Figure 7h-3: Annual (1987) quantity of outgoing longwave radiation absorbed in the atmosphere
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html
Must be all those cars in Africa and Arabia.
Posted on 04/19/2006 3:57:51 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
A new article in PLoS Biology (April 18, 2006) discusses the state of scientific literacy in the United States, with especial attention to the survey research of Jon D. Miller, who directs the Center for Biomedical Communications at Northwestern University Medical School.
To measure public acceptance of the concept of evolution, Miller has been asking adults if "human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals" since 1985. He and his colleagues purposefully avoid using the now politically charged word "evolution" in order to determine whether people accept the basics of evolutionary theory. Over the past 20 years, the proportion of Americans who reject this concept has declined (from 48% to 39%), as has the proportion who accept it (45% to 40%). Confusion, on the other hand, has increased considerably, with those expressing uncertainty increasing from 7% in 1985 to 21% in 2005.In international surveys, the article reports, "[n]o other country has so many people who are absolutely committed to rejecting the concept of evolution," quoting Miller as saying, "We are truly out on a limb by ourselves."
The "partisan takeover" of the title refers to the embrace of antievolutionism by what the article describes as "the right-wing fundamentalist faction of the Republican Party," noting, "In the 1990s, the state Republican platforms in Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oregon, Missouri, and Texas all included demands for teaching creation science." NCSE is currently aware of eight state Republican parties that have antievolutionism embedded in their official platforms or policies: those of Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas. Four of them -- those of Alaska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas -- call for teaching forms of creationism in addition to evolution; the remaining three call only for referring the decision whether to teach such "alternatives" to local school districts.
A sidebar to the article, entitled "Evolution under Attack," discusses the role of NCSE and its executive director Eugenie C. Scott in defending the teaching of evolution. Scott explained the current spate of antievolution activity as due in part to the rise of state science standards: "for the first time in many states, school districts are faced with the prospect of needing to teach evolution. ... If you don't want evolution to be taught, you need to attack the standards." Commenting on the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover [Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.], Scott told PLoS Biology, "Intelligent design may be dead as a legal strategy but that does not mean it is dead as a popular social movement," urging and educators to continue to resist to the onslaught of the antievolution movement. "It's got legs," she quipped. "It will evolve."
Or you could decide you'd prefer to live out the year.
yeah, that too - didn't want to add in that factor, as it might have proven confusing.
No doubt. And there are graphs showing a strong negative correlation between global warming and pirates. However, basic physics being what it is, the CO2 correlation is a bit more dependable.
I'd also be interested in the methane levels at those times. Something to look up some other time.
the sun causes warming.
CO2, among other atmospheric components, can act to trap warmth and slow its reflection and radiation into space.
However, the primary factor has always been and shall (probably) always be the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth, so long as the system endures.
That being said - climate is not defined by temperature alone.
Free atmospheric molecular oxygen is a toxin to many organisms, and a requirement for others. Changing the compostition of the atmosphere by drastically reducing the CO2 content and raising from approximately zero percent O2 to the current @20% is a whopping big change in the environment, affecting not only mean temperature but diurnal temperature ranges, weather patterns, etc...
None of it means anything. Scientists are just money-grubbing atheists, trying to corrupt God-fearing Americans. We can double, even triple CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and nothing will happen. The Colorado glaciers that were miles long thirty years ago and are now completely gone are just, well, natural fluctuations. The permafrost that is now bog, well, who cares about permafrost. We were climate zone 5 in Nebraska 20 years ago, and now we're borderline zone 7, but that's just a few warm winters. We have now have Gulf Coast birds and armadillos in the south part of the state, and anhingas on the Missouri River just south of Omaha, why, the critters are just getting more adventurous.
Nothing to see here, just move along.
Blather noted, but it is my commitment to independent thought and free will that allows me to consider that a person can decide how to treat their own bodies when faced with death. And again, obvious to billions.
So free choice is insanity to you. Ireland must be a wonderful place in which to grow up.
Stanislaw Burzynski is a quack. He claims to cure cancer, AIDS, autoimmune diseases, and neurological diseases by feeding patients substances extracted from human urine.
Figure 7h-3: Annual (1987) quantity of outgoing longwave radiation absorbed in the atmosphere
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html
Must be all those cars in Africa and Arabia.
Sounds a bit like Herr Doctor Ludwig Bessner from the movie "Death on the Nile"; of course the Herr Doctor used armadillo urine instead.
I dont have any problem at all, with any adult refusing any type of medical treatment...some refuse on religious grounds, but others refuse treatment for other reasons....the reasons why they refuse medical treatment for themselves, is of really no matter, as far as I am concerned...they refuse, and that is that...I do believe that every adult has the right to decide which medical treatment to try, and which medical treatment to refuse...whether they make their decision based on religion, distrust of the medical community, advanced age, fear, whatever...the reason for the refusal, when it comes to an adult, makes no difference...
However, what does concern me, is when parents, entrusted with the care of their children, refuse medical care for their children...this can also be based on religious grounds, or any other grounds, such as I mentioned previously, or some other reasons...are children obligated to be subjected to a lack of medical care, because that is what their parents desire?...
Certainly, nothing in medicine is a 100% cure-all situation...that is why medicine always gives statistics, chances of a cure...some medical treatments offer very low rates, for a cure, tho there are always those who will beat the oddss...other medical treatments offer very high cure rates, tho there are always those who will be the few who wont be cured...
Now, if an adult is going to refuse medical treatment outright, for whatever reason, then the odds, the statistics
dont really matter to him...but what about his children...if a child of his, becomes ill, and there is a cure thats, lets say, 95% effective, is it moral or right for that parents to allow his child not to have the treatment, based on the parents religious wishes?... or for any other reasons as well?
I find this a problem...
Your knowledge of Agatha Christie novels is clearly superior to mine. :)
I do know that Poirot wasn't a famous French Detective but rather a famous Belgian sloot.
Well, so do I when someone else butts into a family situation. Who is the best default agent to take care of their child from the moment of the child's birth to their independence?
He always seems a bit miffed when mistaken for a Frenchman. I don't blame him.
I really dont believe what you say...
A friend of my husbands did exactly as you suggest..had liver cancer...went to some clinic, where he received special diets, and herbal remedies, and all sorts of other things...he could not get insurance to pay for any of this, so many of his friends and family held a benefit so that the money could be raised for him to go to this special clinic....it cost 30K....upfront payment...
He was dead within months...and that clinic was 30K richer, for giving him, who knows what...of course, liver cancer treated even by conventional means, has a poor cure rate, so even if he had tried conventional means, his odds of dying were quite high...
I am sure there are anecdotal tales of people being cured by herbs, by laetrile, by macrobiotic diets, by magnetism, by light therapy, and other means...I have even read a book by a Dr. , who claims that all cancers, every single one of them, is cured by the use alcohol in everything we use...she claims that by eliminating this alcohol, and coming to her for special treatment, for a large fee, she will cure you of whatever cancer you have...she claims this alcohol causes people to grow some sort of worms in their body and its these worms, which cause the cancer...I know that there are many other 'cures', which folks tout as being cancer cures...
One can go down to Mexico, and board the special buses down there, which make a tour of all the different clinics, offering cancer cures, and you can visit them, and have them explain and demonstrate their particualar 'cures'...
But anecdotal tales are not proof....
For myself, I prefer to rely on our modern Western Medicine...thats just what I find to be the only true venue, through which to find cures....
You disagree, and thats fine...after all, you are responsible for your own health, and I am responsible for mine, as is every other adult....
We just dont see this the same way...
So what is it exactly, that you are saying?...that parents have the right to deny their children medical care, if the child needs it?...If I am mistaken in this, please let me know...
Poirot is not Belgian sloot, hes a Belgian sleuth...
I do adore Poirot...
Note the usual European pronunciation of English, especially the "th" sound.
Being seriously ill isn't (or at least shouldn't be) the default condition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.