Mark@Sea

I didn't know there was anyone left who hadn't made up their mind. You've got the Saturday Night Live set who couldn't tell the difference between SP and Tina Fey. You've got the "it's on TV/in the paper" set who bought the hatchet job pushed by both the left and the 'professional politicians' on the right. You've got the left and far left who were terrified of the proto-tea party politician. And you've got the tea party conservative who saw someone willing to rip new orifices in both parties because it was the right thing to do. I don't think you could find 3 honest folks who really haven't made up their mind yet. Hey, it's Alaska - the last great outdoor frontier - and there are some here that would rather watch cartoons??? Nope, no irrational bias here.

Thats a decent 'hawk. Might pick one up for Christmas (might not, budget being what it is at the moment). Yeah, a wire saw has its place - but not as a primary tool. If you're toting a day pack, you've got room for something better. Great for a pocket survival kit, though.

Dave, the underlined answer is a link... thought a little humor would be nice.

Q. Should climate scientists discuss scientific uncertainty in mainstream forums? A. Why not, is their uncertainty supposed to be kept a secret? If so, why? Q. Judith Curry is: A. Good for her. Q. What is causing climate change? A. It's called winter, dumbass. Q. The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is: A. Gonna lose a lot of money now that we know it's a scam. Q. What should we do about climate change? A. Well, for the next few months I plan to dress warmer. Q. What is "climate sensitivity"? A. The mental rash exhibited by global warming alarmists in the presence of data. Q. Which policy options do you support? A. Q. How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change? A. How about you tell me what you're selling, then I'll tell you what I'll pay.

Better than nothing, but a small folding pruning saw beats it hands down. If you're carrying a daypack anyway, get a pruning saw!

I told a lie. No compass - I gave it to one of Cavemans' daughters....

Ace hardware has strike-anywhere matches... waterproofing them is fairly simple. I ended up using a dog-tag chain, and have a small knife, compass, matchbox (the old Marbles waterproof tube), a knife sharpener and a thumblight on it.

Questions/suggestions Where will you strike the matches? Have you thought about polishing the inside of the bottom of the tin for a signal mirror?

The man is dead (and his passing caused no end of glee amongst the warmists). Apparently if one shouts loudly enough, engages in personal attacks, claims skepticism has no place in science, and (especially) ignores contradictions between data and theory, it becomes an antisocial, nay, criminal act to disagree. Still, the emperor has no clothes. Sutton isn't here for the facts, he is here to defend his faith, and score points. Let him debate the wind.

Ah, yes, the smoking pea-shooter study.

This was a rhetorical question, right?

I glanced too quickly at the headline, and read "burning muslim protestors mars Armistice Day" Had a happy for a second there...

Coastie, where in East Tennessee are you? If you need a place to practice, shoot me a PM. I wouldn't choose a .22 for self defense. .32 ACP is as small as I'd go (I like the penetration of the .32 over the diameter of the .380). 9mm is acceptable. Again, for the test, use a pistol that you are familiar with, and use one with a good sight radius. If you need, I can arrange to loan you something suitable for the test (beforehand, so you can practice with it). Best of luck

Did you dabble in debate and scientific method?

Umm, sorry, no. Science works by observing data, formulating a hypothesis that accounts for the data, constructing a means to test the hypothesis against empirical results, modifying the hypothesis to account for those results, then reaching a conclusion. In your case, if your measurement of the speed of light used valid data (which could, using accepted methods of observation by others, be duplicated), if your experiment could be repeated by others with the same results, and if your hypothesis accounted for the results, then your measurement would be correct. So, repeatability and accounting for (all the) data seem to be the key. Let us apply this to the AGW theory. First the conclusion (mankind is causing global warming) was reached. Then a methodology was decided (mankind is causing global warming through production of carbon dioxide). Then data which supported the methodology was used, while data which disagreed was discarded (tree ring data, surface temperature measurements, etc.). Then a model was constructed which, regardless of what data was input, supported the desired result. Finally the conclusion was published. Independent researchers were denied access to raw data, methodology, and the source code for the computer model. Anyone who disagreed with the conclusion was labeled a denier, and their results were ignored, not accounted for. That isn't science, that is a political campaign.

You know, you promised you wouldn't post again. But let me take a stab at answering your question... In this thread, you haven't posted any facts. You've posted a link to a T-shirt artist whose environmental credentials are somewhat less than impeccable. If you're referring to the general AGW argument - how many times do I have to rehash this? Starting with the tree-ring data which is the basis for the theory, continuing with surface temperature studies with faked datasets, and ending with a computer climate model which has been shown to produce 'global warming' even with random numbers as the data input, the argument for AGW is (at best) inconclusive, and taken with the political/financial/social agenda of those who are attempting to drown out skeptics, at worst is something worthy of prison sentences. Those the facts you are talking about? Or are we back to 'my argument is heavier on paper than your argument, therefore mine is true and yours is false'? Because I seem to recall that argument went out with Monty Pythons' witch trials. Well, somebody here is getting beat like a rented mule.

Which part of NASA? The part controlled by James Hansen, who heads the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (whose US Historical Climatology Network surface temperature data has been shown to be flawed)? The same James Hansen who was crying wolf in the early '70's about the coming Ice Age? The activist who has been arrested several times for his publicity-stunt protests? I'm assuming you were not referring to the NASA research report that solar cycles are responsible for warming trends, or the guy that runs NASA, who downplays the global warming 'consensus'. I don't mean to insult you, sorry about that. The global warming climate models have been (thoroughly) discredited. The data used to support their positions has been proven to be cherry-picked. The temperatures used to 'prove' global warming have been shown to be 'massaged', 'adjusted', 'normalized' (meaning, faked) in order to keep their own studies from proving them wrong. The top UN administrators have been linked to heavy financial gains if they can pass their regulatory schemes. The researchers have been caught red handed hiding their methods and raw data (going so far as to destroy it rather than share it). What, exactly, are you looking for? A big flashing neon confession from Al Gore? Look, the heart of the 'global warming' argument is the paleoclimatology studies conducted using tree ring data. Here is a little information on that study which might start you in the right direction.

Cap and tax took a real hit this week with the collapse of the Chicago carbon trading exchange. It is difficult to separate politics and the AGW 'science' - intentionally so. Those behind the global warming scheme linked their 'science' to politics, social agendas, and funding from the outset in order to muddy the waters enough to keep their fiddling with the data hidden. That whole 'consensus' thing was just a big noise to cover the fact that a small number of politically connected administrators were using their positions to grant (or deny) funding to researchers (depending on how willing the researchers were to agree with the agenda). The researchers who got in on the gravy train 'adjusted', 'normalized' and cherry-picked the data in order to support their positions, and bringing it full circle the administrators used their positions to deny those who disagreed with the findings the ability to publish their contradictory results. They went so far as to take concerted action to ruin the careers of people who were willing to even consider contradictory data. There are lemmings in every crowd, just as there are those who are skeptical of 'established wisdom' and 'consensus'. (We refer to the second type as 'scientists'). Ewok may not have an open mind to the facts, but at least he isn't trying to shove his opinion as proven fact.

Hey, Ewokpoacher has the maturity to avoid personal attacks in lieu of data favorable to his argument. Bonus points for not quoting a t-shirt designer as a credible source. He is entitled to his opinion, and lets' face it - there has been a lot of garbage pushed as 'scientific proof'. Heck, given the last 5 years (and our wonderful publick ejucation sistom), I am unsurprised that so many laymen confuse 'consensus' with the scientific method.

Ewokpoacher, you are right - Moncton isn't a scientist. Then again, AGW (global warming) isn't science. Its' a political/economic con game. As for tackling global warming and doing good, you're proceeding from the assumption that global warming is anthropogenic. Doesn't matter where you end up if you start from a false assumption. Hopefully you know my last post was in response to clsutton's drama queen exit - I was out at dinner and responding using my cel.

So basically your argument consists of personal attacks rather than addressing the (inconvenient) truths. Congratulations, your 'moral superiority' is self evident, and by bailing out now, you demonstrate your.... Ah, sorry, can't keep a straight face. Gotta throw the BS flag here, kid.

It's true that the earth has experienced a warming trend since the early 1800's - in fact, the period immediately before this warming trend was known as "the little ice age" - a rapid onset mini-glacial period caused by the Maunder Minimum (abnormally low sunspot activity). The period before the little ice age was known as the "midieval warm period", when global temps were on average several degrees higher than they are today. A period which was a boon to culture, agriculture, etc. (Do a little research on how Gore, et al dealt with the MWP data - it'll be an eye opener). So, if it was warm, then cold, then started warming again, would you call that a cyclic phenomenon? Climate has yet to return to the high temps experienced during the MWP, and un-edited long term data show that the earth is currently in a cooling trend. Tie this in with the extremely weak solar cycle, and if I were you, I'd avoid buying land in Alaska. Might want to invest in a wood stove and have a long term supply of firewood, though... It doesn't pay to oversimplify, but when you get down to the basics, climate is driven by solar cycles, precession of the equinoxes and large ocean currents. Higher CO2 levels are an effect, not a cause. The whole global warming thing isn't (and never was) about climate. It is about taxation and governance.

You'd better fold... The link you provided reads "The headline could just as easily read" 89,928 scientists refuse to sign petition blasting Kyoto It does not claim or post a link to any such collection of scientists. Which, for those who are comprehension challenged, doesn't claim that that many have refused to sign a petition, it's just an ungrounded attack on the petition itself. I'd like to point out that of the two parties publishing that blog you linked, one hides any identification, and the other claims to be "an artist and environmental scientist" - who designs Obama/Hope silkscreens, and whose environmental credentials seem to be limited to membership in a local gardening society. Dude, you're a student, right? Footnotes, background, research! Always check your references. We have a winnah! Step right up, son, and claim your prize. How about a lovely exploding ceegar?

.444 Marlin carbine with a steel buttplate. Thought I dislocated my shoulder.

Yeah, and faith is a fine thing... but it has no business in science.