A massive El Nino is brewing out in the Pacific

[Gtlevine]

I'm done fact checking for your post Gary, come on el nino!!!

I agree, bring on El Nino!!! Ill worry about the floods in 2114

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izQB2-Kmiic

[Gtlevine]

Cant believe you dug this up Axel. I remember as a kid calling to the radio station requesting that song. I had to play it through to remember it. I think global warming aside, in the year 8510 God will have to tear it down and start all over again. Classic!

[Dypsisdean]

97% Agree.jpg Powell-Science-Pie-Chart.png

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

American Association for the Advancement of Science

American Astronomical Society

American Chemical Society

American Geophysical Union

American Institute of Physics

American Meteorological Society

American Physical Society

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO

British Antarctic Survey

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Environmental Protection Agency

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

European Physical Society

Federation of American Scientists

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

Geological Society of America

Geological Society of Australia

Geological Society of London

International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

National Center for Atmospheric Research

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Royal Meteorological Society

Royal Society of the UK

What was much too briefly touched on in passing was - How many of Mats' "scientific organizations" receive government funding --- or are funded entirely as actual government agencies --- all of them??? And how many of these organizations would be dropped from government funding, or the managers fired, if they didn't support the notion that government intervention is the answer to saving us from certain doom --- all of them???

[Dypsisdean]

NASA has an opinion on global warming I would like to share! I am sure some of you believe NASA faked the moon landing...

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Hmmmm - another supporting organization entirely funded by the government. Am I sensing a pattern here?

[Mats]

What was much too briefly touched on in passing was - How many of Mats' "scientific organizations" receive government funding --- or are funded entirely as actual government agencies --- all of them??? And how many of these organizations would be dropped from government funding, or the managers fired, if they didn't support the notion that government intervention is the answer to saving us from certain doom --- all of them???

How do you deniers explain this two pie charts?

You can read more about the methodology behind the second chart here.

Why is there such a glaring discrepancy between the number of peer-reviewed papers on climate change?

A healthy skepticism is fine and dandy, but where is the scientific data to back it up?

It's not like big oil and the Koch brothers haven't thrown enough money into the mix to raise doubt over the issue, but where is the science to back up your position?

[Funkthulhu]

97% Agree.jpg Powell-Science-Pie-Chart.png

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

American Association for the Advancement of Science

American Astronomical Society

American Chemical Society

American Geophysical Union

American Institute of Physics

American Meteorological Society

American Physical Society

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO

British Antarctic Survey

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Environmental Protection Agency

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

European Physical Society

Federation of American Scientists

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

Geological Society of America

Geological Society of Australia

Geological Society of London

International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

National Center for Atmospheric Research

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Royal Meteorological Society

Royal Society of the UK

What was much too briefly touched on in passing was - How many of Mats' "scientific organizations" receive government funding --- or are funded entirely as actual government agencies --- all of them??? And how many of these organizations would be dropped from government funding, or the managers fired, if they didn't support the notion that government intervention is the answer to saving us from certain doom --- all of them???

Dean, the government funds a lot of this kind of science. You should look into the QA/QC requirements for scientific study regardless of funding source. Also, considering how anti-global warming the last administration was and they still came back with the numbers they did should be telling as to the honesty of the scientists involved.

[Gtlevine]

Generally speaking, if you know the answer to a question, do not think there is a major problem worth looking into the question, or your not receiving a benefit from looking into the question, then you generally would not waste your time with the question in the first place. The 97% number is ridiculous for the above reason as Dean has said.

[Funkthulhu]

What was much too briefly touched on in passing was - How many of Mats' "scientific organizations" receive government funding --- or are funded entirely as actual government agencies --- all of them??? And how many of these organizations would be dropped from government funding, or the managers fired, if they didn't support the notion that government intervention is the answer to saving us from certain doom --- all of them???

How do you deniers explain this two pie charts?

97% Agree.jpg Powell-Science-Pie-Chart.png

You can read more about the methodology behind the second chart here.

Why is there such a glaring discrepancy between the number of peer-reviewed papers on climate change?

A healthy skepticism is fine and dandy, but where is the scientific data to back it up?

It's not like big oil and the Koch brothers haven't thrown enough money into the mix to raise doubt over the issue, but where is the science to back up your position?

The second pie chart is all peer-reviewed papers and whether or not they say there is global warming. (as it says, only 24 say there is no warming)

The first pie chart is all of those that say there is global warming, and the percent of those that agree it is certainly anthropogenic. (i.e. man-made global warming)

Two separate number sets, hence the discrepancy and/or imagined and fabricated controversy.

[Alicehunter2000]

"And just like the Pied Piper who led rats through the streets, we dance like marionette's swaying to the symphony of destruction"

[_Keith]

A summary of this thread in pictures

[Gtlevine]

Good job Keith, the perfect ending to the debate. Thats funny.

[Mats]

The discrepancy I'm asking the deniers to explain is; of the 13,950 articles on “global warming” or “global climate change written in the last 21 years, only 24 explicitly rejected the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

13,926 vs 24 is a pretty glaring discrepancy.

These guys say the theory of man-made global warming is bunk, but where is the science that backs up their skepticism?

Why is there such a glaring discrepancy between the number of peer-reviewed papers on climate change?

A healthy skepticism is fine and dandy, but where is the scientific data to back it up?

It's not like big oil and the Koch brothers haven't thrown enough money into the mix to raise doubt over the issue, but where is the science to back up your position?

The second pie chart is all peer-reviewed papers and whether or not they say there is global warming. (as it says, only 24 say there is no warming)

The first pie chart is all of those that say there is global warming, and the percent of those that agree it is certainly anthropogenic. (i.e. man-made global warming)

Two separate number sets, hence the discrepancy and/or imagined and fabricated controversy.

[Dypsisdean]

How do you deniers explain this two pie charts?

97% Agree.jpg Powell-Science-Pie-Chart.png

You can read more about the methodology behind the second chart here.

Why is there such a glaring discrepancy between the number of peer-reviewed papers on climate change?

A healthy skepticism is fine and dandy, but where is the scientific data to back it up?

It's not like big oil and the Koch brothers haven't thrown enough money into the mix to raise doubt over the issue, but where is the science to back up your position?

I am guessing those pie charts were published by yet another "organization" that stands to benefit from that position.

Back in the beginning stages of research on cigarettes, how many studies funded by tobacco interests concuded that cigarettes caused cancer? If scientists are so legit and credible, how did this happen?

I would be interested in how many research papers funded by those standing to gain something from proof of man caused global warming, came up with any other conclusion? Or how many funded by coal or oil came up with conclusions their industries are the cause? Those are the studies I would like to review - but where are they?

So Mats, to answer your question. There isn't any money or power in trying to disprove or battle the huge amount of resources the world's govenments have throwm at proving this theory. Who has the resources to launch their own satellites, submarines, and arctic excursions, just to try and disprove a point. And suppose they did happen to disprove it, what would they receive for their trouble? And today if you even speak out against the accepted political correctness, you can easily lose your job, or friendhips - and are branded as a misfit. Sure, there are a few, but when compared to the money and power of the developed world's governments, it is negligible - and certainly biased with an agenda of it's own.

If somebody tells me I am in mortal danger, and the only way out is to do what he says, which is giving him large amounts of my money, and power over how I conduct my life, I will have to be 100% positive that 1) his facts are indisputable, and 2) that he can really do anything that will make a difference.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

How do you deniers explain this two pie charts?

97% Agree.jpg Powell-Science-Pie-Chart.png

You can read more about the methodology behind the second chart here.

Why is there such a glaring discrepancy between the number of peer-reviewed papers on climate change?

A healthy skepticism is fine and dandy, but where is the scientific data to back it up?

It's not like big oil and the Koch brothers haven't thrown enough money into the mix to raise doubt over the issue, but where is the science to back up your position?

I am guessing those pie charts were published by yet another "organization" that stands to benefit from that position.

Back in the beginning stages of research on cigarettes, how many studies funded by tobacco interests concuded that cigarettes caused cancer? If scientists are so legit and credible, how did this happen?

I would be interested in how many research papers funded by those standing to gain something from proof of man caused global warming, came up with any other conclusion? Or how many funded by coal or oil came up with conclusions their industries are to blame? Those are the studies I would like to review - but where are they?

So Mats, to answer your question. There isn't any money or power in trying to disprove the huge amount of resources the world's covenments have throwm at proving this theory. Who has the resources to launch their own satellites, submarines, and arctic excursions, just to try and prove a point. And if they did happen to prove it, what would they receive in return?

Dean, before you post stuff like that, you should check the facts so that you don't walk into your own trap. There is no such parallel between smoking caused lung cancer and science funded cover up. See http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/87.full. It was actually the other way around. Govt was exposing the problem, and corporations tried to cover it up using exactly the same approach that big oil and other large industries are using with global warming. Until there were so many scientific articles proving the link that the industry could no longer deny it. See http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/where-theres-smoke-the-climate-change-denial-lobby/.

Quiz: which of these two is actual tobacco industry denial, and which is climate change denial with “tobacco” and related terms substituted:

1

“

The claim that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer has not been scientifically proven………..it is a reductionist error and not keeping with the current theories of cancer causation to attempt to assign each cancer to an exclusive single cause…………the use of results from flawed population studies to frighten people by attributing large numbers of death yearly to smoking may be misleading and is most regrettable………

2

“

There is no experimental data to support the hypothesis that smoking causes lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, or chronic bronchitis………any number of things can influence the onset of a disease. The list includes genetics, diet, workplace environment, and stress…….we understand public anxiety about smoking causing disease, but are concerned that many of these much-publicized associations are ill-informed and misleading

[_Keith]

Good job Keith, the perfect ending to the debate. Thats funny.

Well Gary, I tried, now its back to I feel like I am in the movie Groundhog Day.

[Gtlevine]

Matts, i can answer your question.

There are few deniers of global warming theory. In theory, the greenhouse effect can be created by excessive amounts of co2 or other greenhouse gases. The question is, in reality, has that and will that happen. How much of that warming is there going to be if any, on top of the current natural warming trend? Is the natural warming, or natural plus man made warming significant? and will it lead to these apocolyptic predictions? All the papers written on the subject are from organizations funded by agenda driven politics, i dont care if its a hundred thousand papers. Have you looked at climate gate and how all the emails were discovered by one of the major players in global warming that they fudged the data intentionally? Why did they change global warming to climate change? Because they realized warming has not taken place in 17 years. Try the eye test, that is more accurate than the computer modeling. I have been around for 52 years. In that half century with all the co2 pumped into the atmosphere, there has been no noticable change in temperature, droughts, storms, or anything else. Beaches look the same, seasons are the same, there are good years and bad years. In half century things are still the way they were when i was born. In the next half century when im dead, the people alive will say the same thing im saying today. If you really are that concerned and you live by the sea, you have decades or centuries to move to higher ground. Sometimes the good old eye test and common sense are all thats needed in place of a science that really can't be proved. This global warming thing should not be a concern. Furthermore, even if your a believer in it, you should lie and claim your a denier. If there is one thing that history has always proven, the self appointed masterminds of centralized authoritarian governments will use these fake crises to rob you and take away your freedom. Letting your government into your life is a guaranteed disaster far more than any flood from global warming. No thank you, i would rather take my chances with Godzilla than the Federal Government.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Gtlevine

[_Keith]

Gary, noooo!. But then, this immediately came to mind.

[Gtlevine]

Exactly Keith! "Just when i thought i was out, they pulled me back in" classic! I have to not look at this thread for a week, its safer.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

You know, I've tried to post about brahea but then those posts largely gets ignored. There are only four topics PalmTalkers get excited about: dypsis, Newcal, copernicia and global warming. I'll prove it and post about brahea in the main forum.

[Gtlevine]

Haha haha haha. So it gets even worse, this it what i was referring to earlier. So climate gate scientists got caught with their pants down fixing data, some of which has been selectively left out of your video. So the hoaxers spin reasons about the tree ring nonsense, by saying they went to actual weather data after 1960. But then the video left out the bigger hoax, when they got caught later inputting data from selective weather stations favorable to the output they needed. I love when someone lies about a lie. Then lies about the lie they just got caught lying about. I feel like its the Saturday Night Live Climate gate show. Alex, stick with your own views, at least you thought it out and its your view. Hate to see you get painted by the government climate gate hacks that are digging their way to China.

And please, never try to make and argument with John Stewart or Bill Maher. You lost before you started that way. Thats like me breaking out Sean Hannity for an argument, its a loser and i would lose credibility.

BTW, i love Braheas, post away. I just picked up a couple more decumbens.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Gtlevine

[Dypsisdean]

Dean, before you post stuff like that, you should check the facts so that you don't walk into your own trap. There is no such parallel between smoking caused lung cancer and science funded cover up.

It is an exact parallel. Are you saying that the scientists funded by the tobacco industry did not cover anything up? I think you would agree they did. And to use your words - that is a perfect example of a "science funded cover up." I only used that example to show that scientists do cover things up, for all sorts of reasons. And govenment funded scientists are human too.

To me it makes no difference if a corporate funded group comes up with a conclusion that supports their agenda, or a government funded group comes up with evidence that supports the government agenda. Both are suspect.

Governments and corporations operate the same. The people who sit on the Boards, run the Agencies, and get the research dollars are hired because they share the same vision, motives, and agenda - and who will faithfully tow the company/government line.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

Haha haha haha. So it gets even worse, this it what i was referring to earlier. So climate gate scientists got caught with their pants down fixing data, some of which has been selectively left out of your video. So the hoaxers spin reasons about the tree ring nonsense, by saying they went to actual weather data after 1960. But then the video left out the bigger hoax, when they got caught later inputting data from selective weather stations favorable to the output they needed. I love when someone lies about a lie. Then lies about the lie they just got caught lying about. I feel like its the Saturday Night Live Climate gate show. Alex, stick with your own views, at least you thought it out and its your view. Hate to see you get painted by the government climate gate hacks that are digging their way to China.

And please, never try to make and argument with John Stewart or Bill Maher. You lost before you started that way. Thats like me breaking out Sean Hannity for an argument, its a loser and i would lose credibility.

BTW, i love Braheas, post away. I just picked up a couple more decumbens.

I wasn't making an argument, just having fun posting more fuel for the fire. I posted my position already.

[Gtlevine]

That was jet fuel Alex. Bill Mayer, John Stewart? Those guys can provide enough fuel to burn to create global warming by themselves. Good one, you did get me rolling. Im not sure about the Brahea comment, i think you will get a good run posting about Braheas .

[Funkthulhu]

That was jet fuel Alex. Bill Mayer, John Stewart? Those guys can provide enough fuel to burn to create global warming by themselves. Good one, you did get me rolling. Im not sure about the Brahea comment, i think you will get a good run posting about Braheas .

Sorry you can't dial Bill or John, you might learn something.

Next you'll be telling us that the COSMOS series is leftist propaganda...

EL NINO!!!!

[_Keith]

That was jet fuel Alex. Bill Mayer, John Stewart? Those guys can provide enough fuel to burn to create global warming by themselves. Good one, you did get me rolling. Im not sure about the Brahea comment, i think you will get a good run posting about Braheas .

Sorry you can't dial Bill or John, you might learn something.

Next you'll be telling us that the COSMOS series is leftist propaganda...

EL NINO!!!!

thulu, baits the hook and makes another cast.

[Alicehunter2000]

Come on everyone, lets keep the ball rolling....how bout this logic...

Those that are always trying to convince of man made climate change never have a real solution to the perceived problem; the solutions that are offered (take your pick) would either not make a difference in greenhouse gas levels or is totally unworkable due to geopolitical or geoeconomics factors. Then you must ask yourself, why do they continue to press an issue that has no workable solution? Power, Contol, Money?

[_Keith]

David, no one here is changing their minds, so what is the point. There is an old saying, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." No one trust data anymore, if they ever did, so people make up their minds based on philosophy. You and I could name many things in this world that make no sense, but people still do them because they "believe" in them. Man is illogical. Nature sorts it out through selection. Man has temporarily beaten that system for a non-statistically significant period of time. Only in our minds are we and our actions significant, nothing more. In a flash of the universe we appeared and we will we likely disappear in a flash as well. And if we don't, it will be by no logic or knowledge that we possess today. It will truly be by a miracle.

[Gtlevine]

That was jet fuel Alex. Bill Mayer, John Stewart? Those guys can provide enough fuel to burn to create global warming by themselves. Good one, you did get me rolling. Im not sure about the Brahea comment, i think you will get a good run posting about Braheas .

Sorry you can't dial Bill or John, you might learn something.

Next you'll be telling us that the COSMOS series is leftist propaganda...

EL NINO!!!!

Cosmos series is just boring and sucks! EL NINO. The better series was. "How The Universe Works" hosted by that dirty jobs guy. EL NINO! Why are you still posting here Funkthulu? I recall three pages ago you were done?

EL NINO !

[Gtlevine]

David, no one here is changing their minds, so what is the point. There is an old saying, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." No one trust data anymore, if they ever did, so people make up their minds based on philosophy. You and I could name many things in this world that make no sense, but people still do them because they "believe" in them. Man is illogical. Nature sorts it out through selection. Man has temporarily beaten that system for a non-statistically significant period of time. Only in our minds are we and our actions significant, nothing more. In a flash of the universe we appeared and we will we likely disappear in a flash as well. And if we don't, it will be by no logic or knowledge that we possess today. It will truly be by a miracle.

I agree Keith. If people believe in Big Foot, Nessy, and Alien Bodies in the Nevada Desert, then believing in the Man Made global warming apocalypse is not that far off? But as all those other crazy things, Global Warming armageddon will pass just as the Mayan 2012 end of the world.

[Gtlevine]

El NINO!

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

Man-made or not, the next El Nino looks like a real cooker. Here's a video for Gary, and no, it's not John Stewart, but it's NASA, which you also might not like.

Here is the latest ENSO update as per the Climate Prediction Center / NCEP for 19th of May 2014, which is quite conservative:

• ENSO Alert System Status: El Niño Watch
• ENSO-neutral conditions continue.
• Sea surface temperatures (SST) are above-average across the equatorial Pacific Ocean.
• The chances of El Niño increase during the remainder of 2014, exceeding 65% by summer (JJA) and peaking near 80% during the late fall/early winter.
• During the last four weeks, the SST anomalies remained positive near the International Date Line and increased across the eastern Pacific.
• The basin-wide equatorial upper ocean (0-300 m) heat content is greatest prior to and during the early stages of a Pacific warm (El Niño) episode. The slope of the oceanic thermocline is least during warm episodes.
• Recent values of the upper-ocean heat anomalies (positive) and thermocline slope index (negative) reflect a progression toward El Niño.
• The weakening of the positive temperature anomalies during April represented the effects of the upwelling phase of the Kelvin wave.
• Anomalous low-level (850-hPa) westerly winds were observed across the east-central and eastern equatorial Pacific. Predominantly easterly wind anomalies are evident in the upper-level (200-hPa) winds in the east-central equatorial Pacific Ocean. Significant weakening of the low-level easterly winds usually initiates an eastward-propagating oceanic Kelvin wave
• The most recent ONI value (February–April 2014) is -0.5C, so still ENSO Neutral. (AMJ 1997–MAM 1998 was 2.4, the highest recorded El Nino.)

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

Come on everyone, lets keep the ball rolling....how bout this logic...

Those that are always trying to convince of man made climate change never have a real solution to the perceived problem; the solutions that are offered (take your pick) would either not make a difference in greenhouse gas levels or is totally unworkable due to geopolitical or geoeconomics factors. Then you must ask yourself, why do they continue to press an issue that has no workable solution? Power, Contol, Money?

NASA would agree with you. Here's a great video that shows how we've reached the point of no return on the Antarctic ice melts. In other words, it doesn't matter what we do, those glaciers are going to slide off the land and melt into the sea, causing a 3 feet rise. There's no debate of man-made or not, just an observation that those things are goners no matter what we do.

[Gtlevine]

I will plead partially dumb here since i dont remember all the data i read from sources i trust. But in Antarctic the collapse of the glaciers started a long time ago with no link to co2. In greenland ice melt is more prevalent and warmer temps are have been consistent there unlike antarctic which no discernible temperature increases have been observed. There is not enough ice in the arctic to be a concern. Although surface temps are not a major factor, warming ocean water is undermining the ice sheets and destabilizing the glaciers. If the warming ocean temps continue, the glaciers will break apart in a time frame of 200 to 1000 years. Most sea level rise is likely to happen from thermal expansion of the sea and not the ice melt. All this is inevitable because we are in a natural warming cycle. But mans contribution is not a significant factor in all of this, its happening on its own. This is all a guess anyway because it is not that cut and dry. There are so many layers to this and variables that even the most brilliant minds can only guess what will actually happen. It is super complicated, so no one can sell me this is co2 induced. Everything i read from very bright non biased minds say it is not anything more than a theoretical contributor.

Dont spell check me , iphone typing is tough.

Alex, your free to clean up my technical facts if you want. Since im not worried about this i dont study it much.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Gtlevine

[_Keith]

So Gary, there you go "glaciers will break apart in a time frame of 200 to 1000 years." No problem, go ahead and half those numbers. What was this planet like 100 to 500 years ago? People will either adapt or die. It is a pretty simple equation. We are living in a short very human friendly environmental era. Anyone who expected that to remain stable just does not know history or refuses to accept logic. I have no desire to dump my problems on future generations any more than previous generation dumped on us. And believe my they dumped plenty. But in the end each generation gets dealt a deck of cards and they have to play the best hand they can. Whether they win or lose is a little luck and a lot of skill. As far a climate change, well duh, it was gonna change either way.

[Gtlevine]

Also Alex, most surface temps have went down in antarctic except a small area. This along with a nice steady increase in sea ice is adding another layer of the puzzle to factor in.

[Gtlevine]

So Gary, there you go "glaciers will break apart in a time frame of 200 to 1000 years." No problem, go ahead and half those numbers. What was this planet like 100 to 500 years ago? People will either adapt or die. It is a pretty simple equation. We are living in a short very human friendly environmental era. Anyone who expected that to remain stable just does not know history or refuses to accept logic. I have no desire to dump my problems on future generations any more than previous generation dumped on us. And believe my they dumped plenty. But in the end each generation gets dealt a deck of cards and they have to play the best hand they can. Whether they win or lose is a little luck and a lot of skill. As far a climate change, well duh, it was gonna change either way.

Yes Keith, that sums it up exactly.

[Dypsisdean]

David, no one here is changing their minds, so what is the point. There is an old saying, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." No one trust data anymore, if they ever did, so people make up their minds based on philosophy. You and I could name many things in this world that make no sense, but people still do them because they "believe" in them. Man is illogical. Nature sorts it out through selection. Man has temporarily beaten that system for a non-statistically significant period of time. Only in our minds are we and our actions significant, nothing more. In a flash of the universe we appeared and we will we likely disappear in a flash as well. And if we don't, it will be by no logic or knowledge that we possess today. It will truly be by a miracle.

I agree Keith. If people believe in Big Foot, Nessy, and Alien Bodies in the Nevada Desert, then believing in the Man Made global warming apocalypse is not that far off? But as all those other crazy things, Global Warming armageddon will pass just as the Mayan 2012 end of the world.

Talking about beliefs ----- according to this and other polls I have seen, more than half of you who have commented in this topic on Global Warming (on either side) also "believe" that ghosts are spirits of the dead, and more than a third "believe" they haunt houses.

http://www.livescience.com/16748-americans-beliefs-paranormal-infographic.html

[Stevetoad]

Now that's spooky dean.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

What about the rest of the infographic?

So suddenly it's ok to lump hinduism faith into the paranormal but not the Christian heaven afterlife? BTW Witches are real, it's called the Wicca religion. It's basically the pagan religion the Roman Empire persecuted. It has survived to this day despite the Christian witch burning.

And the power of the human body to heal itself is real, Western medicine calls that the placebo effect, and in many cases it's quite effective.

What we need is a balance between scientific reductionism, healthy skepticism and the acknowledgement there is an awful lot in this world we don't yet understand.