However, before you cynically credit all of his environmental talk to profit-mongering, perhaps you should see where the benefits of his book and movie go to.
Those papers are gathered into a huge report by the IPCC. It's only picking and choosing in the sense that the best research is that which is represented. If you see any other solid evidence, feel free to post it. I am not aware of any peer-reviewed articles written recently that dispute the information in the IPCC.
As part of this process, only the data that the research agrees on makes it into the report. Therefore, the predictions from the IPCC are conservative, and occasionally undershoot the actual data.
One or more summaries of the written report are written. Here is where the politics can get really strong and result in the summary being less dramatic rather than more dramatic. I.e., representatives from countries like the US try to tone down the summary and add uncertainty wherever they can. I suspect some would like to introduce Heisenberg uncertainty if they could.
First of all, I liked the movie. However, one thing that he did exaggerate (by omission) was his discussion of the 20 foot rise in sea levels. Sure, if either the ice on Greenland or the West Shelf of Antarctica melts, sea levels will rise (at least) 20 feet. If both melt, sea levels will rise 40 feet. Of course, no scientist (that I'm aware of) is predicting either to happen in the next 100 years. So, his facts were right, but the implication (that this would happen reasonably soon if things don't change) is not.
Global warming is serious and should be addressed in an intelligent, deliberate manner. Over-hyping it is counter-productive.
It's pretty common knowledge that the IPCC writes its summary first, then goes looking for "data" that supports it, and ignores all research to the contrary.
Really? Common knowledge, or something you just made up? Perhaps you're just trying to be funny and I missed it, but your later comments suggest that you were being serious (or have a very dry sense of sarcasm).
I doubt very much that your models of the mammalian brain will be used to justify expenditure of $250,000,000,000 per year to reduce emissions of non-pollutants from our atmosphere. However, they may be useful in breeding mice with improved powers of recall.
First of all, my models will eventually allow me to rule the world, and will make $250 Billion/year seem like chump change.;)
Secondly, if that expenditure is currently our best educated "guess" as to how to spend that money, what are you concerned about? Are you afraid that it will ruin our economy? Has spending money on poorly thought out projects (I think that's what you think this is) ruined our economy before? I won't mention any specific projects, but I'm sure you can think of one where we've spent more than $250 Billion on.
I do understand the Libertarian approach that it's "our" money and the government shouldn't be spending it. However, it's also "our" environment, and others shouldn't be polluting it. When someone else dumps their pollutants into the atmosphere, they are effectively forcing some of that down into my lungs. I'm not being militant here, I'm just providing balance to some of the extreme positions (that you may or may not hold) on the other side.
Also, for the record, the recent estimates from the IPCC predict that 3% of our GDP will need to be spent in order to address the problems associated with climate change - if we act reasonably soon. The longer we wait, the more expensive it will be to fix. It's just like your health - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Personally, I prefer a reliable service to what it is currently turned into. 'cause you don't think we pay less tax now that they're privatizing everything they can, do you?
Did you ever see the public transport system in the US. I have. I can understand why people refuse to use it.
Without resorting to significant subsidies (which most Americans loathe, even though they aren't aware of just how many subsidies already exist), what you've just stated is a vicious cycle. Without a significant number of people riding public transportation, there is inadequate funds to improve public transportation. Until public transportation is improved, you won't have a significant number of people riding it.
Why hasn't anyone else connected them with respect to Monica & Bill? (That first link didn't actually directly address the perjury question - or if it did, I missed it.)
It's interesting to guess what Bush could possibly do to become yet less popular. For example, his Supreme Court could over-turn [Roe] v Wade.
Actually, I think that'd increase his popularity - as a percentage of people who support him, that is. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people who would be upset by Roe v. Wade being overturned already don't like him. However, there are several people who think he isn't conservative enough, and would therefore begin to like him if he overturned Roe v. Wade.
He could institute a draft for the Iraq war. We could catch him in felony voter fraud (like forcing US attorneys to turn a blind eye while he drops minority voters from the voter registration). He could shoot someone during a hunting accident.
Those might cut into his popularity. Of course, on that last one, it might depend on who that someone is.
Yes, there are a lot of ignorant people who are not Bush supporters. However, I am not sure how many hard-core Bush supporters are not either quite ignorant or extremely self-serving. Just to be clear, "hard-core Bush supporters" does not include people who don't like Bush, but think he was a better choice than Kerry.
Mainly, it was a joke. Don't take it too seriously.
1,682 years is still not too far from "a couple thousand years", especially when you notice that there's only one signficant figure in that statement.:)
The point wasn't that the Bible is inerrant. The point was that you're very unlikely to find any new inconsistencies in it. Even if the Bible was changing up until Gutenberg's deed, that'd still be true.
If someone believed in leprechauns, would you not want to change this belief if you could?
If that person were a friend, and I thought that belief helped them to cope with life, then I would not want to change that belief. If I thought that belief hurt them more than it helped them, then that might be different.
So, you're allowed to lie under oath if it's not relevant? That doesn't seem like a good policy to me. Where are you getting your information from?
Don't get me wrong, I don't obsess about the whole BJ thing. However, I do like to get my facts straight, so if you've got some good evidence, I'm willing to listen.
Sure, the translations change. They should, since our language changes, and our understanding of the original language changes. I am not, however, aware of any evidence that the source documents themselves have changed. Obviously, there's a lot I'm not aware of, though. Otherwise (or perhaps including that), I agree with you completely - "It's an imprecise work of man from which we can gain some wisdom."
Which books are in the Bible has changed a few times, and still currently depends on which denomination you are. The contents in those books is not known to have changed, AFAIK. (I'm not claiming they haven't, I'm just saying I'm not aware of any evidence that they have.)
Well, Wikipedia is looking at you with a quizzical stare, but Google has a vague inclination about it. Me? Not a clue - I'm definitely no Bible scholar.
Definitely not the latest. You'll find incarnations much more recent than that. The KJV was translated in 1611. NJKV was first published between 1979-1982. KJ21 was first (ironically) published in 1994. Ah, I found it - the Revised Version was translated in 1885. Interesting. Why did you single out that one? Perhaps you'll find this enlightening.
They don't tend to attract things any more than any other object with *equal* mass, but they do tend to have rather large amounts of mass - especially that one 30,000 light years away.
And, yeah, I just having fun with the two ways to interpret secretive - although I can't find any evidence to support a derivation from secrete, darn it.
I really like the idea of a philosophical moth - or fruit fly to bring in another recent topic. I'm just picturing this moth with a leg stroking his antennae pondering deep philosophical questions. Who created the Sun? What is the significance of the "GE" logo?
Slashdot Mirror
However, before you cynically credit all of his environmental talk to profit-mongering, perhaps you should see where the benefits of his book and movie go to.
However, the proper expression is "Ain't paying taxes no more!". You must not be a Southerner.
First of all, I liked the movie. However, one thing that he did exaggerate (by omission) was his discussion of the 20 foot rise in sea levels. Sure, if either the ice on Greenland or the West Shelf of Antarctica melts, sea levels will rise (at least) 20 feet. If both melt, sea levels will rise 40 feet. Of course, no scientist (that I'm aware of) is predicting either to happen in the next 100 years. So, his facts were right, but the implication (that this would happen reasonably soon if things don't change) is not.
Global warming is serious and should be addressed in an intelligent, deliberate manner. Over-hyping it is counter-productive.
Really? Common knowledge, or something you just made up? Perhaps you're just trying to be funny and I missed it, but your later comments suggest that you were being serious (or have a very dry sense of sarcasm).
If you're being serious, please provide a source.
I doubt very much that your models of the mammalian brain will be used to justify expenditure of $250,000,000,000 per year to reduce emissions of non-pollutants from our atmosphere. However, they may be useful in breeding mice with improved powers of recall.
First of all, my models will eventually allow me to rule the world, and will make $250 Billion/year seem like chump change. ;)
Secondly, if that expenditure is currently our best educated "guess" as to how to spend that money, what are you concerned about? Are you afraid that it will ruin our economy? Has spending money on poorly thought out projects (I think that's what you think this is) ruined our economy before? I won't mention any specific projects, but I'm sure you can think of one where we've spent more than $250 Billion on.
I do understand the Libertarian approach that it's "our" money and the government shouldn't be spending it. However, it's also "our" environment, and others shouldn't be polluting it. When someone else dumps their pollutants into the atmosphere, they are effectively forcing some of that down into my lungs. I'm not being militant here, I'm just providing balance to some of the extreme positions (that you may or may not hold) on the other side.
Also, for the record, the recent estimates from the IPCC predict that 3% of our GDP will need to be spent in order to address the problems associated with climate change - if we act reasonably soon. The longer we wait, the more expensive it will be to fix. It's just like your health - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Rule #1 about taxes: they never truly go down.
Why hasn't anyone else connected them with respect to Monica & Bill? (That first link didn't actually directly address the perjury question - or if it did, I missed it.)
Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
That comment is obligatory, not picky. It's also spot on, of course.
Actually, I think that'd increase his popularity - as a percentage of people who support him, that is. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people who would be upset by Roe v. Wade being overturned already don't like him. However, there are several people who think he isn't conservative enough, and would therefore begin to like him if he overturned Roe v. Wade.
Those might cut into his popularity. Of course, on that last one, it might depend on who that someone is.
Yes, there are a lot of ignorant people who are not Bush supporters. However, I am not sure how many hard-core Bush supporters are not either quite ignorant or extremely self-serving. Just to be clear, "hard-core Bush supporters" does not include people who don't like Bush, but think he was a better choice than Kerry.
Mainly, it was a joke. Don't take it too seriously.
1,682 years is still not too far from "a couple thousand years", especially when you notice that there's only one signficant figure in that statement. :)
The point wasn't that the Bible is inerrant. The point was that you're very unlikely to find any new inconsistencies in it. Even if the Bible was changing up until Gutenberg's deed, that'd still be true.
If that person were a friend, and I thought that belief helped them to cope with life, then I would not want to change that belief. If I thought that belief hurt them more than it helped them, then that might be different.
So, you're allowed to lie under oath if it's not relevant? That doesn't seem like a good policy to me. Where are you getting your information from?
Don't get me wrong, I don't obsess about the whole BJ thing. However, I do like to get my facts straight, so if you've got some good evidence, I'm willing to listen.
I was obviously in an argumentative mood. Describing how they secrete instead of accrete would be too agreeable.
Sure, the translations change. They should, since our language changes, and our understanding of the original language changes. I am not, however, aware of any evidence that the source documents themselves have changed. Obviously, there's a lot I'm not aware of, though. Otherwise (or perhaps including that), I agree with you completely - "It's an imprecise work of man from which we can gain some wisdom."
Which books are in the Bible has changed a few times, and still currently depends on which denomination you are. The contents in those books is not known to have changed, AFAIK. (I'm not claiming they haven't, I'm just saying I'm not aware of any evidence that they have.)
When you figure it out, you should post it on Wikipedia. Good luck!
Well, Wikipedia is looking at you with a quizzical stare, but Google has a vague inclination about it. Me? Not a clue - I'm definitely no Bible scholar.
Definitely not the latest. You'll find incarnations much more recent than that. The KJV was translated in 1611. NJKV was first published between 1979-1982. KJ21 was first (ironically) published in 1994. Ah, I found it - the Revised Version was translated in 1885. Interesting. Why did you single out that one? Perhaps you'll find this enlightening.
They don't tend to attract things any more than any other object with *equal* mass, but they do tend to have rather large amounts of mass - especially that one 30,000 light years away.
And, yeah, I just having fun with the two ways to interpret secretive - although I can't find any evidence to support a derivation from secrete, darn it.
I really like the idea of a philosophical moth - or fruit fly to bring in another recent topic. I'm just picturing this moth with a leg stroking his antennae pondering deep philosophical questions. Who created the Sun? What is the significance of the "GE" logo?