Solved this riddle without pen and paper (using memory techniques). This "riddle" is hardly "mind bending." What's more "mind bending" to me about it is the (alleged) fact that 98% of people can't "solve" it given how straightforward and logical it is...

She makes an error in the third sentence she says. Hyphens are not used to break the word at the end of a sentence. They're used to break a word at the end of a line. This woman is no nazi when it comes to grammar.

"Learning to perceive the relations between their bodies and the environment."

And that is the basis of ancient yoga, albeit with a deeper understanding of what constitutes the body and what constitutes the environment.

I'm happy to call Julie a friend.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Geometric-Porn

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Bubble-Porn-Video-is-SFW-But-Not-Your-Filthy-Mind

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Geometric-Porn

My colleague, Roland Griffiths, was the lead author on the study cited at 1:38. It's been said that his research kicked off what is now being called a "renaissance" of clinical trials involving psychedelics that has increased in number in the last few years.

And here's a prominent scientist's critique of the IPCC. It provides a good rebuttal to those who imagine that the only critics are ignorant and/or venal people who believe in a vast conspiracy of climate scientists.

I'm sure that the capacity to think for oneself gives some people like you, who are unfamiliar with such a capacity, the impression of something akin to 'crazy-talk', but I assure you, the ability to think is not something to be "treated" or (medically) "checked," but is, by contrast, quite pleasant and enjoyable and I'd recommend it to you if I didn't think you were likely to hurt yourself if you tried it.

The quote of mine you used was among my recommendations for global warming alarmists to walk their talk. However, I, myself, am not a global warming alarmist (though I somehow manage to maintain a much smaller carbon footprint than most -- possibly ALL --- of those that I know).

And, wouldn't ya know it, that heat that those alarmists claimed to be "hiding" in the oceans were wrong about that, just as they're wrong about most of the claims they base on political convenience, rather than climate science.

Like most of Sorkin's bloviating, this empty rhetoric is undermined by the incongruency of the climate change alarmists' own ballooning carbon footprints while attempting to use the government to impose force upon others' behavior. Until global warming alarmists themselves walk their talk (i.e., drive hybrids -- if they drive at all -- cease flying in airplanes, eat strictly vegetarian diets, have few if any children, and withdraw their consent from the worst polluter on the planet: the state), then no amount of freaking out, ranting, incentives, or attempts at policy will serve to avert the "impending catastrophe."

In China and India (where pollution is no doubt a significant problem), there are hundreds of millions of people who have far bigger concerns and more pressing problems than some remote notion of a "warming planet" or some looming "catastrophic collapse of civilization." (In fact, the same can be said for the majority of the population of the planet.)

And this is to say nothing of how ALL of the models used to support "evidence" for the case of a warming planet have ALL (not some, but ALL) been consistently undermined by serious skeptical science (PDF) while the claims of the political entity of the IPCC remain inconsistent with the data.

Since when do politicians get to decide the veracity of scientific fact?

EDIT: ALL of the climate-change alarmists' predictions, dating back to the 1980s, have all failed to come true. When this trend continues for the next few decades, there will be no shortage of "Told You So" moments that will undoubtedly be explained away by some unknown variable -- like the heat that is "hiding" in the ocean -- that, once "corrected for," will serve to further prop up this political ruse.

As I'm sure you know, empirical data needs a theory in order to interpret it and make sense of it. So far, climate change models (i.e., the theories upon which their data is interpreted) have failed, by the proponents' own admissions. And they have not been able to disprove counter theories either. So the debate goes on within the scientific community. Meanwhile, activists, politicians, and "journalists" don't know how to come up with these theories, so they rely on what they know how to come up with: ideologies, rhetoric (which they, themselves, may not believe), hermeneutics and other poor substitutes for rationalist theory through which to interpret the data.

So far, all of the "arguments" I've heard in support of climate change draws upon the IPCC as the source of its "evidence." What they don't realize is that the IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one.

Since when do politicians decide on the "truth" about scientific fact?

@Taint, The skeptics don't "deny" that the climate changes. They are skeptical of the reasons why it changes, the claims of consistent warming, and the claims about the catastrophic effect of whatever is caused by human activity. Also, I don't think I need to go into the debunking of that 97% claim (science is not a function of votes or consensus, but of evidence). In any event, most of the "debate" about this topic is a waste of time considering the "believers" are mostly not climate scientists and that no one is actually doing very much about it in their own lives.

So, straw man opinions about so-called "deniers" is a pathetic attempt to substitute character "analysis" for actual scientific evidence of man-made global warming of catastrophic proportions. Evidence of which has yet to be provided.

So the real reason many people don't "believe" has to do with not being presented with actual evidence and instead being given false claims (97%) about "consensus" (which is irrelevant to science), and claims of "settled" science (also meaningless in real science), postulated mostly by writers, politicians, and activists with no scientific credentials.

No one really argues with the idea that the climate changes. But, rather, what caused the change, to what degree, and what the effects will be... Well, let's just say for now that all (not a few but all) climate models have been proven wrong.
So no, there are no climate change "deniers," but plenty of people, and many scientists, who don't believe certain claims about specific aspects, even when believers keep repeating the "consensus" canard.

I honestly don't think believers actually believe their own claims of impending greenhouse gas climate catastrophe. If they did, they would all drive hybrids and go vegetarian. Also, most "green" tech companies wouldn't fail (like most of them do). Why do the climate change believers drive their SUVs and fly to their holiday vacation without regard to the impending climate doom? They are polluting the air, are they not? By their own theories, they also warm up the climate.

Contrary to consensus claims, nearly every aspect of climate change is being debated by the scientific community. Can you name a specific aspect of it that is not under debate (without going into some general "climate change" "consensus" canard)? Such claims are too broad to mean anything of any relevance. What specific aspect? What about it?

Hottest year on record except, of course, for all those places covered in snow. I wonder if the heat stopped hiding in the ocean: "It's virtually certain that California will have its warmest year on record, even if California has record cold in December." It's the warmest year even if it's simultaneously the coldest December (or winter) on record. That's what I call "useful" data. Maybe the heat only hides during certain months, and then comes out and then hides out again, like for the Holidays or something.

I gotta sympathize with the global warming folks who latch onto any data point they can use to promulgate the freakout... anything that justifies their existence (until they inevitably run out of improbable causes).

Amadou, dis fo you.