It would really help having a conversation if you had even a basic knowledge of history.

America was founded on the premise of religious freedom, thus why we had secular Ideas. Those ideas are guaranteed within our constitution so that no establishment may make a law regarding religion. Anyone who reads history knows how absolutely dark and macabre Christianity was, which is no surprise for anyone that has actually read the book in it's entirety thus why this clause was written. The bulk of early migrants to the united states were escaping religous persecution.

I really do not care about your referendum to be honest, it seems the bulk of your people are operating on emotion and bar stool patriotism similar to the US. I cannot imagine why things rarely get better.

You will be suffering from a surfeit of British black humour, the sort of thing that gets us through a lot of troubled times.
+ all the scratching of heads, jumping through hoops and leaping to conclusions is really quite wearing.

I have worked, overseas, with many nationals of the USA and as individuals you are very fine fellows but come together in a group and you have very little sense of the absurb nature of the world.

ps
ref your last post, yep, I know that.
It is why you have a young country of course.
Some historians consider that your war of independance was a continuation of the English civil war, just in a different place.

pps
There is lots of chat in the bar tonight, but I have to get out of here and do some travel planning - the nights are getting shorter.
Superbowl tomorrow but it puts me to sleep!

__________________
Dave

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sqnptxlCcw

Great video. It encouraged me to write about my wifes transformation from Poverty in the Philippines to her introduction to my home here in Montana.
She was amazed at the toaster :P
Thoughts of the Ages: A young lady from abject poverty goes first world.

Here's the full length version of the homage to the washing machine and much else besides (from page 2 of this thread).

__________________
Dave

I recalled your reference to plastic bags when I was listening to Geo Carlin recently on saving the planet.
He does nail it.

The acting man has the 8 minutes of Carlin embedded in this blog article:
An Ice Cube for Gulliver |

__________________
Dave

Recently I came upon the item linked below and it reminded me of the extract shown above concerning a certain Dr Hansen, employed by NASA and who pulls in big bucks each and every year to publish.
C3: 2013: The NASA/Hansen Climate Model Prediction of Global Warming Vs. Climate Reality

It's just another example of how the alarming forecasts of even a few years ago just don't stack up with current measurements.
(a decade is a long time in climate science when the internet can retrieve data so readily - oh for the old days, when paper records could be more easily forgotten).

There's a whole load more reports here, peer-reviewed even:-
C3: 1 Peer-Reviewed Studies
Not omitting a few pesky other items:-
http://www.c3headlines.com/2-stubborn-facts/

__________________
Dave

....... no cause for concern for the Arctic sea ice, it is self regulating itself on a cycle of about 60 years:-
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/
This blog writer specialises in writing about the Arctic while, along the way, he has a few pithy comments about aspects of the IPCC reports and their selective use of very dodgy temperature records.

+
A tribute to a guy who was mentioned earlier in this thread (with an interesting comment at the end about populations brought up with communism and its' media).
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/06...hael-crichton/

__________________
Dave

Here's a handy hint for you.........................

When the only posts in over a week are yours, the rest of the forum has got bored and moved onto something either more interesting or more productive

There is a lot of evidence to assimilate and the science is not settled.
It's not likely to be settled for a while.

__________________
Dave

Gravitational Waves – and the branding of science.


A thought of the day


Some 100 years after Einstein developed an hypothesis for the existence of gravitational waves and now an experiment has been designed and conducted, in the USA, to detect such waves for the first time.
Confirmed: Scientists have discovered gravitational waves (Wired UK)


Gravitational waves: Cartoon gives simple explanation of newly-discovered phenomenon | Science | News | The Independent


That is an example of good scientific method – in this case with the experimental physics following on from the theoretical variety in order to work in conjunction with each other. It can also work out the other way around.
A third detection facility is under construction in Italy which will help to confirm the current set of results. As Einstein himself said, it takes only one experiment that produces conflicting results to disprove an hypothesis.
The scientists engaged in this have waited a hundred years to arrive at some meaningful progress.


What a contrast with the “settled science” of this thread.
The settled science that deals with something as complex as the climate -- chaos theory and the associated mathematical analysis has been applied by some specialists to the concept of analysing climate.
It quickly became apparent to them that the relevant variables are neither fully measured nor even known (you know, that old saying about the “known knowns”, the “known unknowns”, the “unknown unknowns” etc).
There are complex non-linear feedback loops of multi-variables all interacting with each other.


The chaos theory specialists came to a conclusion, quite quickly, that given the situation summarised in that last paragraph there was no point in continuing; basically, even with all the computing power available to the world today, it is just too complicated for chaos theory.
Roy Spencer, PhD
Anyone going into that website will have to look for the information I outline above – it contains a large amount of discussion which amounts to “peer review by the online community”.
Along the way, you may well encounter interesting cross referencing to two aspects: “corruption within the traditional system of peer review” and the increasing application of “community peer review”.


How is it that some politician or other, an Al Gore no less, did not advocate on behalf of the science of gravitational waves? How is it that most of the time, in most circumstances, the politicians stay out of advocacy for any specific science?
Or, put another way, how come Al Gore did, and still does, advocate for his particular brand of global warming? Could it be anything to do with his involvement in carbon trading that followed on from his “inconvenient ministry of truth” effort?
In many societies that is labelled a “conflict of interests”.
Perhaps “chaos” is well suited to the politicians who wish to advocate for a particular brand of science?

__________________
Dave

"The citizens of the UK can take no comfort from saying that no rational government will take inevitably fruitless domestic mitigation actions against this background of international waffle. This is exactly what the UK Government did under the Climate Change Act 2009, and what it has since persisted in doing. The Government’s response to the Paris Agreement would seem to be further persistence in a completely irrational policy."
As written for an economics institute --
What the Paris Agreement on climate change really means | Institute of Economic Affairs

Incidentally, but not really incidental, the UK energy supply policy is on very shaky ground as a direct consequence of the PC nonsense - the French owned electricity company, EDF, is having cold feet about the deals they have struck to construct the next nuclear power plant. Each winter we are a step nearer to demand exceeding supply.

__________________
Dave

You mean this Carlin ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

The one and only.

__________________
Dave

I think you need to expand on that statement, or at least post another link to a pointless blog

EDF's cold feet is more to do with the fact they need to borrow more money than they are worth (circa £18billion) and poor performance on the other new build nuclear stations (over budget, behind programme and safety flaws in the design)