|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Aug 16, 2007 14:37:38 GMT -5
I do admit to liking some Asia I nailed it. I thought you were going for the "...because you framed an asia poster" or "...because you like coldplay" Nevertheless, impressive work |
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Aug 22, 2007 13:24:26 GMT -5
Funny thing about my back is ....
|
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Aug 2, 2007 9:57:50 GMT -5
in other news and views, I stumbled upon a great slang word the other day -- if fat girls are wearing midriff-baring tops and they have rolls hanging over, it is called a "flabalanche" - i thought that was amazing. They're also called muffin tops... though I think it's probably more for their look than their taste. |
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Aug 28, 2007 8:31:39 GMT -5
We've been out of soup for two hours, Marty
|
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Jul 3, 2007 11:42:15 GMT -5
It's weird that a lady with nine pets would do something like this. Usually people with that many pets are so rational and level headed.
|
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Aug 22, 2007 12:08:17 GMT -5
Illustration: suppose the average temperature was a half a degree warmer every five years for a fifty year period. By the end of the fifty years, the average temperature would be a full 5 degrees warmer than the beginning of the period. That would most likely indicate a warming trend. However it would still be possible for the ten hottest years to be ten different random years scattered over the hundreds of earlier years. Kudos for tackling the rigorous concept of an "average" (or "mean" depending on your taste and level of sophistication). Tune in next week--or in HiFi's case within the next few hours--to hear him address other high-level issues such as: dividing by zero, converting inches into feet, measuring the distance between two objects, and if we're lucky, flaming dog poo and the human response. |
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Aug 5, 2007 17:11:25 GMT -5
As for temperature uncertainties, Ed, you ask great questions. I am not privy to the algorithms used to extrapolate temperature between points. What I do know, is that short of putting thermometers some impracticably short distance apart, it seems virtually impossible to know for sure what the temperature is doing around the world. Even then, if somehow I could prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the global mean temperature has risen by a half of a degree, it still wouldn't matter because I wouldn't have proven the cause of the rise in temp. What I do know, however, is that in one of those wonderful 'mistakes' that science sometimes makes, we have monitored the CO2 levels on top of Mauna Loa for about 40 some years now. The graph is shown here: tinyurl.com/2pladv. On top of a mountain, in the middle of an ocean--about as far away from human influence as you can get--CO2 levels have been rising, even after seasonal variations. Again, I can't say with any certainty that human activity caused this increase. Just as you can't say with any certainty that human activity didn't cause the increase. But what do we lose if we make real efforts to cut down our contribution to the problem/natural phenomenon? |
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Aug 5, 2007 16:48:53 GMT -5
This will be the first of several posts (long) on why I do not believe man is causing any significant warming of the planet. This post will address my suspicion of scientists. I am not a climatologist or related scientist but I have a degree in engineering and graduate study in engineering and math; and, I have led an organization of approximately 1,800 scientists, engineers and mathematicians. I have also been around the block a few times and that experience gives me pause when considering what scientists have to say and what is proposed in response. I remember DDT being banned because of the danger to the environment and have seen some estimates that a million or more people have died from malaria capable of being controlled by DDT. I have seen an American supersonic transport program killed by environmentalists fearful of danger to the ozone layer yet have seen the Concorde fly for many years and American and foreign military aircraft routinely flying supersonic but, after the transport program was killed, the topic of supersonic flight disappeared. I have hear that acid rain will kill millions. I have heard that nuclear power plants pose large risks but have observed no domestic deaths from the reactors that have been operating for many years and have also observed that other countries are increasingly dependent on nuclear power; and nuclear-powered submarines and surface ships are commonplace. I have heard that drilling for oil in Alaska or off the coast of California or Florida is bad because of the danger of spillage or hurting Alaskan caribou while many of the same people insist on energy-independence; and, I have seen the few significant spillages disappear with time, thanks to man and natural forces. I have heard of the dangers of smog, killer bees, snakehead fish, Asian (or other variety) flu that will kill millions, and killer red ants. And, of course, I've heard we are entering a new ice age. Furthermore, I've heard that 2006 was going to be a horrible year in this country for hurricanes and I've heard the same predictions for 2007. Is there any wonder why I'm suspicious of what scientists say and what others propose in response to what they say? Actually, yes. There should be wonder. No domestic deaths from nuclear reactors? Fine. But how is that in any way a reflection on scientists with some sort of purported agenda? I shouldn't have to remind you how correct those same cook scientists were in the case that made you qualify your statement with the word "domestic." You've also heard the "dangers" of smog because they're real. I assume you do not live in Beijing or Mexico City or some other equally polluted city, where even the biggest science skeptic would recognize their persistent hacking cough that magically seems to go away when out of the city. I don't need science to tell me that I don't want to live my life in that type of environment. You also mention the “dangers” of the flu. Maybe you remember the Spanish flu in 1918/1919? Were the scientists wrong about that? Or does it not count because they're now talking about a different type of flu? Let me ask you: what was your initial, gut reaction when you first heard reports that the recent earthquake in Japan caused a leak of nuclear waste? Was it that since the scientists were wrong about domestic deaths, that the waste probably wasn't all that dangerous? Or was it "gee, I hope it's not too serious"? If you had any of the latter, I would seriously hope you could at least recognize this irony. What you lambaste scientists for doing (studying theoreticals, often ad nausea, to know how they will affect us and our environment), you do so because there simply haven't been chances for you to need their expertise. (Also, supersonic air travel failed commercially, and there was a fairly large oil spill just this past year. I'm not sure how either of these reflect poorly on scientists.) I’m not trying to say that scientists get it right all of the time. Indeed, skepticism is a very healthy trait. But what I simply do not understand is how you can dismiss a profession because you’ve been warned of a potential danger that you personally have not witnessed. |
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Jun 6, 2007 16:07:59 GMT -5
See, this is where you lose me. I'm willing to listen to or read arguments for and against, but it seems that every time there's an anti-global warming opinon, the natural reaction is just to trash it without even giving any consideration. Why does it matter what site this information is posted on? If you know of specific information about Lawrence Solomon and why he is not a credible source or about the EPRF, that's fine. I'll admit not knowing anything about him, but a quick check (and just that; granted very cursory) seems to indicate that he's farily well credentialed to speak on the subject of energy and the environment. Certainly he has a point of view, which you may not agree with, but that alone shouldn't mean it's not worth reading. Again, if you have specific information that says that this man or his organization is not credible, fine. But saying the information is worthless just because of where it's posted from is ludicrous. As for George Will misrepresenting facts, I can agree with that, as long as you can agree that Al Gore has been doing the same thing and that's just as wrong. Just because everyone can post on wikipedia doesn't mean that you get the best information possible (despite what Michael Scott would have you believe) When something is posted rather than printed, or printed without peer review as opposed to with it, I naturally view it with a lot of skepticism. It's even less effective when these opinions aren't assembled but rather thrown at the reader one by one, often addressing only one aspect of the whole problem, as Canada.com's series tends to. With regard to George Will, I picked on him here because in earlier posts he was shown to have misrepresented quotes as being from Science when they were actually from Science News--kind of like the difference between Georgetown University in DC and Georgetown College in KY--and also took quotes out of context to support his argument. I have no idea whether Al Gore is doing the same because I have an equally hard time looking to him for scientific advice. I haven't read his book or seen his movie and don't really want to. Maybe I'm too much of an optimist when it comes to peer review and the ability of a panel to come to a consensus, but I just really don't see what grouping a dozen or so skeptics together to "prove" that the consensus is false accomplishes. Both sides, it seems, end up clamoring for the same thing: more research and a better understanding of what is going on. |
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Jun 6, 2007 11:54:46 GMT -5
From what I can gather...Easyed is saying that there is a manufactured consensus in the mainstream media about significant human contribution to climate change that doesn't reflect reality. He then gives some links to the few voices from outside the mainstream (for mainstream media read: 98% of their writers/reporters will never once vote Republican in their lives) and is damned because the sources of those links are deemed to be "outside of the mainstream." I don't envy you easyed. I don't particularly care what the local journalism-major has to say about the science behind climate change. I also don't appreciate people like George Will mining for quotes from the 70's and then factually misrepresenting them. Whatever side of the spectrum you're on, you shouldn't appreciate this type of journalism (take your pick, it's either amateur or purposely misleading). Instead, why not look to the Science magazines of the world? There are hundreds of rigorously peer reviewed journals that exist solely to flesh out answers to questions such as our impact on the changing climate. Citing canada.com does not do much to further the debate about the underlying science that has built a consenus. |
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on May 31, 2007 11:47:46 GMT -5
Because the federal government didn't make some $40 billion last year, like Exxon did, nor did its stock surge 35%, like Exxon's did. No, the federal government "made" a hell of a lot more than $40 billion last year. And tax revenues have surged by about 35% over the last few years. I don't mind the discussion, but the oil companies are entitled to make profits, you know? Fair point. Original post modified to reflect exxon's $40 billion in profit not revenue. I actually agree with you to a certain extent about windfall profits like these. It costs a lot--with the oil companies assuming a fair amount of risk--to find, extract, and refine the oil pumped into Hoyatalkers' minivans. Though if you want to get technical, there is a huge difference between oil companies seeing their stock surge by 35% last year and the federal government seeing tax revenues rise by a comparable percentage over the last few years. The benefits I derive from an oil company's stock/revenue increasing by a certain percentage (increased oil exploration) aren't exactly comparable to the benefits I derive from the government's revenue increasing by a comparable percentage (increased services such as roads, schools, health care, etc). |
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on May 31, 2007 8:39:10 GMT -5
RE gas prices: "big oil" makes about 8 cents a gallon from gasoline sales. Local service station makes about 6 cents a gallon. Federal and state taxes make about 50 cents a gallon (in New York, it's 63 cents). Why don't we hear about government gouging customers? Because the federal government didn't make some $40 billion lin profit last year, like Exxon did, nor did its stock surge 35%, like Exxon's did. |
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on May 22, 2007 15:26:22 GMT -5
EasyEd's contention is that anyone who dares to disagree with those who believe global warming is caused by human activity will be shot at dawn for having the gall to object to what the "believers" have decared is a "consensus". I, for one, agree with your larger point. Only good can come out of seriously challenging the status quo. I'm pretty psyched a live in a round world that revolves around the sun. The thing is, though, that in order to change the status quo, concrete & indesputable evidence is required. In the face of a boat load of actual data & empirical evidence, giving a list of people who are disbelievers just doesn't sway me. What I take particular issue with in the climate change debate, is using the rejection of the consenus opinion to stall action at the expense of us all. Say we take action and solve our addiction to non-clean energy sources, but global warming ends up being a big hoax. What then? We've spent a lot of money to fix a problem that didn't exist, but we've solved a separate problem--albeit probably not in the most economical way. But what if the climate really is changing because of us? The cost of inaction would be enormous. Put together a cogent, complete, and data-driven argument and I will be glad to stop worrying about things like why Minneapolis didn't have a white Christmas this year. |
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on May 20, 2007 11:39:14 GMT -5
--While worrying about Montana's receding glaciers, [Gov. Brian] Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950." -- george will, wapost 4/2/06 Want to know the original quote from that September 1975 NY Times piece that warns of "the return to another ice age"?? "Recent long-term predictions of climate change have been contradictory. Some forecasters believe a cooling trend has begun that may mark the return to another ice age. Others say a natural 80-year cycle is nearing its coolest phase and that a marked warming is in store, reinforced by the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide from fuel burning." Basically, I wouldn't put too much faith in George Will's interpretation of the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on May 17, 2007 14:58:43 GMT -5
"Co2, as you undoubtedly know, is a greenhouse gas, whose atmospheric levels are indesputedly linked to the earth's average temperature. It is not INDESPUTEDLY linked to the earth's average temperature. It is merely a theory that many believe in while some others don't. "The role of atmospheric carbon dioxide in warming the Earth's surface was first demonstrated by Swedish Scientist Svante Arrhenius more than 100 years ago. Scientific data have since established that, for hundreds of thousands of years, changes in temperatures have closely tracked with atmospheric CO2 concentrations." -May 2001 National Academy of Sciences report commissioned by the White House. Look, if you want to start calling into question basic scientific findings as a justification for inaction I really don't know what to say. You don't think people in North Dakota, Greenland, or Siberia are concerned about climate change? I think they are. In fact, people in places like Siberia are probably just as concerned as we are, if not more. They stand to lose a lot if the permafrost melts. Just like the people in Greenland who stand to lose a lot if glaciers melt and/or sea levels rise. What's more this argument is stunning in its callousness and short-sightedness. Yeah, winters in select parts of the world might get more mild. This doesn't even address the fact that many northerly places like you mention rely on industries made possible by their harsh climate. Nor does it address the regions that will be adversely affected. What will happen to Bangladesh, for example? That entire freaking country sits almost at sea level. I'm just not sure why you are choosing to view this as an 'us against them' battle. The fact is we are the pretty big part of the problem but so is the rest of the world. Global environmental problems can, however, be solved when people work together towards a common goal. Remember the Ozone hole? All it took was a pretty simple discovery (and a nobel prize) to convince people that our CFCs were directly responsible for it. The developed world took the lead and ended the rampant use of CFCs. Developing countries took longer, but eventually did the same. Pretty cool story, actually. Although I guess it might have just all been a huge coincidence, right? |
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on May 17, 2007 10:49:32 GMT -5
Consensus has no place in scientific activity. Scientific activity should be free to challenge any consensus that exists and not be pilloried for doing so. The belief that warming is caused by human activity is based on theories about how it's caused, backed up by some scientific data. Other data do not support that belief. For instance, why is it that Mars and Venus are also experiencing warming? Could it, and what's happening on earth, be related to activity on the sun? Seems logical to at least explore that line of reasoning. My purpose in starting this thread was to say that, despite consensus, it is not universally accepted in the scientific community that warming is caused by human beings and to remind all that 30 years ago the scientific community had a consensus that we were about to enter the next ice age. And, you will notice I did not insult those who have a different opinion. First, are you out of your mind?? Consensus reports are extraordinarily valuable scientific resources! Do you have a better system than assembling a group of actual experts to look at actual data to come up with what they judge the best answer to a problem? What's more, who ever said consensus reports can't be challenged? You put together a more convincing report than the scores that are currently available, and I will believe it. Second, yes, you are absolutely right that we don't know for sure what is causing our climate to change. What we do know, however, is that there is incontrovertable evidence that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising due to unnatural causes (e.g. humans). Co2, as you undoubtedly know, is a greenhouse gas, whose atmospheric levels are indesputedly linked to the earth's average temperature. So what you're saying is that you think natural variability is behind the current warming trends despite this overwhelming evidence. Fine. Great. I disagree. But so what? What you shouldn't disagree about is whether we should attempt to curb our emissions of greenhouse gasses (and specifically Co2) especially in response to what is going on. Even if the trend is 'natural', our behavior is at the very least exacerbating it. That is a fact. So why should we sit here and knock "consenus" reports because you don't like them. I would rather get beyond the arguing and start to do something about it. (Also, we have explored the solar radiation line of reasoning--along with almost every other possible lines of reasoning--and its within its normal range. Trust me, you're not the first person to try to come up with alternative explanations for the warming we're seeing.) |
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Apr 16, 2007 13:34:35 GMT -5
An email from the VaTech President:
Shooting at Virginia Tech / Statement by President Charles W. Steger
The university was struck today with a tragedy of monumental proportions. There were two shootings on campus. In each case, there were fatalities. The university is shocked and horrified that this would befall our campus. I want to extend my deepest, sincerest and most profound sympathies to the families of these victims which include students There are 22 confirmed deaths.
We currently are in the process of notifying families of victims. The Virginia Tech Police are being assisted by numerous other jurisdictions. Crime scenes are being investigated by the FBI, University Police, and State Police. We continue to work to identify the victims impacted by this tragedy. I cannot begin to covey my own personal sense of loss over this senselessness of such an incomprehensible and heinous act The university will immediately set up counseling centers. So far centers have been identified in Ambler Johnson and the Cook Counseling Center to work with our campus community and families.
Here are some of the facts we know:
At about 7:15 a.m. this morning a 911 call came to the University Police Department concerning an event in West Amber Johnston Hall. There were multiple shooting victims. While in the process of investigating, about two hours later the university received reports of a shooting in Norris Hall. The police immediately responded. Victims have been transported to various hospitals in the immediate area in the region to receive emergency treatment.
We will proceed to contact the families of victims as identities are available.
All classes are cancelled and the university is closed for the remainder for the today. The university will open tomorrow at 8 a.m. but classes will be cancelled on Tuesday. The police are currently staging the release of people from campus buildings.
|
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Apr 13, 2007 15:42:00 GMT -5
Can someone please explain to me the origins of "Schrutebag" fer chrissake?! I know who Dwight Schrute is - the greatest TV character since "GOB" Bluth. And I know this somehow started with Colin Cowherd, I think. But how did one of the four all time top TV asskickers get associated with a word that carries such negative connotations? I'm a member of the Dwight Army of Champions... and REALLY Editeded I changed my avatar away from Dwight a month or so ago. Now ExciteableBoy's got it and I'm screwed. [Un-shun] Fact: He's mine now!! [Re-shun] |
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Mar 22, 2007 16:06:09 GMT -5
I mean, can't she take a joke!? Doesn't she have a sense of humor at all??
|
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Apr 5, 2007 12:48:55 GMT -5
Does anyone else find it funny that McCain banner ads are running on HoyaTalk right now? No matter your political affiliation, that's a pretty good definition of irony. Ironic, yes. Funny, no. |
|
