Quote from: beeberwhat kind of mileage do they get on that fuel?  i've wondered that, and the same for jet engines vs. prop engines (avgas efficiency).

Found an interesting handout while looking the answer to this up:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/rmk5024/alcohol.htm

Ethanol and methanol are both less energetic than gasoline. To match a gallon of gasoline, you would have to burn 1.63 gallons of ethanol or 1.975 gallons of methanol.

(As a gaming aside, Twilight: 2000 lists gasoline as having a fuel consumption value of 1, ethanol as having a fuel consumption value of 3, and methanol as having a fuel consumption value of 4. Twice that of the BTU values indicated.)

Quote from: jeff37923Found an interesting handout while looking the answer to this up:
 
http://www.personal.psu.edu/rmk5024/alcohol.htm
 
Ethanol and methanol are both less energetic than gasoline. To match a gallon of gasoline, you would have to burn 1.63 gallons of ethanol or 1.975 gallons of methanol.
 
(As a gaming aside, Twilight: 2000 lists gasoline as having a fuel consumption value of 1, ethanol as having a fuel consumption value of 3, and methanol as having a fuel consumption value of 4. Twice that of the BTU values indicated.)

That's slightly misleading as it assumes a straight fuel swap with no modifications to the engine.
 
Ethanol and Methanol have a higher octane rating than straight gasoline, so the engine can run higher compression and produce more horsepower for the same amount of fuel. It balances things out quite a bit.

Quote from: John MorrowDo you really believe that the teaching of Evolution is under threat in New York City or Los Angeles?  I don't.  Free clue.  Education policy is set at the state and local level in the United States.  That the Kansas Board of Education decided they wanted to teach Intelligent Design (they didn't try to stop teaching Evolution) has no impact on what goes on in other parts of the United States.  In fact, even the people of Kansas were not terribly supportive of that decision.  Since you believe the media in the US is so biased, perhaps you should stop believing everything they say.

No, because education is set at state level, if it were set at national level the Kansas issue would never have happened.  I am aware of the state's role in education John.  My point is it is part of a cultural movement, and although not backed by a majority anywhere is nonetheless winning real victories.

We have the same issue in the UK incidentally, albeit as is often the case several years behind the US position, here it tends to be Muslim creationists rather than Christian and they lack the national power base to have much influence as yet on the national debate, but it is still becoming an issue.

And I didn't say the US media were biased, I said the broadcast news was crap, on which note:

Quote from: John MorrowAs for the most partisan broadcast news, perhaps part of the problem is that you don't notice the partisanship in your own news, ignore the local partisan news that you don't agree with, and are forgetting the vast portions of the world's population that don't live in places with a free press.  There are, of course, global warming skeptics outside of the United States.  

I wasn't comparing US broadcast news to UK broadcast news, I was comparing US broadcast news to UK, Candadian, French, Italian and Japanese broadcast news all of which I have some experience with.  US broadcast news is shockingly bad, it's not just an issue of partisanship, it's also issues such as breadth of report and level of analysis.

US print news by contrast is very good, the daily stuff anyway, the New York Times, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal (which I subscribed to for years incidentally) are all excellent, better IMO than their UK equivalents though I think the French and Italian newspapers are better than either.  I don't know Canadian or Japanese print news at all so can't comment on them.

I think the US fares poorly for news magazines, I don't think Time and Newsweek compare at all well to the Economist (which I still subscribe to) or even to papers like L'Espresso or Panorama in Italy though they're closer to them.  But for daily print news the US is very well served and where I have a choice there are US papers I take in preference to UK ones for precisely that reason (I tend to take the WSJ and the Washington Post, the NYT tends to annoy me for some reason, but these things are often purely taste).

Quote from: John MorrowThere is a wonderful page addressing the reasons for global warming skepticism, for example, from the Telegraph in the UK here with backing data here and follow-up addressing critics here.    There is the Australian ABC documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle (you can find copies of it, and a debate about it, online).  And then there is Dane Bjørn Lomborg's take on the issue in "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming".  But only Americans the US has partisan media that would make such claims, right?  And, of course, Michael Crichton (here is his take) and Larry Niven (see the ending of Fallen Angels) are hardly superstitious Creationists, yet both have expressed skepticism about global warming or the orthodox environmentalist interpretation of it.

The Great Global Warming Swindle was broadcast in the UK, Channel 4 (the broadcaster) got into a lot of trouble over it when several of the scientists quoted in the program publicly complained that their views had been deliberately misrepresented for political ends, it has also been thoroughly debunked (this study http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/h844264320314105/ specifically rebutted the core points made by the broadcast).  At the very least it is a hugely controversial broadcast, and is regarded by many as a work of outright and deliberate fraud.

Bjørn Lomborg is a statistician and political scientist, the Skeptical Environmentalist (his first book) argued that human factors were not involved in climate change but was soundly debunked by climate scientists (in particular in the Scientific American), he went outside his field quite simply.  In any event, it does not reflect his current thinking, after the Skeptical Environmentalist was debunked Bjørn changed tack, he now no longer argues that there is not a significant human factor in climate change, rather he now argues there are more important environmental issues to address first and that in any event it is too late to do anything about it.  He is not a particularly credible figure, he strikes me as a bit like Michael Moore, someone prepared to take any argument provided he gets to the destination he wants, and like Michael Moore I'm not sure he particularly helps his own side of the debate.   Bjørn does now accept in full the IPCC report incidentally, as such he does not argue that climate change is not caused by humanity.

By which I do not mean obviously all climate change at all periods, rather the radical and unexpected climate change currently underway.

Anyway, the point is, although he argues we shouldn't do anything, he no longer argues that we are not responsible.

Michael Crichton is an author, and one incidentally who believes that he has communicated with his dead grandfather in a spirit walk, his views are no more salient than anyone else's.  Larry Niven is incredibly right wing, and for some reason in the US climate change is a party political issue, it isn't most other places.  I think you're assuming I'm a liberal, I'm not, it's just that in the UK this is not a party political issue in that way (and even if it were, science is science).

I didn't respond to the Telegraph because I don't respect it as a newspaper, I don't think it's a serious journal, that and science coverage in the UK press is shockingly bad, much worse than in the US (my favourite headline was in the Times, "Killer Black Hole Maurades Universe, Devouring Stars", a story about the possibility of detecting a black hole at the galactic core).

I prefer to go with the IPCC than a bunch of political axe-grinders, the IPCC is a body made up principally of scientists, I give them more credence than I give people who need to generate controversy to sell programmes and books.

There were many excellent points in your post I haven't responded to, I'll try to later, but I thought you suspected me of anti-Americanism and that is quite wrong.  I really like America, I think it's a great country with much to offer, that doesn't make it flawless and it doesn't mean there isn't some stuff there that's shoddy just like there is stuff here that is shoddy and stuff in all the many places I routinely travel to that is too.

Quote from: droogSo we're all fucked, Balbinus? Roll on the apocalypse!

Not we, no.

They.

Folk in the developing world mostly, John is quite correct that market economics will result in alternative fuel sources being developed as fossil fuel use declines, whether due to government action or increasing cost of sourcing and producing fossil fuels.  The peak oil guys may or may not understand geology, but they definitely don't understand economics.

The threat to the West is of increasing global instability leading to an increase in failed states and global terrorism, the threat to the developing world is crop failures, drought, mass population movements and political instability.

There is also some very interesting data on the effects of bread subsidies on fertility, essentially my understanding is that bread subsidies lead to population increases, which result in increased demand for bread.  Ending subsidies leads to political unrest, maintaining subsidies becomes increasingly unaffordable as the population increases, if bread costs were to rise globally that in itself could push some states to the wall.

It's a textbook example of why state intervention can sometimes make things much worse in the long term, though better in the short term.  

Back to climate change, the nightmare statistics are actually in China and India, China famously is opening a new coal fired power plant every week.  China and India make the point, which I have a degree of sympathy with, that we are asking them to cut back on developments we have already enjoyed and that's fine for us but crippling for them.  I don't have a good answer to that, nobody does, so learning to live with climate change probably is our only politically viable option, but the implications of that are much worse than most people realise.

Quote from: John MorrowBut the climate has been fairly chaotic all along.  The Dust Bowl happened less than 100 years ago, and that caused my aunt's family to migrate to California from Oklahoma.  My father has told me about 1944 Great Atlantic Hurricane that wiped out boardwalks and vacation homes all along the New Jersey coast.  A few hundred years ago, the Hudson River between New York and New Jersey as well as the Thames river would freeze solid in the winter.  

Of course the Little Ice Age corresponded to the Maunder Minimum, a period of low solar activity, not carbon dioxide decreases.  In fact, the graph of solar activity in the Wikipedia article on The Little Ice Age is worth a look.

Absolutely, the point is we have greatly exaggerated it, now to be fair other things can also exaggerate it and it is by its nature a chaotic system, but we have greatly increased certain trends and made it more chaotic (and are continuing to make it more so).

Quote from: BalbinusNo, because education is set at state level, if it were set at national level the Kansas issue would never have happened.  I am aware of the state's role in education John.  My point is it is part of a cultural movement, and although not backed by a majority anywhere is nonetheless winning real victories.

Fair enough.  But I don't think it's nearly as bad as a lot of people, particularly non-Americans, seem to think it is.

Quote from: BalbinusWe have the same issue in the UK incidentally, albeit as is often the case several years behind the US position, here it tends to be Muslim creationists rather than Christian and they lack the national power base to have much influence as yet on the national debate, but it is still becoming an issue.

Glad to hear that, since Kyle was arguing that this is a distinctly American problem.

Quote from: BalbinusI wasn't comparing US broadcast news to UK broadcast news, I was comparing US broadcast news to UK, Candadian, French, Italian and Japanese broadcast news all of which I have some experience with.  US broadcast news is shockingly bad, it's not just an issue of partisanship, it's also issues such as breadth of report and level of analysis.

I spent some time in Japan and I can't say that the Japanese news seemed all that different to me.  For example, when SwissAir 111 went down over Nova Scotia, it got very little play in Japan because, well, no Japanese were involved.  That's the very same criticism that I see leveled at the US media.  And there are plenty of domestic issues that just don't get discussed in Japan, to my knowledge, in any media.

There are also plenty of critics of the media in Canada in the UK and lots of quirks, including issues such as the Canadian blackout of the Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka and complaints of the BBC's partisanship on various issues.  I'm not claiming that the United States broadcast media (especially if you are talking about the evening network news broadcasts) is excellent or unbiased.  I'm simply not convinced that things are so vastly superior elsewhere.

Quote from: BalbinusUS print news by contrast is very good, the daily stuff anyway, the New York Times, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal (which I subscribed to for years incidentally) are all excellent, better IMO than their UK equivalents though I think the French and Italian newspapers are better than either.  I don't know Canadian or Japanese print news at all so can't comment on them.

I only really know Japanese print news in English.  Since it often use AP and Reuters feeds as sources, I can't really say that I know what the real Japanese news is like for certain.

Quote from: BalbinusI think the US fares poorly for news magazines, I don't think Time and Newsweek compare at all well to the Economist (which I still subscribe to) or even to papers like L'Espresso or Panorama in Italy though they're closer to them.

I can't really say that I disagree with you there, in terms of the US magazines or the Economist.  

Quote from: BalbinusBut for daily print news the US is very well served and where I have a choice there are US papers I take in preference to UK ones for precisely that reason (I tend to take the WSJ and the Washington Post, the NYT tends to annoy me for some reason, but these things are often purely taste).

The New York Times has reached a point where their partisanship is making them reckless and sloppy while I think the Washington Post hasn't.  Part of what helps at the WSJ is that the bias on their editorial page, political page, and news pages are different, so between them, things sort-of even out.

Quote from: BalbinusThe Great Global Warming Swindle was broadcast in the UK, Channel 4 (the broadcaster) got into a lot of trouble over it when several of the scientists quoted in the program publicly complained that their views had been deliberately misrepresented for political ends, it has also been thoroughly debunked (this study http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/h844264320314105/ specifically rebutted the core points made by the broadcast).  At the very least it is a hugely controversial broadcast, and is regarded by many as a work of outright and deliberate fraud.

I don't doubt it was controversial, but have you read any of the points raised against that paper (such as why, if the issues it addresses had already been settled, a new paper in response to the documentary was needed)?  I presume, for example, that you've read Nir Shaviv's take on Lockwood and Fröhlich, right?  Or how about the Danish National Space Center's reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich?

That's the problem that I have when I hear the phrase "thoroughly debunked".  It usually means that a person has read the rebuttal but never the rebuttals of the rebuttals.  More on that in a moment.

Quote from: BalbinusBjørn Lomborg is a statistician and political scientist, the Skeptical Environmentalist (his first book) argued that human factors were not involved in climate change but was soundly debunked by climate scientists (in particular in the Scientific American), he went outside his field quite simply.

This time "soundly debunked".  Have you read Lomborg's response to The Scientific American?  In other words, have you looked at the rebuttal of the rebuttal?  And isn't saying that "he went outside his field" simply an ad hominem attack or, at best, an appeal to authority?  Shouldn't people actually assess the claims being made by both sides?

Quote from: BalbinusIn any event, it does not reflect his current thinking,

It never did, which was why it drew so much criticism.  But "current thinking" is not necessarily "correct thinking".

Quote from: Balbinus[A]fter the Skeptical Environmentalist was debunked Bjørn changed tack, he now no longer argues that there is not a significant human factor in climate change, rather he now argues there are more important environmental issues to address first and that in any event it is too late to do anything about it.

I think there is a bit more to his current argument than that.

Quote from: BalbinusHe is not a particularly credible figure, he strikes me as a bit like Michael Moore, someone prepared to take any argument provided he gets to the destination he wants, and like Michael Moore I'm not sure he particularly helps his own side of the debate.   Bjørn does now accept in full the IPCC report incidentally, as such he does not argue that climate change is not caused by humanity.

So what specific destination do you think Bjørn Lomborg is trying to get to?

Also bear in mind that while he is accepting the IPCC numbers, he is accepting the median values (while many Global Warming alarmists uses the worst case values) and he doesn't necessarily agree with all of their conclusions.  And, of course, there are many degrees of skepticism about Global Warming including whether it's happening at all, how much it's happening, and whether it's caused by human activity.

Quote from: BalbinusBy which I do not mean obviously all climate change at all periods, rather the radical and unexpected climate change currently underway.

There is evidence that climate change has been fairly radical during other periods (including the shift into the Little Ice Age) and what's unreasonable to to expect that climate won't change.  That climate change is "unexpected" represents a fairly profound misunderstanding of climate, I think.  Again, one of the first things I was told in my college-level climatology class was that there was no such thing as a normal climate.

Quote from: BalbinusAnyway, the point is, although he argues we shouldn't do anything, he no longer argues that we are not responsible.

And that's fine, but a large part of the debate is also how responsible humans are.  As I mentioned above, there are a range of claims on the subject, some more skeptical of human involvement than others.

Quote from: BalbinusMichael Crichton is an author, and one incidentally who believes that he has communicated with his dead grandfather in a spirit walk, his views are no more salient than anyone else's.  Larry Niven is incredibly right wing, and for some reason in the US climate change is a party political issue, it isn't most other places.

As I said, I think Thomas Sowell does a pretty reasonable job of explaining that.  And while it may not be a party political issue in the rest of the world, I think it certainly is a political issue, in the sense that Lomborg was attacked by the left and embraced by some on the right, that the Telegraph prints articles critical of Global Warming while the Guardian prints articles critical of those Telegraph articles, and so on.

Quote from: BalbinusI think you're assuming I'm a liberal, I'm not, it's just that in the UK this is not a party political issue in that way (and even if it were, science is science).

Not exactly, no.  If you were a liberal in the American sense, I doubt you'd be placing any trust in financial analysts.  But I do think that "science is science" tends to fall down when the science becomes political (e.g., DDT, which even UN organizations are now recommending be allowed for indoor spraying, 30 million deaths later).  

Quote from: BalbinusI didn't respond to the Telegraph because I don't respect it as a newspaper, I don't think it's a serious journal, that and science coverage in the UK press is shockingly bad, much worse than in the US (my favourite headline was in the Times, "Killer Black Hole Maurades Universe, Devouring Stars", a story about the possibility of detecting a black hole at the galactic core).

Perhaps you should read the actual claims made, then, and assess those?

Quote from: BalbinusI prefer to go with the IPCC than a bunch of political axe-grinders, the IPCC is a body made up principally of scientists, I give them more credence than I give people who need to generate controversy to sell programmes and books.

I think you are sadly mistaken if you think that the IPCC doesn't include any political axe-grinders and that scientists can't put politics before science.  Having seen plenty of goofy claims from scientists, I really don't give people who have to tow the party in order to get research grants any more credence than people trying to generate controversy to get their money.  So what's the alternative?  Actually reading their claims and counter-claims and looking at the sorts of tactics they apply to address one another.

Quote from: BalbinusThere were many excellent points in your post I haven't responded to, I'll try to later, but I thought you suspected me of anti-Americanism and that is quite wrong.  I really like America, I think it's a great country with much to offer, that doesn't make it flawless and it doesn't mean there isn't some stuff there that's shoddy just like there is stuff here that is shoddy and stuff in all the many places I routinely travel to that is too.

Fair enough.  I've just gotten a bit tired of seeing America getting beaten up.  American certainly has it's flaws, but just as Americans are often blind to America's flaws, I think that other people don't realize that they wear the same kind of blinders about their own countries, ethnicity, and politics.

Quote from: BalbinusAbsolutely, the point is we have greatly exaggerated it, now to be fair other things can also exaggerate it and it is by its nature a chaotic system, but we have greatly increased certain trends and made it more chaotic (and are continuing to make it more so).

Looking at history, I'm simply not convinced that's true (that things are getting more chaotic).  Part of the point I was making was that I think most people's memory of what the weather is like starts sometime after 1950, if not after 1970.  And even those droughts and hurricanes from the first part of the 20th Century pale in comparison to the issues caused the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Little Ice Age, both of which involved fairly rapid shifts in climate (my Medieval history professor in college talked about the years in Europe when it rained so much that the crops rotted in the fields).

Quote from: John MorrowLooking at history, I'm simply not convinced that's true (that things are getting more chaotic).  Part of the point I was making was that I think most people's memory of what the weather is like starts sometime after 1950, if not after 1970.

Fortunately, climatologists, hydrologists, and historical geologists are basing their observations on a wider body of data.  The notion that current trends are still within the range of historical historical data doesn't diminish the correlation with increased population, industrialisation, and industrialised agriculture.  These scientists aren't simply pulling numbers out of a hat.

!i!

Quote from: BalbinusThe threat to the West is of increasing global instability leading to an increase in failed states and global terrorism, the threat to the developing world is crop failures, drought, mass population movements and political instability.

Those problems have been happening anyway.  People need to remember that almost all of those problems plagued Europe and the United States at various points until the latter part of the 20th Century.  Not only two World Wars but also things like the Dust Bowl which, as I mentioned, let my aunt's family to migrate from Oklahoma to California.  In fact, plenty of American immigration from Europe, until the mid-20th Century, was driven by many of those issues.  Again, I think the problem here is that many people's memories stop at 1950 or 1970.

Quote from: BalbinusBack to climate change, the nightmare statistics are actually in China and India, China famously is opening a new coal fired power plant every week.

And, of course, China and India are exempt from the Kyoto reduction framework, which is why I find the importance people give to that agreement so laughable.  Even if followed to the letter, it wasn't going to do much and, of course, almost nobody who signed on to it is really following it, anyway.  So is it worse to just admit that you aren't going to follow it and not sign it or praise it, sign it, and then not follow it?

Quote from: BalbinusChina and India make the point, which I have a degree of sympathy with, that we are asking them to cut back on developments we have already enjoyed and that's fine for us but crippling for them.  I don't have a good answer to that, nobody does, so learning to live with climate change probably is our only politically viable option, but the implications of that are much worse than most people realise.

It's not just China and India.  Much of the Third World feels that way.  And there are plenty of examples of them being jerked around by the developed world on environmental issues (e.g., DDT, genetically modified crops, etc.).

Quote from: jeff37923As an aside threadjack, why do the rest of you think that coffeeshop pseudointellectuals gravitate towards the internet?

Because of the obvious browsing superiority of Safari? :keke:

IMO, talking makes you feel better about your opinions without the burden of trying to live them out in your life and influencing others through its example. No one really goes to the mat like Ghandi or MLK anymore, cause that shit is hard. Far easier to set up a blog and enjoy the echo of your fellow readers.

Let's try this again...

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaFortunately, climatologists, hydrologists, and historical geologists are basing their observations on a wider body of data.

Yes, often carefully selected to exclude inconvenient points like the Medieval Climate Optimum, the Little Ice Age, and so on.  Conveniently, the periods of time they often talk about end just before a major climate shift that would discredit their analysis.
 

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThe notion that current trends are still within the range of historical historical data doesn't diminish the correlation with increased population, industrialisation, and industrialised agriculture.

Correlation does not equal causation.  And looking at the variability in climate in the past can help one determine how much of it seems to be causation and how much is simply unrelated correlation.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThese scientists aren't simply pulling numbers out of a hat.

In some cases, they almost seem to be.  Did you read the PDF of calculations and citations that accompanied Christopher Monckton article?  Here is a more detailed treatment of one such example.  And, yes, I know that McIntyre and McKitrick have their critics but, as always, it's important to read the rebuttals and the rebuttals of the rebuttals and not simply assume that one rebuttal settles the debate for eternity.

"Sometimes, sometimes, sometimes," John.  Your arguments rely on an endless succession of possible exceptions, and the proof you're looking for can only be determined in retrospect.

!i!

The short version, for Morrow: "Bollocks. Bugger off."

The longer version - and if you can't be bothered reading through it, that's entirely fair, but you cannot then claim an informed opinion, nor should you expect more from anyone else than "bollocks, bugger off." I don't want to read about (for example) the US Presidential election, but by the same token I'll also not pretend to have an informed opinion about its details. It's alright to be ignorant so long as you're not pretending to be smart.

A good website talking about climate change issues in both layman's and scientific terms, with copious links and checkable references, is realclimate.org.

They debunk The Great Global Warming Swindle here.

NASA and the USGS now believe that the recent warming on Mars can be entirely accounted for by its dust storms.

Solar forcing is a favourite of many denialists like Morrow, their argument being, "well if the sun's shining brighter, of course it's hotter." Logical on the face of it. The problem is that the Sun is not shining more brightly over time, radiance follows the sunspot 11-year cycle,


In addition, in 2006 there was a recent review (740kb pdf) of studies on the solar forcing issue; among the coauthors is Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. (NCAR's primary sponsor is the National Science Foundation.) "Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness," says Wigley.

What about them cosmic rays? Sadly, we cannot blame them for gloabl climate change, since they also are cyclical, and have a steady trend over the past 56 years - actually slightly downward, but not considered significant. You can get the raw data here, but graphs are so pretty, no?



Morrow et al's response is a bit like the four stage foreign office response to any crisis, as described so well in Yes, Prime Minister.

Bernard Woolley: What if the Prime Minister insists we help them?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Then we follow the four-stage strategy.
Bernard Woolley: What's that?
Sir Richard Wharton: Standard Foreign Office response in a time of crisis.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.

Stage three can have added to it, "the problem needs careful study." So for example if your car is stuck on the railway tracks and think you hear the toot of the horn of a train coming, you can sit there arguing with your fellow passengers about whether or not the train is coming, and if so, exactly how far away it is. Toot, toot.

The point of this kind of debate is to avoid action, so that someone else will be the one to make the difficult decisions. Just imagine being a Western parliamentary, congresional or Presidential candidate and trying to get elected on a platform of "no more burgers and SUVs!" Try it out, see if you win.

There are certainly things we could do to mitigate the inevitable energy descent, to make the transition less painful. These things could make us a great deal of money - for example, we in Australia could stop sending all our solar panel technology overseas (we're very conservative and risk-averse here, preferring just to mine the country) - money which we could then use to help transition to a lower-waste lifestyle. But we'd rather someone else made those decisions. After all, Neighbours is on later, and that will command all our attention.

Quote from: Ian Absentia"Sometimes, sometimes, sometimes," John.  Your arguments rely on an endless succession of possible exceptions, and the proof you're looking for can only be determined in retrospect.

Would asking for a little more detail be too much for you?  Or is the goal here to be vague enough that it's not possible for me to address your complaint?

Quote from: John MorrowWould asking for a little more detail be too much for you?  Or is the goal here to be vague enough that it's not possible for me to address your complaint?

First, I should apologise, because my comment was a bit of an ad hominem. But I criticised you instead of your argument because your means of refuting others' arguments is to suggest or cite exceptions to statements and conclude from those exceptions that the argument is false.  I call that sort of thing "bath-watering" as in "throwing out the baby with..."  In a sense, it's just as much a case of cherry-picking as the accusation you made that sometimes scientists cherry-pick their data to support their theses.  It's boorish and tedious.

!i!