Colrom

I don't see why a random series of events can't be part of a master plan. Especially since the product of many random events can often be practically predicted with high confidence. And besides - imagine that the random events that you caused to be and that were random when they occured are now history - and completely known to you. That might be a way to think about God. As soon as someone characterizes God in temperal terms it is certain that they are discussing a demigod. The way I decide if they are discussing a demigod is by asking: "Can the God they describe be suprised?" If the answer is "No", then they may be talking about God. Otherwise they are talking about a demigod or less. Anyway, I think this fellow believes what he is saying, but is not thinking very clearly and will not be a good representative.

Cool.

PS - I'm not complaining - just wondering.

Don't you have email?

Is it really right for you to use an Obsidian thread as a server for your PBEM games?

I also see plenty of good reason to redo Torment. Think of it as a play or a movie. The great ones are redone all the time. Same with Torment. Just redo it. Then do the story of Fall From Grace's (and Morte?) journey to fine The Nameless One.

Didn't Fall From Grace say she would seek to find The Nameless One in Hell? That's a story that needs telling. Only MCA can tell it. Let's all take a trip through the Blood Wars! Great Fun Eh! :D

Nice!

These games are great! They are very real - in terms of tactics - and because of that fascinating. The AI/simulation is super! If you like wargames these will blow your sox off. Think Close Combat only much much better!

I liked Lionheart. It was different and the premise was interesting. The way they used history was sharp. It was overly combat intensive towards the end.

Seems a troll of one kind or another. Probably not genuine in some way or other. Could even be someone seeking to establish radical credentials - although this hardly seems the right place for that.

Acetone and also water may help. Superglue is an epoxy - with the second component being water from the air, so it doesn't have a true solvent in the same way as some other glues. I agree that getting a new lock may be the best solution.

Good job. But what's going on? Used to be you never heard of bad guys in Canada. Everybody in Canada was known to be good and trustworthy and loyal and chaste and ..... well, maybe not completely chaste ..... and tough and hardworking and so on and so on (except for the chaste part). Now, hardly a week goes by when they aren't digging up bodies on somebodies farm or finding tons of explosives in somebodies outhouse or something like that. Oh Canada! What has become of you? :D

I read the article by McIntyre and McKitrick criticizing the methods of Principal Component Analysis used by Mann et al. Here is the response by Mann Bradley and Hughes which actually touches on some of the issues regarding the scientific method which we are discussing here. The literature references are imbedded in the response so I am not giving them separately here. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann...aperProblem.pdf

Scientists do believe in challenging and testing ideas. But they also believe in understanding and building on the ideas of others. You have to be willing to learn from old work and appreciate it in order to do new work. The way in which most folks approach Einstein's theories certainly gives a good example. Challenging old work also involves dealing in specifics. Dr. Spenser and your reference to unspecified gloom and doom predictions of scientists is empty politics. It cannot be challenged on any other grounds than politics because it contains no specifics, no citations, no names, no dates - only Al Gore, who is not a scientist and doesn't claim to be one - although as an amateur he does it better than some who claim to be professional. I gave you highly cited references. Don't you want to discuss those?

Relax and listen to this: http://www.cartoonbank.com/newyorker/slide...0913algore.html

Here's another reference and interview: Dr. Hurrell is co-author of the paper, "Decadal atmosphere-ocean variations in the Pacific," (Climate Dynamics 9 [6]: 303-19, March 1994). This paper has over 365 citations in ISI Essential Science Indicators Web product. Dr. Hurrell

Taks, I don't remember Al Gore making any attacks on Republicans in his slide show. What are you talking about? Have you actually seen the slide show yourself?

Dr Spencer writes, "You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust scientists' predictions now?" This certainly seems to be an argument that since scientists have been wrong in the past we cannot "trust" (Dr. Spencer's word) them in the present. How is one to interpret that statement in light of the use of the word "trust"? I took a dim view of the anti-scientific and anti-Gore tone of the statement. What does this man accomplish from such nonsense? It seems unlikely that he will be cited by scientists for this contention. He may be cited by politicians. This is what I think he hopes to accomplish. Of course the fact that he posts his letter is further evidence of that intent. Taks, you say, "oh, and your pal al is on record saying there's nothing wrong with exaggerating claims in order to garner attention. in other words, it's ok to lie when he thinks the cause is right." Please document this. I suspect it refers to Gore's overstatement of his role in furthering the internet - which he did further. But are you expanding his explanation beyond what he actually said in such a way as to present the most damaging image (of Gore - but it can rebound on you also). Oh, by the way, Al Gore is not my friend. Like Dr. Spencer you seem to make snearing use of assertions of friendship. But in this case you understate my attitude while no doubt overstating Gores. Al Gore is one of my heroes.

Taks, I've been a Principal Scientist/Physicist. I know how little it means.

Taks, Perhaps you are more interested in attacking Al Gore than you are in discussing global warming. By the way, I read your scientist's letter, I find it difficult to trust what a scientist says when that scientist claims that scientists can't be trusted in what they say. Since people generally tell you who they are I conclude that he is telling us that he can't be trusted. Considering the unscientific and gratuitously derogatory nature of his letter this makes complete sense. He seems to be a political hak but I would need to do more research on him to know for sure - and frankly he isn't worth the effort.

no, but it doesn't take publication on this matter to understand the science. holy cow, i suggest you look up the work McIntyre and McKittrick or Roger Pielke Sr. and the list goes on and on. just because al gore runs at the mouth doesn't mean it's "settled". according to al gore, yes. according to the scientific method. no. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I had in mind something like: Article Title: CLIMATE RESPONSE TO INCREASING LEVELS OF GREENHOUSE GASES AND SULFATE AEROSOLS Authors: Mitchell, JFB, Johns, TC, Gregory, JM, Tett, SFB Journal: NATURE Volume: 376 Page: 501-504 Year: 1995 Here is some text from a Special Topics interview [http://www.esi-topics.com/gwarm/interviews/DrSimonTett.html] of Dr. Tett: "Q: Your most-cited paper, "Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols," has had a huge impact. What's this paper all about? A: All attempts at detecting and attributing climate change signals need a reliable observed data set and simulations with mechanisms that drive climate change included. In a nutshell, this paper is important because it was the first study to investigate the effect of sulphate aerosols in a general circulation model of the climate system. The general circulation model we employed had 20 layers in the ocean and 19 for the atmosphere. The experiments simulate the climate back to 1860 (which is when the global records of surface temperature became reliable), and they are projected forward to 2050. We found that the greenhouse-gas forcing increased slowly from 1860-1960, but then accelerated markedly. After 1970 our model with greenhouse gases alone begins to depart significantly from the observations. However, when we included sulphate aerosols, which have a cooling effect, the model agreed with the data from the 1930s and onwards. The rapid warming that has taken place since 1970 is, according to the model, attributable to a heating effect from greenhouse gases and a cooling effect from sulphate aerosols. Fundamentally we showed that climate models cannot simulate the observations unless forcing factors additional to greenhouse gases are included. Q: At the end of the paper you mention the need to consider tropospheric ozone in the models. A: Yes, and that was the next step: feeding in the ozone, which enabled us to get the stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming correct. In 1996 Ben Santer, myself, and other colleagues published a paper ("A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere," B. D. Santer, et al., Nature 382 [6586]: 39-45, 4 July 1996) that was to win us NOAA's "Best Scientific Paper" award in 1998. But despite our successes I was still feeling that we hadn't got to the bottom of whether or not natural forcing could explain everything. We ran simulations that included the effects of volcanic aerosols and changes in solar irradiance. We published those findings in papers in 1999 ("Causes of twentieth century temperature change near the earth's surface," Tett et al., Nature 399 [6736]: 569-72, 10 June 1999) and 2001 ("Attribution of twentieth century temperature change to natural and anthropogenic causes," Stott et al., Clim. Dyn. 17 [1]: 1-21, January 2001). Read a Special Topics interview with Climate Dynamics. Q: What's your current thinking on the causes of climate change? A: We've got a paper in press with the Journal of Geophysical Research on the natural and anthropogenic contributions to 20th century temperature change. This describes experiments with the third-generation Hadley Centre Coupled Model (HadCM3) . We find that the warming which took place early in the 20th century can be accounted for through natural variability. That warming is best explained by changes in solar brightness, a scarcity of explosive volcanoes, and internal climate variability. But in the second half of the 20th century there's no way that nature alone can account for the warming, and human activity is the major driving force. Q: How does your work relate to the Reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? A: In the Second Assessment Report, I was a contributing author to three of the chapters dealing with the science of climate change. That Report had quite a controversial closing statement in chapter 8, where we said, "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence upon global climate." I was a contributing author to chapter 12 of the third assessment report, which made a stronger statement on the detection of climate change." By the way, I have seen Al Gore's slide presentation. It's very impressive.

So Taks, are you published on this matter? What publications have you read recently which support your contention that this global warming stuff is still under debate by scientists? I thought the debate was over among the reputable scientists and it was agreed that civilization is having a significant and decisive impact on global warming. Just wondering.

I don't think the insurgents get a "free ride" in "the media" for anything they do. I agree that killing people because they wear shorts is strange and foul. The other stuff sounds nuts and foul too. The trouble is you are assigning blame for these actions to a broad group - Muslim and Arab insurgents and others - most of whom would find these actions as foul as you and I find them. You are also generalizing about "the media". These unwarrented generalizations and assignments of guilt may be used in the near future by nuts of different flavors to justify attacks on journalists who don't produce the right slant in their stories or killings of people because they wear sandals and robes (rather than shorts). I have found that there are many completely independent folks who do bad things in the world. There is no need to presume that nuts are any more coordinated in the Middle East than they are in America and Europe. Hey, just think about what Pat Robinson might inspire!

I hope the prognostications they are using for future CFC releases and the results they model for atmospheric ozone are accurate - but it would be prudent to read about contrary opinions before celebrating. There are alot of scientists who will accept a grant with a biased premise and publish BS for pay. Many countries have weak restrictions on the corporate users. You know - they are supposed to be good on their honor - but who knows?! It may be difficult to actually know what is produced, what is released, and what is destroyed, even when folks are more or less truthful. The lifetimes of some of these molecules in the atmosphere are very long - like 70 or more years - so misunderstandings may project consequences quite far into the future. I wonder what will happen before the projected turnaround?