Slashdot Mirror

Except: A woman is born with all the eggs she will ever have (they are not produced over the woman's lifetime).

There is research suggesting this isn't true.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120229-women-health-ovaries-eggs-reproduction-science/

Been done.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070122-ball-lightning_2.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y72nrlNnXAk

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/great-balls-of/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5px6rCqArQ&feature=gv#!

Besides, there is some real doubt that Tesla ever created anything other than large sparks creating molten metal balls, because in that day, there were few very large DC generators or batteries available, (but Tesla had them) and a localized large spark could have easily been described as ball lightning by uneducated people.

You mean the Cavendish banana, that repeatedly comes under fungal and viral attack, that it can't defend itself from due to its lack of genetic diversity? Or the relentlessly inbred pedigree breeds that have defects in their breathing, walking or vision? Genetic engineering is and will be capable of wonders, but we shouldn't blind ourselves to the dangers.

The fact is that a massive number of genetic mutations in a population within a few generations from something like ionizing radiation or some other agent does not lead to greater fitness, but almost inevitably to lesser fitness; deleterious morphological changes (ie. malformed wings, eyes, internal organs) and increase in various cancers.

That is not a fact, that is a scaremongering theory that was popular directly after the Chernobyl incident. A quarter of a century later we have quite a lot of facts rather than FUD to look at.

Wildlife Thrive in Chernobyl's No-Go Zone
Despite Mutations, Chernobyl Wildlife Is Thriving
Wildlife defies Chernobyl radiation
Wildlife thriving after Chernobyl’s nuclear disaster – study

Yes, individuals might die and suffer horribly. (It might be hard to find bad mutations since they are often eaten at early age.) but the benefits from having a zone humans avoid outweighs this when we look at population strength.
If the Chernobyl disaster is any indication then the Fukushima disaster is a blessing for Japanese wildlife and the result we will see in a couple of decades is not a "population much less fit to related populations outside the environment that caused this."

"Because I present, for my case of man being inherently flawed and evil unless taught not to be and enforced with laws and social codes, the entire history of the human race."

I have heard numerous religious folks, of varying religions, all espouse this. "People are inherently evil", "People will only be good if you force them to be good".

What proof do you have for these assertions?

Anecdotal evidence from this quadrant says that some people are "good", some people are "evil", and a very large majority of people just do not act coherently, both "good" and "evil". This is a very far cry from "People are inherently evil".

Re: Savages

I assume you mean uneducated and uncivilized people. Yes? People like this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/07/pictures/110705-uncontacted-tribe-confirmed-science-world-indians-amazon-rainforest/

Are these people evil? If so, how? Are they good? If so, how?

It seems to me that a very twisted view of the world is being presented to us.

Its a long article, but worth the read: Half Life—The Lethal Legacy of America's Nuclear Waste.

No one mods me up when I post that, so I'll mod you up instead - thanks for pointing this out.

Even barrels and barrels of dirt.

What's to be done with 52,000 tons (47,174 metric tons) of dangerously radioactive spent fuel from commercial and defense nuclear reactors? With 91 million gallons (344.5 million liters) of high-level waste left over from plutonium processing, scores of tons of plutonium, more than half a million tons (453,592 metric tons) of depleted uranium, millions of cubic feet of contaminated tools, metal scraps, clothing, oils, solvents, and other waste? And with some 265 million tons (240 million metric tons) of tailings from milling uranium ore—less than half stabilized—littering landscapes?

Its a long article, but worth the read: Half Life—The Lethal Legacy of America's Nuclear Waste.

Many rare and interesting animals are tasty.

why worry? Arctic Ocean is predicted to be "nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012 per NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally; just one month to go. The change in albedo will trigger therma-geddon and it Hasta la vista, baby, so smok'em if you got'em.

Woops wrong link:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/11/091112-drinking-water-cocaine/

how will the presence of caffeine in our oceans affect human health

Apparently quite positively:
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-07-coffee-consumption-inversely-common-skin.html
What's more disturbing is the presence of all the other chemicals - antibiotics, illegal drugs, mood stabilizers and sex hormones.

Bullshit.

Um. Well, the headline is: "First Proof Gorillas Eat Monkeys?" but like all headlines that end in a question mark, the answer is no:

"There's plenty of opportunities" for adding mammal DNA to gorilla scat after the fact, Schubert said. "I don't really think they're eating meat."

That said, the article does say that chimps and bonobos have been known to eat mammals. Something of which I was not aware. So that's interesting.

And this article:

How about that I eat meat, and I can use Google?

Starts with the headline "Meat-Based Diet Made Us Smarter" and then goes on to say that what really did it was learning how to cook:

Wrangham explains that even after we started eating meat, raw food just didn't pack the energy to build the big-brained, small-toothed modern human.

Although it does say the the meat was important as well, sorta. Point for you there I guess. I appreciate the links, at any rate.

This does not imply a causative effect between meat and intelligence however - apes and monkeys, arguably the smartest non-human animals, are technically omnivores but with the exception of a few species that eat insects, they eat plants almost exclusively.

Bullshit.

If you've got any information that suggests that meat was or is essential to brain development I'd like to see it.

How about that I eat meat, and I can use Google?

"The mind is what the brain does"

Weather and climate related reports and articles are missing key informations.

Please do your own calculation, cross-references and double check, triple check of numbers and info.

Earth Magnetic Poles shifted 400 Miles in the last 11 years (some 800 miles in last 100 years): real cause for changing weather patterns, not Carbon Dioxide (CO2). North America shifting South. Northern Europe shifting North.

Here are some info:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole

The North Magnetic Pole moves over time due to magnetic changes in the Earth's core.[1] In 2001, it was determined by the Geological Survey of Canada to lie near Ellesmere Island in northern Canada at 81.3ÂN 110.8ÂW. It was situated at 83.1ÂN 117.8ÂW in 2005. In 2009, while still situated within the Canadian Arctic territorial claim at 84.9ÂN 131.0ÂW,[2] it was moving toward Russia at between 34 and 37 mi (55-60 km) per year.[3] As of 2012, the pole is projected to have moved beyond the Canadian Arctic territorial claim to 85.9ÂN 147.0ÂW.

---

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1215_051215_north_pole.html
North Magnetic Pole Is Shifting Rapidly Toward Russia
December 15, 2005

New research shows the pole moving at rapid clipâ"25 miles (40 kilometers) a year.

Over the past century the pole has moved 685 miles (1,100 kilometers) from Arctic Canada toward Siberia, says Joe Stoner, a paleomagnetist at Oregon State University.

---

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/
Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field

The pole kept going during the 20th century, north at an average speed of 10 km per year, lately accelerating "to 40 km per year," says Newitt. At this rate it will exit North America and reach Siberia in a few decades.

---

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020818.html
Astronomy Picture of the Day

Indicated in the above picture is Ellef Ringnes Island, the location of Earth's North Magnetic Pole in 1999.

--- --- ---

Now the reasoning part...

Distance between 2001 and 2012 coordinates of the "Earth magnetic North pole":

81.3ÂN 110.8ÂW (2001)
85.9ÂN 147.0ÂW (2012)

is about 401.9 Miles, or 646.9 Km. That's an average of 36.5 miles per year for the last 11 years. 36.5 miles per year is about 1 mile for every 10 days. Imagine your house moves 1 mile every 10 days, that's quite a distance.

North America is shifted South, a rough estimate from a map, 400 miles is about distance between these cities:

Quebec -- New York city.
New York city -- Atlanta/Savanah.
San Francisco -- San Diego/Tiejuana.

Again, back in 2005, "Over the past century the pole has moved 685 miles (1,100 kilometers)". Which means for 2012, over the past century the Magnetic North Pole would have moved away from Canda and the USA some 800 miles. Which is about the distance of:

Washingon DC -- Fort Lauderdale

When people claim the weather has been the worst on record of the last 50 years, or 100 years, they don't even know that the comparison is invalid. The location they are now in North America is well over 800 miles South of where they were 100 years ago. Comparing such records with a city

Weather and climate related reports and articles are missing key informations.

Please do your own calculation, cross-references and double check, triple check of numbers and info.

Earth Magnetic Poles shifted 400 Miles in the last 11 years (some 800 miles in last 100 years): real cause for changing weather patterns, not Carbon Dioxide (CO2). North America shifting South. Northern Europe shifting North.

Here are some info:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole

The North Magnetic Pole moves over time due to magnetic changes in the Earth's core.[1] In 2001, it was determined by the Geological Survey of Canada to lie near Ellesmere Island in northern Canada at 81.3ÂN 110.8ÂW. It was situated at 83.1ÂN 117.8ÂW in 2005. In 2009, while still situated within the Canadian Arctic territorial claim at 84.9ÂN 131.0ÂW,[2] it was moving toward Russia at between 34 and 37 mi (55-60 km) per year.[3] As of 2012, the pole is projected to have moved beyond the Canadian Arctic territorial claim to 85.9ÂN 147.0ÂW.

---

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1215_051215_north_pole.html
North Magnetic Pole Is Shifting Rapidly Toward Russia
December 15, 2005

New research shows the pole moving at rapid clipâ"25 miles (40 kilometers) a year.

Over the past century the pole has moved 685 miles (1,100 kilometers) from Arctic Canada toward Siberia, says Joe Stoner, a paleomagnetist at Oregon State University.

---

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/
Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field

The pole kept going during the 20th century, north at an average speed of 10 km per year, lately accelerating "to 40 km per year," says Newitt. At this rate it will exit North America and reach Siberia in a few decades.

---

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020818.html
Astronomy Picture of the Day

Indicated in the above picture is Ellef Ringnes Island, the location of Earth's North Magnetic Pole in 1999.

--- --- ---

Now the reasoning part...

Distance between 2001 and 2012 coordinates of the "Earth magnetic North pole":

81.3ÂN 110.8ÂW (2001)
85.9ÂN 147.0ÂW (2012)

is about 401.9 Miles, or 646.9 Km. That's an average of 36.5 miles per year for the last 11 years. 36.5 miles per year is about 1 mile for every 10 days. Imagine your house moves 1 mile every 10 days, that's quite a distance.

North America is shifted South, a rough estimate from a map, 400 miles is about distance between these cities:

Quebec -- New York city.
New York city -- Atlanta/Savanah.
San Francisco -- San Diego/Tiejuana.

Again, back in 2005, "Over the past century the pole has moved 685 miles (1,100 kilometers)". Which means for 2012, over the past century the Magnetic North Pole would have moved away from Canda and the USA some 800 miles. Which is about the distance of:

Washingon DC -- Fort Lauderdale

When people claim the weather has been the worst on record of the last 50 years, or 100 years, they don't even know that the comparison is invalid. The location they are now in North America is well over 800 miles South of where they were 100 years ago. Comparing such records with a city

...would like a word with you, sir.

http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/intelligenttravel/2011/03/strange-planet-real-life-up-ho-1.html
http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/upinspired-floating-house-14

It even had a real aviation tail number N878UP Experimental.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/06/110613-space-science-star-water-bullets-kristensen/

Done and done. It's shown that most stars do this.

Of course not. But most likely they will mainly be used to detect what taxpayers carry any residue of money, at which point they'll get a 'pat down' to remove any excess cash burdening the traveller.

Time to cut out the middle man; these machines are expensive and the producers have to be paid.

This isn't too far off... if this thing is used to detect narcotics, given that 90% of US bills have detectable traces of cocaine on them, leave any money exposed while being scanned, and you're likely to get a much more thorough examination and possible confiscation of your money.

Centuries later, scientists figure out what actually happened using careful observation. Number of times this has happened: too many to count.

And most of these "observations" of weird stuff in the night sky were due to the aurorae. Even in modern light-polluted England where the telly rules the evenings, some people will always spot a decent aurora. Here are examples from England and Scotland, which are nothing compared to those visible at higher geomagnetic latitudes.

What's the deal?

Two words: Imaginary Geographic

It's not about evidence, it's about conditioning children to accept fairy stories as valid epistemology.

It's all fairy tales, until you catch fairy.

Fossil Record: Prior to 1938 coelacanths were known only from fossils and were thought to have gone extinct approximately 65 million years ago (mya), during the great extinction in which the dinosaurs disappeared. The most recent fossil record dates from about 80 mya but earlier records date back as far as approximately 360 mya. At one time coelacanths were a large group comprising about 90 different valid species that were distributed around the world in both marine and freshwaters. Although Latimeria is a genus distinct from the fossil forms, all coelacanths share numerous features and are easily recognized by their distinctive shape and lobed fins. . . .

The first living coelacanth (seel-a-canth) was discovered in 1938 and bears the scientific name Latimeria chalumnae. The species was described by Professor J.L.B. Smith in 1939 and was named after its discoverer, Miss Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer. Until recent years, living coelacanths were known only from the western Indian Ocean, primarily from the Comoros Islands, but in September 1997 and again in July 1998, coelacanths were captured in northern Sulawesi, Indonesia, nearly 6,000 miles to the east of the Comoros. The Indonesian discovery was made by Mark V. Erdmann, then a doctoral student studying coral reef ecology in Indonesia. Although the Indonesian specimens superficially resemble those in the western Indian Ocean, analyses of DNA from tissue samples removed from one of the Indonesian specimens have revealed significant genetic differentiation from the Indian Ocean population. The authors of two studies have suggested that the two populations have been separated for at least several millions of years. The Indonesian form was described as a new species, Latimeria menadoensis, in April 1999, by L. Pouyard and several Indonesian colleagues. All Latimeria are considered to be endangered and are protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna - - The Coelacanth: More Living than Fossil

More: The Fish Out of Time, Coelacanth

It is also well established that scientists aren't omniscient, and can disregard direct observations that don't fit with their personal belief or theories.

Enormous waves that sweep the ocean are traditionally called rogue waves, implying that they have a kind of freakish rarity. Over the decades, skeptical oceanographers have doubted their existence and tended to lump them together with sightings of mermaids and sea monsters.

But scientists are now finding that these giants of the sea are far more common and destructive than once imagined, prompting a rush of new studies and research projects. The goals are to better tally them, understand why they form, explore the possibility of forecasts, and learn how to better protect ships, oil platforms and people. -- Rogue Giants at Sea, by WILLIAM J. BROAD, Published: July 11, 2006

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. -- Max Planck

Those [scientists] who dislike entertaining contradictory thoughts are unlikely to enrich their science with new ideas. -- Max Planck

Once that's done, the story is changed to suit whatever purpose is required.

You mean like "punctuated equilibrium" and "quantum evolution"?

Or are you referring to the extraordinary results of

The Chinese do do a lot of copycat architecture, model cities after other famous locations, etc. It is strangely plausible that this could actually be some kind of art heist. . . .

I didn't start reading science fiction until 9th grade so that's what..... 14? A friend told me to read Foundation's Edge. Prior to that point I mostly *watched* science fiction like Star Trek and Buck Rogers.

Back at age 8 I was more interesting in REAL science rather than fiction. Here's what I used to read back then:

http://kids.nationalgeographic.com/kids/
http://www.astronomy.com/Magazine/
http://www.sciencenews.org/ (once I reached middle school)

Please. 11% don't even know where the USA is: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey.html

1) where does "driftwood" come from then? I'm nearly certain that land-species (to say nothing of aquatic ones) have been migrating all over the world through all sorts of avenues probably about as likely or frequent as the washing up of what happens-this-time-to-be-a-manmade-object.

I grew up around 10,000 lakes and was taught that burning driftwood is a very bad idea as it contains chlorine which is, in part, why they look bone white. If a tree falls into water and becomes driftwood, it usually loses its outer layer of bark and all of its leaves. On top of that, any animal that doesn't like chlorine probably wouldn't survive on it. Go pick up a piece of driftwood and look for barnacles ... usually all you'll find are ants and insects that have inhabited it after it washes back up. And, like you would assume, long ago anything that could live in driftwood has probably long ago made the journey by chance. So the key difference with docks is that they are often loaded with barnacles. Many of them that are in bays or calm enough water are floating boxes of wood that are chained together and simply anchored in the beach. They are flat, they often contain tons of organisms seeking shelter on the beach and when they are in water, they often have one side exposed to air (or they wouldn't be used as docks). Sure, some of these have come loose over time but what you had was thousands of them during the tsunami. So that's why the scientists are concerned and, given the large number of objects you can imagine, they may have good reason to be concerned. I don't think anyone's suggesting you quit your job and walk up and down the shore line throwing GPS devices down for the US to nuke from space but locals should take note of strange new insects or anything if they notice them.

2) Not sure if you were joking, if so my apologies in advance for taking you literally. Of course, anyone who is interested in facts is aware that the 'great pacific garbage patch' (a colossal and deliberately sensational overstatement) is an area of sea where the density of microscopic plastic particulates is 'as high as' a single-digit number per cubic meter of water. I know a lot of people were fooled by environmentalists' clever 'accidental (?) misappropriation' of a picture of some plastic trash floating in the water into thinking that's what the patch is. It's effectively some water where there's a little more plastic DUST.

I was not joking and I would like to simply point out that what you call "plastic dust" is actually matter and some of it is solid and was not there a hundred years ago. I cheated and I didn't say when this transformation was complete so I could be talking about fifty years or five hundred years from now -- on the other hand I also didn't say which animals and some of them don't need a solid land bridge and are perfectly capable of swimming and have adventured far and wide up the and down the Asian coast. Others are insects that just might need something solid in water to lay eggs on and then a food source. Also, let's not make this sound like some nice homogenous even flowing plastic -- it's full of garbage and shit bigger than your "dust" (and that's a Natgeo album, not some treehugger crap). The fact is that unless we stop dumping, at some point it's going to get full and solid enough to start ejecting crap into the currents that line the shores of continent(s) and that's when you will need to take notice of transcontinental species migration.

Knowledge is power. France is bacon.

There was a study that there are about 4% of the population that are true multi-taskers. The tests were done regarding cell phone talking and driving. I do believe that a small group can do more than one task at a time, such as typing this message and holding a conversation.

Good thing you remembered this nameless study, otherwise you'd have lost this argument! Phew!

Good thing I can apparently google cell phone driving multitasking in less than 5s and note the 3rd entry

I may have been lazy or in a hurry with the last post. You, however, should please turn in your geek card to the next real geek you meet.

Fixed Link:
http://www.sciencenews.org/
http://kids.nationalgeographic.com/ (Formerly World magazine) These magazines are where I discovered my love of science and learning (and reading).

Whilst dismissing what the Sun is doing...

Yup, the fact that the sun is cooling is definitively the answer to why our planet is getting hotter...

the US was the second lowest in the OECD in terms of evolution acceptance, with just 14% saying "definitely true" and a third saying "absolutely false" (as a side note, Iceland, where I live, is #1 in terms of acceptance - whoo!)

Until the public can come to grips with the basic tenets of science, yes, America is lagging way behind.

No particular facts, such as those about evolution, are "basic tenets of science." Science is an approach and set of processes and tools for discovering and proving facts. I do not wish to make any statement about the truth of the facts you refer to, but I do know that the vast majority of people surveyed do not have the capability of testing them directly using scientific techniques. That common opinions about those facts are different between Iceland and the US is a cultural difference and doesn't necessarily indicate that Icelanders know more about the nature of science even if their opinion happens to be right since at some level they are simply believing what they're told.

Pont him here too: My love of science started with magazines, because of the potential to learn new things.
http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
http://sciencenews.com/
http://astronomy.com/
http://kids.nationalgeographic.com/ (formerly NatGeo World)

the US was the second lowest in the OECD in terms of evolution acceptance, with just 14% saying "definitely true" and a third saying "absolutely false" (as a side note, Iceland, where I live, is #1 in terms of acceptance - whoo!)

Until the public can come to grips with the basic tenets of science, yes, America is lagging way behind.

And I'm sorry, this "Americans suck at standardized testing" excuse is one of the flimsiest I've ever heard. Their only counterevidence -- that which has been accomplished in the US and the quality of US universities -- is hardly pinned on the understanding of science of the average American. It's a combination of the understanding of science of the top percentiles of Americans combined with research and venture capital networks and a strong H1B program (scaled by a population of over 300 million).

Even in the US, places where there is debate over the teaching of evolution are rare enough to be newsworthy. It's an ever-shrinking pool of people

Oh how I wish that were true. A 2005 poll has acceptance and rejection of evolution in the US are pretty well tied. The only change over twenty years was a decline on both sides, with an increase in the "not sure" response. I think that indicates some margin of success in their "teach the controversy" tactic.

Note that out of 34 countries, the US came in SECOND TO LAST, ahead of only Turkey.

(If anyone happens to have more recent polling data hand I would be eager to see it, but I don't anticipate any large shift in the numbers)

-

I don't know if it's as simple as childhood encouragement. As a 42 year old female who's been working in IT for more than 20 years you can imagine I encourage both my son and daughter to be interested in maths, science and computers. Boy loves it all and is very interested; girl does not want to know. Why is this? Maybe just natural tendencies - I don't know. Wish I did.

It is definitely (in part due to) natural tendencies. The same response is observed in at least one other primate species. I can't remember the specific species with which I saw this demonstrated, but when these young primates were presented with a selection of toys to play with, the females preferred dolls, while the males preferred to play with toy vehicles.

I'm pretty sure I saw this in an episode of BBC Horizon, but I don't have a reference to the particular episode. However, here are links to two articles that discuss primate toy preference:

Dorothy Lepkowska on Gender and Toys
Chimp "Girls" Play With "Dolls" Too—First Wild Evidence

I wonder how long off until we see wheelbarrows full of euros and dollars being used to feed woodstoves rather than as currency.

Actually, it would be a good idea to burn the cash regardless of financial collapse.

Good point.
Ideally, we should probably have one in each hemisphere, and one on the equator, to be able to observe all objects and/or events fairly well.

Though by splitting it up, they're going to have to know the distance between the sites very precisely, to synchronize the images.
(as in; way better than GPS accuracy).

Problem is, if earthquakes in the (Richter) 8+ range modify the planet even slightly, the distance(s) will have to be measured again.
I'm thinking of something similar to the 2010 earthquake in Chile:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100302-chile-earthquake-earth-axis-shortened-day/

If the axis shifts a little, hopefully it will just be a (software) reconfiguration matter.
if one of the arrays is close enough to an earthquake, the base of every dish in that array might have to be realigned - the axii of the dish support bases need to be parallel.

"Few koalas live outside Australia, but the U.S. government designated the animal as endangered in response to a petition filed by animal-protection groups. The Australian government, which bans hunting and commercial use of koalas, sees no scientific evidence that it is likely to become endangered anytime soon." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/05/0510_020510_TVkoala.html So basically the US who have no idea what is going on in Australia BOW DOWN TO SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS and list it as endangered. Meanwhile in Australia in certain areas Koalas are so prolific they are hurting their environment. As for the rain forrest MASSIVE amounts of Australian rainforest is protected. I can only guess what the BS in PBS stands for. You're a dick. If you really want to get pissed about something try the Japanese hunting wales for 'Research Purposes'... or better yet fix your own country first.

The Navy should be handing out research grants left and right (if it isn't doing so already) for research on climate management. If all the artic sea ice thawed, it would radically change the face of naval warfare for the US, and not for the better...

Too Late!

NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions." Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?

Of course it's going to have to get warm pretty quick up there it's still -10 - -15 thought most of the arctic.

Hmm would you look at that... http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0509/whats_new/helicopter_everest.html

The problem with your talking points is that they are blatant lies.

No, stuborn fact. You just don't realize it yet.

Then what is the relevance? Do you really not understand the difference between local (2% of the planet or so) and global? But you didn't specify the US did you? You wrote: "The warmest decade for the 1900s was the 1930s" - nothing about this only being the US. You have been caught red-handed again.

What do you mean again? You haven't caught me the first time. Perhaps it was my fault. I presumed that if you had anywhere near knowledge in this area that you pretend you do, you would know precisely what I was talking about. Mr. Hansen is after all, an 800 Lbs gorilla in the room. Hard to know about this subject and not know about him and what happened. More to my point that you don't know what you are talking about.

Actually, the sun has had a cooling trend for nearly 40 years. And how did you miss the part of that page which says "bout 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase"? Face it, you were just spewing another denialist talking point because you are clueless, and now you are trying to pretend that the article supports your nonsense.

Ok, now is where I can really hit you with a clue-by-four. OTHER planets have been warming and you can see it (stuborn facts again), the sun isn't cooler. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html http://reinep.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/sun-is-getting-hotter-burning-the-planet-according-to-swiss-and-german-scientists/ Many, Many other articles on this as well. Even Pluto has been warming though to be fair, that's not scientific since it's beyond the capability of our instruments to conclusively say that. Clearly there is reason to believe that, however. Some denier sites or I suppose "green sites" to you try to explain the damning evidence away. No man on Mars to get rid of that CO2 ice. So they try to baffle you with bullshit, something they do really well. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Speaking of Mr. Hansen (above), he had an article in the NY Times today. "Sky is falling" sums it up. Apparently he can't read his own predictions. He says he was right. Even your skeptical site says he was wrong. Not surprising I found some sites that say he was right. Not that I expect you'll have any sort of clue how to read and understand it (you need to be a scientist who works with this stuff or a very bright guy, otherwise you'll probably misunderstand it), it's here - http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf . Yes, that really is the famous report. Not to say he's all wrong, there is some very good information in that report. If you're really bright you'll see why I disagree with him and you'll likely agree with me from now on. I guess I'll see how bright you are. Not if you agree with me or not of course. Being bright doesn't mean you agree with me. Maybe you'll understand what I was saying about the Gaia scientists in the beginning. You probably need a lot more context for that though.

Al Gore is irrelevant. He is not a scientist. I realize that you hate science and can't be bothered to refer to actual scientists, though.

Al is irrelevent? Thanks for the laugh! Of course you're right about Al and science. At best he was just a washed up newspaper reporter who wanted to be super man and save the world. Remember Al as you pay more for electric, gas and just about everything else coming up. See how irrelevent you think it is as you pay Al a bunch of money. By then I'm hopeful that you'll realize it's a bunch of money for nothing. Income ensured by laws.

I thought this has been known for a while, and is the origin of the myth of the cyclops?

You're thinking of the one eyed fossils of larger variety of pachyderm found there.

Similarly, I'm wondering if these fossils are the origin of the legends of the Minitaur.

Denialist, denier, heretic...these are terms used by religions to bring the unfaithful into line. The fact is that there is plenty of information to suggest that the climate has changed dramatically over the years without the influence of humans.Here's an article on the warming of Mars, which obviously is not caused by humans: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

The full quote is this:

Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

I very much doubt that Menken would approve of his words being put to your apparent meaning.

But, if you want to pretend that Menken's quote applies to the problem with Islamist terrorism, then tell me: Whom are you going to believe, your lying eyes, or the misuse of Menken's words? It appears most people commenting on this story will go with the misuse of Menken. No surprise I guess. Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad, which makes his next quote apropos:

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but surprisingly the answer to the first question seems to be yes.

Yeah, really. Science news at 11. That smartass said (in 2008/2009) that in the last 20 years Sahara had recovered a lot of land, someone should tell him and the NG that the Sahel droughts are cyclical, with the last major one that happened in 1984/1985/1986 (~20 years before the study). Now there's a new one, with more incoming desertification.

And the problem with Aral lake is that people still are diverting water from there. The same problem happens with Owens lake in California.

The problem with lake Aral is that the local ecosystem is now totally messed up.

I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but surprisingly the answer to the first question seems to be yes. And the problem with Aral lake is that people still are diverting water from there. The same problem happens with Owens lake in California.

Where are you getting your info from? If it's from Fox News you might want to read deeper into the issue. Yes it's growing but.... there's a lot more to the story!

This myopic view that global warming is supposed to have the same effect everywhere at the same time is disheartening and counter to the discussion that the vast majority of conservationists are trying to have, which is better use of our resources which is actually good for everybody in the long run. I am saddened that people haven't learned from the era of lakes catching on fire prompting the creation of the EPA to begin with. We have to live in our environment, using resources responsibly shouldn't be that controversial.

That said, many predictions about global warming actually are accurate, those that thought the sky were falling were and are just as foolish and those that don't think there is a problem. The people in the middle are capable of making a better world for the people that come after us as opposed to raping all resources until they are gone.

Hadn't seen this picture when I posted earlier. Space Shuttle Discovery Buzzes D.C. Monuments. Would have loved to been those guys working on that scaffolding!!

That depends where you draw the line. I personally draw it somewhere around "believes in ghosts", but let me pick a less controversial goalpost, which I think all the reasonable people I know would agree with, particularly including the religious ones: most Americans thought evolution is false in 2009. (Good news! Percentage down since 2004.)

That does not include those who believe evolution was guided by God. It only includes those who believe God created humans in their present form, i.e., we didn't evolve. However, it does include those who believe we didn't actually evolve, but God created the universe to appear in every way as if we did. That's not a scientifically testable hypothesis, so is compatible with all the evidence for evolution. As far as I know, there aren't many people that believe this without also claiming literal truth of the bible (which is testable and appears to be false, absent the God-faked-the-physical-world escape clause). However, I'm not an expert in the demography of American Christian fundamentalists.

Other different sources, with different phrasings of the question, include: just below 40% in 2006; 39% in 2009; 40% in 2010; 41% in 2011. So the CBS numbers are higher than most, but you would have a hard time arguing that it's much less than 40%.

Now, most churchgoing folks are indeed nice, sane, civilized people. But fundamentalism is not a "big media" invention; there is a real, serious problem with people believing, and therefor potentially acting, counter-factually.

Now, I am an atheist. I recognize that faith and science are compatible. Make any untestable statement you want, as long as you recognize that it's an article of faith. Science only deals with testable claims and the physical world. We may have more nuanced disagreements about morality, rationality of faith, etc. However, the argument above doesn't enter into metaphysics or moral philosophy. It just says: if a religious fundamentalist is someone who denies scientific facts on a religious basis, then we have a lot of them in the US, not a tiny minority.

There were many ancient american civilizations and it's possible that some of them may have been the ones described in the Book of Mormon.
I linked to the BYU article because it's a scholarly article explaining the evidence for precolumbian horses in America. Critics often say that because the natives weren't riding horses when Columbus arrived there weren't any which is false. Centuries-old bones of horses unearthed in Carlsbad Remains Show Ancient Horses Were Hunted for Their Meat.

There's not enough archaelogical evidence left behind to definitively rule either way. However, the Hopewell Culture did have an advanced writing system, clothing, agriculture, trade, fortifications and earth mounds; all of which are described in the Book of Mormon. They also disappeared at the same time as recorded. I see the evidence of a great civilization that lived here before us and we are very fortunate to have their record.