if you went hiking on a boat, and the nearest town was 90 miles away. you had your family with you and one lighter to make a fire. the boat collapsed, everybody is fine, but y'all have no food , and are not expected back till 1 week later. you've been there for 2 days.
if the father left his family behind to get help to the nearest town. but the family he leaves behind, and there are grizzlies and black bears and wolves and snakes and other dangerous animals in the forest. there might have even been rumours that a couple of murderers were living in that forest.
but anyways, the father went to look for that Twin on his own leaving the family behind.
in his path, there is a raging river he needs to cross, but he knows he won't make it, cause he's already starving, weak, and out of energy, and the currents are too fast.
he stays by the river for day 3, and rest. he then sees that airplanes be traveling up this way along the river. there are a lot of trees, and he has no open land to make a fire. if he makes a fire, and half the forest got burned down, would he still be punished, or what? would protesters still protest?
I'm sure that there would be controversy about it, but it would still definitely be illegal. If he was going to start a fire, it had to be one he could control. And I agree with the person who answered first, couldn't he have climbed a tree or something?
it would be illegal cuz they could have just cut down a tree or climbed up and gotten firewood for a smaller but still good fire.
I don't agree with boofy150. If the planes were flying by, it would take a longer time to go up a tree and get wood and then make a fire.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
What are some things that are made of Solar cells?
Whoever can list the most items that use solar cells to operate gets the points. Hint: anything that is solar powered uses solar cells
Silicon wafer based solar cells
Metamorphic Multijunction Solar Cell
Polymer processing
Nanoparticle processing
Transparent conductors
Silicon wafer based solar cells
Infrared solar cells
UV Solar cells
3-D solar cells
Antireflective and all-angle coating
Metamaterials
Photovoltaic thermal hybrid
Dye-sensitized solar cell
Hi:
Solar panels
solar mini lights
solar panels
how about every living thing on the planet
Silicon wafer based solar cells
Metamorphic Multijunction Solar Cell
Polymer processing
Nanoparticle processing
Transparent conductors
Silicon wafer based solar cells
Infrared solar cells
UV Solar cells
3-D solar cells
Antireflective and all-angle coating
Metamaterials
Photovoltaic thermal hybrid
Dye-sensitized solar cell
Hi:
Solar panels
solar mini lights
solar panels
how about every living thing on the planet
Which kind of packaging is best ?
When comparing food packaged in cans, glass jars, or plastic jars.
Which uses the least resources... is less harmful... and is easier to recycle ?
From what I have read, the best for recycling is glass jars. The glass industry knows that recycling glass jars to make new glass uses 30% less energy than starting from scratch, so they use as much recycled glass as possible, and glass bottles and jars are the best source. Glass from windows and other sources has impurities (coatings,etc) that make it less easily recycled.
Plastic jars give off some pollution when recycled, so they are the least eco-friendly of your list. Cans can be and are recycled but some have interior coatings that are not good for recycling. Use glass containers whenever possible.
Best is not using packaged foods. Fresh is the place to be.
There%26#039;s really too many environmental inputs to answer this question in cold hard facts.
Glass is the best in terms of how it%26#039;s manufactured and recycled, but because it%26#039;s heavier it uses more fuel to transport. Not all types of glass can be recycled (mostly ones that contain metallic elements) so you%26#039;d need to specify the type of glass. Where the package is manufactured and recycled also plays in to the fuel miles portion of the equation.
Plastics contain a lot of chemicals and give off more pollution in the recycling process. Again, not all can be recycled effectively, so check the package, look for the triangle, and study up on what numbers your recycling center accepts.
Metals require resource extraction and a lot of machinery, fuel, transportation, and local degradation is involved. In many places, metals are also smelted with charcoal, which means lots of wood. In others the factories use fossil fuels.
At the end of the day I use glass where I can because it%26#039;s more durable and I can re-use it safely 1000%26#039;s of times before it hits the recycling bin.
Actually from what i%26#039;ve heard there is a kind of plastic, made from corn, that uses less overall energy than other kinds of container. However this is not widely used so make sure.
i have heard that there is no limit to how many times a peice of metal can be recycled, so probably metel cans. of course, the best packaging in no packaging.
I prefer to buy my fresh veal chops when they are wrapped in whale blubber.
%0D%0A
Which uses the least resources... is less harmful... and is easier to recycle ?
From what I have read, the best for recycling is glass jars. The glass industry knows that recycling glass jars to make new glass uses 30% less energy than starting from scratch, so they use as much recycled glass as possible, and glass bottles and jars are the best source. Glass from windows and other sources has impurities (coatings,etc) that make it less easily recycled.
Plastic jars give off some pollution when recycled, so they are the least eco-friendly of your list. Cans can be and are recycled but some have interior coatings that are not good for recycling. Use glass containers whenever possible.
Best is not using packaged foods. Fresh is the place to be.
There%26#039;s really too many environmental inputs to answer this question in cold hard facts.
Glass is the best in terms of how it%26#039;s manufactured and recycled, but because it%26#039;s heavier it uses more fuel to transport. Not all types of glass can be recycled (mostly ones that contain metallic elements) so you%26#039;d need to specify the type of glass. Where the package is manufactured and recycled also plays in to the fuel miles portion of the equation.
Plastics contain a lot of chemicals and give off more pollution in the recycling process. Again, not all can be recycled effectively, so check the package, look for the triangle, and study up on what numbers your recycling center accepts.
Metals require resource extraction and a lot of machinery, fuel, transportation, and local degradation is involved. In many places, metals are also smelted with charcoal, which means lots of wood. In others the factories use fossil fuels.
At the end of the day I use glass where I can because it%26#039;s more durable and I can re-use it safely 1000%26#039;s of times before it hits the recycling bin.
Actually from what i%26#039;ve heard there is a kind of plastic, made from corn, that uses less overall energy than other kinds of container. However this is not widely used so make sure.
i have heard that there is no limit to how many times a peice of metal can be recycled, so probably metel cans. of course, the best packaging in no packaging.
I prefer to buy my fresh veal chops when they are wrapped in whale blubber.
%0D%0A
Paper suppliers in an increasingly paperless world?
Everyone is always worried about paper suppliers... what about ball point pen manufacturers?! Are you worried about them!? Electronic signatures FTL!
but what would happen to Dunder Miflin of "The Office"
The trees used to make paper are farmed, its not like they are cutting down old growth 1000 yr old oaks and such to make paper. Paper comes from tree farms- trees are cut and then replanted.
don't worry,we will be providede with that as well..
but what would happen to Dunder Miflin of "The Office"
The trees used to make paper are farmed, its not like they are cutting down old growth 1000 yr old oaks and such to make paper. Paper comes from tree farms- trees are cut and then replanted.
don't worry,we will be providede with that as well..
Why doesn
Latest news is that Russia will be building a military force to secure it's Arctic 'assets', most of the Arctic is in dispute with many countries but Russia is adamant it's theirs.
So why are they doing this? if Russia concentrated on green energy production they wouldn't need so much oil and wouldn't need an oil export economy.
Russia is huge, the potential for building land based wind turbines, geothermal power and hydroelectric power is almost unmatched.
What's the problem with them?
Don't they realise as the world changes to greener energy production nobody's going to want their oil any more?
They need to wake up and smell the coffee. They can keep their damn oil, they're the only one's who are going to need it.
Because for them oil is power (in the domination sense). Russia is a major supplier of natural gas and other oil products to much of Europe. When they want to flex their muscle they turn off the heating gas in the middle of winter and half of Europe freezes. This is not directly about fuel, but about power (domination).
At the same time, securing oil in the North doesn't exclude them from developing their green energy. So you're right, it probably is something they should do.
Why should they leave it for someone else to claim? Oil is where the money is at. Russia have the right idea. You can stick your "Green" up your a.s.s hippie
you will need the oil too. You can not live oil free. what's the replacement for catheters that keep you alive when you have a heart attack?
because they are not stupid
I agree with the answer that we'll never live oil free. Even back in the good old days when we lived in log cabins, and farmed the land, we used oil to lubricate things like wheels, quench iron to make tools, and oil lamps were normal (I know it was whale oil, but we can't go back to that, not enough whales left), etc. Sure we can cut back, but we'll always need some oil, and the alternates don't quite fill every need. A similar analogy is: even if we used no nuclear power, or nuclear weapons, we'd still need some radioactive materials for medical uses, testing, x-rays, etc.
So, if it doesn't cost them much to secure the supplies, then why wouldn't they do it?
And you assume that everyone else will "go green" just like you want us to. It's taken decades to convince the american people that alternative energy sources are a good idea, and it took $4/gallon gasoline to do that.
So why are they doing this? if Russia concentrated on green energy production they wouldn't need so much oil and wouldn't need an oil export economy.
Russia is huge, the potential for building land based wind turbines, geothermal power and hydroelectric power is almost unmatched.
What's the problem with them?
Don't they realise as the world changes to greener energy production nobody's going to want their oil any more?
They need to wake up and smell the coffee. They can keep their damn oil, they're the only one's who are going to need it.
Because for them oil is power (in the domination sense). Russia is a major supplier of natural gas and other oil products to much of Europe. When they want to flex their muscle they turn off the heating gas in the middle of winter and half of Europe freezes. This is not directly about fuel, but about power (domination).
At the same time, securing oil in the North doesn't exclude them from developing their green energy. So you're right, it probably is something they should do.
Why should they leave it for someone else to claim? Oil is where the money is at. Russia have the right idea. You can stick your "Green" up your a.s.s hippie
you will need the oil too. You can not live oil free. what's the replacement for catheters that keep you alive when you have a heart attack?
because they are not stupid
I agree with the answer that we'll never live oil free. Even back in the good old days when we lived in log cabins, and farmed the land, we used oil to lubricate things like wheels, quench iron to make tools, and oil lamps were normal (I know it was whale oil, but we can't go back to that, not enough whales left), etc. Sure we can cut back, but we'll always need some oil, and the alternates don't quite fill every need. A similar analogy is: even if we used no nuclear power, or nuclear weapons, we'd still need some radioactive materials for medical uses, testing, x-rays, etc.
So, if it doesn't cost them much to secure the supplies, then why wouldn't they do it?
And you assume that everyone else will "go green" just like you want us to. It's taken decades to convince the american people that alternative energy sources are a good idea, and it took $4/gallon gasoline to do that.
Hello from France ; Earth Hour has just began in Australia, what does it look like ?
...et en plus il est polyglotte, que de qualits. Dis, quand on me parle en italien je tombe amoureuse (sauf quand c'est Berlusconi).
Ik kan u zeggen de liefde in het nederlands als je wilt. Ik hou van jou. Ik omarmen je.
* Ik hou van je italiaans, het is erg sensueel, hummmm :)
Sacr Zolive, je ne te connais pas mais j't'aime bien, j'aime tes remarques sur q/r...voil, en tout respect de ta sympathique personne.
Ca serait chouette, en effet, s'ils avaient mis en ligne la vision d'une camera Satellite qui nous montre ce que a donne...
Turn off lights for atleast one hour. Pl dont use any electrical appliances, and gadgets in favor of Earth Hour.
Earth hour means that you turn your lights out for one hour in support of the earth.
Well if it's 830 now then they shouldn't be on yahoo. Either that or they're just not on because it's saturday night.
Quoi??? c`est shabbat..????
Ik kan u zeggen de liefde in het nederlands als je wilt. Ik hou van jou. Ik omarmen je.
* Ik hou van je italiaans, het is erg sensueel, hummmm :)
Sacr Zolive, je ne te connais pas mais j't'aime bien, j'aime tes remarques sur q/r...voil, en tout respect de ta sympathique personne.
Ca serait chouette, en effet, s'ils avaient mis en ligne la vision d'une camera Satellite qui nous montre ce que a donne...
Turn off lights for atleast one hour. Pl dont use any electrical appliances, and gadgets in favor of Earth Hour.
Earth hour means that you turn your lights out for one hour in support of the earth.
Well if it's 830 now then they shouldn't be on yahoo. Either that or they're just not on because it's saturday night.
Quoi??? c`est shabbat..????
Are you going to participate Earth Hour?
I am!! I hope all of you are too! Mother Earth is counting on us!
I am of course! I love the earth
Hell no. My power comes from a nuclear power plant. It doesn't emit much in the way of deadly "green house gasses".
Hi. Yes I did. Peace
Yes, can't wait!
yep!!!!
It's way past 8.30PM... where I live..
Yep i did my bit :)
no its a stupid idea.
I am of course! I love the earth
Hell no. My power comes from a nuclear power plant. It doesn't emit much in the way of deadly "green house gasses".
Hi. Yes I did. Peace
Yes, can't wait!
yep!!!!
It's way past 8.30PM... where I live..
Yep i did my bit :)
no its a stupid idea.
Are there any environmental and social costs associated with solar energy?
No yes or no answers please.
Of course it takes energy to make solar collectors, to smelt the steel, or refine the aluminum, glass, silicon, whatever. But as far as net environmental cost, I'd say the cost is negative, as the collectors return more in energy than it cost to make them.
The social costs depend on the local culture. Some communities find them ugly. I find them beautiful. If you're the only house in the neighborhood with panels, it might flag you as a showoff, or rich, or the panels might be a target for thieves. Other social costs are hard to quantify. Less smoking means less jobs for tobacco workers, but also means healthier people. Similarly, if the air or water is incrementally cleaner because of solar energy, that might have a positive or negative social cost.
That would depend on if its a supplement to the building or a solar farm. Solar farms, like wind farms will have transmission lines, which have had medical problems associated with them. Since there is no transmission lines in supplemental systems for buildings there wouldn't be a problem. However, the money to subsidize people to get them to install such systems has been tried and usually run out before many can take advantage of it.
Not to mention that fact that a full solar supplemental system is costly, and therefore probably not available to all. And since we are in this great class warfare due to the Obama administration demonizing the producers of the nation, I'd imagine there would be some loser touting social unrest regarding the unfairness. But past that, no real problems that I can see.
The cost of the energy to produce the solar panels.
Doubt it (Aka Nope), unless you have to pay for the use of the sun...
Maybe.
no, it's totally free. ie, getting tanned by sunlight how much ...nil.. so theres your answer. zil.
Of course it takes energy to make solar collectors, to smelt the steel, or refine the aluminum, glass, silicon, whatever. But as far as net environmental cost, I'd say the cost is negative, as the collectors return more in energy than it cost to make them.
The social costs depend on the local culture. Some communities find them ugly. I find them beautiful. If you're the only house in the neighborhood with panels, it might flag you as a showoff, or rich, or the panels might be a target for thieves. Other social costs are hard to quantify. Less smoking means less jobs for tobacco workers, but also means healthier people. Similarly, if the air or water is incrementally cleaner because of solar energy, that might have a positive or negative social cost.
That would depend on if its a supplement to the building or a solar farm. Solar farms, like wind farms will have transmission lines, which have had medical problems associated with them. Since there is no transmission lines in supplemental systems for buildings there wouldn't be a problem. However, the money to subsidize people to get them to install such systems has been tried and usually run out before many can take advantage of it.
Not to mention that fact that a full solar supplemental system is costly, and therefore probably not available to all. And since we are in this great class warfare due to the Obama administration demonizing the producers of the nation, I'd imagine there would be some loser touting social unrest regarding the unfairness. But past that, no real problems that I can see.
The cost of the energy to produce the solar panels.
Doubt it (Aka Nope), unless you have to pay for the use of the sun...
Maybe.
no, it's totally free. ie, getting tanned by sunlight how much ...nil.. so theres your answer. zil.
What can you do during earth hour?
Earth hour is on tomorrow night and I was wondering what we actually should/shouldn't be doing? For example, are we just meant to turn off lights, which means we're allowed to watch TV or are we meant abstain from using all electricity during the hour?
I'm using it as the perfect excuse to have a nice candlelit dinner:-)
The idea is to abstain from using all non-essential appliances. Best not to watch TV, but you can keep the refrigerator on. The great thing about an hour like this is that you can let your imagination go wild. Get a few people together and tell horror stories, perhaps get out a deck of cards, or consider going outside and looking up at the stars - the night sky is so much more beautiful when the lights are out.
The hour is yours to do what you like with - so be creative and have as much fun with it as you can.
The point of Earth Hour is NOT to save electricity. How can one solitary hour, when a few people turn off their lights in a handful of cities around the world, make any real difference to the planet?
Earth Hour is a token period meant for publicity. It is meant to remind us to save electricity in our everyday lives wherever we can, every day of the year. Even if you sit there with all your lights blazing and start saving power the next day, it has achieved its objective.
For the record, our Earth Hour was last night and my daughter and I watched Sydney Harbour go dark(ish) on TV, then we took the dogs for a walk. And a lot of homes still had their lights on. I estimate that about 50 per cent of people don't believe in human-assisted climate change, or don't care.
I like to turn all my lights and appliances on and then leave my house then just drive around until I waste an entire tank of gas, usually I will start a forest fire and hijack a tanker truck and crash it into a lake. Yep I go green hardcore during earth hour
The goal is to use as little electricity as possible. Obviously your heat will still be on if you are in a colder area, but turn your lights, TV, and computer off. Play a board game or read a book.
Once more, to do a mental bridge with someone/the ones you love, in view to hug them :)
Human bodies are perfect as an antenna, sender & receiver, within nothing else but our inner energy ~ simple love :)
Just try it; please do it!
We turned all the farm lights off and had a candle dinner in the paddock with friends.Boy it was dark.I gather its no electricity for the whole hour,but we partyed for 4 hours and had a great time.
For one hour, you're supposed to not use electricity, lights, computers, TV, etc.
the point of earth hour is to save as much electricity as you can i'm sure if you watch some tv it will be fine but you should try to watch as little as possible to help our environment
You don't need light for sex. I hope you don't need electricity, either.
lol oikos so true no wonder my partner has been holding out all week hes waiting for tonight cos he knows i'll turn off all electrical stuff im actually just thinking about turning it off completely at the electrical box
i'm charging all my stuff right now (laptop, psp, cellphone) so that i can still do stuff using batteries. Or maybe play some cards and win some money.
yeah!me too duno whether we are allowed to on fan,air-cond or we must off all elertric appliances.....
I won't be doing much different, as I do most of what they are asking now, and always have.
lighting a candle and having a cuddle
I will be arc welding.
Get my head stuck in a book. Yurn on candles, or go for a walk
FAP
When las vegas turns off their lights I'll turn off mine :)
I'm using it as the perfect excuse to have a nice candlelit dinner:-)
The idea is to abstain from using all non-essential appliances. Best not to watch TV, but you can keep the refrigerator on. The great thing about an hour like this is that you can let your imagination go wild. Get a few people together and tell horror stories, perhaps get out a deck of cards, or consider going outside and looking up at the stars - the night sky is so much more beautiful when the lights are out.
The hour is yours to do what you like with - so be creative and have as much fun with it as you can.
The point of Earth Hour is NOT to save electricity. How can one solitary hour, when a few people turn off their lights in a handful of cities around the world, make any real difference to the planet?
Earth Hour is a token period meant for publicity. It is meant to remind us to save electricity in our everyday lives wherever we can, every day of the year. Even if you sit there with all your lights blazing and start saving power the next day, it has achieved its objective.
For the record, our Earth Hour was last night and my daughter and I watched Sydney Harbour go dark(ish) on TV, then we took the dogs for a walk. And a lot of homes still had their lights on. I estimate that about 50 per cent of people don't believe in human-assisted climate change, or don't care.
I like to turn all my lights and appliances on and then leave my house then just drive around until I waste an entire tank of gas, usually I will start a forest fire and hijack a tanker truck and crash it into a lake. Yep I go green hardcore during earth hour
The goal is to use as little electricity as possible. Obviously your heat will still be on if you are in a colder area, but turn your lights, TV, and computer off. Play a board game or read a book.
Once more, to do a mental bridge with someone/the ones you love, in view to hug them :)
Human bodies are perfect as an antenna, sender & receiver, within nothing else but our inner energy ~ simple love :)
Just try it; please do it!
We turned all the farm lights off and had a candle dinner in the paddock with friends.Boy it was dark.I gather its no electricity for the whole hour,but we partyed for 4 hours and had a great time.
For one hour, you're supposed to not use electricity, lights, computers, TV, etc.
the point of earth hour is to save as much electricity as you can i'm sure if you watch some tv it will be fine but you should try to watch as little as possible to help our environment
You don't need light for sex. I hope you don't need electricity, either.
lol oikos so true no wonder my partner has been holding out all week hes waiting for tonight cos he knows i'll turn off all electrical stuff im actually just thinking about turning it off completely at the electrical box
i'm charging all my stuff right now (laptop, psp, cellphone) so that i can still do stuff using batteries. Or maybe play some cards and win some money.
yeah!me too duno whether we are allowed to on fan,air-cond or we must off all elertric appliances.....
I won't be doing much different, as I do most of what they are asking now, and always have.
lighting a candle and having a cuddle
I will be arc welding.
Get my head stuck in a book. Yurn on candles, or go for a walk
FAP
When las vegas turns off their lights I'll turn off mine :)
Do you feel like you have no energy?
Whenever I find something I love I have to tell everyone about it! I had no energy and then I started taking GENESIS JUICE found at
www.itchangesus.com
I LOVE IT! I just wanted to share with everyone!
Oh i love that stuff. I too had no energy, and I took that, and it workedso much!
Thanks for sharing it with us!
I drink Cocaine the energy drink
cool! does it give you more energy?
Thanks for sharing with us!!
thanks for sharing it, I took that stuff too!
www.itchangesus.com
I LOVE IT! I just wanted to share with everyone!
Oh i love that stuff. I too had no energy, and I took that, and it workedso much!
Thanks for sharing it with us!
I drink Cocaine the energy drink
cool! does it give you more energy?
Thanks for sharing with us!!
thanks for sharing it, I took that stuff too!
Can you make a wheelchair out of bottle caps?
If collecting 10,000 pop tabs can create a wheelchair by recycling the metal, are you able to make a wheelchair by recycling beer or pop bottle caps (the ones from glass bottles)? Also, can you make anything by collecting bottle caps?
I believe that if they are smelted down and cleaned of impurities, that you can use the metal.And this is something we use to do as kids..take the caps,the plastic tabs on milk and bread bags,and put them on shirts,jackets or as a banner. Place the cap on side out for display,and on other side,insert tab into center,to hold it..it should be a little tight but will go in.Also this is a good way to display different caps,and saves on the enviroment and young males should like this "display".
The question is has anyone ever tried it? The only thing that I can think of that the caps wouldn't be able to be used is because the plastic that is under the caps. But then again it could be melted and then used. I think it could be done but then again that would need money to try and see if it would work.
I thought the pop company donated the money for the wheelchairs for every 10,000 caps.
Im sure selling the alloy from that many bottle caps may allow for the cost of a wheel chair.
Yes, Yes.
I think so !!!
yes
I believe that if they are smelted down and cleaned of impurities, that you can use the metal.And this is something we use to do as kids..take the caps,the plastic tabs on milk and bread bags,and put them on shirts,jackets or as a banner. Place the cap on side out for display,and on other side,insert tab into center,to hold it..it should be a little tight but will go in.Also this is a good way to display different caps,and saves on the enviroment and young males should like this "display".
The question is has anyone ever tried it? The only thing that I can think of that the caps wouldn't be able to be used is because the plastic that is under the caps. But then again it could be melted and then used. I think it could be done but then again that would need money to try and see if it would work.
I thought the pop company donated the money for the wheelchairs for every 10,000 caps.
Im sure selling the alloy from that many bottle caps may allow for the cost of a wheel chair.
Yes, Yes.
I think so !!!
yes
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Many Good Scientists Believe in
What makes you choose to believe a scientist like Jim Hansen (believer) and dismiss a scientist like Dr. William Gray (skeptic) or the other way around?
Why do you believe one over the other?
Wouldn%26#039;t the correct scientific position for conflicting data be to withhold belief until the pro position could be proven independantly?
Why do you choose to ignore data that refutes the position of man made global warming, and isn%26#039;t this just a subjective bias that the scientific method seeks to filter out?
For me, it%26#039;s not a matter of who, but what.
Believers are correct on one point - that most skeptics, myself included, care about the AGW theory only or primarily because it is used as a pretext to limit our lifestyles.
One%26#039;s own liberty is a perfectly valid reason for us to be interested.
Certainly most Jews in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s cared about prevailing Germany views on cultural anthropology primarily because those views influenced government policy.
Because this is my interest, I am not interested in an academic sense in the question - I have only a passing interest in the cause of the 20th century warming, if it is not SUVs and power plants.
What matters to me is that, if the theory that it was SUVs and power plants is going to be used as a pretext to raise my taxes, then they%26#039;d darn well better prove that theory.
They have yet to do so.
It%26#039;s not a matter of believing one scientist over another independently of the data and physical laws. In general, though, Hansen has spent more of his career studying the climate and the planet as a system, while Gray has concentrated on studying hurricanes. I respect Gray%26#039;s work on hurricanes, although his seasonal forecasts are mostly hocus pocus. In point of fact I have passed on seeing Hansen speak several times, while I have seen Gray speak, so I don%26#039;t think I%26#039;m ignoring or dismissing him at all.
It%26#039;s not just Hansen and Gray, though. The great majority of climate scientists believe a convincing case has been made for man-made global warming. If there is evidence to the contrary it needs to be examined and understood, just like evidence in favor of it.
I don%26#039;t have the faintest idea what you mean when you say %26quot;proven independently,%26quot; there are many many independent indicators all pointing to the truth of global warming. The %26quot;conflicting data%26quot; that you speak of is in short supply.
If it were just an academic argument we could wait decades or centuries even for more evidence, if we chose. Unfortunately this is the planet we live on, so if we wait too long there may be unintended and possibly dire consequences.
I fall into the disbelieve category, and I got there by looking at the science and the critiques of the papers by other scientists and decided that those who believe in global warming were not using the math or the science correctly.
Also the fact that most politicians believe in GW. The majority of politicians are not scientists and have no background in science, so I tend not to listen to them.
I believe Hansen and the other super majority of scientists (and 98% of climatologists) because they have a better argument. I don%26#039;t believe the minority of scientists (and the 2% of climatologists) because it appears the main argument of the contrarians is %26quot;...we have no consistent alternate theory to explain Global Warming...
...except we are sure of one thing, man didn%26#039;t do it.%26quot;
I%26#039;ve studied engineering and a range of sciences for 35 years. Every bit of empirical evidence we have says that over-population and over-consumption, hubris and recklessness by man is having a negative effect on other living things, the biosphere and the planet. We are recklessly and rapidly destroying things that can never be replaced on a global scale.
Why should global warming be any different? How can it possibly be benign for us to pump hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon into the atmosphere in the space of hundreds of years?
It not a subjective bias to accept what you can see with your own eyes. It is a subjective bias to absolve mankind in the face of the overwhelming evidence.
Why do you choose to ignore the evidence that has been shown over and over, in many different disciplines, from multiple independent researchers around the world, for going on 60 years now?
That is the real question and it clearly shows where your bias lies.
You%26#039;re right. The correct scientific position would be to with-hold support for either position can be sufficiently proved.
The problem is people like Al Gore, Hansen, and pretty much the entire Congress, who have decided the debate is over and are prepared to destroy our economy (what%26#039;s left of it) and turn our country into a third world country based on a couple of computer models and a number of suppositions that have since been proved to be false.
So at this point you have to act pro-actively, select the one that you feel is the most likely to be true, and try to prevent the other side from doing irreparable damage to the country, and the planet.
Also, if you can cite one example of the US Government monkeying with nature that has worked, and not actually made things worse (think Yellowstone), and I will be amazed.
Remember to look at the strings that are attached to anyone who tells you that he is right, and everyone else should be destroyed.
Because every skeptic has his own theory to explain it.
If one of them says it%26#039;s the sun, another says it%26#039;s PDO, another says UHI, another says it%26#039;s the Gulf Stream, another says galactic cosmic rays...it doesn%26#039;t really sound like a very convincing group to me. It sounds, rather, like they%26#039;re just grasping at anything they can find that is not anthropogenic in nature.
It would be one thing if believers were arguing X and skeptics arguing Y. But the believers are arguing X and the skeptics are arguing Y, Z, alpha, 0 and %26#039;non-conclusive%26#039; all at the same time.
I mean there is nothing wrong with a variety of theories, but when people use the arguments of several contradictory theories and pretend like their combination results in a stronger argument--well that%26#039;s just not very scientific.
All the facts aren%26#039;t in. And will they ever be?
I believe history shows that many scientists have a theory and then try to prove it. Some tend to disallow facts opposing their theories.
Kind of like, believing a certain person is guilty and ignoring the evidence they might be innocent.
Being long in the tooth, I don%26#039;t expect to see any dramatic changes due to global warming of man%26#039;s origin.
Good scientists shouldn%26#039;t believe in anything that isn%26#039;t proven and something like AGW is definately not proven. They should keep their minds open as new evidence is presented. Unfortunately there are too many scientists that have made their minds up and only look at that information that confirms their preconcieved ideas or so it seems to me.
I personally do not believe in man made global warming. You ask why I can ignore all of the data. The answer is simple. All of the data is very biased. Al Gore%26#039;s movie pretty much sums up all of the bias and lies about global warming. I believe that humans are having a negative impact on the earth but are not causing global warming.
Scientists aren%26#039;t believers and they should be skeptical by nature. I realize you meant the words only to define their position but it also demonstrates why the believer can%26#039;t be a scientist. That is a religious term and it applies perfectly to Hansen and most believers.
Hansen is an Astronomer that studied and modeled the atmosphere of Venus, he loved his research so much that he is attempting to superimpose the physics of the Venusian atmosphere on the Earths climate system. That is not good science in my book.
I tend to believe Mr Hansen because hes a climatologist and the vast majority of scientists and climatologists back up what he is saying.
William Gray is a scientist. Hansen is a political hack.
That%26#039;s why I give what Gray says careful thought, and now dismiss Hansen.
%0D%0A
Why do you believe one over the other?
Wouldn%26#039;t the correct scientific position for conflicting data be to withhold belief until the pro position could be proven independantly?
Why do you choose to ignore data that refutes the position of man made global warming, and isn%26#039;t this just a subjective bias that the scientific method seeks to filter out?
For me, it%26#039;s not a matter of who, but what.
Believers are correct on one point - that most skeptics, myself included, care about the AGW theory only or primarily because it is used as a pretext to limit our lifestyles.
One%26#039;s own liberty is a perfectly valid reason for us to be interested.
Certainly most Jews in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s cared about prevailing Germany views on cultural anthropology primarily because those views influenced government policy.
Because this is my interest, I am not interested in an academic sense in the question - I have only a passing interest in the cause of the 20th century warming, if it is not SUVs and power plants.
What matters to me is that, if the theory that it was SUVs and power plants is going to be used as a pretext to raise my taxes, then they%26#039;d darn well better prove that theory.
They have yet to do so.
It%26#039;s not a matter of believing one scientist over another independently of the data and physical laws. In general, though, Hansen has spent more of his career studying the climate and the planet as a system, while Gray has concentrated on studying hurricanes. I respect Gray%26#039;s work on hurricanes, although his seasonal forecasts are mostly hocus pocus. In point of fact I have passed on seeing Hansen speak several times, while I have seen Gray speak, so I don%26#039;t think I%26#039;m ignoring or dismissing him at all.
It%26#039;s not just Hansen and Gray, though. The great majority of climate scientists believe a convincing case has been made for man-made global warming. If there is evidence to the contrary it needs to be examined and understood, just like evidence in favor of it.
I don%26#039;t have the faintest idea what you mean when you say %26quot;proven independently,%26quot; there are many many independent indicators all pointing to the truth of global warming. The %26quot;conflicting data%26quot; that you speak of is in short supply.
If it were just an academic argument we could wait decades or centuries even for more evidence, if we chose. Unfortunately this is the planet we live on, so if we wait too long there may be unintended and possibly dire consequences.
I fall into the disbelieve category, and I got there by looking at the science and the critiques of the papers by other scientists and decided that those who believe in global warming were not using the math or the science correctly.
Also the fact that most politicians believe in GW. The majority of politicians are not scientists and have no background in science, so I tend not to listen to them.
I believe Hansen and the other super majority of scientists (and 98% of climatologists) because they have a better argument. I don%26#039;t believe the minority of scientists (and the 2% of climatologists) because it appears the main argument of the contrarians is %26quot;...we have no consistent alternate theory to explain Global Warming...
...except we are sure of one thing, man didn%26#039;t do it.%26quot;
I%26#039;ve studied engineering and a range of sciences for 35 years. Every bit of empirical evidence we have says that over-population and over-consumption, hubris and recklessness by man is having a negative effect on other living things, the biosphere and the planet. We are recklessly and rapidly destroying things that can never be replaced on a global scale.
Why should global warming be any different? How can it possibly be benign for us to pump hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon into the atmosphere in the space of hundreds of years?
It not a subjective bias to accept what you can see with your own eyes. It is a subjective bias to absolve mankind in the face of the overwhelming evidence.
Why do you choose to ignore the evidence that has been shown over and over, in many different disciplines, from multiple independent researchers around the world, for going on 60 years now?
That is the real question and it clearly shows where your bias lies.
You%26#039;re right. The correct scientific position would be to with-hold support for either position can be sufficiently proved.
The problem is people like Al Gore, Hansen, and pretty much the entire Congress, who have decided the debate is over and are prepared to destroy our economy (what%26#039;s left of it) and turn our country into a third world country based on a couple of computer models and a number of suppositions that have since been proved to be false.
So at this point you have to act pro-actively, select the one that you feel is the most likely to be true, and try to prevent the other side from doing irreparable damage to the country, and the planet.
Also, if you can cite one example of the US Government monkeying with nature that has worked, and not actually made things worse (think Yellowstone), and I will be amazed.
Remember to look at the strings that are attached to anyone who tells you that he is right, and everyone else should be destroyed.
Because every skeptic has his own theory to explain it.
If one of them says it%26#039;s the sun, another says it%26#039;s PDO, another says UHI, another says it%26#039;s the Gulf Stream, another says galactic cosmic rays...it doesn%26#039;t really sound like a very convincing group to me. It sounds, rather, like they%26#039;re just grasping at anything they can find that is not anthropogenic in nature.
It would be one thing if believers were arguing X and skeptics arguing Y. But the believers are arguing X and the skeptics are arguing Y, Z, alpha, 0 and %26#039;non-conclusive%26#039; all at the same time.
I mean there is nothing wrong with a variety of theories, but when people use the arguments of several contradictory theories and pretend like their combination results in a stronger argument--well that%26#039;s just not very scientific.
All the facts aren%26#039;t in. And will they ever be?
I believe history shows that many scientists have a theory and then try to prove it. Some tend to disallow facts opposing their theories.
Kind of like, believing a certain person is guilty and ignoring the evidence they might be innocent.
Being long in the tooth, I don%26#039;t expect to see any dramatic changes due to global warming of man%26#039;s origin.
Good scientists shouldn%26#039;t believe in anything that isn%26#039;t proven and something like AGW is definately not proven. They should keep their minds open as new evidence is presented. Unfortunately there are too many scientists that have made their minds up and only look at that information that confirms their preconcieved ideas or so it seems to me.
I personally do not believe in man made global warming. You ask why I can ignore all of the data. The answer is simple. All of the data is very biased. Al Gore%26#039;s movie pretty much sums up all of the bias and lies about global warming. I believe that humans are having a negative impact on the earth but are not causing global warming.
Scientists aren%26#039;t believers and they should be skeptical by nature. I realize you meant the words only to define their position but it also demonstrates why the believer can%26#039;t be a scientist. That is a religious term and it applies perfectly to Hansen and most believers.
Hansen is an Astronomer that studied and modeled the atmosphere of Venus, he loved his research so much that he is attempting to superimpose the physics of the Venusian atmosphere on the Earths climate system. That is not good science in my book.
I tend to believe Mr Hansen because hes a climatologist and the vast majority of scientists and climatologists back up what he is saying.
William Gray is a scientist. Hansen is a political hack.
That%26#039;s why I give what Gray says careful thought, and now dismiss Hansen.
%0D%0A
Humane treatment of milk cows?
We saw a short movie (with Mary Tyler Moore) the other day... about the unethical treatment of chickens (mostly for eggs), pigs for ham products and baby cows for veal... all very sad and maddening that "we" could treat animals so cruely in our country. My question - is there anything unethical in the way milk cows are handled? I know you can buy organic milk - but that doesn't necessarily mean the cows are treated well.. just means that they are fed organic food.... THANKS! :-)
I think it's pretty cruel to give cows so much hormones that it has their utters swollen to enourmous sizes (that has to be painful) just so the companies can get more milk on the market. Then that milk is tainted with hormones and delivered to your local grocer for you to purchase and feed to your children and families. I'm sure there are plenty of things they do to cows in the name of American nutrition. Disgusting!
I think it's pretty cruel to give cows so much hormones that it has their utters swollen to enourmous sizes (that has to be painful) just so the companies can get more milk on the market. Then that milk is tainted with hormones and delivered to your local grocer for you to purchase and feed to your children and families. I'm sure there are plenty of things they do to cows in the name of American nutrition. Disgusting!
What is the most valuable thing you have ever found ?
a " bedroom chair from around the 1700-1800's .
Found online: Expensive equipment being sold on ebay by people who don't understand its value.
Found in real life: Nothing, really. Just old nickels and dimes.
Found online: Expensive equipment being sold on ebay by people who don't understand its value.
Found in real life: Nothing, really. Just old nickels and dimes.
Do you live a no poo lifestyle?
Meaning no more shampoo for your hair?
What did you use instead?
If you did, tell me about it? Did you have a bad transitional period while your hair adjusted to the lack of harsh chemicals? Were you able to stick with it for a long time or did you go back to shampoo?
I changed over to natural herbal products then I tried using just bicarbonate of soda. I live in the countryside but have very long hair. The ends of my hair became too dry so I started using a little olive oil in the shower to 'wash' my hair, last summer. Every few weeks rinsing with white wine vinegar and then cold water for extra glossiness.
I think if you live out of city centers, are patient and have shorter hair styles it is much easier to change. I found the psychological aspect of not washing my hair much more difficult. I expected it to smell horrid and was very conscious of it. It doesn't but I now stroke essential oils into my hair if it is getting dry on the ends as it scents it nicely.
It is generally much better, sometimes I have really fantastic hair days, others bad hair days. I don't ever dry with a hairdryer which can be a little cold in winter. Otherwise, no problems.
What did you use instead?
If you did, tell me about it? Did you have a bad transitional period while your hair adjusted to the lack of harsh chemicals? Were you able to stick with it for a long time or did you go back to shampoo?
I changed over to natural herbal products then I tried using just bicarbonate of soda. I live in the countryside but have very long hair. The ends of my hair became too dry so I started using a little olive oil in the shower to 'wash' my hair, last summer. Every few weeks rinsing with white wine vinegar and then cold water for extra glossiness.
I think if you live out of city centers, are patient and have shorter hair styles it is much easier to change. I found the psychological aspect of not washing my hair much more difficult. I expected it to smell horrid and was very conscious of it. It doesn't but I now stroke essential oils into my hair if it is getting dry on the ends as it scents it nicely.
It is generally much better, sometimes I have really fantastic hair days, others bad hair days. I don't ever dry with a hairdryer which can be a little cold in winter. Otherwise, no problems.
What is Italy
Out of these two, not altogether.
CO2 emissions.
But mainly the economy.
Right now it's probably the economy, same as everywhere else.
CO2 emissions.
But mainly the economy.
Right now it's probably the economy, same as everywhere else.
Are you more likely to be convinced by what anyone says or by whether the temperatures actually rise?
Does it matter what I say, what Jello says, what Dana says, what this group of scientists say, what that group of scientists say?
Is there anything that anyone can say that would cause you to disbelieve your own eyes?
The proof is in the facts, not in "opinions," "conjectures," or even "conclusions."
I want proof of actual higher temps it always feels the same to me.
Is there anything that anyone can say that would cause you to disbelieve your own eyes?
The proof is in the facts, not in "opinions," "conjectures," or even "conclusions."
I want proof of actual higher temps it always feels the same to me.
The first baby seal was killed this morning, don
They're killed with slaughters as they let man come close, and their mother suffer for weeks.
this behavior needs 2 stop. how does the world look at us when we kill animals like this? arent countries all about how they are viewed? we need 2 stop this. make it more humane. clubbing seals is NOT the way to go about it. i know its about fur, because they go for the babies, and i know its about fish, but isnt that because WE'RE encroachign on THEIR territory, and THEIR the ones who are starving? this needs 2 stop. the world needs 2 be exposed to this. just liek they were 2 puppy mills. I think we should get Oprah 2 do a show on this. that seemed 2 work on puppy mills right? i think we need SOMEBODY 2 get peopel who can give a GOOD argument on a show, so everyone can understand whats going on, and why. everyone needs 2 know BOTH sides.
Seals cannot be killed in Canada until they are independent from their mothers. So no baby seals are killed, young seals can be hunted but not babies.
Mama seals have already abandoned their babies by the time they can be hunted. They have nothing to do with their young at that point.
The hunting of seals is no worse than the hunting or raising of any other animal for food. Many people have no problem with a hamburger, what makes flipper pie so shocking?
Chickens are killed after a few weeks. But they don't get the same attention that seals do.
Seals are not endangered and the hunt is managed to keep the population healthy. I would like to see the US rescind its ban on importing seal products. What's the big deal? Frozen seal meat in the grocery store would be a welcome alternative to the other meats. Seal fur trimmed coats would be another product for clothiers to sell. Why should the hunt be only in Canada? There must be plenty of seals on Maine's coastal islands. It could be a much needed source of income for the Passamaquoddy indians and other residents of Washington county, Maine, probably the poorest county in New England. Its not time to stop killing seals. Lets celebrate the hunt. I wonder what barbeque seal taste like.
this behavior has to change it is barbaric horrid and inhumane, how do those people sleep at night or even how do they do it in the first place i could never ever go up to a small cute helpless animal and beat them to death, what kind of sick twisted person could?
So we kill chickens, calves, young dogs, and all kinds of animals for food, so what? If you only eat broccoli, then you can complain, but if 1 unborn chicken embryo crosses you lips, you are a HYPOCRITE!
If they are not an endangered species then I do not support banning the killing. The fact that they are cute makes me not want to participate in the killing myself, but I have no problem with others doing it.
Part of the reason is that they eat so many fish, and there`d be none left for us, the human race.
So will you give up your occasional fish meal, to save the seals?
i absolutely hate it, It's sick & there's no need for it. If there's too many then nature will sort it out. Slaughtering by humans isn't nature sorting it out
This will continue to happen unless a lot of people take a stand. It will take a lot though.
this behavior needs 2 stop. how does the world look at us when we kill animals like this? arent countries all about how they are viewed? we need 2 stop this. make it more humane. clubbing seals is NOT the way to go about it. i know its about fur, because they go for the babies, and i know its about fish, but isnt that because WE'RE encroachign on THEIR territory, and THEIR the ones who are starving? this needs 2 stop. the world needs 2 be exposed to this. just liek they were 2 puppy mills. I think we should get Oprah 2 do a show on this. that seemed 2 work on puppy mills right? i think we need SOMEBODY 2 get peopel who can give a GOOD argument on a show, so everyone can understand whats going on, and why. everyone needs 2 know BOTH sides.
Seals cannot be killed in Canada until they are independent from their mothers. So no baby seals are killed, young seals can be hunted but not babies.
Mama seals have already abandoned their babies by the time they can be hunted. They have nothing to do with their young at that point.
The hunting of seals is no worse than the hunting or raising of any other animal for food. Many people have no problem with a hamburger, what makes flipper pie so shocking?
Chickens are killed after a few weeks. But they don't get the same attention that seals do.
Seals are not endangered and the hunt is managed to keep the population healthy. I would like to see the US rescind its ban on importing seal products. What's the big deal? Frozen seal meat in the grocery store would be a welcome alternative to the other meats. Seal fur trimmed coats would be another product for clothiers to sell. Why should the hunt be only in Canada? There must be plenty of seals on Maine's coastal islands. It could be a much needed source of income for the Passamaquoddy indians and other residents of Washington county, Maine, probably the poorest county in New England. Its not time to stop killing seals. Lets celebrate the hunt. I wonder what barbeque seal taste like.
this behavior has to change it is barbaric horrid and inhumane, how do those people sleep at night or even how do they do it in the first place i could never ever go up to a small cute helpless animal and beat them to death, what kind of sick twisted person could?
So we kill chickens, calves, young dogs, and all kinds of animals for food, so what? If you only eat broccoli, then you can complain, but if 1 unborn chicken embryo crosses you lips, you are a HYPOCRITE!
If they are not an endangered species then I do not support banning the killing. The fact that they are cute makes me not want to participate in the killing myself, but I have no problem with others doing it.
Part of the reason is that they eat so many fish, and there`d be none left for us, the human race.
So will you give up your occasional fish meal, to save the seals?
i absolutely hate it, It's sick & there's no need for it. If there's too many then nature will sort it out. Slaughtering by humans isn't nature sorting it out
This will continue to happen unless a lot of people take a stand. It will take a lot though.
What is the Secret about?
Victorias secret
It's about something that not many people know, but they will soon.
I can't tell you because it is a secret.
It's about something that not many people know, but they will soon.
I can't tell you because it is a secret.
I remember a few years ago i used to sell my non crv 1# plastic and non crv cans to the....?
recycling centers now they don't want to buy them so now go in the trash to fill up the landfills what ever happened?
feed them to squirrels
feed them to squirrels
Does the production of plastic products create pollution?
I know it does but i need detail.
Well it takes fossil fuels to make plastic and fossil fuels are pollutants
thats kinda all i know.
Well it takes fossil fuels to make plastic and fossil fuels are pollutants
thats kinda all i know.
Do Scientist
that is my question.
Nope - It's just SWAG (Scientific Wild A** Guess)
There is no relationship between co2 and climate
Scientists don't know anything for sure. That's the nature of science. It's always provisional, looking at new evidence to see if the theory has to change. That's the strength of science, and it's also the reason some people are uncomfortable with it.
However, the evidence is continuing to show that global warming will continue unless we do something about it. But what? That's what no one really knows yet. If we change our lifestyles, will it help? Can we do something else? Should we?
No they do not. They are just quite confident that it will based on scientific assessment of the currently available evidence and understanding of physics. If you insist that they be certain, you will have to wait a very long time and that time may never come.
Every theoretical understanding of nature carries with it a degree of uncertainty, this issue is no different. What makes it different are the political overtones.
The Green house affect... but, personally... I just think it's something that the world will continuously do... cycle... If we can have an Ice Age then why not a Heat Age...???
I think it is just a cycle. Everything in nature works in cycles.
Nope - It's just SWAG (Scientific Wild A** Guess)
There is no relationship between co2 and climate
Scientists don't know anything for sure. That's the nature of science. It's always provisional, looking at new evidence to see if the theory has to change. That's the strength of science, and it's also the reason some people are uncomfortable with it.
However, the evidence is continuing to show that global warming will continue unless we do something about it. But what? That's what no one really knows yet. If we change our lifestyles, will it help? Can we do something else? Should we?
No they do not. They are just quite confident that it will based on scientific assessment of the currently available evidence and understanding of physics. If you insist that they be certain, you will have to wait a very long time and that time may never come.
Every theoretical understanding of nature carries with it a degree of uncertainty, this issue is no different. What makes it different are the political overtones.
The Green house affect... but, personally... I just think it's something that the world will continuously do... cycle... If we can have an Ice Age then why not a Heat Age...???
I think it is just a cycle. Everything in nature works in cycles.
How are Scientists
that is my question...
One can look at the polar ice caps on Mars to see them shrinking as well.
If we claim global warming is causing ice caps to melt here, we have to accept the same when ice caps are melting on Mars.
There aren't any weather stations in outer space. We have seen the ice caps on Mars shrink since the first Mars mission.
One can look at the polar ice caps on Mars to see them shrinking as well.
If we claim global warming is causing ice caps to melt here, we have to accept the same when ice caps are melting on Mars.
There aren't any weather stations in outer space. We have seen the ice caps on Mars shrink since the first Mars mission.
I live in birmingham and i want to extentsion on?
my kitchen how do i get planning permission who do i have to call please let me no thanks
Assuming you mean Birminham England
then contact your local council planning officer. They will have a planning desk to answer your specific circumstances on the spot.
generall if it is not close to neighbours, or over 10% of the original house and not in a concervation area, then no permission is required.
the contact details should be on all the bumf sent out with council tax bill.
%0D%0A
Assuming you mean Birminham England
then contact your local council planning officer. They will have a planning desk to answer your specific circumstances on the spot.
generall if it is not close to neighbours, or over 10% of the original house and not in a concervation area, then no permission is required.
the contact details should be on all the bumf sent out with council tax bill.
%0D%0A
Even if there is no man-made global warming, is it
"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. " - Timothy Wirth, Senator, D-Colorado
Interesting that they are already admitting that they are wrong. It reminds my of the fallacy of Myth#4, and now they are making the claim that the Sun is cooling and this is what is causing climate change.
But they would be wrong on both counts. The solution isn't more government control, it's giving more power to the free markets so people can make the best choice on what products and services are the greenist.
No, no, and no. The ends do NOT justify the means. Pushing bad science, even to advance a "good cause," is not a noble, or even honest action.
Wow. So this is where global warming alarmists are at now? On the edge of admitting the theory of global warming is incorrect? People are finally starting to think with their heads...
You are trying to convict scientists based on a politician's hypothetical statement. You have reached new lows.
Once it is revealed that it is a lie even those who bought off on it will be appalled and no longer believe anything said about saving our environment.
Duh!
Interesting that they are already admitting that they are wrong. It reminds my of the fallacy of Myth#4, and now they are making the claim that the Sun is cooling and this is what is causing climate change.
But they would be wrong on both counts. The solution isn't more government control, it's giving more power to the free markets so people can make the best choice on what products and services are the greenist.
No, no, and no. The ends do NOT justify the means. Pushing bad science, even to advance a "good cause," is not a noble, or even honest action.
Wow. So this is where global warming alarmists are at now? On the edge of admitting the theory of global warming is incorrect? People are finally starting to think with their heads...
You are trying to convict scientists based on a politician's hypothetical statement. You have reached new lows.
Once it is revealed that it is a lie even those who bought off on it will be appalled and no longer believe anything said about saving our environment.
Duh!
If this year is colder than last year, with Global Warming Luddites blame the Mt Redoubt volcano?
Will they claim that 2009 would have been warmer if it wasn't for the volcano, la Nia, solar minimum, lesser effect of co2 than previously calculated, drifting sensors, or faulty calculations?
Are global warming believers starting to develop their list of excesses already in preparation that 2009 is going to be colder than 2008?
Maybe they'll finally admit that they're wrong.
Nah, that would be too much to expect.
Johnny, what does "reinforce your denial" mean? If it doesn't get any warmer, there is nothing to deny.
They've already condemned skeptics for considering any of these factors, so I'm sure they wouldn't even consider using any of them as an excuse for their lack of ability to predict. ( Let us be sure to remind them that being able to predict an outcome is a main pillar of science.)
Toasties will will start claiming Natural variation is masking long term warming.
Interestingly though, when skeptics mention the words 'natural', they are shouted down and told to look at the science.
I'm sure you would be happy to see 2009 be cooler than 2008, as it would re-enforce your denial. 2009 is already turning out to be warmer than 2008.
Are global warming believers starting to develop their list of excesses already in preparation that 2009 is going to be colder than 2008?
Maybe they'll finally admit that they're wrong.
Nah, that would be too much to expect.
Johnny, what does "reinforce your denial" mean? If it doesn't get any warmer, there is nothing to deny.
They've already condemned skeptics for considering any of these factors, so I'm sure they wouldn't even consider using any of them as an excuse for their lack of ability to predict. ( Let us be sure to remind them that being able to predict an outcome is a main pillar of science.)
Toasties will will start claiming Natural variation is masking long term warming.
Interestingly though, when skeptics mention the words 'natural', they are shouted down and told to look at the science.
I'm sure you would be happy to see 2009 be cooler than 2008, as it would re-enforce your denial. 2009 is already turning out to be warmer than 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)