myata

Climate Change References: there's approximately fifty authors in these referenced publications, not including a number of collective works. From reading these one can follow to other references (follows the list of references from just one publication). Enjoy your science! m. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Reconstructing climate and environmental change in northern England through chironomid and pollen analyses: evidence from Talkin Tarn, Cumbria", by P.G. Langdon1 , K.E. Barber2 and S.H. Lomas-Clarke References 1. Aaby B. 1976. Cyclic climatic variations in climate over the past 5500 years reflected in raised bogs. Nature 263: 281–284. Andersen S.Th. 1965. Mounting media and mounting techniques. In: Kummel B. and Raup D. (eds), Handbook of Paleontological Techniques, Freeman and Co., San Francisco, pp. 587–598. Andersen S.Th. 1979. Identification of wild grasses and cereal pollen. Danmarks Geologiske Undersogelse Årbog 1978: 69–92. Andrew R. 1984. A practical pollen guide to the British Flora. Quaternary Research Association Technical Guide No. 1, QRA, Cambridge, 139 pp. Baillie M.G.L. 1991. Suck in and smear: two related chronological problems for the 90s. J. Theor. Arch. 2: 12–16. Bailey J. and Culley G. 1805. General View of the Agriculture of Northumberland, Cumberland and Westmorland Frank Graham, Newcastle upon Tyne (1972 facsimile of 3rd edn) 1805), 361 pp. Barber K.E. 1976. History of the vegetation. In: Chapman S.B. (ed.), Methods in Plant Ecology, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 5–83. Barber K.E. 1981. Peat Stratigraphy and Climatic Change. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 219 pp. Barber K.E., Chambers F.M., Maddy D., Stoneman R.E. and Brew J.S. 1994. A sensitive high-resolution record of Late Holocene climatic change from a raised bog in Northern England. The Holocene 4: 198–205. 10. Barber K.E., Dumayne-Peaty L., Hughes P.D.M., Mauquoy D. and Scaife R.G. 1998. Replicability and variability of the recent macrofossil and proxy-climate record from raised bogs: field stratigraphy and macrofossil data from Bolton Fell Moss and Walton Moss, Cumbria, England. J. Quat. Sci. 13: 515–528. Barrow E., Hulme M. and Jiang T. 1993. A 1961-90 Baseline and Future Climate Change Scenarios for Great Britain and Europe. Part I: 1961-90 Great Britain Baseline Climatology. Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, England, 50 pp. Battarbee R.W. 2000. Palaeolimnological approaches to climate change, with special regard to the biological record. Quat. Sci. Rev. 19: 107–124. Battarbee R.W., Cameron N.G., Golding P., Brooks S.J., Switsur R., Harkness D., Appelby P., Oldfield F., Thompson R., Monteith D.T. and McGovern A. 2001. Evidence for Holocene climate variability from the sediments of a Scottish remote mountain lake. J. Quat. Sci. 16: 339–346. Battarbee R.W., Grytnes J.-A., Thompson R., Appleby P.G., Catalan J., Korhola A., Birks H.J.B., Heegaard E. and Lami A. 2002. Comparing palaeolimnological and instrumental evidence of climate change for remote mountain lakes over the last 200 years. J. Paleolim. 28: 161–179. Bennett K.D., Whittington G. and Edwards K.J. 1994. Recent plant nomenclatural changes and pollen morphology in the British Isles. Quat. Newslett. 73: 1–6. Bigler C., Larocque I., Peglar S.M., Birks H.J.B. and Hall R.I. 2002. Quantitative multiproxy assessment of long-term patterns of Holocene environmental change from a small lake near Abisko, northern Sweden. The Holocene 12: 481–496. Birks H.J.B. 1995. Quantitative palaeoenvironmental reconstructions. In: Maddy D. and Brew J.S. (eds), Statistical Modelling of Quaternary Science Data, QRA Technical Guide, vol. 5, pp. 161–254. Birks H.J.B. 1998. Numerical tools in palaeolimnology — progress, potentialities, and problems. J. Paleolim. 20: 307–332. Birks H.J.B. and Gordon A.D. 1985. Numerical Methods in Quaternary Pollen Analysis. Academic Press Inc., London, 317 pp. 20. Birks H.H., Battarbee R.W. and Birks H.J.B. 2000. The development of the aquatic ecosystem at Kråkenes Lake, western Norway, during the late glacial and early Holocene — a synthesis. J. Palcolim. 23: 91–114. Bond G., Showers W., Cheseby M., Lotti R., Almasi P., deMenocal P., Priore P., Cullen H., Hajdas I. and Bonani G. 1997. A pervasive millennial-scale cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and glacial climates. Science 278: 1257–1266. Brodersen K.P. and Lindegaard C. 1999. Classification, assessment and trophic reconstruction of Danish lakes using chironomids. Freshw. Biol. 42: 143–157. Brodin Y.-W. 1986. The postglacial history of Lake Flarken, southern Sweden, interpreted from subfossil insect remains. Int. Rev. Ges. Hydrobiol. 71: 371–432. Brodin Y.-W. and Gransberg M. 1993. Responses of insects, especially Chironomidae (Diptera), and mites to 130 years of acidification in a Scottish lake. Hydrobiology 250: 201–212. Brooks S.J. 2000. Late-glacial fossil midge stratigraphies (Insecta: Diptera: Chironomidae) from the Swiss Alps. Palacogeo. Palaeoclim. Palaeoecol. 159: 261–279. Brooks S.J. 2003. Chironomid analysis to interpret and quantify Holocene climate change. In: Mackay A.W., Battarbee R.W., Birks H.J.B. and Oldfield F. (eds), Global Change in the Holocene, Arnold, London, pp. 328–341. Brooks S.J. and Birks H.J.B. 2000. Chironomid-inferred late-glacial and early-Holocene mean July air temperatures for Kråkenes Lake, western Norway. J. Paleolim. 23: 77–89. Brooks S.J. and Birks H.J.B. 2001a. Chironomid-inferred Lateglacial air temperatures at Whitrig Bog, southeast Scotland. J. Quat. Sci. 15: 759–764. Brooks S.J. and Birks H.J.B. 2001b. Chironomid-inferred air temperatures from late-glacial and Holocene sites in northwest Europe: progress and problems. Quat. Sci. Rev. 20: 1723–1741. 30. Brooks S.J., Bennion H. and Birks H.J.B. 2001. Tracing lake trophic history with a chironomid-total phosphorus inference model. Freshw. Biol. 46: 513–533. Carter C.E. 1977. The recent history of the chironomid fauna of Lough Neagh from the analysis of remains in sediment cores. Freshw. Biol. 7: 415–423. Chambers C. 1978. A radiocarbon-dated pollen diagram from Valley Bog, on the Moor House National Nature Reserve. New Phytologist 80: 435–453. Cranston P.S. 1982. A key to the larvae of the British Orthocladiinae (Chironomidae). Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, 152 pp. Dark K.R. and Dark S.P. 1996. New archaeological and palynological evidence for a sub-Roman reoccupation of Hadrian’s Wall. Archaelogica Aeliana 5 Series 24: 57–72. Dark K. and Dark P. 1997. The Landscape of Roman Britain. Sutton Publishing Ltd, Stroud, 192 pp. Dark P. 2000. The Environment of Britain in the First Millennium AD. Ducksworth, London, 240 pp. Davies G. and Turner J. 1979. Pollen diagrams from Northumberland. New Phytologist 82: 783–804. Dickson C. 1988. Distinguishing cereal from wild grass pollen: some limitations. Circaea 5: 67–71. 40. Donaldson A.M. and Turner J. 1977. A pollen diagram from Hallowell Moss, near Durham City, UK. J. Biogeogr. 4: 25–33. Dumayne L. and Barber K.E. 1994. The impact of the Romans on the environment of northern England: pollen data from three sites close to Hadrian’s Wall. The Holocene 4: 165–173. Dumayne-Peaty L. and Barber K.E. 1998. Late Holocene vegetational history, human impact and pollen representativity variations in northern Cumbria, England. J. Quat. Sci. 13: 147–164. Edwards K.J. 1989. The cereal pollen record and early agriculture. In: Milles A., Williams D. and Gardner N. (eds), The Beginnings of Agriculture, BAR International Series, vol. 496, pp. 113–135. Edwards K.J. and Whittington G. 2001. Lake sediments, erosion and landscape change during the Holocene in Britain and Ireland. Catena 42: 143–173. Faegri K. and Iversen J. 1989. Textbook of Pollen Analysis, 4th edn. John Wiley and Sons, 328 pp. Fowler P.J. 1983. The Farming of Prehistoric Britain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 256 pp. Francis D.R. and Foster D.R. 2001. Response of small New England ponds to historic land use. The Holocene 11: 301–312. Grimm E.C. 1991. TILIA and TILIA.GRAPH. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Hann B.J., Warner B.G. and Warwick W.F. 1992. Aquatic invertebrates and climate change: a comment on Walker et al. 1991. Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci. 49: 1274–1276. 50. Heinrichs M.L., Walker I.R. and Mathewes R.W. 2001. Chironomid-based paleosalinity records in southern British Columbia, Canada: a comparison of transfer functions. J. Paleolim. 26: 147–159. Heiri O. and Lotter A.F. 2001. Effects of low count sums on quantitative environmental reconstructions: an example using subfossil chironomids. J. Paleolim. 26: 343–350. Heiri O., Lotter A.F. and Lemcke G. 2001. Loss on ignition as a method for estimating organic and carbonate content in sediments: reproducibility and comparability of results. J. Paleolim. 25: 101–110. Heiri O., Lotter A.F., Hausmann S. and Kienast F. 2003. A chironomid-based Holocene summer air temperature reconstruction from the Swiss Alps. The Holocene 13: 477–484. Higham N.J. 1986. The Northern Counties to 1000 AD. Longman, London. Hofmann W. 1971. Zur Taxonomie und Palökologie subfossiler Chironomiden (Dipt.) in Seesedimenten. Ergebnisse der Limnologie, Archiv für Hydrobiologie Beiheft (International Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie, Stuttgart) 6: 1–50. Hofmann W. 1984. Stratigraphie suubfossiler cladocera (Crustacea) und Chironomidae (Diptera) in zwei sediment-profilen des Meerfelder Maares. Cour. Forsch. Inst. Senckenberg 65: 67–80. Hughes E. 1965. North Country Life in the Eighteenth Century: Cumberland and Westmoreland 1700–1830, vol. 2, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 426 pp. Hughes P.D.M., Mauquoy D., Barber K.E. and Langdon P.G. 2000. Mire development pathways and palaeoclimatic records from a full Holocene peat archive at Walton Moss, Cumbria, England. The Holocene 10: 465–479. Jackson S.T. 1990. Pollen source area and representation in small lakes of the northeastern United States. Rev. Palaeobot, Palynol. 63: 53–76. 60. Jacobsen G.L.Jr. and Bradshaw R.H.W. 1981. The selection of sites for palaeovegetational studies. Quat. Res. 16: 80–89. Jones R.T., Marshall J.D., Crowley S.F., Bedford A., Richardson N., Bloemendal J. and Oldfield F. 2002. A high resolution, multiproxy late-glacial record of climate change and intrasystem responses in northwest England. J. Quat. Sci. 17: 329–340. Korhola A., Vasko K., Toivonen H.T.T. and Olander H. 2002. Holocene temperature changes in northern Fennoscandia reconstructed from chironomids using Bayesian modelling. Quat. Sci. Rev. 21: 1841–1860. Langdon P.G., Barber K.E. and Hughes P.D.M. 2003. A 7500 year peat-based palaeoclimatic reconstruction and evidence for an 1100 year cyclicity in bog surface wetness from Temple Hill Moss, Pentland Hills, Southeast Scotland. Quat. Sci. Rev. 22: 259–274. Larocque I., Hall R.I. and Grahn E. 2001. Chironomids as indicators of climate change: a 100-lake training set from a subarctic region of northern Sweden (Lapland). J. Paleolim. 26: 307–322. Larocque I. and Hall R.I. 2003. Chironomids as quantitative indicators of mean July air temperature: validation by comparison with century-long meteorological records from northern Sweden. J. Paleolim. 29: 475–493. Lindegaard C. 1997. Diptera Chironomidae, non-biting midges. In: Nilsson A.M. (ed.), Aquatic Insects of North Europe — a Taxonomic Handbook, vol. 2, Apollo Books, Stenstrup, pp. 265–294. Lotter A.F., Birks H.J.B., Hofmann W. and Marchetto A. 1997. Modern diatom, cladocera, chironomid, and chrysophyte cyst assemblages as quantitative indicators for the reconstruction of past environmental change in the Alps. 1. Climate. J. Paleolim. 18: 395–420. Lotter A.F., Walker I.R., Brooks S.J. and Hofmann W. 1999. title-child〉An intercontinental comparison of chironomid palaeotemperature inference models: Europe vs North America. Quat. Sci. Rev. 18: 717–735. Mauquoy D. and Barber K.E. 1999. A replicated 3000 year proxy-climate record from Coom Rigg Moss and Felecia Moss, the Border Mires, northern England. J. Quat. Sci. 14: 263–275. 70. Mauquoy D., van Geel B., Blaauw M. and van der Plicht J. 2002. Evidence from North-West European bogs shows ‘Little Ice Age’ climatic changes driven by changes in solar activity. The Holocene 12: 1–6. Moore P.D. and Webb J.A. 1978. An Illustrated Guide to Pollen Analysis. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 133 pp. Moore P.D., Webb J.A. and Collinson M.E. 1991. Pollen Analysis, 2nd edn. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 216 pp. Morriss S.H. 2001. Recent human impact and land use change in Britain and Ireland: a pollen analytical and geochemical study. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Southampton, UK, 320 pp. Olander H., Birks H.J.B., Korhola A. and Blom T. 1999. An expanded calibration model for inferring lakewater and air temperatures from fossil chironomid assemblages in northern Fennoscandia. The Holocene 9: 279–294. Oliver D.R. and Roussel M.E. 1983. The insects and arachnids of Canada, Part 11: the genera of larval midges of Canada. Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, 263 pp. Palmer S.L., Walker I.R., Heinrichs M.L., Hebda R. and Scudder G. 2002. Postglacial midge community change and Holocene palaeotemperature reconstructions near treeline, southern British Columbia (Canada). J. Paleolim. 28: 469–490. Pellat M.G., Smith M.J., Mathewes R.W., Walker I.R. and Palmer S.L. 2000. Holocene treeline and climate change in the Subalpine Zone near Stoyoma Mountain, Cascade Mountains, south-western British Columbia, Canada. Arc. Antarc. Alp. Res. 32: 73–83. Pinder L.C.V. and Morley D.J. 1995. Chironomidae as indicators of water quality — with a comparison of the chironomid faunas of a series of contrasting Cumbrian tarns. In: Harrington R. and Stork N.E. (eds), Insects in a Changing Environment, Academic Press, London, pp. 271–293. Porinchu D.F. and Cwynar L. 2002. Late-Quaternary history of midge communities and climate from a tundra site near the lower Lena River, Northeast Siberia. J. Paleolim. 27: 59–69. 80. Praglowski J. 1970. The effects of pre-treatment and the embedding media on the shape of pollen grains. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 110: 203–208. Quinlan R., Smol J.P. and Hall R.I. 1998. Quantitative inferences of past hypolimnetic anoxia in south-central Ontario lakes using fossil midges (Diptera: Chironomidae). Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci. 55: 587–596. Quinlan R. and Smol J.P. 2001. Setting minimum head capsule abundance and taxa deletion criteria in chironomid-based inference models. J. Paleolim. 26: 327–342. Quinlan R. and Smol J.P. 2002. Chironomid-based inference models for estimating end-of summer hypolimnetic oxygen from south-central Ontario lakes. Freshw. Biol. 46: 1529–1551. Rieradevall M. and Brooks S.J. 2001. An identification guide to subfossil Tanypodinae larvae (Insecta: Diptera: Chironomidae) based on cephalic setation. J. Paleolim. 25: 81–99. Roberts B.K., Turner J. and Ward P.F. 1973. Recent forest history and land-use in Weardale, northern England. In: Birks H.J.B. and West R.G. (eds), Quaternary Plant Ecology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, London, pp. 207–221. Rosén P., Segerström U., Eriksson L., Renberg I. and Birks H.J.B. 2001. Climate change during the Holocene as recorded by diatoms, chironomids, pollen and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) in a sediment core from an alpine lake (Sjuodijaure) in northern Sweden. The Holocene 11: 551–562. Sadler J.P. and Jones J.C. 1997. Chironomids as indicators of Holocene environmental change in the British Isles. Quat. Proc. 5: 219–232. Seppä H., Nyman M., Korhola A. and Weckström J. 2002. Changes of treelines and alpine vegetation in relation to post-glacial climate dynamics in northern Fennoscandia based on pollen and chironomid records. J. Quat. Sci. 17: 287–301. Smol J.P., Birks H.J.B. and Last W.M. (eds), 2001a. Tracking Environmental Changes using Lake Sediments, Volume 3 — Terrestrial, Algal, and Siliceous Indicators. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 371 pp. 90. Smol J.P., Birks H.J.B. and Last W.M. (eds), 2001b. Tracking Environmental Changes using Lake Sediments, Volume 4 — Zoological Indicators. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 217 pp. Stace J. 1991. New Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1130 pp. Stuiver M., Reimer P.J., Bard E., Beck J.W., Burr G.S., Hughen K.A., Kromer B., McCormac F.G., van der Plicht J. and Spurk M. 1998. INTCAL98 radiocarbon age calibration, 24,000-0 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40: 1041–1083. ter Braak C.J.F. 1991. Program CANOCO Version 3.12. Agricultural Mathematics Group: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 35 pp. Tinner W., Conedera M., Ammann B., Gäggeler H.W., Gedye S., Jones R. and Sägesser B. 1998. Pollen and charcoal in lake sediments compared with historically documented forest fires is southern Switzerland since AD 1920. The Holocene 8: 31–42. Turner J. 1979. The environment of northeast England during Roman times as shown by Pollen Analysis. J. Arch. Sci. 6: 285–290. van Geel B., Buurman J. and Waterbolk H.T. 1996. Archaeological and palaeoecological indications of an abrupt climate change in The Netherlands, and evidence for climatological teleconnections around 2650 BP. J. Quat. Sci. 11: 451–460. Walker I.R. 2001. Midges: Chironomidae and related Diptera. In: Smol J.P., Birks H.J.B. and Last W.M. (eds), Tracking Environmental Changes using Lake Sediments, Volume 4 — Zoological Indicators, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 43–66. Walker I.R., Smol J.P., Engstrom D.R. and Birks H.J.B. 1991. An assessment of Chironomidae as quantitative indicators of past climatic change. Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci. 48: 975–987. Walker I.R., Smol J.P., Engstrom D.R. and Birks H.J.B. 1992. Aquatic invertebrates, climate, scale, and statistical hypotheses testing: a response to Hann, Warner and Warwick. Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci. 49: 1276–1280. 100. Walker I.R., Levesque A.J., Cwynar L.C. and Lotter A.F. 1997. An expanded surface-water palaeotemperature inference model for use with fossil midges from eastern Canada. J. Paleolim. 18: 165–178. Wiederholm T. (ed.) 1983. Chironomidae of the Holartic region. Keys and diagnoses. Part 1. Larvae. Entomol. Scand. Suppl. 19: 1–457. Winchester A.J.L. 1987. The Farming Landscape. In: Rollinson W. (ed.), The Lake District Landscape Heritage, David and Charles, London, 76–100.

Hold on, let's talk about "obligation" for a minute. There're are obligations and obligations, as obligations go. E.g. helping an ally when they are attacked, and defending themselves for their lives (again: any recent examples of such?!) vs messing up in whatever foreign adventures a buddy happen to mess themselves in, those would be quite different obligations. Should we really get ourselves automatically "obligated" in both kinds of activities? Right, the first one being a glaring example of being messed up on behalf of a buddy in something we had no need to be messed up in. With thousands young lives lost as a result. One'd hope one could learn from past mistakes. Even if slowly and painfully. Some, smarter ones, do. Others, suffer the consequences.

Obligations, which, and to who? The noble cause of rebuilding all and everything, if it doesn't look right to democratic eye, causes nuisances and such? Or maybe, to holy President of the holy Democratic Empire? I already asked somebody here, so perhaps you would be able to remind us about the last time the member of an allegiance has been attacked, and defended on their own soil ("terrorism" stretches wouldn't count, obviously, because as the affair in Iraq clearly shows us, virtually anything can be stretched to become "terrorism" or threat thereof, with sufficient desire and imagination). No need to think about such quaint questions eh? Just turn on the brainwashing mashine when and as needed, and voila, "just cause" comes right out of thin air.

One possibility could be that he isn't at all eager to give carte blanche (in the form of our unwavering support) to somebody already mired in corruption and now, election fraud?

It is very honest. I was watching the developments, and even writing to MPs at the time and it was very clear how Chretien's government hated to disappoint the Big Brother, and was looking here and there for all sorts of good reason to stick in. Of course, one day Chretien got up and found out from his morning paper that all things have been decided without his, even token as it is, agreement, and that finally pi.. him off enough to take the principled stand. Who knows how the things could have developed with a more understanding president. Anyways we got ourselves messed up in Afghanistan instead, and it's still a far and hard stretch (as stretches go, even for invasive meddling wars) from "defense under attack". It happened and it'll happen again and again, till complicity in a war is defined as inacceptable and criminal as clearly as a regular murder. Just watch it play again and again, with different decorations and justifications, but the same thing all in all, and always.

That "club" though includes thousands of qualified scientists from all around the world. Is there a global conspiracy to trump good quality research, with not one of fellow scientists who could see it, speaking up? Or is the research itself not up to par, professionally? Here's what somebody who isn't yet qualified to verify it for themselves could do: 1) Pick an opinion based on some unrelated to science quality (and optionally, dispute it to death in a general Web forum). 2) Use consensus expert option as guidline (based on statitics of likelihood of x,000 qualified scientist being wrong vs a few "dissenters", mostly from either unrelated, or only distantly related fields). 3) Acquire expertise themselves, and make a qualified judgement (and share it with fellow researchers, if necessary). General Web forum as means to advance science only appears in the Strategy #1, and it is also the one that will never produce any contributions to science, because it's really nothing but a personal preference. And there can't be any (scientific) point in discussing our personal preferences (other than in psychology).

They certainly cannot be identified by people with no knowledge or qualifications in the subject area.

Now we see who is really confused, could it be said one more time and in plain English? It does though. We escaped getting messed up in Iraq by a razor's blade, and the law would make sure it wouldn't happen again. As it could anytime now. Thought so. Yet it does something quite different. Do as I say....

Me, really? How "confused and contradictory" is the notion that a law on war would be "pointless", but one for murder - not so? Thanks to sheer luck of our PM at the time getting up on the right side of the bed that day. Next time around it could be all so different, just ask our neighbours next door who weren't so lucky and lost thousands of their relatives, friends for that reason. BTW a question you forgot to answer, so one more time: how many times exactly did NATO "defend" an ally against a direct attack on their own soil? I can count two cases when they were "defending" abroad right off the top of my head, 1) Kosovo, 2) Afghanistan. That's your reality vs propaganda bs, no matter what you could still remember.

Yes a war is just the ultimate (and in my view, totally unjustified and even criminal, in a civilized world) way to affect other people's lives, and therefore it should be dealt with first. Wow. As heard from history's spokesperson, first hand. Parliament can also "manipulate" the laws that say murder is wrong. They must also be "pointless", correct, our supreme legal authority? Some NATO members already have reservations about the situations their troops could fight in. No need to invent bicycles. A provision can be made for collective defense (in the sense already described), subject to approval by the Parliament. "Real need", like e.g. Iraq, I understand it? Where even existing pathetic process has proven so "cumbersome" that it had to be circumvented by massive amount of brainwashing and warmongering propaganda? I know, the lack of meaningful argumentation can always be made up for by applying appropriate adjectives. Instantly makes you a great Expert and Savant in various diverse "Functions".

It would undermine it, because treaties like NATO are mostly used as a cover to invade other countries? Let's recall the real life situations when a NATO country has been under a real and direct attack on its own soil (9/11 obviously being a long hard stretch).

It is possible, of course, though not very likely, given that thousands qualified scientists and expersts would have to be involved in the conspiracy. Even less likely that it would be discovered by mostly clueless in the subject posters in general internet discussion forums. Of the same breed I wonder, that have previously discovered eternal motion, disproved second law of thermodynamics, and successfully created gold from sh.. Short of being able to verify it myself, it won't be wrong, statistically, to go with (much, much, much) more likely possibility that the consensus of experts in the subject does indeed reflect the best knowledge of today's science, and dissenters found in Internet forums mostly generate pseudo scientific gibberish talk. It's the same statistical rationale that makes you reach for a mug on the table where you left it last time, and not e.g. 10 feet up in the air, where it could, theoretically, transfer due to statistical fluctation of molecules that make it.

Not exactly. While I don't know enough of this particular sciense to make an informed comment, I know enough about scientific process in general, to have much better confidence in their opinion, than e.g. that of a prophet calling for manna to come off the skies. Any research, hypothesis, theory, before gaining acceptance must go through a rigorous examination by qualified experts in their field. I also know that by investing time and effort I can attempt to acquire that knowledge myself, and examine their conclusions based on the rules of reason and logic, rather than clueless hunches, or rants from ages old books that ridiculously contradict each other.

How could one miss such an appealing proposition?

It never hurts to know something (and indeed, I do consider being smart a good thing, and the opposite of it - less so, but I know there could be different opinions on that, it's really a matter of personal choice. I'm not "questioning" validity of something I have little clue about. That's the difference. Feel free. As I already mentioned, for a clueless there would be no recognizable differnce between (scientifically) correct statement, and obvious gibberish, so it has to be again, a matter of personal choice. I can't address something I'm not familiar with. I have not studied climate models, including that particular one you have in mind but again, forgot to explain what you mean. If you see glaring faults with that particular model, you must be smarter than its creators and so, welcome to publish it where somebody with a clue would be able to see and examine it. That isn't exactly, and/or completely what I have said, but occasional issues with basic English comprehension indeed often associate with an urge to discuss scientific matters in general forums. A nice topic for a PhD in psychology, my complements. However, it's a general concept, obvious to anybody who works in science, that any conclusion can be proven valid (or not) in the framework of knowledge of today. It is not an eternal truth that could never change. Therefore your issues should be adressed to media's interpretation of science, rather than science itself. But wait, haven't you recently commented on validity on some models also?

These decisions extend beyound this country's borders, and affect lives of other people, so they should carry higher degree of responsibility from everybody on whose behalf a war is being waged. It is not as much a matter of making correct decision (though hopefully, general populace oftentimes would have more peaceful attitudes than some determined, for any number of reasons politicians), but of collective responsibility for our decisions that will affect (often seriously and even fatally) other people's lives. The test applies to militarty actions abroad, and should be bypassed in situations of direct and ongoing attack (invasion) on the country proper.

I said "credibly" (i.e us actually believing ourselves, in being peaceful, democratic, torch of freedom and so on). It is very obvious that we cannot rely on politicians of the moment to make this determination, the pressures can be too high to carry on the shoulders of selected individuals. We can define what constitutes just defense (I do not believe in such thing as "just war") and prosecute all those complicit in illegal wars, no exception. Or we can at least be honest with ourselves, and make everybody complicit (by making such choices mandatory in referenda). That good family law abiding citizens would have no confusions about who's authrising, sponsoring and prosecuting that war. What we have now is worst of all. It amounts to the same thing, but lets us off the hook by assigning responsibility to temporary "politicians", instead of where it rightfully belongs.

And of course, he (they) would know it before reading reports, papers, or even looking out the window. The friends's ass uber alles (justice, laws, morals, examination, investigation, or God forbid, condemnation).

Looks like you measure knowledge and qualifications by the number of negative epithets you're able to stuff in a sense. And not much else. Why am I not surprised that your findings are published here, and not e.g. in "The Nature"? Perhaps, you're asking them in the wrong place? Or don't care to see the answer? Or unable to understand it? Who knows? There's a miriad ways to ask a dumb question, and only a few - meaningful one. That is purely statistical, btw. When a bunch of clueless people start talking high scince, the result is guaranteed to be random noise. I'm not trying to make you believe one way or another - it's the job of preachers. That is a general statement, and as general statements go, it's either trivial, or obviously wrong. If all climate changd science is "unthinking and panicky", then it's obviously wrong. If some specific cases are (which you, btw forgot to mention), it's trivial. In either case, there isn't much else to discuss. I think we addressed that earlier. One needs to understand the question (idea, theory, research, etc) to be able to make meaningful comments about it. Have you developed expertise in climate modeling, and have something fresh and novel to contribute? I'm sure your fellow scientists will be happy to hear it. No? Then what would be the worth of ranting about something one doesn't care to understand? I think that I'll go with the opinion of leading experts in the subject field, who, in my understanding, indeed consider the matter proven. BTW and FYI, "proven" in science always means "to the best of our knowledge today", rather than an eternal, fixed in stone postulate. Obviously, what terminology you use to adress them, reflects much more upon the speaker, than the science. As already mentioned, here, in general forums, everybody can say anything with no consequence, whatsoever.

Was Iraq "important enough"? Vietnam? Until there's a firm legislative definition of allowed military action (as well as stiff criminal sanctions for instigating, organising or partisipating in illegal ones), we'll keep going from one foreign fiasko to another, led by political spin of the moment. Even more importantly, without ability and determination to abide by our own principles and laws, we could never, credibly, demand it from others. It'll be the "my morals, truth, law, stick against yours" world, exactly as it has been since the times immemorial, for as long as people need to learn that the only real and lasting peace begins with ourselves.

Shooting straight, but true, Canada's mission in Afghanistan (pacifying and rebuilding unruly barbarians) is not entirely unlike Isreael's quest in the occupied territories (pacifying - yes we know who, while also appropriating some more land, as a bonus). Our friends do indeed reflect upon who we are. Perhaps, there should be more prominent role for the military in defining this country's foreign policy?

Indeed, as many already pointed out, he was jailed only because he refused to leave of his own will. But OK, let's hear some positive ideas, so: 1. Somebody knocks on our door; 2. We look and we find, to the best of our knowledge that we could have, that we don't want them here. What should be done? Should they be allowed in anyways? Or should we demand from our law enforcement to prove cases against somebody who lived on the other end of the world, often in lawless and unruly places? 3. We ask them to move on, and they wouldn't. They insist on staying claiming any number of reasons. What should be done? Should we just let them go free? What would be the meaning of that security check, that lets people in, freely, whether they pass or not? And how likely would be others, like them, to follow the suit?

The level of an average layman in the matters scientific would be pretty close to that. And for those not entirely clueless, there's always professional media, to present their findings, ideas, research, where they would be judged by other not entirely clueless people. There's no way to distinguish obvious bs. from a meaningful statement in a general web forum, because anybody can say anything. Of course you don't need anything like that to "question" in a general forum like this one. Whether the "question" has any relation to meaning or reality is a very different story. No need to further confuse matters by mixing up professional misconduct, or bad policy with lack of qualifications. Of course they can "see" and say anything, here, in this general forum. What you are posting these ideas here, should tell us quite a bit about what happened last time you tried to present them to qualified peers (if ever). Only a logical conclusion, that's all. If your choice is not of acquiring knowledge and making informed arguments on the matter, then "skepticism" is just as good as blind belief. Pick one, whatever suits you better. No, unlike the matters of faith, science can be learned and mastered. It can also be proven right or wrong. It does take a lot of time, hard work and determination. Short of that, there are always web forums. They aren't really known to easily admit that quality about them. Could it be an early symptom?

By enforcing our own, rightful moral standards upon anybody who appears to be falling below, regardless of whether they want, ready to accept them, or not? After all, our way of life is obviously superior, and it should be forced on everybody else, for their own good, of course. We can't seem to recall that only a few generations back we were burning witches and used fragrances to remedy blackpox, and we can't really wait till others catch up, of their own will and timing.

But having one does not yet guarantee having a clue. And clueless discussion of science is as good as believing a priest (or whoever or whatever else), for all practical means.