that the employee won't bugger off during the year. Mind you, January becomes a bit difficult - when employees do tend to bugger off.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The formation of a different scientific consensus is however.

Very concise, but hardly articulate.

Lot's of interesting dissent too - as there is within any scientific consensus.

Leaving aside the question of who Lot might be, it is the hallmark of the Green/Left that they try to stifle any "interesting dissent" with the continual refrain of "The science is settled; the debate is over."

Luckily, nobody who counts is listening to them (see: Peru, 20th Failed UN Climate Conference), and the remaining few eco-zealots, like those bewildered Japanese soldiers emerging from the jungle to be told they had lost WW2, are moving on to other matters.

By the way, if you think relativity is "wacky", it should be remembered that the global GPS network simply wouldn't work if relativity were not taken into account. Also, there are relativistic connections in semiconductor physics; that is, in all computers.

I have no doubt that relativistic physics is well grounded empirically and theoretically. It is your history dear boy, your history, that is wacky.

There was no sustained hostility from a "consensus" toward Einstein's Special or General theory of relativity and by the mid 1930's both the General and Special theories of relativity were accepted scientific consensus. They are the consensus position now - lot's of dissent within that consensus though.

The "100 Authors" you mention are the equivalent of today's ....... well there you go. Work it out: They were a laughing stock in the 30's and a laughing stock now.

So to make it clear - these 100 Authors do not constitute, as you seem to think they do, a consensus against which Einstein had to prevail. Why would such an erroneous account be put forward? Well.....

It's hysterically funny watching folks equate themselves with Galileo and Einstein and in so doing do as much violence to the history of science as their credulity does to science itself. Any port in a storm I suppose.

Happy to provide the 'articulate' part you missed - ah, edited out - so you can savor the words. You're welcome

Of course consensuses resolve and dissolve in the normal course of science, but that in itself is no argument against the truth of a current consensus position. The formation of a different scientific consensus is however. Seems there's pretty much a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. Lot's of interesting dissent too - as there is within any scientific consensus.

All joking aside - did you really think that I was suggesting the untruth of the special and general theories of relativity? Seriously, did you?

Missed most of this thread....So has Jeb Bush decided how much he will bid yet?

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"Many of the greatest scientific discoveries have been made in the face of sustained hostility from the "consensus".

In the mid-1930s, a pamphlet called "100 Authors Against Einstein" dismissed as absurd the Theory of Relativity on which we now depend for so many things."


I get the impression that many CC deniers consider themselves in the same mould as Copernicus or Galileo. However in reality they are the equivalent of the Catholic Church. They are in fact desperately trying to reaffirm an old dogma that has overwhelmingly disproved. And like the church I very much doubt if they will be joining us in the 21st century for some time to come.

I'm more reminded of the debate around tobacco smoking. Similar level of hostility, and similar level of accusation, one side to the other, of there being payola for position and view.