REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Isn't science great?

POSTED BY: KHYRON
UPDATED: Sunday, March 8, 2009 18:27
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8193
PAGE 2 of 2

Sunday, February 11, 2007 10:48 AM

SASSALICIOUS


I think he might be a bit of a fan because he occasionally quotes the show. But I do know that he soapboxes elsewhere on the internets as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.

~Forsaken Forever

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 11, 2007 10:50 AM

SASSALICIOUS


Quote:

Originally posted by yinyang:
::whoosh::

That's the sound of something going over my head.

So, somebody want to explain this real slow, in terms I can understand? Please?



Don't worry about it being over your head. My head was starting to hurt everytime PN blathered on and I LOVE physics.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.

~Forsaken Forever

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:12 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Sassalicious:
Don't worry about it being over your head. My head was starting to hurt everytime PN blathered on and I LOVE physics.

No, PN's posts were making your head hurt BECAUSE you love physics



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 12, 2007 8:40 AM

BATTLESTARMINNESOTIA


The thing I think that gets lost about scientific stuff in the regular public is; It's the questions that the scientists get all liquidy about. So it sorta makes then come across as indecisive.

The particular thing about global warming "theory" that makes me crazy, is that the only system we have to observe is the actual biosphere, so it's not possible to "prove" something in climate sciences in that super rock-solid way that everyone seems to demand for "theories" they don't like. So yeah, you do need to make a judgement call on some of these things. But it doesn't make them unscientific. It's simply not possible to "prove" global warming as human caused because there is no way to test alternative hypothesis objectivley in a controlled way. But one cannot simply throw up their hands and say "we cannot ever know for sure!" because most phenomenon fall into the latter category. We'd never figured anything about the universe at all with that attitude. So you have to start going with likelyhoods. Percent possiblity and all that.

It's kinda like the "Without a shadow of a doubt" threshold in criminal cases vs "Preponderance of evidence" in civil trials.

Think for a second about hte fact that most people--even in the suburbs--won't let their kids out to play in the park and be home by dinnertime; like we did when I was a kid. Why not? Parents are scared of their kid's safety. Child molestors lurk in every park and drive-by shooters are waiting on every street, right? Well, of course not. But the thing is there ARE child molestors and shooters, and most parents figure that even given the relativly SMALL chance their kid will cross one, the potential CONSEQUENCE of that possible event make the rational choice to drive their kids everywhere and supervise everything. Most parents would not argue with me on this I think.

Extrapolating this idea to the ENTIRE GLOBE, doesn't it seem a litttle silly to hold scientists to some unattainable standard of proof, given the catastrophic consequnces at stake? Would you wait for rock-solid proof (letters and photographs, say) of a specific child molestor targetting YOUR kid before you'd START supervising them very closely?

The simple fact is that yeah, they ALL may be wrong about global warming. But the consequences of doing nothing--if humans are causing it--socially, economicly, etc is so severe, so damaging, that even if they ARE wrong we still need to do something. Besides, cleaning up pollution, abandoning fossil fuels, all that stuff is ultimately good for us either way anyway.

BSG-38 Minnesotia

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:18 AM

KHYRON


This is an attempt to sort of bring the thread back to its original purpose, but I won't be surprised if it's futile.

Strictly speaking, this is more technology than science, but who cares. It's all good stuff!

I've got the entire written portion of the article here, but click on the link to see the illustrations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6368089.stm

"A bionic eye implant that could help restore the sight of millions of blind people could be available to patients within two years.

US researchers have been given the go-ahead to implant the prototype device in 50 to 75 patients. The Argus II system uses a spectacle-mounted camera to feed visual information to electrodes in the eye. Patients who tested less-advanced versions of the retinal implant were able to see light, shapes and movement. "What we are trying to do is take real-time images from a camera and convert them into tiny electrical pulses that would jump-start the otherwise blind eye and allow patients to see," said Professor Mark Humayun, from the University of Southern California.

Retinal implants are able to partially restore the vision of people with particular forms of blindness caused by diseases such as macular degeneration or retinitis pigmentosa. About 1.5 million people worldwide have retinitis pigmentosa, and one in 10 people over the age of 55 have age-related macular degeneration. Both diseases cause the retinal cells which process light at the back of the eye to gradually die.

The new devices work by implanting an array of tiny electrodes into the back of the retina. A camera is used to capture pictures, and a processing unit, about the size of a small handheld computer and worn on a belt, converts the visual information into electrical signals. These are then sent back to the glasses and wirelessly on to a receiver just under the surface of the front of the eye, which in turn feeds them to the electrodes at the rear. The whole process happens in real time.

First-generation, low-resolution devices have already been fitted to six patients. "The longest device has been in for five years," said Professor Humayun. "It's amazing, even with 16 pixels, or electrodes, how much our first six subjects have been able to do." Terry Byland, 58, from California was fitted with an implant in 2004 after going blind with retinitis pigmentosa in 1993. "At the beginning, it was like seeing assembled dots - now it's much more than that," he said. "When I am walking along the street I can avoid low-hanging branches - I can see the edges of the branches." Mr Byland is also able to make out other shapes. "I can't recognise faces, but I can see them like a dark shadow," he said.

The new implant has a higher resolution than the earlier devices, with 60 electrodes. It is also a lot smaller, about one square millimetre, which reduces the amount of surgery that needs to be done to implant the device. The technology has now been given the go-ahead by the US Food and Drug Administration to be used in an exploratory patient trial. This will take place at five centres across America over two years, with 50-75 patients aged over 50. If successful, the device could be commercialised soon after, costing around $30,000 (£15,000). Other devices could then be developed with higher resolution or a wider field of view, said Professor Humayun. Future work includes studying the effects the implants have on the brain. "We are actually studying what happens to the visual cortex over time," said Professor Humayun. The research was presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in San Francisco, US.
"

6string, don't bother replying to this if all you have to say is: "Science trying to mess with our lives, man, so that blind people can see again so that they can watch commercials for Science's happy pills and then buy them! All hail Mighty Science!".



The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:12 AM

CITIZEN


I saw that on the News last night, they had a blind woman playing basket ball using the older system.

Impressive, not least because the electrodes produce such a low resolution image I can't imagine seeing anything in it.

Theres no reason with continued development and refinement that they shouldn't be able to reduce the technology further and produce imgages closer to reality.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:55 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I love science. I'm going home and having sex with my PS2!

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:16 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I love science. I'm going home and having sex with my PS2!

An intelligent and thoughtful post as always jack, thanks everso.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:48 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Nobody takes me seriously when I'm trying to be serious, so I figure, why frustrate myself. I plan on moving out into a forest in the middle of Montana when I get the loot anyhow so science can run it's course and hopefully it doesn't step on my toes.

Send a carrier pidgeon my way if you guys ever figure out a way to get us off of this rock.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:17 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Anyway, I 'do' science for a living so of course I think it's great.

I've met people who don't like science for various reasons.

1) never could get into the math
2) how can anyone be interested in that stuff
3) scientists are weird and nobody want to be weird on purpose
4) it's hard work
5) if science studies everything it might study me and dismantle my ideas about myself (ie it's personally threatening to my identity)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:57 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Because I'm a genius and I'm weird and I can do a reasonable amount of math even though it interests me none at all, and I'm not a stranger to hard work, I guess I'd have to go with 5.

I think 5's a pretty damn good reason.


How about reason number 6: Science will be the weapon used to kill us or enslave us all in the end.

I haven't really recieved any arguement about that little point in here, even from the science types, except that it is the people behind science that will do it and that isn't science's fault, but human nature.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:08 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I think the human issue you have a problem with started with the use of language.

Now THAT'S some tool!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:10 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I can't argue you there. 99% of the things that humans say should have been left unsaid.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:14 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Not just that. By having independent representations for things, we can put those representations together in ways that might not exist in real life. Hence, we can have 'ideas' of things that don't exist. A form of lie.

added: if you want to get biblical, it's the knowledge of good and evil.

Maybe we should be autochthons.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 17, 2007 6:22 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Not just that. By having independent representations for things, we can put those representations together in ways that might not exist in real life. Hence, we can have 'ideas' of things that don't exist. A form of lie.

added: if you want to get biblical, it's the knowledge of good and evil.

Maybe we should be autochthons.



Not exactly sure of what you mean here Rue. Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as good and evil?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 17, 2007 6:32 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Just that humanity's basic error was in developing language.

shoulda' stuck with grunts and pointing

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 17, 2007 6:41 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Actually, that's not true.

There have been cultures where people had language, fire, metalworking, agriculture, wheels - but not religion, or heirarchy, or war.

And somehow most of the rest of humanity went down the wrong path when they got those things. It IS possible to have the fruits of technology without the downside. We just need to figure out how.

For example, it's been said that large-scale war wouldn't be possible without agriculture. That agriculture allowed for concentrated excess, which was cornered by a ruling class in a positive-feedback cycle. That the ruling class was then able to direct society to use its excess for war on others. So agriculture was necessary for hierarchies and war.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 17, 2007 8:08 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
shoulda' stuck with grunts and pointing



Grrrrrrrrrrrrr...... Ooooga Grunt....

Quote:

And somehow most of the rest of humanity went down the wrong path when they got those things. It IS possible to have the fruits of technology without the downside. We just need to figure out how.

For example, it's been said that large-scale war wouldn't be possible without agriculture. That agriculture allowed for concentrated excess, which was cornered by a ruling class in a positive-feedback cycle. That the ruling class was then able to direct society to use its excess for war on others. So agriculture was necessary for hierarchies and war.



Now we're getting somewhere. I think the first step is to dethrone the Repuglicrat Alliance. No more Bushites or Clintonheads. We need a new voice in our government here to weed out the corruption and greed. Then we need to keep them honest too because, as we all know, nothing screws up a good thing like power.

Interesting point about the agriculture. I've never heard of that before, but it would seem a perfectly plausable explaination as to the origins of the mess we're in now.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:05 PM

JASONZZZ


Quote:

Originally posted by BattlestarMinnesotia:
The thing I think that gets lost about scientific stuff in the regular public is; It's the questions that the scientists get all liquidy about. So it sorta makes then come across as indecisive.

The particular thing about global warming "theory" that makes me crazy, is that the only system we have to observe is the actual biosphere, so it's not possible to "prove" something in climate sciences in that super rock-solid way that everyone seems to demand for "theories" they don't like. So yeah, you do need to make a judgement call on some of these things. But it doesn't make them unscientific. It's simply not possible to "prove" global warming as human caused because there is no way to test alternative hypothesis objectivley in a controlled way. But one cannot simply throw up their hands and say "we cannot ever know for sure!" because most phenomenon fall into the latter category. We'd never figured anything about the universe at all with that attitude. So you have to start going with likelyhoods. Percent possiblity and all that.




Actually there are numerous different climate models that a lot of these data are collected and then subsequently extrapolated from. Supposedly then, all of the data spitted out by these climate models then collaborates with the prediction that we see published and used to justify the anthropic global warming battle cry today. The problem with these climate models that I see boils down to two folds:

- there is not enough of an understanding of the complexity and all of the interactions in our climate/atmosphere/ecosystem to have these kinds of climate modeling. We are coming up with new stuff every single day on how the atmosphere behave - basic stuff at that. That's the good thing, oh, that's also the bad thing - because some how people really believe in the climate models that we have today.

- some documented evidence from researchers that the parameters fed into the climate models are very very aggresive and generates the worst case scenarios. So if your funding depends on you making models and then turning around with new data that people are interested in, that's one thing, but if your boss or if the media continually only excerpts the two chapters (maybe out of 14 total) which talks about the worst case scenarios - what's your research really worth then?

- research on alternate theories on warming or to counter warming are receiving lack of interest and worst no funding. how's that for blindly focusing on your own conclusion and not looking for other possible causes?


Quote:

Originally posted by BattlestarMinnesotia:


It's kinda like the "Without a shadow of a doubt" threshold in criminal cases vs "Preponderance of evidence" in civil trials.

Think for a second about hte fact that most people--even in the suburbs--won't let their kids out to play in the park and be home by dinnertime; like we did when I was a kid. Why not? Parents are scared of their kid's safety. Child molestors lurk in every park and drive-by shooters are waiting on every street, right? Well, of course not. But the thing is there ARE child molestors and shooters, and most parents figure that even given the relativly SMALL chance their kid will cross one, the potential CONSEQUENCE of that possible event make the rational choice to drive their kids everywhere and supervise everything. Most parents would not argue with me on this I think.

Extrapolating this idea to the ENTIRE GLOBE, doesn't it seem a litttle silly to hold scientists to some unattainable standard of proof, given the catastrophic consequnces at stake? Would you wait for rock-solid proof (letters and photographs, say) of a specific child molestor targetting YOUR kid before you'd START supervising them very closely?

The simple fact is that yeah, they ALL may be wrong about global warming. But the consequences of doing nothing--if humans are causing it--socially, economicly, etc is so severe, so damaging, that even if they ARE wrong we still need to do something. Besides, cleaning up pollution, abandoning fossil fuels, all that stuff is ultimately good for us either way anyway.

BSG-38 Minnesotia



Except that is exactly the issue with "fear-driven" problem solving strategies. There are about a billion different things that can go wrong right now that has absolutely dire consequences and spells complete doom for all of us, but what is the probability of that happening, do we have enough data to support that kind of scrutiny? I know that it would be basic human emotion to protect your child from the unknown number of boogey-people out there, but science is pretty much the passionate *and* objective study of nature.



Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs new equipment to keep the site shiny. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13317#185514

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:35 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hi Jasonzzz,

But there ARE facts which are indisputable.

One is that there are greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They are 'greenhouse' gases b/c they don't let the IR radiation (heat) re-radiate back into space. They absorb the radiation instead, trapping the heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise escape back into space.

The other is that those greenhouse gases - CO2 especially, are now at levels not historically compatible with our current climate.

The third is that the geological carbon cycle takes millions of years. And that is what we humans are messing with - we are taking large quantities of carbon which were stored for millions of years as oil and gas, and releasing it into the atmosphere as CO2. It will be millions of years before it is geologically stored again, if ever.

Given that, that humans are having a measurable and unprecedented effect on CO2 (greenhouse gas) levels in the atmosphere, and that that CO2 is not likely to re-equilibrate to normal levels any time soon, prudence would seem the wisest course.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 18, 2007 9:44 PM

JASONZZZ



hmmm... so you mean indisputable as in the pre-Galileo (well, as mostly how history has written it to be anyways) geocentric view? I am not sure what that is. These are just categories and definitions, they aren't exactly facts. I mean, if you tell me that indisputable fact on the atomic weight of hydrogen - that would be pretty solid grounds for indisputable fact - very much arguably so... Even greenhouse gases don't simply behave in just one way as you describe it. Atmospheric science is very complex - we do not know all of the behaviors in the atmostphere, of the ones that we do know, we don't know how everything interplays & how everything behaves, we don't know how the reaction chains drives each other, and we don't know to what extend they play the most important role.

Greenhouse gases don't "trap heat", they insulate and adds additional resistance in the heat re-radiation; makes no difference in a passing layman's explanation, but it makes a difference conceptually in understanding how these processes work. The heat doesn't simply accumulate ad-infinitem, we'd all be cooked to a crisp and Earth would have turned into Venus by now if it were so.

CO2 levels - seems there are a lot more, more people in the world with ever increasing demand for absolutely new "Ikea" furnitures and burning more fossil fuels - we are leveling more forests. It never ends, but where would we get if we couple that together with Peak Oil? maybe it will self stablize (I won't count on it). But the thing is, the remainder of these "facts" really depend on the false belief and supposedly forgone conclusion that CO2 is the principal cause and the most major contributor to any indication of increased heat accumulation within the atmosphere *and* more importantly, that reducing CO2 level will reduce this said increased heat accumulation - neither has been shown.

More to the point, the models on these are still being worked on (not refined) and argued over (in the scientific sense) on what/which components have the more prevalent effect in insulating heat.

Couple of things that are getting worked on that are interesting are water vapor, even higher concentrations in the atmosphere than CO2 and higher insulating factor, but water vapors captured in clouds also play a role in reflecting sun light and radiation back out. The models are not quite there in getting just these 2 factors worked out yet - amongst the other unknown factors that they play.

There are other things too, are the current issues being caused by the highest concentration components or are there other smaller/lesser components playing a bigger role and kicking off a cascading set of effects - not knowing this will throw us off on a completely wrong track on reducing the wrong components and just not seeing the reduction work.

Then there the problem with the assumption that these trending are assuming linear behavior in the heat insulating/"absorption" levels. Pretty sure that it doesn't extrapolate in a linear sense, but there's a disconnect between the climate modelers and the programmers - must be, because it's not a problem being looked at.

Prudence is absolutely the wisest choice if it's pretty much free and you don't have to divert much attention or resources away from other things *and* that you are pretty sure that it won't cause another stupid human-engineered cascading set of irrepairable damages - which is what our entire premise on fixing the CO2 problem to begin with.

I am not advocating that we sit and do nothing. I am not even advocating that the human engineered problem doesn't exist - but the scientist don't have a good understanding of what is going on and how to fix it - the models all absolutely rubbish in doing what they are suppose to do (sure it's the best we've got, but it ain't no where near usable in predicting the kind of thing where we want to point the entire planet in one direction to fix things). Give me some good data and show me that it is going to shit and that doing this and this will have some real measurable way of fixing it - I will buy it.

But before that, all of this is just a big huge lottery - and it will be just like that - a tax on the stupid and the gullible. Hey, at least with a real lottery, you can quantify your odds of success; with this other game, we really don't know, and to me, people are just not interested in finding out anymore...

At this juncture, it's all pretty much,
"Just trust what we have to say"...

Hey wait , that's kind of like "Have faith in us"...


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Hi Jasonzzz,

But there ARE facts which are indisputable.

One is that there are greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They are 'greenhouse' gases b/c they don't let the IR radiation (heat) re-radiate back into space. They absorb the radiation instead, trapping the heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise escape back into space.

The other is that those greenhouse gases - CO2 especially, are now at levels not historically compatible with our current climate.

The third is that the geological carbon cycle takes millions of years. And that is what we humans are messing with - we are taking large quantities of carbon which were stored for millions of years as oil and gas, and releasing it into the atmosphere as CO2. It will be millions of years before it is geologically stored again, if ever.

Given that, that humans are having a measurable and unprecedented effect on CO2 (greenhouse gas) levels in the atmosphere, and that that CO2 is not likely to re-equilibrate to normal levels any time soon, prudence would seem the wisest course.



Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs new equipment to keep the site shiny. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13317#185514

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:57 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"These are just categories and definitions, they aren't exactly facts. Even greenhouse gases don't simply behave in just one way as you describe it."
Yes they do. If you take a cell containing CO2 and try to pass broad-spectrum IR through it, certain wavelengths will be absorbed. It's an indisputable fact. Here is the link to the IR (heat) absorption spectrum of CO2. http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html
Now, you may argue about secondary effects and feedback, but greenhouse gases do indeed indisputably absorb IR (heat). They then reradiate that heat at a different IR wavelength, and eventually that heat might find a wavelength window to radiate out into space, but it will be at a new atmospheric heat content equilibrium.

"The heat doesn't simply accumulate ad-infinitum, we'd all be cooked to a crisp and Earth would have turned into Venus by now if it were so."
And indeed that is the scenario some scientists have drawn, assuming no negative feedback loops exist.

"water vapors captured in clouds also play a role in reflecting sun light and radiation back out"
Upper level clouds of a certain droplet size and density block sunlight. That's why Pinatubo - which ejected tonnes of sulfur oxides into the stratosphere - had a slight cooling effect for a couple of years. But all clouds don't act that way. Lower level clouds of small droplet size trap heat instead.

"the false belief and supposedly forgone conclusion that CO2 is the principal cause and the most major contributor to any indication of increased heat accumulation"
Atmospheric CO2 does indisputably absorb heat AND its level has indisputably gone up 19.4% since 1959. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm CO2 does therefore play a major role in greenhouse gas effects.

" the scientist don't have a good understanding of what is going on"
They estimate a 90% probability.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 8, 2009 7:22 AM

HOLLISGREEN


wow!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 8, 2009 7:36 AM

ASARIAN


Quote:

Originally posted by piratenews:
So Einstein (the homosexual plagerist) was wrong, ...


You're losing the high ground here, sweet-cakes. Oh wait, I think you never had it to begin with.



--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 8, 2009 7:46 AM

ASARIAN


Quote:

Originally posted by piratenews:
Einstein was a non-Semitic Jewish deadbeat dad, a liar and plagerist who liked it up the tailpipe at Jewish Bohemian Grove, whose thefts helped genocide 200,000 Christians in Japan. That's history.


Shouldn't you be out on a ledge somewhere?

As for your delusions, this is paranoid schizophrenia. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though, thinkin' you just weren't burdened with an overabundance of schooling. You're a stitch, though, in that you give a whole fresh meaning to the term "moon-brained." :)


--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 8, 2009 7:56 AM

ASARIAN


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Piratenews,

I'm still waiting for you to admit that your lightspeed/frequency shift/kodak argument is craptastically wrong.

You know, the one where all visible light that reaches the moon is upshifted into becoming invisible light.


And thus would be invisible to the human eye, as well. :) So, that makes two dark sides of the Moon.


--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 8, 2009 8:48 AM

CITIZEN


Hmm, Necroposting.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 8, 2009 8:55 AM

ASARIAN


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Hmm, Necroposting.


LOL, you're right. :) Didn't even realize it.


--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 8, 2009 6:27 PM

DREAMTROVE


Necroposting, nice word. I do it intentionally sometimes, but only to resurrect interesting topics.

The fake moonlanding topic is dumb.

Here's the failproof logic: The Soviets could see every little dot of us in space, and would have totally called us out on a fake moonlanding. I've watched the videos, and I suspect that there is one shred of truth to the fake moonlanding story:

One of the videos, a color video of a dramatic US flag planting has all the markings of a staged photo op. Odd that no one was bothered by all the other transmissions being in B/W, correct me if I'm wrong, but the problems come from the flag, which harks back to an ealier fraudulent photo op.

The planting of the flag on Iwo Jima. The picture is actually of men planting a flag atop Iwo Jima, but when the reporters arrived to take the picture, the soldiers first had to take the American Flag down, and then plant it again, for the picture.

If you want to find American fraud, look for patriotism, and then don't look very far from it. Sinking of the Maine, 9-11, etc.

The flag planting video itself I'm more skeptical of. It was a televised event, and the communications technology was very sketchy. My guess, worst case, nothing was working right at the time, and the studio had probably considered the possibility, already filmed a mock up, and played it instead.

So, the moon landing, it had to be real, or the USSR would have known, and though the US might have silenced their analysis, we would've been the laughing stock of the world. This was such a big risk that no one would have ever attempted it. Imagine the field day China might have with us today if we presented a deflector shield, and faked a test of it. Everyone wants a missile defense system right now, just like they wanted a spaceship then, but no one knows how to build one. We can shoot missiles at missiles, but that's only a % chance. Russia is probably way ahead of us at this, even N. Ireland is doing well. Our last system that was battle tested came out with 1% efficiency. Assume we're doing much better today, we still have no deflector shield, and there would be no way to fake it without being mocked internationally.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts
Tucker Carlson
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:24 - 132 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL