All categories - 15 June 2007

If I asked the builder what the value was and if the market had changed and they advised me that the house was worth more than what I was paying, yet when asked why the appraisal didn't have the high value was advised they can only go off pruchase contract which was 7/05 value. Lender and builder were the same in az. Any ideas - the house is worth less than the mortgage. HELP, help.

2007-06-15 07:30:11 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Renting & Real Estate

have decided not to quit smoking cos of this stupid sodding ban.

2007-06-15 07:30:02 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Polls & Surveys

I was to get my Federal Tax refund check and never got it. I got my State refund check but not the Federal. Who can I call to resolve the matter.
I did my taxs througn Turbo Tax.

2007-06-15 07:29:46 · 1 answers · asked by THEHATMAN 2 in United States

i know the word but i am missing 2 letters can u tell me what are the 2 letters missing? c?ot?reat

the 1st clue is for the 1st missing letter is blue cheese 7
the 2nd is spot 3 or ----William Scottish town 4

2007-06-15 07:29:42 · 5 answers · asked by now_girl_04 3 in Words & Wordplay

2007-06-15 07:29:22 · 52 answers · asked by Anonymous in Religion & Spirituality

2007-06-15 07:29:19 · 8 answers · asked by MAD MOMMA 3 in Astronomy & Space

I have been late for over a week now and I have taken two pregnancy tests and both came up negitive. I am always on time and have been so for the past few years. A friend of mine told me that at home pregnancy test don't work on everyone, is that true?

2007-06-15 07:29:17 · 9 answers · asked by catkazee 2 in Pregnancy

i decided to become a conservative for fun. now, i'm noticing that as long as social liberalism of some sort is maintained, the conservaties have some pretty good economic ideas. i'm now becoming politically confused. help!

2007-06-15 07:29:15 · 13 answers · asked by humstu 1 in Politics

Looking at my current avatar, you see 'Esqueleto' doing his tough-guy shake with 'Nacho Libre'. Of course 'Esqueleto' believes only in science, and 'Nacho' is a very religious man.

1 -Can't atheists and Christians get along to fight, oh I don't know, maybe discrimination against coffee drinkers?

2 -What one battle can we fight together?

2007-06-15 07:29:15 · 14 answers · asked by super Bobo 6 in Religion & Spirituality

2007-06-15 07:29:09 · 42 answers · asked by Dovey 7 in Polls & Surveys

2007-06-15 07:29:07 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Elections

2007-06-15 07:29:07 · 13 answers · asked by BAnne 7 in Polls & Surveys

I currently work at CompUSA, and have been for the past 3 years. I'm currently making $10.60 an hour and I hate it there because I seriously get like 8 hours a week. I have an Interview at Best Buy and want to know what I can expect for an hourly wage.

2007-06-15 07:29:06 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Careers & Employment

"The Bible is the word of God. The word of God cannot be doubted, and the Bible states that the Bible is true. Therefore the Bible must be true."

2007-06-15 07:29:06 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Religion & Spirituality

Listening to those who are in or have been in the military one would have the tendency to believe that there were no other ways to be of service to this country than being in the military. I can't agree with that. How about you?

2007-06-15 07:29:04 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

I need advice, I'm really afraid That I will never have kids, and I'm afraid that I will never marry, I'm afraid that god wont give me things, I my whole life, I only ask god for only few things, and the three things were , was to send me a boyfriend, and he did, I ask him to make me a good loving wife and mother someday, I ask him to heal my grandpa, and keep my boyfriend safe, and he always does, but I'm sacred to death, that he wont give me kids, and a family, of my own, I had a very hard childhood, and the only thing that kept me going, was the hope of kids, and a husband of my own, and every night I pray for god to give me this, is it to selfish, that I want this, with all my heart, I have a loving heart, and I want to share it. I try to be good and follow him, But I feel that if he doesn't give me this, I dont want to follow him, and I know that is wrong for me to feel like that, Please help, advice?

2007-06-15 07:29:02 · 23 answers · asked by kitty 6 in Religion & Spirituality

this is the melody:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=F2SiNg2ENGQ

i know the original is techno song by a girl, and it came out int he 90;s, any idea????????

2007-06-15 07:29:00 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Music

Please dont repeat the question(Cattay)!!!!

2007-06-15 07:28:41 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Seattle

i'm 3 months pregnant and i didn't know if i should get the daddy to be a father's day present? if so, just a card? thanks. this is our first child by the way. thanks!

2007-06-15 07:28:25 · 9 answers · asked by croasmun9429 1 in Pregnancy

....is isnt healty to eat so much candy and that he wouldn't live long. Johnny replied, "my great grandfather lived to be a hundred and two." The man asked if he ate as many candy bars as he did and Johnny said, "no, he minded his own f***** bizness."

2007-06-15 07:28:16 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Jokes & Riddles

I am 6 months along and my baby still has no name. I know that some people dont have names until the very end, but I want to start calling her by it. My fiance always talks to her and says "hey baby", "what are you doing in there baby" and I just feel she should have her name by now.
I was thinking Kennedy Nicole, but Kennedy means "ugly head" haha and I feel bad..
I dont really like girly names either.
I wanted a 3 syllable first name that goes with Nicole as the middle name. Im being picky, but it is my baby and its hard to find something that you are going to call them for the rest of their lives.
Any ideas?

2007-06-15 07:28:14 · 53 answers · asked by cole 3 in Baby Names

I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train
By David Evans
5/28/2007

I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened that case. I am now skeptical.
In the late 1990s, this was the evidence suggesting that carbon emissions caused global warming:
1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, proved in a laboratory a century ago.
2. Global warming has been occurring for a century and concentrations of atmospheric carbon have been rising for a century. Correlation is not causation, but in a rough sense it looked like a fit.
3. Ice core data, starting with the first cores from Vostok in 1985, allowed us to measure temperature and atmospheric carbon going back hundreds of thousands of years, through several dramatic global warming and cooling events. To the temporal resolution then available (data points more than a thousand years apart), atmospheric carbon and temperature moved in lockstep: they rose and fell together. Talk about a smoking gun!
4. There were no other credible causes of global warming.
This evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we are absolutely certain when we apparently need to act now? So the idea that carbon emissions were causing global warming passed from the scientific community into the political realm. Research increased, bureaucracies were formed, international committees met, and eventually the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997 to curb carbon emissions.
The political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too.
I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; there were international conferences full of such people. We had political support, the ear of government, big budgets. We felt fairly important and useful (I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!
But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence above fell away. Using the same point numbers as above:
2. Better data shows that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled while atmospheric carbon increased. That 35 year non-correlation might eventually be explained by global dimming, only discovered in about 2003.
3. The temporal resolution of the ice core data improved. By 2004 we knew that in past warming events, the temperature increases generally started about 800 years before the rises in atmospheric carbon. Causality does not run in the direction I had assumed in 1999 — it runs the opposite way!
It took several hundred years of warming for the oceans to give off more of their carbon. This proves that there is a cause of global warming other than atmospheric carbon. And while it is possible that rising atmospheric carbon in these past warmings then went on to cause more warming ("amplification" of the initial warming), the ice core data neither proves nor disproves this hypothesis.
4. There is now a credible alternative suspect. In October 2006 Henrik Svensmark showed experimentally that cosmic rays cause cloud formation. Clouds have a net cooling effect, but for the last three decades there have been fewer clouds than normal because the sun's magnetic field, which shields us from cosmic rays, has been stronger than usual. So the earth heated up. It's too early to judge what fraction of global warming is caused by cosmic rays.

There is now no observational evidence that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. You would think that in over 20 years of intense investigation we would have found something. For example, greenhouse warming due to carbon emissions should warm the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere — but until 2006 the data showed the opposite, and thus that the greenhouse effect was not occurring! In 2006 better data allowed that the effect might be occurring, except in the tropics.
The only current "evidence" for blaming carbon emissions are scientific models (and the fact that there are few contradictory observations). Historically, science has not progressed by calculations and models, but by repeatable observations. Some theories held by science authorities have turned out to be spectacularly wrong: heavier-than-air flight is impossible, the sun orbits the earth, etc. For excellent reasons, we have much more confidence in observations by several independent parties than in models produced by a small set of related parties!
Let's return to the interaction between science and politics. By 2000 the political system had responded to the strong scientific case that carbon emissions caused global warming by creating thousands of bureaucratic and science jobs aimed at more research and at curbing carbon emissions.
But after 2000 the case against carbon emissions gradually got weaker. Future evidence might strengthen or further weaken it. At what stage of the weakening should the science community alert the political system that carbon emissions might not be the main cause of global warming?
None of the new evidence actually says that carbon emissions are definitely not the cause of global warming, there are lots of good science jobs potentially at stake, and if the scientific message wavers then it might be difficult to later recapture the attention of the political system. What has happened is that most research efforts since 1990 have assumed that carbon emissions were the cause, and the alternatives get much less research or political attention.
Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. Climate change has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly blames carbon emissions, to the point of silencing critics.
The integrity of the scientific community will win out in the end, following the evidence wherever it leads. But in the meantime, the effect of the political climate is that most people are overestimating the evidence that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming.
I recently bet $6,000 that the rate of global warming would slow in the next two decades. Carbon emissions might be the dominant cause of global warming, but I reckon that probability to be 20% rather than the 90% the IPCC estimates.
I worry that politics could seriously distort the science. Suppose that carbon taxes are widely enacted, but that the rate of global warming increase starts to decline by 2015. The political system might pressure scientists to provide justifications for the taxes.
Imagine the following scenario. Carbon emissions cause some warming, maybe 0.05C/decade. But the current warming rate of 0.20C/decade is mainly due to some natural cause, which in 15 years has run its course and reverses. So by 2025 global temperatures start dropping. In the meantime, on the basis of models from a small group of climate scientists but with no observational evidence (because the small warming due to carbon emissions is masked by the larger natural warming), the world has dutifully paid an enormous cost to curb carbon emissions.
Politicians, expressing the anger and apparent futility of all the unnecessary poverty and effort, lead the lynching of the high priests with their opaque models. Ironically, because carbon emissions are raising the temperature baseline around which natural variability occurs, carbon emissions might need curbing after all. Maybe. The current situation is characterized by a lack of observational evidence, so no one knows yet.
Some people take strong rhetorical positions on global warming. But the cause of global warming is not just another political issue, subject to endless debate and distortions. The cause of global warming is an issue that falls into the realm of science, because it is falsifiable. No amount of human posturing will affect what the cause is. It just physically is there, and after sufficient research and time we will know what it is.
________________________________________
David Evans, a mathematician, and a computer and electrical engineer, is head of Science Speak

2007-06-15 07:28:09 · 8 answers · asked by MIkE ALEGRIA 1 in Other - Environment

My mom asked me to vacuum while she's at work and I want to surprise her by removing the stains. We had a puppy and there is multiple urine stainson the carpet. Since i'm only 13 I obviously caan't drive to the store to get a stain remover. If you have any tricks using stuff around the house that'd be great! Thanks!!!!!

2007-06-15 07:28:06 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Cleaning & Laundry

2007-06-15 07:28:04 · 5 answers · asked by $1,539,684,631,121 Clinton Debt 6 in Other - Politics & Government

Ok my son has med to dark brown hair, we tried Manic Panic did not work at all it is now a dark almost black color. I don't want to bleach his hair first he is not a fan of the spray. Any help please? He wants Neon green hair.

2007-06-15 07:27:58 · 7 answers · asked by Barbara 4 in Hair