Posts by Glander

10

Bumped into an elder while walking my dog

by biometrics in

funny situation.

an elder lives around the corner from me.

i walk my dog past his house daily.. early this morning the elder was in the bush wearing his pj's for no apparent reason.

Glander

Do children use that path on their way to school?

15

Church Group Dies in Fiery Crash

by designs in

a group of seniors from a baptist church were on their way back from gatlinburg va. where they had preached to the locals.

their bus blew a tire and veered into traffic catching fire in the accident.

8 people died and 14 others were injured.. how do people of faith come to terms with those considered faithful meeting such a tragic end and causing the deaths and injury of others.. ap news service.

Glander

Just watching video of the scene. Amazing more were not killed. Horrible.

369

So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

by Simon in

they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

Glander

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:

U.S. 65%

England 46%

Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:

U.S. 93%

England 15%

Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

U.S. 90%

England 15%

Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S. 77%

England 40%

Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S. 71

England 14

Canada 18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":

U.S. 12%

England 2%

Canada 6%

And now for the last statistic:

National Health Insurance?

U.S. NO

England YES

Canada YES

19

Boeings "Dreamliner" starting to look like a nightmare.

by Glander in

i am truly surprised to see boeing trying to roll out a plane so full of bugs and flaws.

hope they can get things straightened out.

major us industry giant, lots of jobs..

So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

by Simon in

they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

Glander

We have a right to health.

That's just naive. Maybe as you mature you will realize how silly that is.

79

New Blog Post: why did God seemingly allow Cain to get away with murder?

by adamah in

i wrote an article on the topic of god's eyebrow-raising lenience shown to cain after killing his brother, exploring possible reasons why the account was written as it was:.

http://awgue.weebly.com/why-did-god-seemingly-allow-cain-to-get-away-with-murder.html.

questions, comments (as well as heads-up on typos, grammar, etc) welcome here, as usual!.

Glander

Why did he allow Lot and daughters to get away with incest?

Why did he let David get away with premeditated murder of an innocent, loyal man?

The inconsistencies go on and on.

8

Sat on a heated oven aged 5

by usualusername in

jw
friends

today i was looking at a video on youtube and a woman complained of being abused.. .

suddenly i remembered my older brother (aged around 10) getting me as a 5 year old to sit on a heated oven door.

went to accident and emergency to get fixed.

Glander

You still have the "scares" or the "scars"?

19

Boeings "Dreamliner" starting to look like a nightmare.

by Glander in

i am truly surprised to see boeing trying to roll out a plane so full of bugs and flaws.

hope they can get things straightened out.

major us industry giant, lots of jobs..

Glander

IKEA is bringing out a jumbo jet.

Tools required:

screwdriver (phillips and flat)

pliers

hammer

hacksaw

plumbers tape

153

IPCC Climate Change Report........

by cantleave in

.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.

people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.

Ms. Laframboise makes her living blogging in opposition to climate change research. As a piece of investigative journalism her article is laughable - read it again - it is full of opinion and innuendo but lacking any substantive information. (?)

Your post is not true.

What part of her article is false?

153

IPCC Climate Change Report........

by cantleave in

.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.

people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.

Glander

DONNA LAFRAMBOISE

At a closed-door meeting in Stockholm this week, each paragraph of a document written by scientists is being projected onto large screens. Delegations from scores of nations participate in the editing: Words will be substituted, emphasis will be added, entire sentences may well be inserted or deleted.

After four days of haggling, the media will be summoned by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to a news conference on Friday where the final version of the document—known as the "Summary for Policymakers"—will be released along with a solemn announcement that "science" has spoken.

EPA

Members of the IPCC group speak during the meeting in Stockholm on Monday.

Every six years the IPCC publishes a mammoth report purporting to summarize and evaluate the latest climate-change research. The "Summary for Policymakers," probably about 30 pages long, will be widely read and commented upon by politicians, bureaucrats and the media. Other parts of the full IPCC report, which are much longer and whose contributors include hundreds of volunteer scientists and others, will be published in the weeks and months to come.

The IPCC's 2007 climate findings were rather vague. In the opinion of the 60 individuals who wrote the chapter "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change," "most" of the rise in global average temperature since the mid-20th century was "very likely" caused by human-generated greenhouse-gas emissions. Recent leaks suggest that the 2013 report will twirl the knob a little further: The world will apparently be advised that the (entirely subjective) certainty level among IPCC experts that their above opinion is correct has risen to 95% from 90%. Whether the IPCC will acknowledge and address the recent, 15-year pause in global temperatures remains to be seen.

When the IPCC issues a report, it assures the world that the organization bases its conclusions on reputable, peer-reviewed scientific literature, and that its members are comprised of the world's top experts and best scientists. Yet when IPCC personnel answered a 2010 questionnaire sponsored by the InterAcademy Council (a network of national science academies), there were repeated complaints about unqualified individual members. For example, one individual (the responses to the questionnaire were anonymized) said there are "far too many politically correct appointments" involving people with "insufficient scientific competence to do anything useful."

Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC's chairman since 2002, has repeatedly said that the IPCC bases its conclusions solely on peer-reviewed source material. Yet many of the sources cited by the 3,000-page 2007 IPCC report were press releases, news clippings, discussion papers and unpublished master's and doctoral-degree theses. The IPCC's highly embarrassing, since-retracted claim that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 came from a 2005 World Wildlife Fund publication.

The U.N. has charged the IPCC with weighing the evidence on climate change in an objective manner. The problem is that numerous IPCC personnel have ties to environmental groups, many of which raise funds by hyping the alleged dangers of climate change. This relationship raises a legitimate question about their objectivity.

The examples are legion. Donald Wuebbles, one of the two leaders of the introductory first chapter of the Working Group 1 report (a draft of which may be released next Monday), has been writing awareness-raising climate change reports for the activist Union of Concerned Scientists for a decade. Another chapter of the full IPCC report, "Open Oceans," is led by Australian marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, who has written a string of reports with titles such as "Pacific in Peril" for Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Astrophysicist Michael Oppenheimer, in charge of another chapter of the IPCC report, "Emergent Risks and Key Vulnerabilities," advises the Environmental Defense Fund (after having spent more than two decades on its payroll).

University of Maryland scientist Richard Moss is a former fulltime WWF vice president, while Jennifer Morgan used to be the WWF's chief climate change spokesperson. Both are currently IPCC review editors—a position that's supposed to ensure that feedback from IPCC external reviewers is addressed in an even-handed manner.

My own examination of the 2007 IPCC report found that two-thirds of its 44 chapters included at least one individual with ties to the WWF. Some were former or current employees, others were members of a WWF advisory panel whose purpose is to heighten the public's sense of urgency around climate change.

In a sense, the IPCC conducts the equivalent of a trial. The organization is supposed to be policy-neutral: Its job is to decide whether or not human-generated carbon-dioxide emissions are dangerous to the climate. Rajendra Pachauri is the chief judge.

Mr. Pachauri writes forewords for Greenpeace publications and recently accepted an International Advertising Association "green crusader" award. He is an aggressive advocate for emissions reduction and carbon taxes.

In late 2011, Mr. Pachauri told the Guardian newspaper that an independent review of the IPCC "found our work solid and robust." This is not so. The review, conducted in 2010 by a committee of the InterAcademy Council identified "significant shortcomings in each major step of [the] IPCC's assessment process." It said "significant improvements" were necessary—and criticized the IPCC for claiming to have "high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence."

Journalists routinely make the IPCC sound impressive. A 2010 editorial in Nature called it "the gold standard for independent scientific assessment." The following year, a British news article described the IPCC as nonpartisan, objective, and scientifically-based. The evidence does not bear this out.

Ms. Laframboise is a Canadian journalist who writes on climate matters at NoFrakkingConsensus.com.