NASA Proposed an idea not to far from that. They suggested moving the planet away from the sun to mitigate global warming.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
To My Friends In South Texas This Evening
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Why is this a requirement?
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Mark is mixing micro- with macro-climatology here. Models of this type deal with long term trends. I will sign off now. Good night and good grief. yours in science, jo4hn
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
OK. You are resorting to snottiness now. Good night.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
No, he is resorting to Reality.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Interesting comment but how does it provide a vetted source to support your previous observation?
Lew
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Geez, even uses the same patter as the creationist loons.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
... snip
What could go wrong?
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
LOL
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
HAH!
I knew it wasn't just me. I see them, too.
But the ones that really trouble me are the ones that come in the quiet of the night. They wait until I have a few bourbons under my belt, a good cigar, and my defenses are down.
By the time I am half way down a fifth, they are trying to enlighten me, but I don't understand. Too much information.
And the next morning when I wake up, the powerful drugs they have given me make my head ache and my memory blurry... sometimes a little nauseous as well.
I can't make heads or tails out of their visit the next day, but I notice they always manage to kill what I leave in the bottle as it is always empty the next morning. Bastards.
At this rate I won't be any smarter than the rest of the guys around here. All I will be stuck with is the notion that whatever pieces of information that I have read and believe are the actual and only truth.
Damn those aliens.
Bastards.
Robert)
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
But not all. People get involved in politics for one of three reasons:
- Pride - there are those who sincerely believe they are doing good for the planet
- Power - there are those who just know that minding other people's business is a Good Thing(tm)
- Profit - as you said
Often, a single person is motivated by more than one reason.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
What was the "weather" in what was to become Berlin or London 2,000 years ago?
The "trick" the CRU played was to use "proxy" data for about 2,000 years (tree rings, ice cores, etc.), then switch over to "real" data in 1981. Presto, a significant uptick. They had to do this because the proxy data they were using 1981 onward did NOT show any warming. In fact, it showed continued cooling.
The conundrum could be easily solved by assuming the 2,000 years of proxy data was wrongly determined. That is, a tree ring of 0.25" really represented 60° instead of 55°.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Thusly:
CO2 accounts for 0.0038% of the earth's atmosphere. If the total atmosphere can be compared to a football field (57,000 sq ft), the amount of CO2 in the air is roughly equivalent to the prostrate body of an official stabbed six times by irate fans because of three consecutive bad calls and the increase in CO2 is roughly the growing stain said official is leaving on the Astroturf as he bleeds out (23 sq ft).
CO2 in the atmosphere is part of a giant feedback loop. Plants are capturing it (principally ocean plants) and sequestering it naturally.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
That's exactly the scenario I had come up with when I did the math! Wow, great minds...
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
You really must have your head buried deeply in the sand!
Refereed scientific papers indeed....
It was bullshit before the "scientists" were caught with their pants down, and it's bullshit now...
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:47:13 -0600, the infamous Swingman scrawled the following:
Summary and am starting on the main text, but it's telling.
Amen to that. While I support the effort to reduce mankind's footpring on Earth, I'm totally against going ahead with -any- action based on faulty data.
-- Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost. -- Thomas J. Watson
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:42:39 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin scrawled the following:
What you're failing to see is that as one glacier recedes here, another grows somewhere else on this planet. Please look into it and stop overreacting. What you see locally isn't "global".
-- Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost. -- Thomas J. Watson
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:57:29 -0800, the infamous jo4hn scrawled the following:
Are you citing the Nasa site as a totally political arm of the Chicken Littles, or are you thinking, naively, that it is not?
-- Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost. -- Thomas J. Watson
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:50:18 -0600, the infamous Swingman scrawled the following:
Overheard, quietly, in the back room of the interview suite of a Chicken Little AGWK outfit:
"Mr/Ms. (New Scientist), would you rather be outcast and unfunded by following the truth, or would you rather get funding by skewing it and going along with those who have deeper agendas? It's up to you."
-- Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost. -- Thomas J. Watson
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:00:09 -0800 (PST), the infamous " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com" scrawled the following:
Ah, it is but your truth, Weedhoppa.
After reading his 1-page article in the Parade, I picked up his book _State of Fear_ and really got into it. I ended up reading armfuls of the books in his 28 page biblio, which led to other skeptic books and websites. And, of course, the more I read about it and the deeper I research it, the more skeptical I become. As I researched, I would find a tidbit on one side which led me one way, then find a tidbit on the other side which led me another way. I firmly believe that the CRU Scandal will be only the tip of the large, non-melting iceberg.
Of course. We fine, rational, even-tempered, open-minded skeptics can always put up with "you idiots."
-- Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost. -- Thomas J. Watson