Slashdot Mirror

Yep, that is exactly what they do. They measure the min and max - thus the minimum and maximum thermometers included. Then you add them together and divide by two.

https://www.cs.colostate.edu/~...

Ahh, the no true scotsman fallacy, saying that nobody credible is putting forth the view that AGW doesn't exist. How about Dr. Bill Gray, an expert in hurricane prediction and long range forecasting? Whether he's right or wrong about this, he's an expert. He's the guy who pioneered seasonal forecasts of hurricane activity. He's also a global warming skeptic: http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf

Yes, science advances as data is gathered. But it doesn't do any good to stick to hypotheses that aren't supported by new data. There are recent experiments testing whether the universe is governed by quantum mechanics or relativity. While there's constantly new data being collected by seismographs and GPS monitoring of plate movements, those data don't call plate tectonics into question.

Like seismology, weather observations are constantly being collected. It should be noted that much of the warming that's been observed is with stations located in urban areas; rural stations don't show the same level of warming. NOAA USHCN data is adjusted to account for the relocation of stations from urban to rural areas; the overall impact of these adjustments is essentially equal to the overall warming in the data. This supports the warming being local in nature, caused by expansion of urban heat islands, and not global warming.

There are also many emission scenarios, ranging from business as usual (high end of emissions) to almost cutting off carbon emissions now (low end). These emission scenarios are used as conditions for climate model simulations that predict things like global average temperature (and many other things). The observed emissions are near the high end of possible scenarios, up around business as usual. But the observed temperatures are near the low end of the range predicted by models. It really should be alarming that the observations are so far off the model predictions. Normally when the observations don't support a hypothesis, the hypothesis is changed. That's not what's going on with climate science, though.

There are many respected scientists who question global warming. Take Dr. Bill Gray, for example. He's an expert in tropical meteorology and long range forecasting. He pioneered the seasonal forecasts of hurricane activity. His views may be right or wrong, but they should not simply be dismissed. He's a global warming skeptic and has called into question the models. See http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf for some of his writing on the matter. Whether he's right or wrong, he deserves to be taken seriously.

Sorry, but here's an important lesson for you. Memorize this simple rule:
Never get your science information from the opinion/editorial pages of Forbes magazine.

Forbes is a business magazine. It's not a science magazine. It doesn't even pretend to be a science magazine. It's a bad source for science information, because they are editorializing to make a point, not to understand how climate works.

Track down original sources. Don't rely on editorials in Forbes.
Since you get your data from business magazines and blogs, here's a blog post you might look at: http://variable-variability.bl... But, let's look at that Forbes link. The particular editorial you linked has two links... one to a graph with no source listed, and the second to a long paper... with no information on where this paper was published (or if it was) or who it was reviewed by. But-- paydirt!-- that paper does list where the data comes from: the NASA Water Vapor Project. So let's look at the data from the source.

Here's the data: https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/p...
here's the data graphed: https://climatedataguide.ucar....
here's the data analyzed: https://www.cira.colostate.edu...
here's the conclusion of the analysis: "at this point we are unable to prove or disprove a robust global trend in total precipatible water."

So the answer is... inconclusive.

driven by Big Agrochem trying to make shitloads of money,

You mean like every other conventionally bred seed they also sell? Better take a stand against conventional breeding. Or maybe you mean Golden Rice, developed by the International Rice Research Institute, or the Rainbow Payaya, developed by the University of Hawai'i, or any number of other GMOs I could mention that have bugger all to do with corporations and are developed by independent university, public, or NGO scientists (who nonetheless are likewise opposed while anti-GMO people ignore them or have the gall to accuse them of being corporate or even vandalize publicly funded GMO research).

acquire copyrights and patents on key food crops

You mean like conventional breeding already does and has been for a long time? You mean the patents that expire and are used in public domain works? By the way, do you have a fair alternative?

'bundle' their own special seeds with their own special pesticides and weedkillers.

Like conventional breeding? Also, selling two products that go together is immoral now? Really? Guess Nintendo must be absolutely abominable for selling gaming systems and the games that go with them for decades, those monsters. By the way, are you referring to the special herbicide (not insecticide as you wrongly imply) that went off patent in 2000? And furthermore, did it ever occur to you that maybe farmers have adopted the herbicide tolerant crops in such large number for a good reason?

You don't even want to take a tiny, tiny risk of killing off pollinating insects or having 'terminator' genes or antibiotic markers jump species.

The refusal to accept any risk at all is a flawed ideology. That's the kind of thought that leads people to refusing vaccines on a 'risk aversion basis.' When one considers your rational of terminator genes (never even been used) and horizontal gene transfer (common only on an evolutionary time frame, and no more or less likely to happen to a transgene than any other gene; maybe I say we ban conventional breeding because I don't want rice sd-1 to jump species hmm? What risk do you see the NPTII gene you refer to having anyway?), your argument falls apart completely.

only if you own shares in big agro (unless you think buying expensive seed and complimentary chemicals from multinationals and not being able to re-plant harvested seed is somehow going to cure third world hunger).

You forgot increased yield, decreased insecticide, safer for farmers and consumers, lower environment impact by replacing harsher herbicide and soil degrading tillage, and saving an entire industry from a devastating virus. You mean beside those benefits you conveniently neglected to mention? And even if none of that were the case, you'd still be wrong because you'd be saying that the present use of a technology is not good therefore there is no good use for it. That's completely absurd, and made all the mor

http://blog.sustainability.col... Pretty timely, and hopefully more people in the scientific sector will take this approach: winning the hearts and minds of the public isn't primarily a facts-driven task. It's one that has to take into account the origin of the fears and is as much a public relations issue as "THE SCIENCE SAYS ...". Even if the science does say :)

Dr. William Gray, noted hurricane predictor, has publicly downplayed the "warming causes more hurricanes" idea. I'm willing to trust him on this, since hurricane formation is complicated.

But there's a god bigger than "allah", "Christ", "zarathustra" and any other one you want to name, it's called moneey, and the pyramids bring a lot of money to them, so, I don't think they are going to destroy them

Yes, Islamic fundamentalists are quite the promoters of foreign tourism. That's why so many sightseers are queuing up to view the ancient wonders of Afghanistan.

> On balance, scientists aren't entirely sure what effect clouds will have on global warming. Most climate models predict that clouds will amplify global warming slightly.

That sentence lumps professional alarmists in with actual scientists. Never been outside on a cloudy day? Those "scientists" (alarmists) who say clouds make it hot are the same ones who you said San Francisco would be underwater by the year 2010. Don't let their silly pseudo-science make you doubt the obvious facts of your experience. You know that when it's cloudy, it's cooler.

What you may not know not know is that islands near San Francisco have recently re-appeared after having been underwater for the last 60 years, the exact opposite of what the alarmists claimed. There is some important science around climate change. Earth HAS warmed a bit more in the last 100 years than the other planets have. There's also a metric ton of snake oil being sold by alarmists whose pseudoscience is nothing more than patter for their act. Confusing one with the other ends up getting you confused and making you look silly. You end up believing things like "it gets hot when it's cloudy", which is of course ridiculous.

Well, at risk of repeating myself, here's some of those actual scientists who find no negative feedback, and/or some positive feedback from clouds:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...

http://rain.atmos.colostate.ed...

http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

ftp://eos.atmos.washington.edu...

http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

Never been outside on a cloudy night? It's warmer when the heat is reflected back than when it is radiated out into space. Don't let your interests in the islands off San Francisco make you doubt the obvious facts of your experience. You know that when it's cloudy, it's warmer. The thing is, that AGW is primarily an effect of warming the cooler temps; at night, in winter, in higher latitudes, with less change in the tropics, in the day, when it's hot. So, whatever effects might occur from cooling the tropic days (which is apparently none, or close to it, but giving the credit of infinitesimal doubt) is irrelevant because those temps changed the least; the biggest warming, and therefore the most increase in clouds, will be in the winter nights in the high latitudes, where the clouds will be positive feedback.

This is just another one of the many, many balancing mechanisms in nature. Another obvious one is that more heat causes more evaporation, which causes more clouds, which causes less heat. Mother nature I has thousands of such negative feedback cycles that tend to buffer against changes.

That's Lindzen's "iris hypothesis", basically (in case you didn't know). Unfortunately, there isn't any evidence for it, http://www.sciencemag.org/cont... http://rain.atmos.colostate.ed... http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... ftp://eos.atmos.washington.edu... http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

http://www.colostate.edu/Dept/...

Some Pesticides Permitted in Organic Gardening

By Laura Pickett Pottorff, Colorado State University Cooperative Extension horticulturist and plant pathologist

If we think organic gardening means vegetables free of any chemical pesticides, we don't have the story quite right.

Organic gardeners can use certain pesticides -- chemicals that are derived from botanical and mineral-bearing sources. These chemicals may be highly toxic, but they break down more rapidly than common chemicals, such as the Sevins, Malathions and 2,4,Ds.

The use of botanical and mineral-bearing pesticides, even though some are toxic, also can be incorporated into an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach to growing crops. IPM relies on a variety of pest control means rather than on one product or method. The pesticides discussed below are appropriate to include in IPM programs.

Just as the more common chemicals are given toxicity ratings -- CAUTION, WARNING or DANGER -- so are chemicals from botanical and mineral-bearing sources. "CAUTION" means low toxicity or completely free from danger; "WARNING" means moderately toxic and "DANGER" means highly toxic. The toxicity rating for each pesticide is provided in the paragraphs below.

BOTANICAL PESTICIDES

Nicotine Sulfate

Nicotine is extracted from tobacco or related Nicotiana species and is one of the oldest botanical insecticides in use today. It's also one of the most toxic to warm-blooded animals and it's readily absorbed through the skin. (Wear gloves when applying it, follow label directions and keep pets away from application areas.) It breaks down quickly, however, so it is legally acceptable to use on organically grown crops.

Nicotine sulfate is sold as a 40 percent nicotine sulfate concentrate under trade names that include Black Leaf 40 or Tender Leaf Plant Insect spray. Nicotine kills insects by interfering with the transmitter substance between nerves and muscles. It's commonly used to control aphids, thrips, spider mites and other sucking insecticides on most vegetables, some fruits, flowering plants and ornamental shrubs and trees. Roses are sensitive to nicotine. Choose alternate pest control measures when treating insects on roses.

Nicotine sulfate has a DANGER warning.

Sabadilla

Sabadilla, another botanical insecticide, is derived from the seeds of the sabadilla lily. The active ingredient is an alkaloid known as veratrine.

Sabadilla is considered among the least toxic of botanical insecticides, but its dust can be highly irritating to the eyes and can produce sneezing if inhaled. No residue is left after application of sabadilla because it breaks down rapidly in the sunlight.

Sold under the trade names Red Devil or Natural Guard, Sabadilla is effective against caterpillars, leaf hoppers, thrips, stink bugs and squash bugs. The insecticide is labeled for use on many vegetables. It has been assigned a CAUTION rating.

Rotenone

Rotenone is a resinous compound produced by the roots of two members of the Leguminoceae family. Its common use is to control various leaf-feeding caterpillars, beetles, aphids and thrips on a wide variety of vegetables and small fruits. A slow-acting chemical, rotenone requires several days to kill most susceptible insects, but insect feeding stops shortly after exposure.

Rotenone is moderately toxic to most mammals, but is extremely toxic to fish. It's widely used to poison "trash" fish during restocking projects. It has been assigned a CAUTION rating.

Neem

Neem is a botanical pesticide derived from the neem tree, a native of India. This tree supplies at least two compounds, azadirachtin and salannin, that have insecticidal activity and other unknown compounds with fungicidal activity. The use of this compound is new in the United States, but neem has been used for more than 4,000 years for medicinal and pest

Consider Colorado State. They offer numerous on-line-only degree programs. Look at their Master's program in Computer Science.

(There's no point in earning another bachelor's when a MS is just as fast and requires only 10 semester courses. It's done all the time. I did it with a BS in zoology. You usually take a couple prerequisite courses at a local comm college then enroll as a grad student.)

http://www.online.colostate.ed...

I assume you live in Colorado and would pay a lot less for in-state tuition there. That's why I suggest CSU. Or University of Colorado.

http://cuengineeringonline.col...

I strongly recommend Georgia Tech's new MS in CS too. For the price, I'm confident you can't do better, although it will take several years before GT can offer courses on the full range of CS topics.

If you could pony up $50k somehow, you might also consider Stanford or Columbia, both of whom offer excellent MS in CS programs entirely on-line.

Personally I would stay VERY FAR away from schools that are on-line ONLY. AFAIK, all major tech employers have no respect for them. If you compare the workload (difficulty of textbooks, homework, and exams) with those at excellent state schools (like Georgia Tech), they do not compare well.

If you do consider such a school, I strongly recommend you contact several managers at companies you respect (via LinkedIn?) and ask if they hire graduates from those schools. Don't just assume that they do. And avoid HR staff. They know little about assessing candidate abilities.

Basic physics,
http://littleshop.physics.colo...

"It caused scientists to examine their methods for dealing with it more closely but in the end it just increased the confidence that they were dealing with it well."

Really? Well, I'll give you one good example that says otherwise. From Steve Goddard, just yesterday. The funny thing is people suspected the following kind of B.S. when Hadley Centre said it didn't have its intermediate results anymore... it had just been tossed out with other "obsolete data". While the following is just one example, it is hardly isolated. Isn't it a bit funny that in California, the mountain weather instruments are in general no longer being used for the "raw data", but almost all of it now comes from the warmer lowlands? Etc. The point being what every scientist knows: if you cherry-pick your data, you can show almost anything you want.

Then, there is the strange phenomenon of the GISS "historical data" mysteriously changing over time. And many, many other anomalies that people are just now beginning to look into. Expect some results announced in March. But back to the example I wanted to show you: Fort Collins, CO.

In 1961 they moved their weather instruments to a new location. It is important to note that this is all from the official records. Here is a chart of 90-plus degree days for each recent year. Official data. No fudging. You can look it up yourself.

Note that in 2002, they built a parking lot around the weather station, which had previously been in farmland. And not just a little single-lane road or anything of that nature. It is now surrounded by asphalt. Look at the number of 90-degree days since then! Gee, what a coincidence. But this is one source of official climate data.

And lest you say "a little asphalt doesn't make a difference", here, take a look at it, straight from Google Maps. Well... so the University (on that info page linked to above), said that rather than move their station again, they'd take care to "buffer" it from the hot surroundings. Well done, CSU! Right?

So here is their "buffer". (Again, straight rom Google Maps, and these pictures by the way are very recent copyright.) A rock garden, of all things, with a few flowers and a couple of tiny shrugs.

No sane person would call this an effective "buffer". But CSU pretends it is.

As I say: just one example. But it is one of very, very many. And by the way, speaking of "dealing with it": when Mann and CRU were the subject of 5 "independent" investigations, while they might have been absolved of scientific malpractice, all 5 reports criticized their methods in one form or another.

So don't try to give me this guff about "responsible methods". I have seen too many examples of exactly the opposite. If cases like this (of which, I repeat, a great many have been found) constitute responsible methods, then no wonder the world is shown to be warming. And no wonder an increasing percentage of the people are ignoring this "data".

Yes this was well understood in 1997 and still seems to be 'news' to many. You have many 'well' funded exit nodes in interesting locations.
"Low-Resource Routing Attacks Against Anonymous Systems" pdf:
http://digitool.library.colostate.edu/webclient/DeliveryManager?pid=168113

On the other hand, we can look at published academic studies which show that note-taking can be highly effective.

http://www.answers.com/topic/cornell-notes#Studies_on_effectiveness
http://wac.colostate.edu/journal/vol16/boch.pdf

BTW, by taking good notes in college, I learned that one must not rely on anecdotal evidence.

cooked meat for an animal? That is silly. I am fairly certain that their closest relatives, wolves, and hyenas do not drag carcasses to the nearest fire and wait until it is cooked just right before chowing down. I also think they aren't too often caught raiding farms for carrots and zucchini. Do you mean that they are functionally omnivores because their idiot owners and veterinarians are all swayed by the dog food manufacturers? They are not the superspecialized carnivores that cats are (which you pointed out) and yes they can eat all kinds of stuff and still live but I don't think they are truly omnivores, do they have molars? Here's a link for you from a lazy google search of "dog teeth"
http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/pregastric/dogpage.html

Actually, there are limited places in the US that do this: Metric Road Signs in the US I think this is something that could be voted on at the municipality/state level and could eventually work its way nationally.

Fuck metrics!!

Actually, there are limited places in the US that do this: Metric Road Signs in the US I think this is something that could be voted on at the municipality/state level and could eventually work its way nationally.

And now the Metric system itself is from the US? Who writes this stuff.

Agree, but as it turns out the US actually signed the Metre convention back in 1875 when it was founded: http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/metric-convention.html
So while, it's hardly invented in the US, the US actually did participate in the creation of the metre, as in the standardization process.

Here are a couple dozen examples.

The rest of the world uses metric, the efficiencies of mass manufacturing mean that it costs more to create version using imperial units. Switching is a one time cost, the savings are cumulative so eventually (given a ROI higher than inflation) you should make your money back.

to http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/, i.e. a faculty website of http://www.cira.colostate.edu/people/view.php?username=Hillger of Dr. Don Hillger, a Colo St meteorologist.

As long as the "U.S. Metric Association" continues to run out of the digital equivalent of a man's garage, and with a ~1999 web design to boot, it will not be taken seriously.

to http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/, i.e. a faculty website of http://www.cira.colostate.edu/people/view.php?username=Hillger of Dr. Don Hillger, a Colo St meteorologist.

As long as the "U.S. Metric Association" continues to run out of the digital equivalent of a man's garage, and with a ~1999 web design to boot, it will not be taken seriously.

The US is officially Metric, right?

I have yet to see a single road sign that says "1200m until exit" rather than "3/4m until exit). US != metric.

Drive the I-95 in Maine. I saw metric exit signs from the NH border to Portlandia.

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/signs/maine-turnpike.jpg

The funny thing about the United States is that HR 596 was passed by the 39th congress in 1866 which authorized its use.

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/metric-act-bill.html

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/grayklotzbach2012.pdf
That's the paper.

A) they aren't climatologists
They are meteorologist. Those STILL aren't the same thing.

B) The article is horrid. It's quote mining and cherry picking.
C) They contradict themselves.
first this:
"The researchers acknowledge that human activity has led to an increase in carbon dioxide being released into the Earth’s atmosphere and an increase in average temperature."
then:
"Hurricanes draw their power from warm ocean waters,"
Clearly they don't understand AGW. AGW forecasts that as the overall volume of ocean ice decrease will will see an increase in ocean temperatures.
For the area of research they are in, CO2 numbers only matter when trying to forecast ocean temperatures. You can not use CO2 in the air to directly predicts cyclone events.

D) The confuse cycle with overall trends.
The paper clearly shows that increase in THC seems to mean more hurricanes, BUT they only use 20 year pieces and do not trend the overall hurricane numbers.
E) the limit them selves to hurricanes the hit land fall in the US.
With warming temperature will will see overall hurricanes number go up, not juut US land fall numbers. We will also see in increase in every other type of cyclone event. Tropical storms and so on.

And you little ad hom clearly demonstrates you don't actually know anything about AGW. Not that it will stop you from spouting ignorant opinion and cherry picking data. You are so bad, you have gotten to cherry picking from people who are experts in OTHER FIELDS. That is pretty much the best AGW deniers can do. You might want to take a more careful look at the facts regarding the climate. There is a reason theory is scientific consensus on this issue.

" "climate change" or "global warming" "
yes, change the names once to reflect a broader understanding of the topic is now 'changing the name every week'

Fucking idiot.

The biggest concern is with contamination of bacteria or botulism. These are easily avoidable if your follow some basic cleanliness procedures. Some basic things are to not touch the inside of the jar or lid, don't reuse lids (you can reuse rings if they are in good shape) clean your stuff and process it correctly. When I can up stuff the jars have been previously sent through the dish washer with the final rinse being a sanitizing rinse. I put the rings and lids in a pan of boiling water and the jars upside down in another pan of boiling water. This will keep everything nice a sterile until you need it in a few minutes. The food that I put into the jars is very and hot and at a nice simmer and I fill the jar with a clean ladle being careful to not spill onto the rim of the jar. Then put a clean lid on (I use tongs that are sitting in the boiling water with the lids and rings) and then put the ring on. I then put the jar into the pressure canner which is open but has boiling water in it. I repeat this until I have filled the canner or am out of food and then close up the canner. Typically what I can isn't affected (flavor or texture wise) by heat so I prefer to process it at 15lbs of pressure even though I could get away with only 10lbs because I would rather be safe than sorry this is also why I will leave the jars in longer than the minimum recommended time (maybe 5 minutes longer).

The site I provided previously was not the one I was originally thinking of as a good site is Colorado State which has a bunch of stuff on canning and preserving food with more detail but at the time I only remembered it was a .edu site. I learned the basics of canning and preserving from my grandmother and since she gave up pressure canning (she still does jellies and jams) I have most of her canning equipment but she still has her hot water bath canner. Also if you want to get a pressure canner don't think that a pressure cooker will work as the walls on those are too thin and they cool down too fast which can lead to things not being held at the correct temp for long enough.

Organic food has plenty of pesticides too. Most of them are worse than the synthetic ones.

So far, you have a good point...

Pesticide free...? Nature has its own pesticides. Many plants, especially fruit trees, produce their own pesticides when attacked by insects.

Yes, this also has been well-studied and documented.

These pesticides are *inside* the fruit and can be very toxic.

Holy {citation needed}, batman! There's nothing indicating that the natural pesticides (lectins etc) in commonly eaten fruits exhibit significant oral toxicity to humans in the concentrations encountered in these fruits. It would be unlikely too, given that we evolved for millions of years to effectively deal with these compounds.

Organic food has plenty of pesticides too. Most of them are worse than the synthetic ones.

Pesticide free...? Nature has its own pesticides. Many plants, especially fruit trees, produce their own pesticides when attacked by insects. These pesticides are *inside* the fruit and can be very toxic. You can prevent their formation (ie. make the fruit less toxic) by applying artificial pesticides when the insects appear.

More like ordering delivery from that Tijuana taco stand. I bet if you operated a taco stand just on the other side of the border and tried to deliver into the USA, you'd get busted for that too. The FDA has also been cracking down on the production and sale of Mexican Bathtub Cheese and raw milk, despite the fact that most of the people imbibing those particular delicacies are well aware of the potential risk.

here:
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html

See
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html

From http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently requires labeling of GE foods if the food has a significantly different nutritional property; if a new food includes an allergen that consumers would not expect to be present (e.g., a peanut protein in a soybean product); or if a food contains a toxicant beyond acceptable limits.

Please do read the entire link above. It contains a reasonable summary of the debate.

You should look up 'X chromosome Mosaicism'. In female mammals, each cell deactivates one of the two X chromosomes. It basically happens randomly, so *any* female mammal is a mix of cells with about half having an active *maternal* X chromosome, and the others having an active paternal X chromosome.

Identical twins will have different patterns of X chromosome activation. This can be a completely visible difference, such as in tortiseshell or calico cats

So, if any of the AD genes are on the X chromosome, they can be expressed *very* differently in otherwise identical twins.
http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/genetics/medgen/chromo/mosaics.html

That's just the one mechanism I know of off the top of my head that can cause differences in twins, no doubt there are others. Once you get into environmental causes, I'm sure that does nothing but expand the possibilities.

Cardio is basically pointless when it comes to weight loss (but still extremely beneficial to your general health!). 'Exercise' is a far too general term here. The way in which exercise can induce weight loss is by increasing your non-fatty tissue and subsequently your Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR). A couple of weeks of strength training can achieve that: http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/2001/04000/Effect_of_strength_training_on_resting_metabolic.5.aspx.

This graph or Wikipedia shows why increasing your RMR can be effective in aiding in losing weight.

Additionally, high spikes in blood sugar levels (insert carbohydrates/HFCS-rant here) and the associated insulin spikes are very suspect when it comes to losing fatty tissue (and generally: weight), see: http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/pancreas/insulin_phys.html (CTRL+F: lipid metabolism).

I will agree with you that the total amount of energy intake is also important. Not eating that extra pound is not a bad idea at all. But it is misleading to imply that merely eating less is the way to go. In fact, if not combined with daily activity (I'm avoiding the word exercise here), it can leave you as unhealthy as your visibly obese neighbour. See, f.i.: http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Abdominal-fat-and-what-to-do-about-it.shtml (btw, 'visceral fat' is the more correct term as it doesn't conjure up associations with 'love handles' and such). Or Google 'dr jimmy bell fat' for some popular media coverage on the subject.

A friend and I wrote this bit of silliness years ago: http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~dzubera/riaa_sues_birds_whales.txt The time between parody and real life continues to shrink.

I couldn't find it at the time I wrote this post, but a decade ago I stumbled upon an essay by Martin Carcasson that really blew my mind in how sophisticated it was in tackling the issue of of having informed debate in America. I couldn't find the original essay, but I did find is now a Professor at Colorado State and has continued writing articles on the subject. I only glanced through a few of them, but his writing continues to be very insightful. I've downloaded the essays to read later. Really advanced and insightful stuff.

Metric system has had official status since 1866 in the States, http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/metric-act.html when it was hoped that shortly it would be used exclusively.
Canada went metric in '73 and we still haven't finished. We buy food in pounds with the price per pound advertised in large numbers, Kilos in small numbers. You still buy an 8ft 2x4. I know my weight and height in imperial but not in metric. I think in terms of mpg for mileage. Of course we use imperial gallons so get better mileage then Americans :) Generally most Canadians are bi-lingual when it comes to weights and measures after close to 40 years since the switch. Some of this can be blamed on American culture crossing the border but a lot is just inertia.

Patent coverage is read according to a theory of strict construction, so that in principle if you have a patented trait showing up in your crops you are considered to be infringing.

However US case law has established the principle that accidental contamination of your plants by wind blown pollen etc. is not infringement. As such any lawsuits that are brought involving accidental contamination are not being decided for the plaintiff.

As far as I have been able to determine there has never been a case where accidental transfer of a trait has resulted in a finding of infringement. There has always been some intent such as seed saving or further selection of the accidental contamination.

Patent coverage of food crops is not a new phenomena.

http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/transgeniccrops/patent.html

Where were the protests prior to the development of GMOs?

As far as transfer of RoundUp resistance from Canola, the only evidence I have seen is transfer to other varieties of Canola. This doesn't rise to the standard of transfer to weeds. If you have references to scientific articles please let me know.

And Monsanto claiming in court that evolution of RoundUp ready weeds is not possible? Seems unlikely given their public statements as published here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all

If your local university has a copy, there is the

44-page U.S. Metric Board Summary Report

http://catalog.library.colostate.edu/search/?searchtype=.&searcharg=b1397485&sortdropdown=-&SORT=D&extended=0&SUBMIT=Search&searchlimits=&

This was their report right before they were disbanded in 1982.

Among the recommendations:

The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 should continue to be administered.

National policy on metric conversion should be reassessed.

Research should be conducted on economic sectors where metric capability may be critical.

The Federal Interagency Committee on Metric Policy and the National Council on State Metrication should be continued.

The functions outlined in the Board's Private Sector Planning Guidelines should be continued.

Government public awareness, consumer and education programs should be continued selectively.

The States should consider enacting uniform metric conversion legislation.

Note: The first recommendation was that it should continue to be administered. Not disbanded. Yes, I blame Reagan. He gave them a $0 budget, defunding them and killing the project.

Um, I beg to disagree, sucrose and lactose can't be absorbed in the stomach, they get broken down (in the sucrose case, into glucose and fructose) in the small intestines. In case you missed that biology class, the intestines are on the other side of the stomach from the mouth.

On the other hand, monosaccharides can be absorbed in the mouth or the stomach. Thus, they are not recommended for diabetics.

And by the way, some starches are broken down by saliva, others are broken down in the stomach. And the maltose produced is then digested in the small intestines (same place sucrose is absorbed, and about the same speed). So actually, starch and sucrose are pretty much equivalent as foods.

Here is a link to the Colorado State University quick handbook on the subject:

http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/smallgut/absorb_sugars.html

Note: no biochemistry - just human biology here.

His numbers are crap, you are closer to the mark.

I know Red Wheats, its what I grew up farming. It ranges from 8 to 16% protein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat
http://www.eolss.net/ebooks/Sample%20Chapters/C10/E5-21-04-04.pdf
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/00555.html
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_c587d5a6-a1e0-11df-abc5-001cc4c03286.html

Look, I'm not going to wast my time arguing with someone who doesn't understand basic atmospheric physics and thermodynamics. It's not worth my time. There are an incredible amount of books, research articles, etc. that cover the topics. If you are unwilling to even make the most basic effort to understand what you're talking about, you aren't a rational skeptic or any kind of skeptic. Your just another torch-and-pitchfork, burn-the-witch ignoramus.

You want some sources? You can't figure out to use google? Here's a good book on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Climate-Peixoto-P-Jose/dp/0883187124

And there are dozens of others recommended on Amazon that would also be good reading.

For modeling, you can try: http://kiwi.atmos.colostate.edu/group/dave/at604.html

This is a free (as in beer) introduction into the rudimentary concepts. Or you can start with simple zero dimension energy balance models such as this one:

http://www.math.nyu.edu/caos_teaching/physical_oceanography/numerical_exercises/ebm/zero_dim_ebm.html

And work your way up from there. Or if these are too advanced for you, you can start out with just about any introductory college level physics book that covers basic atmosphere and thermodynamics principles.

Or, if you're one of the climate science conspiracy nuts and you don't trust any materials related to climate science, then you can start with a good book on meteorology like this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Meteorology-Understanding-Atmosphere-CengageNOW-Printed/dp/0495108928/ref=pd_sim_b_7

This should at least dispel your erroneous assumptions and reasoning from your earlier post.

I ENCOURAGE rational skepticism. It adds to a discussion. It makes people think in different ways. IT IS A GOOD THING.

I DO NOT encourage blatant willful ignorance, which is what you are demonstrating. It adds absolutely nothing to the discussion, and is a general waste of time for both skeptics and supporters.

If you are unwilling to expend the effort to truly educate yourself (and it seems like you are), then there is nothing further to discuss.

HERE IS YOUR FUCKING RAW DATA (because you are unvilling to search it for yourself -- and call yourself a skeptic...):

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2 [noaa.gov]
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/ [noaa.gov]
http://dss.ucar.edu/datasets/ds570.0/ [ucar.edu]
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER [antarctica.ac.uk]
http://eca.knmi.nl/ [eca.knmi.nl]
http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp/content/view/35/1 [zamg.ac.at]
http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/atdd [nasa.gov]
http://mirador.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/mirador/presentNavigation.pl?tree=project&project=SORCE [nasa.gov]
http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/ [colostate.edu]
http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/data.html [pol.ac.uk]
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/dataexp.html [unizh.ch]
http://www.marine.csiro.au/~ttchen/argo/gmap.htm [csiro.au]
http://icoads.noaa.gov/ [noaa.gov]

YOU IDIOT!
Here you are, PLENTY of RAW datasets:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/
http://dss.ucar.edu/datasets/ds570.0/
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER
http://eca.knmi.nl/
http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp/content/view/35/1
http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/atdd
http://mirador.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/mirador/presentNavigation.pl?tree=project&project=SORCE
http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/
http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/data.html
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/dataexp.html
http://www.marine.csiro.au/~ttchen/argo/gmap.htm
http://icoads.noaa.gov/

Let me repeat:
YOU IDIOT

You are forgetting the main reason why ethanol or even methanol are used as racing fuels, you can get more power out of a given amount of air. Even thought the energy density of both ethanol and methanol are less than that of regular gasoline it requires less air to burn them. If I remember correctly the stoichometric ratio for regular gasoline is about 14.7:1 bur for ethanol it is about 9:1 so even though ethanol only has 2/3 the energy of gasoline you can burn about 1.6 times as much of at a time. So the net result is that for each combustion cycle you get more energy released. Add in the fact that ethanol has a much higher octane number (I think it is around 120) and a higher latent heat than gasoline you can run much higher compression ratios in an engine thus extracting more of the energy released from the fuel. So comparing a same displacement properly race tuned gasoline engine to a properly race tuned ethanol engine you will be able to produce an extra 10%-20% more power (I am unsure of these numbers) which is what is needed for racing but you do consume about 1.6 times a much fuel when running ethanol over gasoline.

Better living through non-chemistry. I'll bet this can be adapted to target clothes moths and case-making moths, the two species responsible for textile (and other) damage. The things are pernicious; very difficult to remove from a home with an infestation. Perhaps even make the zapper more effective by using it to cover the area where a pheremone trap is located (to draw adults into the kill zone).

First, learn about k-Anonymity epic.org/privacy/reidentification/Sweeney_Article.pdf to get an introduction to why one-way hashes DO NOT ANONYMIZE DATA.

Then go learn about l-Diversity http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~cs656/reading/ldiversity.pdf to learn the right way to anonymize data.