BeltwayBandit

Great. I eagerly await your response to the articles I have posted earlier in this thread. One bit of clarification, are comments on the peer review process allowed? Specifically, data archiving and reproduceability requirements?

Can we actually discuss the science now? I think we have firmly established that their are advocates on both sides of the debate who will distort the science to support their own particular agenda. Lets try to stick to the science, and keep the politics out of it. Shall we.

Fair enough, yes all of our primary sources of energy are non renewable.

Actually, it was from the UCS which is an advocacy organization, I trust them about as much as I would a press release from Exxon about Global Warming. I would have to agree with you on this one. You are right that one side argues from science. I'll remind you that ad hominem isn't a scientific argument. Yet one side consistently uses such tactics, like calling opoonents holocaust deniers, and other less than desirable names. You are right name calling isn't science, I have posted several criticisms and weaknesses of the science, valid scientific debate. To which you have responded with name calling. It is apparent that you are in fact "operating from ideology and docrtrine and only using the pretense of science to advance your goals" since you won't actually discuss the science. It is a shame that a valid and important scientific debate has been co-opted like that. All that being said, I actually agree with John. The debate over global warming IMO should be left for science to discuss. We have an engineering problem before us. All of our energy sources are currently nonrenewable and will eventually run out. There is a huge economic advantage to the first one to find the next viable (preferably renewable) energy source. You don't have to scare and lie to people to get them to take decicive action. Tell them the truth, give them the resources and let them run with it.

Another interesting article about the politicization of climate science. http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/article_vie...?article_id=961

Larry, I'm not Howard. And its nice to see your knee jerk response. "Your accusation of "weasel words" is simply a case of trying to throw a cloud over what should be a scientific argument." Actually, I was removing the cloud that you attempted to throw over it by using such words. If you want to have an honest debate cut out the name calling and stick to the science.. The last time I checked name calling was not a scientifically valid method of defending your position. Because, that is all your reply was. I also found it quite telling that you completely avoided the issue Landsea raised about the IPCC being motivated by preconceived agendas and scientifically unsound. That was the larger issue he was raising. He isn't the first one to make those charges either. "Dr. Lindzen's description of the conditions under which the climate scientists worked conjures up a scene worthy of a totalitarian state: "throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC 'coordinators' would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that 'motherhood' statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their 'green' credentials in defense of their statements."

Are you telling me we couldn't pony up $5 more to make it an even $2,000.. On a more serious note. BZ to the WAMAS crew for stepping up. I'm glad to see this and our other recent initiatives towards taking a more active role in the public eye.

One other consideration to throw into the mix is price. Lets face it, some of our fish and corals are very expensive. It is far better to put off more expensive additions, regardless of how difficult or easy they are to care for, until the tank is stable and you have a very good handle on maintaining parameters. Trust me, I have learned this rule the hard way (both through impatience and mistake). My recommendation would be to get a book. The Conscientious Marine Aquarist is a good one, or one of the pocket guides. For corals Eric Borneman's book on Aquarium Corals is very good. Flip through the books and just look at the pictures. Find the fish/corals/inverts that are appealing to you and make a list. Then go back through that list and look at the requirements for the various critters that you want to keep. In my case, it quickly became apparent that I couldn't have it all (this is common). So while looking through the lists I came up with a set of parameters consisting of tank size, lighting, compatability, ease of care, and affordibility that encompassed the majority of the species I had identified as potential candidates and that I could maintain. I then used this list to make my selections, of course with every selection more candidates were eliminated. For example: I like tangs. I have a 120. I know that I can safely keep 2 (maybe 3) tangs. My first selection was a Scopas tang. This selection eliminated any other Zebrasoma species (purple, yellow, sailfin, etc.) But, I could still add a tang from the Acanthurus genus (I chose a Powder Blue) to reach my desired stocking level of tangs. The same goes for other species. I identified about 5 different Pomacanthus angels that I liked. However, to keep them I had to be willing to sacrifice the ability to keep some corals and be especially careful which species I chose because I wanted to keep Tridacnid clams. I chose a Chrysurus. It is a smaller pomacanthid and has a somewhat better track record with giant clams. I knew the addition could lead to an either or scenario between it and my clams. Fortunately, it went in after the clams and after some initial nips on one Crocea, it has been a model citizen. I realize that this is a bit long winded, and probably a bit overwhelming. My last suggestion would be to post up your candidate list once you get it. There are lots of really experienced folks in the club. I'm sure you will get lots of advice.

Here is another source. It is a 10 part series, profiles of 'global warming deniers' if you will. The link is to the first article and the other articles are linked within. Judge for yourself if their arguments are valid. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...0bed2f6&k=0

Open Letter from Chris Landsea, one of the foremost hurricane researchers in the world, on why he did not participate in the most recent AR4 review. "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4." http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

Two points. First, the use of so-called 'weasel words' to introduce your position is not consistant with your later admonition to leave the debate to the Scientific arena. The "Its pretty apparent to anyone..." bit serves no purpose to bolster your scientific argument, it either stands or falls on its own merit. With self serving commentary like that you are more likely to get lumped into the ideologue camp. As far as your claim that the last 30+ years is more intense than anything that we can detect, that speaks more to our inability to reconstruct the past climate to form an accurate baseline than it sounds the call for alarm. Lets attack this problem methodically, carefully, Scientifically. It should not be based on knee jerk alarmism based on half truths and political rhetoric. What we do know of the past climate shows that there is no steady state equillibrium temperature for the climate. On the policy side, how is sacrificing virtually the entire economy to stave off this catastrophe in the best interest of our civilization? I guess the American Meterological Society Disagrees with you. http://www.agci.org/publications/eoc98/articles/BAMS_2.pdf Once again a peak behind the curtain reveals that the theory is hampered by a lack of data. This is a common theme in the scientific literature regarding AGW.

Larger than ever in 2006... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:160658m...E_large_350.jpg

I was a believer in the global warming debate at one point. I was concerned, so I educated myself. What I found was not a reinforcement of what I had been told, but instead was a realization that the problem is greatly overstated. Here is a very good summary of the basic problem with AGW from CO2 and with the GCMs in general from a much longer paper: http://www.tp4.rub.de/~kls/scherer-etal-2007SSR.pdf "The current scientific and political dispute boils down ultimately to the following: is the additional energy that is responsible for the centennial temperature rise of ≈0.6◦C due principally to GHG or is it due to some external factor, such as the Sun? Note that we are not dealing with mutually exclusive scenarios. Climate models would respond in a similar way to the addition of energy from any source and it is only the relative importance of these potential

Yes that is the Guardian/Greenpeace spin on the story. The Post ran a story that clarifies the issue. Its a policy paper, not science paper. The AEI paper is not seeking to rebut the IPCC report, it is seeking policy alternatives. Read the two articles, you get a very different perspective on the story. Yet another example of how the activists try to spin the story and manipulate the discussion. As far as Tim Ball goes, he is one of many scientists who disagree. You could just as easily have put up Richard Lindzen or Bill Gray. (Either one of which is probably a better example from the skeptic side). Bottom line, the debate has become entirely too politicized and the science has suffered for it.

And that is a favorite bit of propaganda from the environmental lobby. Skepticism of AGW is not some sinister plot by energy companies. There are serious flaws and shorcomings in the AGW theories. In terms of money spent on the issue, environmental organizations are spending far more than the energy companies on this issue. The problem is that the ideologues on the extremes have poisoned the debate so that no useful discussion can take place. Here is an interesting piece that was in the Post yesterday: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?nav=hcmodule

I was out there about a month ago. The $5 frags in the greenhouse alone make it worth the trip IMHO.

I have 2 that you can borrow to try out. I have an AGA 120 (same form factor just 2' less width). I used to use them but got tired of cleaning them.

No worries, I'm not trying to pick a fight. Just posting what I found. Vague references to a nationwide ban and specific references to the south atlantic and gulf of mexico. IMO its not worth the risk to save a few bucks.

Here's the legal answer: 50 CFR

I would recommend against it. I'll keep digging to find out what law James is referring to that bans the collection. From wwwm: http://www.wetwebmedia.com/ca/volume_2/cav...k/live_rock.htm Where does it come from? Live rock has been collected in a number of places but most of it comes from islands in the South Pacific. The majority originates from island nations like Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa. There are two primary reasons for this. First, the collection of live rock in U.S. waters was banned by the government in 1997. Second, it's cheap. Island workers will work for much less than U.S. workers and since airplanes fly to the islands loaded with supplies and fly back relatively empty, air freight out of the islands is reasonably priced. While the government may have banned the collection of "wild" live rock, they decided to allow businesses to make their own and collect it. So, aquacultured live rock, which is produced almost exclusively in the Gulf of Mexico and the Florida Keys has made its way into the market with all of this Pacific rock. The result is a variety of live rock types from a variety of areas to choose from. Some more good history of live rock collection is here: http://www.reeferrocks.com/liverock/history.htm

You should have asked him if they add 20 cents to the price of their fish if you want them bagged. I can see it now. Customer: How much is that nice goldfish. Clerk: $4.00 Customer: Great I'll take it. Clerk: Fishes goldfish out of the tank and hands it to the customer. Customer: Umm can you bag that for me? Clerk: Bags cost 20 cents extra.... Thats pretty funny, thanks for sharing. I try not to frequent superpetz. I drive the extra 30 minutes (sometimes even the extra hour) to go to BRK or F&F because they do know what good customer service means. BB

I'll check on it for you. It is a manual setting that has to be changed.

BRK in Manassas carries it: http://blueribbonkoi.com/catalog.cfm?catalog_id=319 Just give them a call first to make sure they have it in stock.

I'll admit I'm not too familiar with how CITIES works. Are captive bred fish regulated by CITIES?

Nice, but I can live with the shadow.