Slashdot Mirror

I think, honestly, that he may mean both. He might also mean just cults of thinking, but are religious cults really something else?

Even if Berners-Lee didn't specifically have the group in mind, there are reasons to include them in the types of groups he's concerned about.
New Scientist equates the fear and furor around the LHC with spreading the ideas of religious cults when reporting this. The Hubbardites have been trying to censor every site they can of any negative stances on their group. Groups that strive for one side of any argument to stifle the other can't be considered very truthful or even "truthy".

A few of the most extreme opponents of the Hubbardites could also be put in this category, too. Most appear just to make sure the anti-CoS information is heard and noticed, but some go much farther.

There is no brand of Creationism that is scientific.

I don't think we were arguing about what's knowable via science, but rather about what beliefs can be reasonably held. Recall that we were originally discussing whether or not Sarah Palin is given to irrationality and delusion.

The reason I'm pointing that out is that you may be falling into the trap of claiming that the only things we can reasonably believe are those things which are scientifically verifiable. I've heard some arguments in the past that convinced me that such as view is self-defeating, which is why I thought I'd mention it.

It's faith, which is the most unreliable way to know anything, and is completely different from science, which is determined by only proof.

Is it possible that you're over-romanticizing the scientific method? It has plenty of potential for fallibility as well. People can make up data, reason incorrectly, base their results on other people's incorrect work, etc.

That should give you pause regarding, at a practical level, you should accept all published scientific work as "proof" of anything. I'm not trying to argue for some radical form of skepticism - I'm just pointing out that most "scientific conclusions" we think we know are actually told to us by other people, and often are never verified. So the version of the scientific method that we have access to in our regular daily lives is actually pretty different from the idealized version of the method that seems like such a reasonable razor for beliefs.

Proof destroys faith, but Creationists prefer faith, to the point of denying any fact that they possibly can, usually by ignoring it.

All Creationists are anti-evidential, anti-scientific people who are intellectually dishonest even to themselves? I suppose many of them are, but certainly not all. I'd be more tempted to agree with you if you limited that claim to young-earth creationists + other dogmatic people. But in my own experiences I've met Creationists (mostly old-earth creationists) who have none of the qualities you ascribe to the overall group.

I'm no DRM fan (not that this story really has anything to do with DRM) but I gotta break in on this little mutual admration society you've got going.

First, my main bitch is with the blog being pimped. The dude hot-linked the authors image (New Scientist) in the posting. To me, that's bigger news than this Smart Clothing patent. Comedically it looks like the author from NS showed up in comments to give a smackdown.

Second, if you read the actual article or maybe even the patent app. itself, instead of the POS submission, this is pretty much a lot of hand waving and acronym throwing over nothing.

They want to make a sensor and clothing combo that can tell if the sensor is in the right place. To me that's pretty simple and even seems patentable compared to a lot of things I've read.

Last, for this to be "bad", shouldn't this harm the "shoe sensor market" or "smart clothing market' if there even were such things? I don't see how this is going to stop anyone from making other systems or other sensors. Patent licensing is another opening for competition even if someone else produce from Apple's patent.

Lame story. Now go harass that guy for hot-linking New Scientist's image. It's 2008 for crying out loud! :-)

-Matt

They already are using this technology. A Predator drone is being used to survey the hurricane damage in Texas. And another type of drone is being used to aid the Los Angeles police dept.

It has happened and they are good for the rovers believe it or not. The normal winds kick up dust that inhibits the collection of solar light, but these dust devils actually help in removing it. One of the reasons they've been able to go so long on Mars has been for the devils themselves--this is just the first time they've been captured on film.

Sorry, no. And WTF does an anti-AGW statement have to do with a dust-devil on Mars?

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf
and
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

But even if solar forcing in the past was more important than this estimate suggests, as some scientists think, there is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have not stood up to scrutiny (pdf document).

Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend .

Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays. So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity.

And not just for cement materials. You might be able to burn it for the carbon compounds.

Natural Selection is science, as is mutation. No contest there. Viruses "evolve" in the sense of generational change, but I am unaware of any innovations

You mean like bacteria evolving the ability to digest citrate?

Yeah, but it can still be considered "a" success of sorts. According to this short article http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14699 the LHC has worked better than expected so far. It can be safely assumed that it is not a trivial task for everything to work perfectly on the 27km track cooled to 1.9K.

But mammals evolved at about the same time dinosaurs did - see e.g. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dinosaurs/dn9936-top-10-dinosaur-myths.html#2 or http://museumvictoria.com.au/dinosaurs/milestones_mesozoic.html

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective. Carbon-14 is the canard to which people cling desperately who don't know anything about radioactive isotopes. You would of course be correct that C14 only tracks material 50,000 years old or younger. Unfortunately for your argument, C14's 5,715 year halflife is just the tip of the iceberg.

Isotope and its respective halflife in years:
Thorium-230: 75,400
Uranium-234: 248,000
Chlorine-36: 300,000
Beryllium-10: 1.52 million
Uranium-235: 700 million
Potassium-40: 1.26 billion
Uranium-238: 4.5 billion
Thorium-232: 14 billion
Lutetium-176: 38 billion
Rhenium-187: 42 billion
Rubidium-87: 48.8 billion
Samarium-147: 106 billion

Given that I have held hominid skulls from today's modern humans all the way back to our ancestor's when they first diverged from the other great apes, I have done the research, sir. I have held them with my own two hands and examined them with my own two eyes.

The rest of your rant against genetics, general biology, biochemistry, et al. clearly show that you have not taken a single course in any of these subjects at the college level. Even a casual look at the evidence in an introductory biology class should be enough. But you are so busy calling others dunces that you cannot see your own idiocy.

I failed to denounce Behe successfully? On what point? Please elucidate so I can make my denunciation more complete.

If evolution cannot happen, then how can it have been reproduced, creating a new species with abilities not available to its forebears? According to you, this can't happen. For while the nimrods at Conservapedia tried to wish it away and yell the evidence into non-existence, all they ended up doing was illustrating so clearly just how deluded they were.

Science is a philosophy of discovery. OpenCarry is an individual of ignorance.

CO2 causes global warming, apparently on Mars and Jupiter too.

"There have been claims that warming on Mars and Pluto are proof that the recent warming on Earth is caused by an increase in solar activity, and not by greenhouses gases. But we can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity. The Sun's energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978 (see Climate myth special: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans). If increased solar output really was responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons, not just Mars and Pluto." source

the failure of Global Warming models, which all assume a constant input from the sun

Climate scientists are well aware that the sun contributes to Earth's climate. However, it is only one factor, and greenhouse gases provide a more accurate model of recent and historical temperature trends.

"The Sun's energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978."

"According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason: higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the sun's heat."

the failure of Global Warming models, which all assume a constant input from the sun

Climate scientists are well aware that the sun contributes to Earth's climate. However, it is only one factor, and greenhouse gases provide a more accurate model of recent and historical temperature trends.

"The Sun's energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978."

"According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason: higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the sun's heat."

Let's hope the grinding is more accurate than the Hubble mirror. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12717301.000-the-testing-error-that-led-to-hubble-mirror-fiasco-.html

Hubble was perfect, a perfect sphere.

Unfortunately that was the wrong shape. :-P

Let's hope the grinding is more accurate than the Hubble mirror.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12717301.000-the-testing-error-that-led-to-hubble-mirror-fiasco-.html

You're spreading F.U.D.

Please read this article:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

Or at least take a look at this picture:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

Hmmm, on the front page of:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14641-monogamy-gene-found-in-people.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news2_head_dn14641

That's elephant style in that case.

As for monogamous men in hetero relationships... what the hell kind of study is that? No hetero women and not homosexuals (that claim to be in a 5+ years relationship) in polygamous relations study? Is this report going to be used to bolster neo- or social conservative agenda? I wonder if the study and report were tailored to satisfy obtaining federal and other donor dollars.

Hell, if they KNOW they are after a certain gene, or a suspected gene, then it should not be a problem to increase the study pool to as wide as affordable (if 100 hetero males, why not 50 hetero males, 25 hetero females, 25 gay males and 25 glaysbian females, and abstract data from that. Of course, it would be better increase the pool to 500, and even 1000, then, at the end of the study or of a 5-year period, then draw DNA/gene/blood information from a decent/sensible spectrum of the pool, not just some shit that'll be MWASP oriented, or pro-patriarchal.

(Admittedly, i did NOT yet RTFA... and I HOPE the article is more enlightening that the slashdot summary... and if any readers find the summary out of whack, then whack the responsible parties for not vetting the article...)

The editors note that is now attached to the Register article that you link to really does not help to support your position. Incidentally I remember having read earlier that year that the warming trend will be put on hold this year because of a severe La Nina effect - apparently the National Geographic guys didn't get the memo.

The Register article DID help my position, however not as dramatically as I would have hoped :)

The Ice extent graph showed 10% more ice than last year, whereas the map showed 30% more pixels than last year. The two sets of data appeared to be contradictory, but they were not. Still, the 10% increase of ice from last year instead of their being almost no ice is a big difference.

Especially since it wasn't just national geographic reporting this, it was almost everyone!

Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole ...
North Pole could be ice-free this summer, scientists say - CNN.com
North Pole could be ice free in 2008 - climate-change - 25 April ...
ABC News: North Pole Could Be Ice Free in 2008
FOXNews.com - Report: North Pole May Be Ice-Free This Summer ...
North Pole Could be Ice-Free This Summer | LiveScience
Summer may see first ice-free North Pole - Climate Change- msnbc.com
North Pole May Be Ice-Free This Year - AOL News
No North Pole ice for 1st time in human history?_English_Xinhua
An Ice-Free North Pole? - TIME

Just a simple google search for "north pole ice free" will give you 1000's of articles. Notice how every one of these articles has very little variation. Not even fox news challenged the claim.

So much for a free and independent press.

more distributed system

I'm confused. Advocates of 'alternative' energy have been claiming that renewable power generation provides localized electrical generation, which is supposedly better because legacy fossil fuel power generation is centralized in massive power plants controlled by... unpleasant troll-like beings or something.

Now we're told that wind and solar actually need some monster 'energy superhighway' to be effective. So when Feinstein needs more eco-votes and shuts down wind farms in CA to keep bat lungs from exploding someone in the midwest is in the dark? Are rate adjustments now national debates?

Why didn't you just link to the more informative New Scientist article that the blog you linked quoted?

good catch. the new scientist article is a lot more informative and convincing than the one from the telegraph.

link

as many people have suggested though, this begs for an actual controlled experiment with cows in boxes, etc.

Please, do propose an alternate interpretation of the evidence for evolution WITHOUT calling in some kind of "magical happening" simply because you (or a random book) says it happened. We have observations of all kinds of DNA spontaneous mutations, e. coli evolving into a new species before our eyes, and many other things that say "Yes, what we've proposed for evolution fits all known facts and weathers the experiments we conduct to test and investigate it". You know, science.

Religion isn't testable. That is why it is not science. You can't disprove a belief, you can disprove science all you want. Come up with evidence that evolution is false (such as an experiment that others can repeat reliably), and the theory will go out the window. Until then, get a fucking clue, and stop thinking that simply because someone believes something that it should be instantly validated and accepted at the same level as prevailing theories that HAVE withstood experimental rigor.

Nah Tesla made something better he realized wireless power was stupid but wireless power that is a weapon is smart. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17623644.800-tesla-and-tunguska.html

I lived with 4 people to a house as roommates in college and we drove each other nuts.

TFA links to another article, "Love unlimited: The polyamorists" where two, or more, men and women live in the same house. I don't want to ruin it but I thought it was interesting.

Finally, I've gotten caught in a triangle of two guys and 1 girl and I tell you it was awful. I'd need a serious mind scrubbing to be dandy with it. I was jealous as hell and hated the other guy and knew he hated me equally as well.

That, jealousy, is why it's not for everyone but I prefer polygamy/polyamory. I've got a couple of dozen websites bookmarked, I got my first one more than 10 years ago. Actually almost all are several years old at least.

Falcon

because polygamy "contributes" to violence - and I think it does

How so? Maybe you, like most people, make the mistake of thinking polygyny is polygamy. However unlike polygyny, where a man has more than one wife, in polygamy both men and women can have more than one spouse.

My claim is not really all that strong - I'm mostly just answering the fellow who asserted that polygamy is "beneficial for all those involved". I'm pretty convinced that it isn't.

Polygyny may not be beneficial to all but polygamy certainly can be.

Falcon

Actually, it's not beneficial for large numbers of single men, who necessarily have no wife at all (for each man with two wives, there is one with none, since the sex ratio in humans is very close to 1:1). There is also some evidence that having large numbers of single men contributes to violence (this should come as no surprise). Hence, polygamy probably contributes to violence.

The problem you are describing in caused not by polygamy but by polygyny. Polygamy would actually help here. Please notice the differences in definition, in polygyny a man can have more than one wive whereas in polygamy a man and a woman can have more than one spouse. And to make it more confusing, in polyandry a woman has more than one husband.

Furthermore, while from a strictly materialistic point of view, polygamy is beneficial to women (since richer men tend to have more wives and can support them better on average), I don't think there's a lot of evidence that these women are "better off" from a liberal Western point of view. They are probably not going to be well educated or in the work force, for example.

Perhaps a look at Love unlimited: The polyamorists will disavow that.

Falcon

I met a gentleman who claimed to have 13 wife back home in Africa, in his version of polygamy, Number One Wife basically ruled the family with an iron fist. She decided which wife did which tasks and who got to visit the husbands quarters and when. Any wife that offended Number One was in for a world of misery. Overall Polygamy didn't sound like fun for anyone except Number One Wife; like in many cultures, what is displayed in public is different from what happens behind closed doors.

Sorry but that's not polygamy, what that is is polygyny. Polygamy is when a person, male or female, can have more than one spouse. When a man has more than one wife that's polygyny. And when a woman has more than one spouse that's polyandry.

I was concerned TFA would make the same mistake but it doesn't go that far, unlike the mass media coverage of that Mormon sect. And it links to another "New Scientist" article "Love unlimited: The polyamorists" where both men and women have more than one partner.

Falcon

are great examples of fuckups by contractors (read: private enterprise), not NASA.

Perkin-Elmer was contracted to make that mirror, and it was one of their employees who improperly assembled the inspection gage leading to the grinding error:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12717301.000-the-testing-error-that-led-to-hubble-mirror-fiasco-.html

It was a Lockheed-Martin employee who took the bolts out of the satellite holddown cart, and some more private employees who then moved the thing without following the checklist, dropping the satellite onto the floor:

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0410/04noaanreport/

Both incidents point to the need for greater NASA oversight of outside contractors. Of course, any such action would be portrayed by the "privatize everything" crowd as needless red-tape and protectionism by NASA bureaucrats.

So science uncovers yet another way in which our world and universe are mediocre instead of special. Is this surprising?

It used to be thought that planetary systems were very rare. But that was based on speculation about how planets form. Now we know that quite a few nearby stars have Jupiter-type gas giant planets. We can't yet detect Earth-sized extrasolar planets; the smallest one sensed so far is 5x the mass of Earth.. As techniques improve, we may find smaller planets of other stars. Right now, though, it looks like our solar system isn't atypical; stars like our sun seem to have planetary systems something like ours.

On animal language, I think the jury's still out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_language

Art? Depends on your definition. Whale songs aren't understood, dolphins (and other animals) certainly seem to play and generally "do stuff" just for the hell of it. We have a hard time defining human art these days, I'd reserve judgement on non-humans...

Science? True, I'm not aware of any systematic attempts to understand the world building on the experiences of others. I'm not sure I'd call it a fundamental trait, though. It's certainly important to mankind as we know it, but science in my opinion is enabled by too many more fundamental abilities of the human mind to be considered fundamental itself.

Law? There are certainly hierarchies and rules in animal societies. Nothing written down, and no trials as far as I know. Morals, concepts of right and wrong? Hard to say. That requires empathy, primates might exhibit something like a sense of moral.

Culture? What do you mean by culture? I addressed the art part of culture above, that leaves customs specific to a society of animals. I don't think you can just plain say there are no different cultures in animal societies.

No literature? True, no argument.I Don't think it's fundamental in the sense I meant, though. It's a function enabled by a higher degree of intelligence.

Economics... Well, hard to say again. Economics as the systematic study of transactions and their effects on society? No, you won't find that. Understanding of profit versus risk? Certainly on some level that's there. Here's a New Scientist article on macaque monkeys paying for sex: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg19726374.100-macaque-monkeys-pay-for-sex.html

As for self-analytical, any being that learns from experience is in a sense self-analytical.

Creative? Every species has at some point learned new tricks. Monkeys use sticks to fish for insects - I don't think that's a trait hard wired into their brain. Once upon a time, a monkey got creative and learned the trick, then probably a portion of the other members of the species were smart enough to learn the trick, having seen it, or maybe only that one monkey was clever enough, but by learning a good new trick, gained a clear reproductive edge over the others, and some of it's offspring were sufficiently smart to either learn the trick by seeing it performed, or by figuring it out themselves. And so on. In any case, at some point, a monkey got creative.

Abstract communication? Maybe, frankly I'm not fully sure what you even mean by that. My point is, people have historically been very keen on making these blanket statements on just how we fundamentally are different from the rest of the animals (or, often, "the animals"), and the claims tend to not hold up to scrutiny. The human mind is a remarkably complex thing, but it is born of the nervous system, which is a product of evolution. It's tempting to think of some kind of magic point of complexity or whatever you wish to think creates consciousness where a mind turns from animal to human, but I don't think we'll find one. Consciousness is not something you either have or don't, there are degrees. Sometimes we're not conscious of our actions, like when driving a car down a long, straight road. It's not inconceivable that a being could be more conscious than a human being, so I don't think it's inconceivable that a being could be less so, and still be conscious. It's a matter of degree.

Actually...

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6559

And they plan on running them on diesel fuel.

MOND was basically ruled out by NGC 4736.

it made it into Physics World, the mag of the IoP (body for professional UK physicists) - http://physicsworldarchive.iop.org/index.cfm?action=summary&doc=6%2F9%2Fphwv6i9a26%40pwa-xml&qt= and the NewScientist - http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13918902.000----with-a-boson-at-the-tories-cocktail-party-.html and is cited at least once at arxiv.org - http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0103023v2

...ignored ( one of the fundamental constants of the Standard Model ),
then it *doesn't matter* what evidence shows:
the Standard Model won't be replaced
until its successor has an infinite force of exceptionally-armed commandos.

This is the same as that scientists who dismiss the evidence of the fractal nature of universe
( galaxies are polarized, not just the light coming from some of 'em ),
because we haven't a model authorizing that circumstance:

--

Nor should they dismiss observations. I encountered such a situation when I was writing a story about the work of physicists Luciano Pietronero and Francesco Sylos Labini at the University of Rome. They argue that 3D maps of the galaxy distribution produced by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) show that the universe is not homogeneous, but fractal. This, too, challenges the Copernican Principle, and as such,
*most of the cosmologists I spoke to dismissed it outright.*

One cosmologist wrote to me in an email: "There is no fractal or inhomogeneous physical model of the universe of any kind. Therefore although there are particular observations that present a challenge to the standard model, there is no sense in which there is a preferred model that predicts or is explained by inhomogeneity . . . So the observations are interesting, but without a physical model to back them up, they are unlikely to have an impact on our thinking about cosmology."

I found this statement rather shocking. Cosmologists are willing to dismiss observations because they don't fit with theory? Isn't science supposed to work the other way round?

--

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2008/07/are-we-living-in-giant-cosmic-void.html

one instance of infinitely many...

Um, no. You're wrong:
http://environment.newscientist.com/

medical researchers have developed two drugs that can build muscle tone in mice without exercise

The New Scientist article says

Evans and his colleague Vihang Narkar wanted to see whether a drug that activates PPAR-delta could turn regular adult rodents to miniature marathon winners. But the drug - called WG1516 - did nothing for the mice but switch on a handful of genes in their muscles.

However, when the researchers paired doses of WG1516 with a month of training - half an hour on a treadmill, five days a week - mice given the drug jogged longer and further than drug-free mice.

Also, it isn't two drugs either one of which do the trick, but two drugs taken together. Not a good summary at all, if the NYT article says the same as the NS article.

It isn't water, it is water ICE. This is no big surprise, it has long been suspected that there is plenty of water ice on the Martian poles.

What would be a surprise would be liquid water, even if it only exists deep below the surface (given the current atmospheric pressure).

Life of any kind would be a real find, even if it is frozen bacteria, even if it is 8 million years old.

Here is additional info on the Russian Klipper on New Scientist.

Initial information on the Russian spacecraft was reported on New Scientist in 2005 which includes the ambitious goal of a probes trip to Mars.

"The Clipper, a six-person spacecraft similar to the U.S. space shuttle, is designed to replace the Soyuz and Progress carrier rockets in making regular flights to the International Space Station, and even the Moon and Mars. It will carry two professional astronauts and up to four passengers."

It is said to have an aircraft style hull which is designed as a "Load carrying hull [which] will enable the spaceship to land on any flat ground with a parachute."

Additional pictures can be found on Goolge.

But where did you get this opinion? Did you do a lot of clinical research or did you just hear everyone else and the media saying it? The truth is the latter, making you the traditionalist. So how much of your argument is derived from popular opinion?

I used to think weed was benign even after I smoked it and found it was a nightmare. I had pseudo-hallucinations, I felt like I was dying, I was trapped in a time loop, I became painfully detached from my body, yet I still thought it must have been laced, and everyone told me the same or they said that sounds cool. It wasn't cool, and the detachment lasted for a long time.

It wasn't until I did some research about it and found those are all effects of weed alone, and they match negative experiences in the Erowid Vault, but you and everyone else like you overlook that and propagate a myth that weed is harmless and the stance about it is irrational.

I think alcohol should be restricted MORE; it just isn't. That doesn't mean that I irrationally think it's okay. And that alcohol is worse by this 'comparison' doesn't mean weed is now SOFT. Moreover, that we can't eliminate substance abuse is hardly a reason to do nothing about it.

As Gateway: cross-sensitisation of cannabis/opioid receptors

Two cases of "cannabis acute psychosis"

Psychological Responses To Cannabis

Animals Exposed To Marijuana's Active Component Will Self-Administer

I just read an article about the Lightning electric vehicle on elReg

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/22/lightning_fast_charge_supercar/

This may make electric cars practical.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7081
Imagine: 200 miles/charge and a 10 minute "fill up" at a commercial charging station (overnight at your house with 50 amp service)

I'd much prefer this over the "hydrogen economy" that people tout as the future. Also, it would be easier to build out a high voltage charging infrastructure than a hydrogen dispensing infrastructure. The only problem I see is everyone charging their vehicles during peak usage instead of at night causing even greater peaks, but there is no reason people (with garages) can't trickle-charge the car at night.

I may even give up my venerable diesel if I can drive coast to coast in the same time frame and same expense on batteries as on diesel.
(only slightly off topic because I was talking electric vehicles instead of hybrid)

What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal radiative forcing change from the earth's wobble around the sun (the well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations (higher temperatures lead to more CO2 leads to warmer temperatures). Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the "carbon pump" (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.

Here's another useful article:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

I tend to label anyone who jumps on the usual tired and thoroughly disproven arguments against controversial scientific topics while asserting their argument as fact. If they honestly didn't know, a quick Google search would turn up an answer, and they wouldn't be adamant about their position.

No attempt to learn = no desire to know = possibly just disinterested or lazy.
No attempt to learn + adamance = desire to not know.

I've dealt with plenty of GW deniers and creationists before, those equations are very good at identifying them.

Actually, some of the very first Ares prototypes were based on the Atlas V, and the Russian designed RD-180 engines (which slightly outperform the RS-68s, and make anything shuttle derived look like a class-D model rocket engine). My wife worked on some of the prototype ground software systems.

At the time, Lockheed (now United Launch Alliance) put in a serious proposal to man-rate the Atlas V. NASA scoffed, which strikes me as a little strange. The shuttle technology is based on a 30 year old design, is planned to top out at about 20 total missions, and has blown up two orbiters. Both Atlas and Delta have newer flight-proven technology, better launch track records then the shuttle, lower prices, etc. Delta has the capabilities to add additional stages, Atlas intends to shortly, and both Atlas and Delta can add additional liquid or solid boosters as needed to handle huge payloads.

There is still noise about this idea now - click here for more information. But it won't happen.

These rockets are not in development - they exist now, and have a similar or better performance profile to anything that Ares or Jupiter have been proposed to have. Yea, you'd have to add redundancy to some of the systems, but you wouldn't have to redesign.

Meanwhile, who does have the capabilities to put people into space right now? The Russians, on well-engineered, cheap-to-produce ballistic missile-style vehicles. And while NASA flounders around redesigning 30 year old shuttle derived technology, and watching their launch date slip out for years, if not decades, we will be dependent on the venerable Soyuz keep Americans in space.

NASA is technologically bankrupt. All the great engineers they had 30 years ago are in private industry. But they still have some of the best bureaucracy and politics!

Our Global Warming cycle is the same as the Global Warmming cycle on Mars.
My theory is our greenhouse gasses are not responsible for the warming on Mars, but I have no way to prove it one way or another. I also believe that what ever is causing the Mars global warming is also impacting our global warming to a great degree.

The Mars myth was debunked a long time ago...

Changes in the sun are not responsible for the majority of the observed global warming. They're just too small.

Solar forcing (11 year solar flare cycle, increase in brightness etc) is already accounted for in current climate modeling - the 2007 IPCC report put the maximum effect of solar increases at 20%, lower than previous years. Volcanism is even lower.

Solar forcing was responsible for a lot of warming in the pre-industrial age, and the science is still being looked into for other mechanisms - but at this point, at this time, man-emitted greenhouse gases are the only candidate for the vast majority of the increase in temperature. CO2 and methane from industry, fossil fuels and agriculture are having a big impact on the global climate.

What the exact impacts will be, and what we can do to mitigate them is a hot topic, but that man is responsible for the sudden and sharp increase in overal global temperature since the industrial age? That's no longer in serious dispute.

How can smoking up harm society if it has no impact on others?

Again, he said earlier, and we are not in agreement that weed is harmless or has no impact on others. Especially when said impact is a car. And then there's the whole concept of what drug abuse does to families and society. Don't deny these facts and promote weed irresponsibly, because I list that as another example of how people abuse drugs and therefore can't be trusted to responsibly use, distribute and recommend them to others.

I'm sensing this'll go in circles so I'll just state my opinion and provide some links.

Weed impairs motor skills, is a gateway drug in teens, causes seriously adverse and psychotic reactions, and hallucinations and depersonalization that can recur or persist.

So I think it's very powerful and unpredictable and therefore dangerous.

Two cases of "cannabis acute psychosis" following the administration of oral cannabis

Cannabis psychosis following bhang ingestion.

Psychological Responses To Cannabis
Cannabis and acute functional psychosis (in individuals who have no history of severe mental illness), chronic psychosis, amotivational syndrome, Evidence for dependence..

Animals Exposed To Marijuana's Active Component Will Self-Administer

"Tolerance and dependence"

As gateway in teens:
issue of cross-sensitisation of cannabis/opioid receptors

Cannabis use increases risk of psychotic illness

Cannabis link to mental illness strengthened

Erowid has an Experience Vault where you can read about negative reactions, but it probably never occurred to you to do that. I'd quote the relevant sections but there are a lot of them, and it's daunting. Maybe I'll organize them one day.

Psychosis and Eventually Schizophrenia

How can smoking up harm society if it has no impact on others?

Again, he said earlier, and we are not in agreement that weed is harmless or has no impact on others. Especially when said impact is a car. And then there's the whole concept of what drug abuse does to families and society. Don't deny these facts and promote weed irresponsibly, because I list that as another example of how people abuse drugs and therefore can't be trusted to responsibly use, distribute and recommend them to others.

I'm sensing this'll go in circles so I'll just state my opinion and provide some links.

Weed impairs motor skills, is a gateway drug in teens, causes seriously adverse and psychotic reactions, and hallucinations and depersonalization that can recur or persist.

So I think it's very powerful and unpredictable and therefore dangerous.

Two cases of "cannabis acute psychosis" following the administration of oral cannabis

Cannabis psychosis following bhang ingestion.

Psychological Responses To Cannabis
Cannabis and acute functional psychosis (in individuals who have no history of severe mental illness), chronic psychosis, amotivational syndrome, Evidence for dependence..

Animals Exposed To Marijuana's Active Component Will Self-Administer

"Tolerance and dependence"

As gateway in teens:
issue of cross-sensitisation of cannabis/opioid receptors

Cannabis use increases risk of psychotic illness

Cannabis link to mental illness strengthened

Erowid has an Experience Vault where you can read about negative reactions, but it probably never occurred to you to do that. I'd quote the relevant sections but there are a lot of them, and it's daunting. Maybe I'll organize them one day.

Psychosis and Eventually Schizophrenia

How can smoking up harm society if it has no impact on others?

Again, he said earlier, and we are not in agreement that weed is harmless or has no impact on others. Especially when said impact is a car. And then there's the whole concept of what drug abuse does to families and society. Don't deny these facts and promote weed irresponsibly, because I list that as another example of how people abuse drugs and therefore can't be trusted to responsibly use, distribute and recommend them to others.

I'm sensing this'll go in circles so I'll just state my opinion and provide some links.

Weed impairs motor skills, is a gateway drug in teens, causes seriously adverse and psychotic reactions, and hallucinations and depersonalization that can recur or persist.

So I think it's very powerful and unpredictable and therefore dangerous.

Two cases of "cannabis acute psychosis" following the administration of oral cannabis

Cannabis psychosis following bhang ingestion.

Psychological Responses To Cannabis
Cannabis and acute functional psychosis (in individuals who have no history of severe mental illness), chronic psychosis, amotivational syndrome, Evidence for dependence..

Animals Exposed To Marijuana's Active Component Will Self-Administer

"Tolerance and dependence"

As gateway in teens:
issue of cross-sensitisation of cannabis/opioid receptors

Cannabis use increases risk of psychotic illness

Cannabis link to mental illness strengthened

Erowid has an Experience Vault where you can read about negative reactions, but it probably never occurred to you to do that. I'd quote the relevant sections but there are a lot of them, and it's daunting. Maybe I'll organize them one day.

Psychosis and Eventually Schizophrenia

Please go back and read what I wrote. Some nanoparticles are anything but "inert".
Why worry? Because without a lot of testing things like this can happen. I guarantee that if YOU were the one dying of multiple organ failure from a supposedly safe new drug, you would be just a little miffed that they hadn't tested it more.