Israeli environmental groups. They wanted the people to burn one less candle durning the holidays. LOL
No I don't. It won't convince you anyway. Study Kepler's Orbital Laws.
Notice with a higher eccentricity, the earth will spend more time away from the sun than near it. As eccentricity approaches zero (a circle,) it is equal distance. Since it's an inverse square function in math, an orbit with a lower eccentricity equals more annual solar radiation than an orbit with a higher eccentricity.
Yes, I know Kepler's Laws (they're easy to prove from the conservation of angular momentum, since we assume the universe's mass is equally distributed in all directions, thus creating no external torque on the sun-earth system). None of that explains why the sun's gravity is going to pull the earth into a more circular orbit. Newton's inverse square law does not show that.No I don't. It won't convince you anyway. Study Kepler's Orbital Laws.
Notice with a higher eccentricity, the earth will spend more time away from the sun than near it. As eccentricity approaches zero (a circle,) it is equal distance. Since it's an inverse square function in math, an orbit with a lower eccentricity equals more annual solar radiation than an orbit with a higher eccentricity.
It has to do with the influence of other planets in the solar system.
There is no question about the earths changing orbit or why. Do you agree a more circular orbit exposes the earth to more annual heat from the sun or not? You see, it is happening. Scientists don't doubt it. The Milankovitch cycle is known and real, changes in eccentricity being one of the three planetary changes.
Pointless "debate". People will use fossil fuels until there isn't a drop left.
Adapt or die. Whether or not we warm the Earth means nothing unless you have cash to lose or gain ( o energy companies).
The Earth will warm/cool/die in the short term regardless of what laws we pass (meet impact event, supervolcano, nuclear war, 3rd world countries needing fuel, solar variance, etc).
If species go extinct, then so be it; they were not fit to live. This includes humans if it comes to that.
Go directly to jail, do not pass go, and pick something to debate (a party line to spout off) that actually matters. Perhaps the government could put money into researching nuclear fusion instead of waging war and socializing mindless drones. Solve the impending energy crisis and alleged global warming with one tool.
Here's a graph of energy usage in terawatts from different sources to show how nothing is going to change, regardless of petty debate. Maybe in 23,000 years when we have enough data to actually make a conclusion your decedents 372 generations from now can say "I told you so" in your name.
Science for politics is just another religion.
Isn't this included in global warming?
It makes the weather patterns erratic and go to both extremes?
AAAAH...HAAAA that must be the REAL reason the muslims want to erradicate the Jews.
I hereby declare a war on Humidity.
I will do whatever it takes to eradicate this nemesis from the face of the Planet.
this thread should be re led : " the end of the scientific method and logical deduction".
Last edited by rjv; 10-08-2009 at 10:32 AM.
friggin nipply as out here in Idaho.
you are quoting the author of jurassic park?
What's your point?
i am not sure what darrins is attempting to prove.
one-he uses some one else's speech as a point.
two, he does not place the point in the context of an argument or explain in any way how the comments support the original premise of this thread.
three, seems to act as if crichton is the gospel when it comes to global warming. keep in mind that crichton also waged a verbal war against those who fought against second hand smoke.
In the 1970's, there was a "concensus" that we were in a period of global cooling.
EDIT> I never said Chrichton was "the gospel" when it comes to global warming, but he has written a book on the subject and has been invited to numerous debates on the subject. Strangely enough, when he's being debated by, say, Gavin Schmidt, Dr. Schmidt doesn't point out "Hey, aren't you the dude who wrote Jurassic Park?".
By the way, there was a debate called "Global Warming is Not a Crisis" back in 2007.
The skeptical side won the debate easily.
Consensus may be the first refuge of scoundrels, but Bull is their permanent residence. I agree with Crichton that science is about proof, which is precisely why I can't understand why he's mistaking the convergent data from all manner of disparate scientific disciplines (which, taken together, vividly shows the correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming) with some kind of passive, unquestioning assent.
If Keplerian laws regarding our orbit's relationship to temperature applied, why haven't we been planning for the melting of the ice-caps for a century? Why are so many scientists surprised? After all, astrophysics are much easier to compute than weather prediction algorhythms. And it's not like planning to prevent the inundation of our coastal cities wouldn't save us a fortune.
Yet we didn't do anything... hmmm.
the thing about crichton as well is that he makes these grand statements about science as if he doesn't understand its methods. not all of science is based on repeatedly verifiable experiments. much of it is also theory, observation, making predictions based on observations, and predictability. in my own profession , there is a great deal of science based on the latter.
so that's an abnormal climate change? got it.
I say the glaciers, they're assholes. You guys ever see what a glacier can to do a piece of land? Put it this way...what 911 did to the WTC aint compared to what a glacier can do.
IMO they've likely completely ed the historical record as well...
I for one am glad those es are melting, not only that but we can use the fresh water with the huge global population we have....I mean for every person born on this planet, there is less fresh water, and we sure could use some of that the glaciers are hoarding.
So what if it gets a little hotter, turn on the ing ac, that's what it's there for.
And I'll tell you this too...somewhere the dead of the anic are saying scoreboard es!
The other thing is...these are the same scientists that tout evolution and natural selection, they study generic variance...if it gets hotter, then obviously we'll adapt to the hotter environment. Much ado about nothing and at the root of it is money...whether it's short term economic boost in getting everyone to buy new "green" stuff, or donate money to the cause, or invest in solar and wind...or paying for cow farts. I can't believe how many supposedly educated scientists go hysterical over this...then again, they probably get a lot of grants from governments and donations from concerned citizens to research this problem
And ultimately it's this...if we this planet beyond our ability to survive on it...that's just natural selection at work there, right? The scientists should be proud, it's not going to mean to the planet(which fits every definition of the word god that there is from our POV).
It's all bull ...it really is.
What gets me is I know the alarmists contribute just as much if not more to global warming as anyone else does...I'd like to know what you alarmists do differently than rest of the world.
If I hear one more story absout some climatologist jetting around the country to give lectures on how carbon fuels are contributing to global warming, I am going to puke.
I know, I know...it's different when they do it...they have to jet around the country to lecture and speak, they can't just record it on a video and get their message out that way or upload it to the internet...or some like that. Got to jet around the country, and deliver that speech in person, and speak in auditoriums that use tons of electricity and fuel to cool them, and people drive(usuing those awful petroleum fuels) to see them speak...and sell refreshments and like that.
Natural selection indeed....
Last edited by whottt; 10-08-2009 at 01:35 PM.
Didn't you just quote a speech (from this debate) which poo-pooed consensus and favored facts? Well the means by which this debate was "won" were that an audience we know nothing about (Were they scientists? Average Joes?) was polled prior to the debate on their beliefs regarding global warming, and then again afterwards. While the "not a big deal" side persuaded more people away from their original position and cons utes a victory in terms of debate, the net result is that the audience was basically split down the middle -- in other words the "not a big deal" team may have shuffled some uncertain people around, but they didn't present evidence powerful enough to sway their whole audience by any real margin.
The first problem is, again, that science isn't a popularity contest. But if it were, the "GW is not a crisis" people are no more popular than their opposition.
I'm sure nobody's had the insight to apply a Stat 101 principle. You should email this to climatologists the world over and save us all this arguing.
You have to laugh at the amount of money we spend to "save the planet", the amount of money that Al Gore made to get this fantasy kicked in to high gear again, the idiots who cry and cry and cry and cry when people question their logic, Van Jones for saying "white people posion black communities". It's crazy ridiculous. The planet is billions of years old but some waste most peoples time because they believe. Some admitted they lied to the people to get them emotionally involved so they would give money and scare them. The planet is fine people. Quit wasting our time.
Last edited by jack sommerset; 10-08-2009 at 01:56 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
