http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7837791.stm

http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=147

I know from personal experience that the BBC’s sound engineers are very skilled at playing around with a recording to make what is said fit their story. Humble people have to learn to live with it. But the US President – that’s serious!

“In an attempt to deliver on pledges of a transparent government, Obama said he would change the way the federal government interprets the Freedom of Information Act. He said he was directing agencies that vet requests for information to err on the side of making information public — not to look for reasons to legally withhold it — an alteration to the traditional standard of evaluation.”

Does this mean that Mann will finally be forced to reveal his source code for his infamous work? Does anyone in our camp intend to test The One on his proclamation anytime soon?

I am purely speculating here, but we know that President Obama has received highly classified briefings in the past few weeks that, I suspect, have caused a certain CHANGE in his thinking. I certainly HOPE so.

One such briefing is underway even as I write this, with the top military advisors. I look for certain softening of his stance following this meeting, too.

It is this way with all new Presidents, especially if they were not previously a vice-President. The information is just too classified, there is no way as a U.S. Senator he would know. Using Truman as an example, “We have an atomic bomb that can do WHAT?????”

As I frequently debate with my friends and colleagues, President is not a popularity contest. Many of my liberal friends believe the President (Bush in particular) should make/(have made) more popular decisions, those that would garner accolades from the U.S. population and from around the world. I remind them that Roman emperors went down that road, and look where it took them!

The fact is, that none of those groups have access to the information the President has, so his decisions based on that information may very well be for the best, yet not be pleasing to those groups.

And that, IMHO, is why a President should be elected based on attributes like character, judgment, crisis-management, clear-thinking, and not just rhetoric or star appeal. A rare President has good attributes and star appeal, and the older I get, the more it appears that John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were the only two in my lifetime. One democrat, one republican.

tallbloke (14:25:10) :

I’m kind of amazed this thread isn’t the hot potato du jour. The western world looks to Capt America for a beacon of light in the darkness, a cool hand to mop the fevered brow of the overheated world, and our american contributors have almost no comment on BO’s words.

That’s because we hear all the rhetoric every election, from all the politicians, and really they do very little of what they promise. I’m sure most of the time they mean well, but very rarely deliver. And from my perspective, I don’t think he can “fix” the things he says he wants to.

Whenever you are ready, please feel free to debunk…

“There is no begining and there is no end”

Good luck.

E.M.Smith (17:17:44) :

Jeff, could you perhaps denigrate the beliefs of others a bit less?

Not when they’re just spouted out for no good reason. Sure, my statement added nothing to the discussion, but neither did the one I responded to.

I, as just one agnostic/atheist speaking, found the original posting gratifying and a reminder of the science of the beginning of time. However created.

Sorry, I found to to be bunk. So I said so.

Thank you for your insight and recommendation, one that I will certainly consider.

As a former agnostic, I understand the difficulty one has in seeing the light that shines through the prism of God. Perhaps I deserved a bit of criticism, as I have recently been short to people with opposing points of view.

Some form of payback I suppose? Anyway, I would like to share my thoughts on, dare I say, God, logic, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news.

What a great website.

Be GREEN all… but do not emit GREENhouse gas. Doesn’t this seem strange to anyone? IMHO, I find this completely illogical.

And speaking of Einstein…

“I know not with what weapons world war III will be fought, but world war IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Any quotes from the discoverer of quantum mechanics on the ‘dangers’ of carbon dioxide?

Wow, that was scientific. NOT!

Jeff, could you perhaps denigrate the beliefs of others a bit less?

While I am somewhere on the agnostic / atheist spectrum, my spouse is very religious. We get along and it works for her. One thing I’ve come to appreciate out it all is that some of the best science has come from religious people. Einstein comes to mind as does Darwin. Yes, that Darwin. Read his book as originally published, it is in admiration of what he saw as God’s work.

While some dogmas make a wall between science and God, the Bible does not, nor do most other religions. (Last I looked; Shinto, Buddhist, & Muslim scientists existed, among others.)

The original (by RICH, I think), to which you responded, reminded me of a very interesting (especially from a science perspective) book:

http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Big-Bang-Discovery-Harmony/dp/0553354132

Is a fascinating book that manages to bring the Genesis story and our understanding of the science of the beginning of time and space into agreement. (He looks at times arrow from the beginning of the big bang before time dilation. Calibrated to that scale, the 6 days of Genesis have things happening on the same scale as our scientific understanding…)

Yes, time dilation and relativity. So maybe there is just a bit more ‘science’ in the notion of time being a relative thing and having less meaning viewed from the other end of times arrow than you were seeing…

I, as just one agnostic/atheist speaking, found the original posting gratifying and a reminder of the science of the beginning of time. However created.

“Wow, that was scientific… NOT!”

:o [yawn]

Alberts, will time exist when man is gone? And perhaps you could use your expertise in science and explain the beginning and end, you contemptuous know it all. And you want to criticise me, buddy boy?

“So he’s confirmed it. AGW is a phantom menace.”

Really, he confirmed it? How, pray tell, did he ‘confirm’ anything?

“Besides, 31 is not cold for DC in January. 10f would be cold.”

Not exactly. 31F is cold for DC and below average.

Anything else Jeff?