Del

A lot of people's perceptions about people and places are from movies . Let's see what their next project is and what they do with their celebrity.

Criminals thrive in all cultures that require a pedigree. Even though polite society has animalistic drives. Illegal activities are less rigged

I think we discussed this before. My post is from September 19, 2013.

The Black Panther is a movie directed by an Black American. It's a mythological portrayal of a comic book. Perhaps in your circle references to African Cannibalism is amusing.

Yes and like religion those flaws play out in their field. The Bernoulli's were a mathematical family. There was a sibling rivalry that led to poisoning due to mathematical jealousy.

I like honesty and choice. There's a stigma about sexuality. Apparently Ben Franklin was a swinget in France.

I read s two books about what actually happens in the scientific community. The reality is more interesting than the fiction.

Perhaps they are different manifestations of the same phenomena.

This is the OED definition AD3 abbreviation Anno Domini (used to indicate that a date comes the specified number of years after the traditional date of Christ's birth). Before the Common Era (used of dates before the Christian era, especially by non-Christians). If you want to assist someone in having a more informed opinion that is possible/ And you can dispute whther an opinion represents the known facts but you can't say an opinion is wrong. An opinion represent preferneces an as such can not be validated nor invalidated. http://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/26-the-fact-opinion-distinction “Facts are statements that can be shown to be true or can be proved, or something that really happened. You can look up facts in an encyclopedia or other reference, or see them for yourself. For example, it is a fact that broccoli is good for you (you can look this up in books about healthy diets). “Opinions express how a person feels about something – opinions do not have to be based upon logical reasoning. For example, it is an opinion that broccoli tastes good (or bad).” Both of these connect fact with provability. But in common parlance, “provability” seems audience-relative as well: While one person might find Anselm’s ontological argument to be a sufficient proof for God’s existence (thus rendering “God exists” a fact for that person); others may not. The Education Oasis site announces that “An opinion expresses someone’s belief ... about something.” So if I believe that there’s beer in my refrigerator, is that just an opinion? The Enchanted Learning site muddies the waters even further by claiming that you can look up facts in an encyclopaedia (always? but then were there no facts before books?), and by including an evaluative notion (“good for you”) among examples of facts. I therefore propose that we abandon the ambiguous fact/opinion distinction, and especially the dismissive retort “That’s just your opinion.” We should focus instead on whether people can offer good reasons for the claims they make – reasons that might compel us to share their views. That’s my opinion, anyway. If you think yours is better, don’t merely say so: Say why.

There was no need to collude since they all wanted Colin to go away.

I hadn't seen your post although the result is similar. I have no idea what the women thought of the men.

Here's the footnote. In case you missed it. J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.” Which doesn't mean there aren't dissenting papers. It means they aren't counting them. They also will count any paper that doesn't express an opinion.

Cynique I didn't see any feathers on Pioneer

Yes it is hard to correlate tempeature with Co2, isn't that the point of Global Warming? Yes I admittht I am wrong about sampling and you may be right. I have no issue admitting that I am wrong. And sometimes I can figure it out on my own. I don't knowwhy you keep saying that I am not an expert in climate change. If yu see the doctor they tell you your options and you decide. That is my approach look at issues then ask a question. You teach science to kids, that's good an commendable.

Detection of climate and environmental change in the big data era Claudie Beaulieu, Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton Natural variability in all aspects of the Earth system – including the climate system and ecosystems – presents a formidable challenge to the detection and quantification of change forced by industrial activities. Error in detection can disrupt concerted efforts to respond to the challenges of Earth system change, whereas statistically robust quantification informs our understanding of underlying mechanisms of change and helps to improve predictions into the future. The rate of observed climate change results from the superposition of natural and anthropogenic forcing and its robust estimation needs to objectively detect the timing of changes in the trend as well as their magnitude. Quantifying the rate of climate change is further challenged by “memory”, i.e. red noise, within the climate system, which can lead to overconfidence in the detected change. In this talk, I describe a new approach to separate unsteady long-term change from red noise, which clarifies a key point in the scientific debate related to the recent “hiatus” in warming. Marine ecosystems may also respond to climate change, but detecting these impacts is hindered by the long timescale of memory within the ocean such that time-series analysis of satellite data is still inconclusive as to the sign of change in ocean chlorophyll. Here I show how utilizing both temporal and spatial dependency in the available data reveals the full uncertainty in chlorophyll trends and highlights regions undergoing significant change. More generally, the targeted development of specific statistical techniques is required to process and make full use of the rapidly growing store of Earth system data from models and advancing observational platforms. Space-time modeling in particular is one of my main research directions for the promise it holds to improve detection of climate and environmental change in the era of big data.

Cynique you may see me as wanting to be a leader here. Perhaps your are mistaking my comments to Troy as wanting to be a leader. I am an idea person. Having followers gernerally ends . badly. My compliment to Pioneer is a stand alone statement. If a person can be objective about a topic they love that is impressive. since objectivity is very rare. Having facts or factoid is not as impressive to me as reasoning. No my frustration about the psychic comments is more about my perceiving Pioneer as being dismissive about a field that he isn't conversant. Was it annoying yes. Was I emotionally wounded no. I don't geth urt feelings if I am wrong. I just say okay I missed it. Like with a few ofther readings I did here or my predictions about the academy awards

I moved to Australia because I fell in love with an Australian women and could see our kids in my mind's eye . You are projecting the disillusionment with America. You have said explicitly that you have gotten to the point where you don't care. Yet you have displayed an annoyance with both Troy and Pioneer. I am not switching sides for some emotional reason, Since I don't have a side. I see the dynamic as you and Mel on one side, and Troy and Pioneer sometimes on the same side but for differing reasons. Can you think of one argument where I was on the same side with Troy and Pioneer. I don't take sides like in the Viola Davis discussion. I am less interested in agreement than thought. Have you noticed I have agreed with everyone here on some position or another because I could see logic in the argument. The argument didn't need to echo my opinion. I can see both sides in the argument about race and oddly it isn't terribly interesting. Have you noticed most of my comments have been either very short, not emotional and mostly in the last few days Troy's posts annoy me at times. Which means he is doing his job. Too much agreement would be boring. I was acknowledging Pioneer's recent posts. Was I trying to curry favor when I said that you and Mel write clearly and the logic is reasonable. What I have noticed, is that everyone here has had an emotional argument. You Mel Troy Pioneer and myself. I have no idea about what Pioneer is doing internally. I take him at his word. I think your criticism is mostly a projection. However like other criticism directed at me, like my typos and my being cryptic I will ponder. For me there is no title to be won. I just enjoying a bit of mental jousting. So you may be seeing another version of Del Strachen here or maybe you won't .. see it.

@Pioneer1 when I was 16 a made a comment about people in the south being slow because they talked slow. My friend's father said don't judge someone's intelligence by how slowly they speak. So now I listen to the thoughts and the logic behind the words. I have had academics try to baffle me with jargon. And I have spoken to cats that were more street, that were philosophical and could reason from their position to seeing the validity of the opposite position. Yeah I have been schooled and I think abstractly I think that comes across when I am having a conversation. However I like to be open or at least I think I am open to viewpoint from the entire spectrum. So I won't discount a cat that hasn't been able to afford time in the academy. I also don't put a premium on kittens who have lots of letters behind their names. What I do value is people who can express themselves and are open or can at least tolerate a difference of opinoin I am not swayed by credentials or degrees. I listen to the argument. Even though you see yourself as more linear. You arguments with abstract concepts is more appealing to my line of thought. However that doesn't mean that the points of difference are wrong. What is fascinating is that your discussion of race seems less personal although it appears to be of great interest and importance to you. That is talent, sir. To discuss subjects that you are passionate about with clarity and reason. I am thoroughly impressed when Anyone can manage that feat.

Here's something to ponder. Plants breather in C02 so wouldn't more CO2 increase plant yields. Also I understand increased CO2 will increase temperature but why should it decrease temperature. Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-...Proxy Highlight 16 May 2007 ... According to some accounts, the rise in carbon dioxide will usher in a new golden age where food production will be higher than ever before and most ... Some have suggested that the increase in plant growth due to CO2 will be so great that it soaks up much of the extra CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, ... Water vapor is also involved in climate change. A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, and more water vapor increases the potential for greater ozone formation. But more cloud cover, especially in the morning hours, could diminish reaction rates and thus lower rates of ozone formation. Understanding the interactions between ozone and climate change, and predicting the consequences of change requires enormous computing power, reliable observations, and robust diagnostic abilities. The science community's capabilities have evolved rapidly over the last decades, yet some fundamental mechanisms at work in the atmosphere are still not clear. The success of future research depends on an integrated strategy, with more interactions between scientists' observations and mathematical models.

It is a bit niggardly to not provide evidence of your argument. Definition of terms is importance or being clear about which meaning you are utilizing. So you feel that way Pioneer and everyone else is free to feel another way. Then you say you understand why people would disagree. Scientist can take a position on the existence of God that doesn't make them correct. Also being a scientist doesn't make one correct in things that are outside of the scientist's speciality. So Neil Tyson DeGrasse arguing with the CEO using unscientific arguments also doesn't make him an expert. Nor does parroting figures that you don't understand.

Do the following search, diseases by race . Pioneer is making a more convincing argument , it is debate worthy. The last sentence is the crux of the argument . You seem to confuse clarity with agreement . Science would favor Du Bois. Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning. And yet, you might still open a study on genetics in a major scientific journal and find categories like " white" and "black" being used as biological variables. Pioneer has a valid point .

Domination is about submission. I'll give you an example. Let's say you have the following types of people on a deserted island : an intelligent ,a spiritual an ethical , warriors . Often might makes right . There are a few ways to win an argument ; using emotions , logic , authorities or expert opinions , belittling and intimidation .

Look up the definition of the word semantics.Also look up facts then you will see that you are incorrect and my statement about facts stands. You seem to confuse your definitions of words with the standard meaning or you use only one definition. Unaware that a word can have more than one meaning. Scientists use the scientific method to make observations, form hypotheses and gather evidence in an experiment aimed at supporting or contradicting a theory. ... Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. ... A theory is almost never proven, though a few theories do become scientific laws. @Pioneer1 that's a good analogy and if you follow it's implication my statement still stands.

Can you state what you believe to be my position?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/8786565/War-of-words-over-global-warming-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html Prof Giaever is one of the most prominent scientific dissenters challenging the controversial man-made global warming claims of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former US vice-president Al Gore. He has testified to the US Senate about his doubts, calling himself a "sceptic" on global warming and citing both his birthplace and other scientific scares he has seen come and go during his career. "I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming?" he said. "I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around. "Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money." Prof Giaever, 82, is not alone in rejecting the APS's insistence that there is consensus on the existence and severity of man-made global warming. Several prominent members have expressed frustration that it has refused to reconsider its position – drawn up in 2007 – in the light of the "Climategate" controversy about the findings of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. "Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today," dissenters wrote in an open letter to it its governing board. Last year, another sceptic, Hal Lewis, a University of California professor quit the group, describing global warming as a "scam" and a "pseudoscientific fraud". In a statement issued after Prof Lewis' departure, the APS said that "on the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree... carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity". Tawanda Johnson, an APS spokeswoman, told The Sunday Telegraphthat the society was "disappointed" by Prof Giaever's decision. It believed the criticisms were based on "misunderstandings" but would not "engage in a back-and-forth on Ivar's observations". The APS says it that its climate change statement does not assert that "anthropogenic" (man-made) climate change is incontrovertible – but that the evidence of global warming is.