HAL9000

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's amazing how big this conspiracy is. With all due respect, you probably wouldn?t take that attitude if you knew what really went on behind the scenes in this field. It's very rare for the relationship between a Pharmacuitical Company and the Medicines Regulators to enter the public domain. The case of Upjohn's Halcion (triazolam), a sleeping pill, is an informative exception. This highly addictive drug caused severe mental illness and extreme violence (several cases of murder having been attributed to its use ? allegedly[1]) in some patients for 13 years while the manufacturer dragged dozens of experts through long, drawn out legal actions before its dangers were officially recognised. Nothing much has changed since then ? and Upjohn is still marketing Halcion in the US and many other countries. If it weren?t for a libel action at the Royal Courts of Justice, little of this scandal would have seen the light of day. See: Transnational industrial power, the medical profession and the regulatory state: adverse drug reactions and the crisis over the safety of Halcion in the Netherlands and the UK [1] A number of Upjohn-related documents pertaining to this issue remain Sealed by Order of a Court in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From The Goldilocks Enigma ... The Judaeo-Christian-Islamic God demands belief in Him based on faith alone. Therefore, such a God is likely to have created a Universe that does not appear to require His participation in its creation. Therefore, scientific proof that He doesn't exist may be evidence that He does exist!

Mark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > here's a panorama ... Well worth viewing in a proper Panorama Viewer (I've tested this with Mark's large image and the one below - both work fine). Here's a panorama looking back towards Dawsons Heights from north of the river (click for large version).

Methane is the wildcard. A catastrophic release of undersea calthrate deposits and/or thawing permafrosts could trigger a positive feedback loop (i.e. "tipping point") that would precipitate a rapid, extinction-scale warming event. Given the potential consequences, it's surprising how unquantified this risk remains - in the public domain, at least. Research in this area is almost entirely undertaken by or sponsored by governments. Could it be classified: there are plenty of reasons why it might be?

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd say 100% of programmers Ive worked with have > shown some degree of aspergic behaviour. That is so true - I was involved in a dot.com start-up during the late nineties that employed a lot of contract programmers: almost all of them exhibited some degree of asperger-like behaviour. They were quite brilliant and great fun to work with but it could be surreal at times. > by kicking up a stink it'll > only end up worse for him I'm not sure about that. The US legal system is more likely to treat him fairly and justly now that he has so many supporters and observers watching the progress of his trial. Publicity and justice tend to go hand in hand.

Yeah - like you don't know this stuff backwards :)

Frost-bitten, more likely.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Median is the middle result if placed in order? Median is the middle value - it may or may not be represented by an actual value in a finite list. In the case of an even sample size, it can be calculated as the mean of two middle values. You're spot on with Mean and Mode.

Just to follow up on the thermal pollution case and avoid further misinterpretations:- I've found a very recent (2009) paper by the same author (Bo Nordell): Global energy accumulation and net heat emission that clarifies the issue and justifies my interpretation of the earlier paper. To summarise: the latest figures attribute only from 5.5% to 26.5% of all global warming to either atmospheric CO2 and/or natural variations in solar intensity and/or the underestimation of net heat emissions, "which means that almost all of global warming would be explained by net heat emissions" (direct quote from Appendix B, page 14).

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's a deliberate misinterpretation, How can a direct quote be a deliberate misrepresentation? > the author is observing correctly that the atmosphere is a greenhouse effect ... That's not in dispute - at all. > The author emphatically does not say that the > recent additional 2% has no warming effect. I quoted him directly - he goes on to say: "Increasing concentrations of gases, aerosols, and humidity into the atmosphere will increase the Earth?s albedo. This would mean that less solar energy reaches the Earth?s surface and thus less OLR [outgoing long-wave radiation] to be emitted. Therefore, the Earth?s effective temperature should decrease." Thereby justifying my position. If you can't find a quote therein to support your interpretation - fair enough, I'm content to leave it at that: the report is sufficiently clear to speak for itself and, anyway, I only cited it in the role of Devil's Advocate. As silverfox has pointed out, if supposedly clever folks can't agree on the interpretation of a straightforward eight-page scientific paper....

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's where you misread it HAL9000, it absolutely > does NOT discount atmospheric CO2 as a cause A mere 2% is implicitly attributed to 'all other greenhouse gases' - an insignificant amount within the context of this discussion. I quote: "The main absorbers of infrared in the atmosphere are water vapour and clouds. Even if all other greenhouse gases were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98% of the current greenhouse effect. Another reason to scepticism ..." > - it simply makes on observation an additional > cause of climate change. Where is that said? The word 'additional' is used seven times, not once in respect of warming caused by CO2.

I don't think I've misread it - I think you may have misread it or, perhaps, misunderstood my reason for citing it :) In any event, I?m playing Devil?s Advocate here in so far as it satisfies Timster's criterion by discounting the build up of atmospheric CO2 as a cause in favour of man-made heat dissipation - which includes so-called non-CO2 emitting energy sources such as, for example, nuclear power stations.

For Timster - an alternative view: Thermal pollution causes global warming

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Come on Hal, you know about predictive modelling. > Assuming you trust the data - the longer time > series and the more the data the better the model > is likely to be..yes or No? Yes, but only for linear systems. No when one is dealing with a chaotic system with unknown tipping points and cusps - you know that, I'm sure.

By a reporter who doesn?t know about autohypnosis or publicity stunts?

Yep - it's just started and it looks like it's going to accumulate.

JustinSmith Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have seen your exact comment before on random websites > that try to dismiss scientific argument about climate change ???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... I haven't been on any other websites quoting on > this as you claim ... I think Justin is referring to the same argument rather than particular comments made by you on other websites.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... they should be clear about their > commercial interest in this themselves and I'd > argue that Justin has not...at all. I think Justin has been sufficiently open about himself and his alternative views to have allowed readers to form their own opinions in that respect. > And, threads by individuals aimed at personal commercial gain, > however heartfelt their opinions, shouldn't be in > the Lounge or Drawing room. Fair point - but since it is here, we might as well make the most of it.

Justin - thanks for posting your research on statins. After decades of being told that my cholesterol levels were normal my GP suddenly decided that I should be taking statins - just in case. I did my own research and concluded that the benefits did not justify the risks and that the clinical trials were too short to have properly quantified the long-term risks. I'm neither a lawyer nor a doctor but have worked with wrongfully convicted prisoners from the mid-80s till the early noughties. During that period I became increasingly alarmed at the co-ordinated dishonesty of the legal, medical and pharmaceutical professions when dealing with iatrogenic crimes: crimes committed by people while under the influence of psychotropic prescription medications such as benzodiazepines, Ativan and Halcion, MAOIs, SSRIs and many others that have unintended psychotropic side-effects, and also deaths caused by adverse drug reactions or misprescription or accidental overdose, which are now running at epidemic proportions throughout the western world (see Google: prescription drug deaths). Big Pharma, aided and abetted by doctors, lawyers and the Committee on Safety of Medicines (or its current equivalent) is ruthless and entirely unprincipled when it comes to covering up defective drugs, fraudulent or unfavourable clinical trials or adverse reaction reports and will go to any lengths to avoid responsibility, in my experience. Anyone who highlights the risks and dangers inherent in modern medicines is to be applauded, in my view.

Christmas within the context of the Christian faith is about as Kosher as a pork pie at a Bar Mitzvah. It's worth reading this Jewish article - The Real Story of Christmas - before worrying about what it means.

Full Stop - The End.

SMG - I realise that. I?m just making the point that an awful lot of mentally ill prisoners die in British prisons. I've no problem with Britain's stance against the death penalty but playing the mental illness card is disingenuous, in my view. I doubt whether many lay people in England are aware that the law was changed recently to prohibit the Criminal Cases Review Commission from considering fresh or new psychiatric reports when reviewing cases for referral to the Court of Appeal, for example. Our record in this area is appalling.

Prison suicides are the result of jailing the mentally ill ...

The British argument regarding mental illness doesn't make sense in this case. We convict hundreds of bi-polar sufferers every year - it's a regular occurrence. I'm aware of an Old Bailey trial in which the prosecution claimed the defendant was bi-polar as part of its own case and still secured a conviction. The British criminal justice system's treatment of mentally ill offenders is amongst the worst in the western world. Mentally ill inmates support call Serious mental disorder in 23,000 prisoners: a systematic review of 62 surveys

Curly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > HAL9000 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > Curly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > HAL9000 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38: ... appear > > > > to be a contradiction in the scriptures? > > > > > > One genealogy is through Joseph [Matthew], the other > > > Mary [Luke]. > > > > Please provide the Scriptural authority for that interpretation. > In Matthew 1:16 ... > And Luke ... 1:32-35 ... 3:23 ... Neither of those verses explicitly states or confirms your interpretation. An early Patristic source, the Protevangelium of James, names Mary's parents as Joachim and Anne. The Cave of Treasures names Anne?s father as Paqud son of Eleazar. The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew names her father as Issachar of the tribe of Judah. Later redactions name her mother as Susanna. In the Qur?an Mary is identified as a daughter of ?Imr?n. Africanus, the first Early Church Father to address the apparent contradiction, opined that both genealogies are those of Joseph, explaining that he had two fathers - biological and legal - through levirate marriage. That interpretation stood for over a thousand years as the Church's official doctrine. Some of the earliest theologians held that Matthew presents Mary's genealogy. The idea that Luke presents Mary?s genealogy appears in a tract of pseudo-Hilary (quoting from a medieval text) and was revived by Annius of Viterbo in 1498 to become the most popular explanation held today. > the Talmud records a fourth-century rabbi as making an > attack on Mary, the mother of Jesus, for ?playing > the harlot with carpenters?; but the same passage > concedes that ?she was the descendant of princes > and rulers?. The Talmud considers Jesus to have been a mamzer - the bastard son of a Roman soldier called Panthera - and therefore prohibited from taking part in the congregation of Yahweh by the Deuteronomic Code. In an earlier post you said: > Luke does not name Mary ... because women were not > named in genealogical links ... In fact, four women are named in the genealogy of Matthew: Tamar (a sexual seducer and adulteress), Rahab (a Gentile harlot from Jericho), Ruth (a Gentile Moabitess - ?No ... Moabite shall enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none belonging to them shall enter the assembly of the Lord for ever (Deut. 23:3)), and Bathsheba (the Gentile wife of Uriah the Hittite). See also Gen: 11:29; 22; 23 and Num: 26:33; 27:1. How do you explain that? Furthermore: Matthew claims Jesus is a descendant of King Jeconiah whose linage is cursed in Jeremiah 22:24-30: "Write this man childless, a man who will not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed will prosper, sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah.? Matthew also skips several generations as recorded in 1 Chronicles 1-3. The point I am making is that your 'understanding' is not explicitly supported by the Scriptural canon. In fact, it is contradicted by external sources and was not even considered until quite recently in the history of the Church. I put it to you that your 'understanding' is a recently devised apologia that attempts to rationalise an intractable contradiction in the Scriptures.