I can't believe you guys seriously think man-made climate change is a theory. I don't want to debate it, because I really don't think this is the right thread, nor do I wish to enter into political debates. I just wonder why people are so skeptical of scientists on this issue.
Because the proof just isn't there. How do we know that we are not in a warming period? The earth has gone through too many cycles to know for sure that we are causing the warming. I'm not saying that man made climate change can't be happening. It's an interesting theory but the data behind it just isn't there.
wandering further off topic...
I am honestly torn on ID. On the one hand I believe in the concept of micro-evolution and am unsure about macro evolution but understand it.
On the other hand, it is statistically possible for my truck to be put in drive and random influences get it all the way to work without hitting anything. I'd be more comfortable with a driver though.
I guess my take on ID is 'it's perfectly possible to evolve into a man. I prefer to believe that we had a push.'
But then I'm a henothestic Lutheran Heritic, so take it as you will.
As an aside, I do have to laugh at people calling the Religions 'Right' an anchor. I mean these people who hate GE food, are convinced that global warming (High of 84 in August/September today) is manmade and of course Fred Phelps (D-Hell) aren't the worst of the Religious Left?
You're proceeding from a false assumption. The "random drive" has already happened. that is coming to a scene of an accident and asking what are the odds this car would crash here at exactly this time?
|
I can't believe you guys seriously think man-made climate change is a theory. I don't want to debate it, because I really don't think this is the right thread, nor do I wish to enter into political debates. I just wonder why people are so skeptical of scientists on this issue.Because the proof just isn't there. How do we know that we are not in a warming period? The earth has gone through too many cycles to know for sure that we are causing the warming. I'm not saying that man made climate change can't be happening. It's an interesting theory but the data behind it just isn't there.
|
Also, why should we trust the predictions of what is going to happen 10, 20, or 50 years down the road when the same computer models can't tell me what the weather will be like two weeks from now.Oh, c'mon. That little pot shot is entirely disingenuous. Predicting complex models tend towards greater accuracy at a broader range.
The problem with citing chaos theory is that one of the basics is that random fluctuations make it so that certain events never repeat and can never be duplicated. Remember the demonstration that Jeff Goldblum did on Jurassic Park. While simplistic, it did give a good example of why such studies are difficult. And yes, studying a broader scope can make things more accurate, with less resolution, and only if you input the right data. Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist who is now teaching at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, did a demonstration one time at a seminar I attended that showed that the computer models did not accurately predict the climate using the data that they use regularly for times when we had the actual records to compare. He said that the reason is because the computer can not take into account the fluctuations of the global climate. It can do a good job of predicting localized climates but not global ones.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I can't believe you guys seriously think man-made climate change is a theory. I don't want to debate it, because I really don't think this is the right thread, nor do I wish to enter into political debates. I just wonder why people are so skeptical of scientists on this issue.
I'm not, lots of scientists hold that it's not happening. So we agree, listen to the scientists, it's a theory, and a poor one at that.
30 years ago the same scientists were predicting global cooling. So using your logic, we should go ahead and burn more wood, because baby, it's cold outside.
The dust jacket of ZZ Top's Recycler (1994) claimed scientists said we have 10 years to change the world to save the planet. We're 4 years too late. So, to quote another band "I might be going to hell in a bucket baby, but at least I'm enjoying the ride."
Carbon-forced anthropogenic climate change is a red herring anyway. It diverts attention from the fact that we're totally dependent on a fossil fuel that is of finite quantity. Maybe there's 100 years' more, maybe 10,000, but sooner or later it will be gone. With the rate at which the human population is growing (we're approaching what, 7 billion people on earth now?), and given the rate of industrialization in developing nations, the existing supply is comparatively less every day. How much effort do we put into nuclear energy (to replace coal for electricity) and hydrogen cells (to power vehicles)? Approximately zero, compared to the effort that goes into fossil fuel production. Why? The oil infrastructure is already in place, the U.S. government is in bed with the oil industry, and, most importantly, there is no incentive to develop new sources when we're told "don't worry -- there's plenty in Alaska/offshore/in oil shales, and the supply will never run out!"
We're not seriously debating drilling to allow time for development of alternatives; what we're doing is trying to allow drilling to stave off the inevitable, and to continue to avoid looking seriously into alternatives in the meantime.
|
|
. Not to mention that we KNOW that human activity has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a rate unheard of in the geological record.
Every time I hear someone say we KNOW something I think of this line, "Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." Cheers.
"House prices and house sales are in a dwindling slump. Gas prices are high"
This is not Bush's fault. We have Clinton to thank for these two problems.
I disagree. I don't want to over-simplify the cyclical nature of economics, but our housing bubble burst and our gas prices spiked horrifically during Bush's second term as president. In both cases, there were warning signs during Bush's regime that he did nothing to address.
Housing? I don't know the motive, other than it was probably too complicated for him and his administration to address. (Bush does tend to turn a blind eye to issues that he can't easily simplify. Katrina? Go fishing. Saddam. "He tried to kill my daddy."
Gas? I think there's NO secret how embedded W. and his family is in the oil and gas industry. Ya don't bite the hand that feeds you.
If Clinton had let us drill in Anwar like the Republicans wanted to back in the 90's, we wouldn't be in this situation. Clinton's theory on "borrowing short and lending long" has a lot to do with the current housing bubble. I'm not giving Bush a complete pass on this either. You're right, even though he wasn't at fault for the housing bust, he hasn't done a good job at fixing it.
|
|
I can't believe you guys seriously think man-made climate change is a theory. I don't want to debate it, because I really don't think this is the right thread, nor do I wish to enter into political debates. I just wonder why people are so skeptical of scientists on this issue.Because the proof just isn't there. How do we know that we are not in a warming period? The earth has gone through too many cycles to know for sure that we are causing the warming. I'm not saying that man made climate change can't be happening. It's an interesting theory but the data behind it just isn't there.
It amazes me that someone can say that the proof isn't there. The scientific community has been quite articulate in its explanation of the situation, and quite demonstrative as well. I don't even want to pretend that I could do an adequate job sharing that information here. What get me most is that the scientific community has been showing developing trends and growing concerns for at least 20 years. Those trends haven't reversed.
Question. Have you seen "An Inconvenient Truth"? If not, perhaps you should.
|
|
Please explain to me why I, a lay person, should accept that we, meaning mankind, are causing global warming when you, a scientist, point to a period where we, meaning mankind, were not even specks in the eye of evolution as an example of where we may be heading.Let me flip it around for a moment: Please explain to me why you, a lay person, refuse to accept it as a possibility, when I, a scientist, understand that it is possible. The climate is warming, and that is almost certainly part of a natural cycle. But there is evidence to indicate that we, humans, are increasing the rate of change beyond what would normally be expected. Isn't that worth looking into more carefully, rather than dismissing outright?
I am not dismissing it, I'm just asking how can we be sure? If the Earth goes through cycles like this on a regular basis, isn't it egotistical of us to say that we can affect it, or stop it? We are operating under the assumption that there is anything we can do about it, when it may be that we are just along for the ride and we should be looking for ways to adapt rather than saying that the way we like it is the way it should be.
Question. Have you seen "An Inconvenient Truth"? If not, perhaps you should.
As a scientist, I unfortunately felt that the movie did more to undermine the point than it did to bolster it. Gore spins the data and misinterprets the graphs in order to make things seem simpler than they are. A movie showing the complexity of the feedback loops would have been harder to understand, but would have been MUCH more convincing.
Because the proof just isn't there. How do we know that we are not in a warming period? The earth has gone through too many cycles to know for sure that we are causing the warming. I'm not saying that man made climate change can't be happening. It's an interesting theory but the data behind it just isn't there.
If a mugger reaches for his gun and says he's going to kill you, do you require more proof that he's going to do it before you act? Even if he's kidding, maybe it's best to take it seriously, rather than assuming it's impossible.
What exactly are you looking for?I can't believe you guys seriously think man-made climate change is a theory. I don't want to debate it, because I really don't think this is the right thread, nor do I wish to enter into political debates. I just wonder why people are so skeptical of scientists on this issue.Because the proof just isn't there. How do we know that we are not in a warming period? The earth has gone through too many cycles to know for sure that we are causing the warming. I'm not saying that man made climate change can't be happening. It's an interesting theory but the data behind it just isn't there.
Nothing convincing to me. It's just a bunch of scientists' opinions based on very little data.
|
|
If Clinton had let us drill in Anwar like the Republicans wanted to back in the 90's, we wouldn't be in this situation. Clinton's theory on "borrowing short and lending long" has a lot to do with the current housing bubble. I'm not giving Bush a complete pass on this either. You're right, even though he wasn't at fault for the housing bust, he hasn't done a good job at fixing it.
ANWAR has never been a fix, but a stop gap. Why destroy a pristine piece of nature for a stop gap that hardly fixes the problem when alternative fuels could. And certainly, during the past 8 years, there's hardly been any show by Bush of honestly researching alternative fuels.
Now, I'm no Clinton worshipper. NAFTA certainly has its problems.
No President is going to be perfect.
Where I'm coming from is that after eight years, I don't see our country any better off that it was before. In fact, I see it volumes worse. Can one man change the course of our contry's degradation in one or two terms as President. No. I don't believe this. But I honestly don't believe another four years of the same ideals, agendas, and head in the sand is going to help us both internally and internationally.
I don't expect miracles under Obama. Much depends on the Congress, the Courts, and developments on the world stage, as well as commitment in our own communities.
But for such a great country, our health care system and education system are hardly exemplary. We want countries to look to us as a morale authority. Our actions over the past eight years hardly support this.
I can't believe you guys seriously think man-made climate change is a theory. I don't want to debate it, because I really don't think this is the right thread, nor do I wish to enter into political debates. I just wonder why people are so skeptical of scientists on this issue.Because the proof just isn't there. How do we know that we are not in a warming period? The earth has gone through too many cycles to know for sure that we are causing the warming. I'm not saying that man made climate change can't be happening. It's an interesting theory but the data behind it just isn't there.It amazes me that someone can say that the proof isn't there. The scientific community has been quite articulate in its explanation of the situation, and quite demonstrative as well. I don't even want to pretend that I could do an adequate job sharing that information here. What get me most is that the scientific community has been showing developing trends and growing concerns for at least 20 years. Those trends haven't reversed.
Question. Have you seen "An Inconvenient Truth"? If not, perhaps you should.
That "documentary" has too many errors in it to be taken seriously.
Where I'm coming from is that after eight years, I don't see our country any better off that it was before. In fact, I see it volumes worse. Can one man change the course of our contry's degradation in one or two terms as President. No. I don't believe this.
Astute. Whoever gets into office isn't going to have a good time of it. There's no money for any programs anyone proposes. Even if they try and turn things around, it'll take longer than four years. Therefore I'm thinking the next election will be one of scapegoating, even if the coming president actually makes postive changes.
|
|
Question. Have you seen "An Inconvenient Truth"? If not, perhaps you should.As a scientist, I unfortunately felt that the movie did more to undermine the point than it did to bolster it. Gore spins the data and misinterprets the graphs in order to make things seem simpler than they are. A movie showing the complexity of the feedback loops would have been harder to understand, but would have been MUCH more convincing.
When I saw it I felt that it was more telling us how we had screwed up by not electing him. It was really more about Algore's "heroic journey" than about climate change. I did love the Simpsons-esqe cartoon at the beginning though.
If Clinton had let us drill in Anwar like the Republicans wanted to back in the 90's, we wouldn't be in this situation. Clinton's theory on "borrowing short and lending long" has a lot to do with the current housing bubble. I'm not giving Bush a complete pass on this either. You're right, even though he wasn't at fault for the housing bust, he hasn't done a good job at fixing it.ANWAR has never been a fix, but a stop gap. Why destroy a pristine piece of nature for a stop gap that hardly fixes the problem when alternative fuels could. And certainly, during the past 8 years, there's hardly been any show by Bush of honestly researching alternative fuels.
Now, I'm no Clinton worshipper. NAFTA certainly has its problems.
No President is going to be perfect.
Where I'm coming from is that after eight years, I don't see our country any better off that it was before. In fact, I see it volumes worse. Can one man change the course of our contry's degradation in one or two terms as President. No. I don't believe this. But I honestly don't believe another four years of the same ideals, agendas, and head in the sand is going to help us both internally and internationally.
I don't expect miracles under Obama. Much depends on the Congress, the Courts, and developments on the world stage, as well as commitment in our own communities.
But for such a great country, our health care system and education system are hardly exemplary. We want countries to look to us as a morale authority. Our actions over the past eight years hardly support this.
I agree, our public schools are terrible. That's what happens when you let the bureaucrats run things. However, our private schools are very good and our colleges are some of the best in the world. Our health care system has it's problems, but its still better than what Europe has.
Our health care system has its problems, but it's still better than what Europe has.
Have you lived in Europe? Or is this a random statement based on assumption?
. Not to mention that we KNOW that human activity has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a rate unheard of in the geological record.Every time I hear someone say we KNOW something I think of this line, "Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." Cheers.
David, please realize that when you make this statement, you have to realize that science did not exist as an endeavor as we now know it. 1500 years ago, the scientific method had not been established and observations from limited viewpoints provided the only scientific knowledge at the time.
The scientific world today is vastly different. Today we depend and even thrive on disagreement. Unfortunately, I do not see the disagreement amongst scientists that you refer to.
Well, not to get too embroiled in the whole 'global warming' brouhaha, but I for one believe that humans have a big hand in it. I also believe that the environment also has a big hand in it. I also believe, barring some 'miracle' fuel apperaring there is little we can do about the process. Cutting all fossil fuels out of the equation is impossible without causing massive famines. We have overpopulated ourselves. We cannot return to a farm-based agricultural economy and keep our population levels. No one seems in favor of restricting birth rates anyway.
Wind is a nice idea, but right here on Cape Cod a proposal to build a wind farm has met with incredibly virulent opposition due to NIMBY concern, oftentimes from very liberal folks like Ted Kennedy.
Solar is good, but to be really efficient we should be building solar collecting stations in orbit and beamcasting the power down.
Our energy needs will continue to increase, and with Asian nations emerging into a higher standard of living for their members the demand for energy will increase. That is the basic reason gas is increasing in price. Supply vs. Demand.
Even when when we scrub all fossil fuels from the atmosphere there are still other concerns. Human population activities will generate their own heat, along with our love of the methane-producing ruminant.
Just a few random thoughts. My own solution: Space exploration/colonization. Its a big universe out there, and the moon wouldn't mind a few tons of radioactive waste shelved there until we find a good use to put it to. Crucial industries that spew poison could be put in orbit. Raw material shortages could be circumvented by snagging a few asteroids and melting them with mirrors in orbit. The sun is our own pet fusion reactor, with a 5 billion-year warranty. Humans always seem to have great leaps in society when they have a challenge. Space is the next logical one. Population pressure could be bled off with some colony ships as well. My 2 Cp
Our health care system has its problems, but it's still better than what Europe has.Have you lived in Europe? Or is this a random statement based on assumption?
No. All you have to do is read and figure it out for yourself. Of course a "layman" like myself probably can't do that can I?
|
|
I don't expect miracles under Obama. Much depends on the Congress, the Courts, and developments on the world stage, as well as commitment in our own communities.
That's an astute observation, so let's explore it for a moment. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, since the Democrats took control of Congress, promising to help fix unemployment it has gone up 1%. Unemployment also went up from 2000 to 2002 when they had control of the Senate. However, from 2002 to 2006 when the Republicans were in control on The Hill unemployment went down almost 2%. So the question could be asked, during those eight years, what four year period were American's better off in? Since Democrats took control of the Congress gas prices in the United States have gone up twice as fast as in the proceeding six years. According to Standards and Poors it has only been since 2006 that housing values have dropped. Just based on that evidence, who has done a better job taking care of the American people?
Nothing convincing to me. It's just a bunch of scientists' opinions based on very little data.Oh? Why don't you go down to those nice little footnotes? Some of them lead to papers the expound on why these groups hold these opinions and what data these opinions are based upon.
When that data is based on about 10,000 years of data instead of a century, I'll be more impressed.
|
|
That's an astute observation, so let's explore it for a moment. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, since the Democrats took control of Congress, promising to help fix unemployment it has gone up 1%. Unemployment also went up from 2000 to 2002 when they had control of the Senate. However, from 2002 to 2006 when the Republicans were in control on The Hill unemployment went down almost 2%. So the question could be asked, during those eight years, what four year period were American's better off in? Since Democrats took control of the Congress gas prices in the United States have gone up twice as fast as in the proceeding six years. According to Standards and Poors it has only been since 2006 that housing values have dropped. Just based on that evidence, who has done a better job taking care of the American people?
I think one of the biggest problems the Democrats have to deal with, to put it bluntly, is to grow some balls. (How? I don't know. And granted, this is a reaction to the Democrats portrayal in the media, which IMO, controls the flow of American "opinion".) Currently, the Democrats have hardly the numbers to really affect change. Their majorities just aren't enough. And fact is, the Republicans, with their litany of filibusters, have limited how much the Democrats can do. So, what have the Democrats done? Generally, so as to avoid appearing to be 'the problem' have tried to work where it can with the current administration and defend itself from Republican attacks. Alas, this hasn't served to fix anything. At the very most, its slowed the landslide of Republican activities that occurred, for foul or for fair, over the previous six years.
. Not to mention that we KNOW that human activity has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a rate unheard of in the geological record.Every time I hear someone say we KNOW something I think of this line, "Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." Cheers.
Good lord. Not only is it incorrect (five hundred years ago it wasa common knowledge, at least among the educated, that the world *isn't* flat, Columbus "discovering" it nonwithstanding) but irrelevant.
David, with all due respect, I expect better from you. If you're going to disagree with something, a fortune-cookie zen throwawy line from Men in Black isn't gonna cut it. Disappointing.
When that data is based on about 10,000 years of data instead of a century, I'll be more impressed.Nothing convincing to me. It's just a bunch of scientists' opinions based on very little data.Oh? Why don't you go down to those nice little footnotes? Some of them lead to papers the expound on why these groups hold these opinions and what data these opinions are based upon.
Ah...only a century's worth of data. Good rebuttal.
As for my part Mr. Dee, I know now the appropriate weight to give your posts in the future. Thank you for the time-saver.
As for this thread, I'm afraid it has cratered as far as I'm concerned. Have fun sticking your heads in the sand.
When that data is based on about 10,000 years of data instead of a century, I'll be more impressed.Nothing convincing to me. It's just a bunch of scientists' opinions based on very little data.Oh? Why don't you go down to those nice little footnotes? Some of them lead to papers the expound on why these groups hold these opinions and what data these opinions are based upon.Ah...only a century's worth of data. Good rebuttal.
As for my part, I know now the appropriate weight to give your posts. Thank you for the time-saver.
Dude, after your anti-religion comments you made a few months ago, I've never taken you too seriously.
|
|
Today we depend and even thrive on disagreement. Unfortunately, I do not see the disagreement amongst scientists that you refer to.
But I have to ask the question is it because it is not there, or because those who are do not have their voices heard? Maybe they are afraid to come forward because of the attacks on peopel who don't buy into the idea of manmade global warming. I attended a symposium where one of the speakers, I don't recall his name right now, called for "Nurenburg type trials for global warming deniers." Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe wrote "I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future." Who would want to voice their concerns if that is what they have to deal with. However, there are a few. Frontline did a profile on some of them.
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.
President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP); Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University.
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D
Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia; Senior Fellow, Cato Institute; Virginia State Climatologist.
Robert C. Balling, Jr. Ph. D.
Former Director, Office of Climatology and Associate professor of Geography, Arizona State University
Many of them have been actively involved in work on global warming. Dr. Lindzen actually sat on one of the UN commissions on global warming. I think we should take some time to listen to what they have to say.
|
|
. Not to mention that we KNOW that human activity has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a rate unheard of in the geological record.Every time I hear someone say we KNOW something I think of this line, "Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." Cheers.Good lord. Not only is it incorrect (five hundred years ago it wasa common knowledge, at least among the educated, that the world *isn't* flat, Columbus "discovering" it nonwithstanding) but irrelevant.
David, with all due respect, I expect better from you. If you're going to disagree with something, a fortune-cookie zen throwawy line from Men in Black isn't gonna cut it. Disappointing.
But it does illustrate the point I was trying to make, historical inaccuracies not withstanding. When we say we know something it is because we simply have not been presented with evidence to the contrary. For centuries we knew that Columbus was Italian, but new DNA tests that have been done on his remains prove that he was Spanish. For most of the 20th century we knew that there were nine planets, today there are eight. Thanks to Lowell and Schiaparelli, in the late 19th and early 20th century we knew there were canals on Mars, now we know different. My only point was that to say that we know something does not make it true.
I think we should take some time to listen to what they have to say.
Certainly. We should also take some time to listen to what the (much larger) scientific body in favor concludes as well, rather than rejecting it a priori.
For most of the 20th century we knew that there were nine planets, today there are eight.
That's a matter of semantics, not physical fact. We knew nine major (non-moon) bodies, and suspected others. With the confirmation of the others, we changed Pluto's designation; we didn't claim it stopped existing.
|
|
I think one of the biggest problems the Democrats have to deal with, to put it bluntly, is to grow some balls. (How? I don't know. And granted, this is a reaction to the Democrats portrayal in the media, which IMO, controls the flow of American "opinion".) Currently, the Democrats have hardly the numbers to really affect change. Their majorities just aren't enough. And fact is, the Republicans, with their litany of filibusters, have limited how much the Democrats can do.
The Republicans managed to get a lot done, even with Democratic filibusters, and based on the numbers it was generally better for the country. We can debate whether our foreign policy has done us any good, I think it has based on the number of pro-America candidates, like Sarkozy of France, that have been elected world wide. However, I think it is safe to say that based on the cold hard facts, the country was better off on domestic issues when the Republicans were in control.
|
|
For most of the 20th century we knew that there were nine planets, today there are eight.That's a matter of semantics, not physical fact. We knew nine major (non-moon) bodies, and suspected others. With the confirmation of the others, we changed Pluto's designation; we didn't claim it stopped existing.
(LOL)
my 5 y.o. son came up to my wife the other day and said,"momymomy....momy....pooto is da ninf pyanet, anda fuddest fum da sun."
So she told him it's not a planet anymore.
Boy, he got madderna m$!%*+$~%@~+, too.
"Who say dis? Who say dis? Do da aftonauts know dis? What dey tink? Dey mad too?"
|
|
For most of the 20th century we knew that there were nine planets, today there are eight.That's a matter of semantics, not physical fact. We knew nine major (non-moon) bodies, and suspected others. With the confirmation of the others, we changed Pluto's designation; we didn't claim it stopped existing.
Of course it also opened up the question of Neptune being a planet, since it doesn't technically fit the definition either.
Of course it also opened up the question of Neptune being a planet, since it doesn't technically fit the definition either.
How not? You'd have to disqualify all the gas giants then (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus) as well, and that makes little sense; there already exists a "terrestrial planet" vs. "gas giant" distinction (and now, what amounts to a "giant asteroid" one as well).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well, computer models predicted a high of 94 for Denver, 10 days out, for Al Gore's convention speech. It hit 73.
We're on year three of a series of massive huricanes predicted post Katrina for global warming. Wait, no we're not.
Maybe we should move away from fossil fuels, like Speaker Pelosi's clamouring for Natural Gas.
Or maybe we should listen to the founder of the weather channel who called it 'the greatest scam in history'
As to An Inconvient Truth. I prefer the Marx Brothers for my comedy.
We're on year three of a series of massive huricanes predicted post Katrina for global warming. Wait, no we're not.
Houston narrowly dodged one already this year, with Gustav on the way, and possibly 1-3 more after that...
Of course it also opened up the question of Neptune being a planet, since it doesn't technically fit the definition either.How not? You'd have to disqualify all the gas giants then (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus) as well, and that makes little sense; there already exists a "terrestrial planet" vs. "gas giant" distinction (and now, what amounts to a "giant asteroid" one as well).
I'm running on the 'Earth is the only true planet' ticket, and I'd greatly appreciate your vote.
|
|
Of course it also opened up the question of Neptune being a planet, since it doesn't technically fit the definition either.How not? You'd have to disqualify all the gas giants then (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus) as well, and that makes little sense; there already exists a "terrestrial planet" vs. "gas giant" distinction (and now, what amounts to a "giant asteroid" one as well).
Because the definition that I saw was 1) It orbits the sun, 2) It has a round shape, 3) It has enough mass to generate it's own gravity, and 4)It has cleared it's orbit. Pluto was disqualified by the IAU because it's orbit takes it inside Neptune's. Of course this then means that we must ask if Neptune is a planet because it has not cleared Pluto from it's orbit.
Of course this then means that we must ask if Neptune is a planet because it has not cleared Pluto from it's orbit.
Give it time. Pluto crosses its orbit so seldomly, Neptune hasn't had much chance to clear it. How many times in 5 billion years have the orbits crossed and the two bodies been anywhere near one another? Not at all, yet, I'd wager. But this is still all semantics; it hardly bolsters the "scientists don't know anything and are usually wrong" argument that Gary advanced earlier.
|
|
Of course this then means that we must ask if Neptune is a planet because it has not cleared Pluto from it's orbit.Give it time. Pluto crosses its orbit so seldomly, Neptune hasn't had much chance to clear it. How many times in 5 billion years have the orbits crossed and the two bodies been anywhere near one another? Not at all, yet, I'd wager. But this is still all semantics; it hardly bolsters the "scientists don't know anything and are usually wrong" argument that Gary advanced earlier.
I wasn't trying to bolster Gary's argument by bringing up Neptune. I was trying to distract everyone so we could all go back to being friends and having fun.
I was trying to distract everyone so we could all go back to being friends and having fun.
Maybe that's for the best... Certainly I feel that you and I remain friends; even if I disagree with you on politics maybe 75% of the time, I find talking with you agreeable maybe 95% of the time. That's a pretty good ratio, in my view.
Of course this then means that we must ask if Neptune is a planet because it has not cleared Pluto from it's orbit.Give it time. Pluto crosses its orbit so seldomly, Neptune hasn't had much chance to clear it. How many times in 5 billion years have the orbits crossed and the two bodies been anywhere near one another? Not at all, yet, I'd wager. But this is still all semantics; it hardly bolsters the "scientists don't know anything and are usually wrong" argument that Gary advanced earlier.
I never said that. I just don't understand when people always assume scientists are always right. History has proven them to be wrong on several occasions. Also, I apologize for the snarky remark I made to you. I shouldn't have said that.
|
|
I was trying to distract everyone so we could all go back to being friends and having fun.Maybe that's for the best... Certainly I feel that you and I remain friends; even if I disagree with you on politics maybe 75% of the time, I find talking with you agreeable maybe 95% of the time. That's a pretty good ratio, in my view.
[Using politician voice] What can I do to get your vote the other 5% of the time?[/using politician voice]
|
|
We're on year three of a series of massive huricanes predicted post Katrina for global warming. Wait, no we're not.Houston narrowly dodged one already this year, with Gustav on the way, and possibly 1-3 more after that...
The hurricane cycle's been going on in recorded history for a while now. You get slow times, you get hard times.
I remember living in Florida when David hit; it was hurricane 4 for the year, and it was in November.It's sneaking into September now on G, which is number 6.
We are in a cycle right now for a lot of hurricanes.