Slashdot Mirror

1. Caffeinated beverages provide most of the anti-oxidants in most peoples' diets, and,
2. nearly every study that found bad effects from caffeine has failed to hold up to further scrutiny, the exception being
3. caffeine is addictive.

I've read a couple of articles about various groups with naturally-decaffeinated coffee plants. One group was doing genetic engineering, and the other had found a wild variety with no caffeine. Both still had some breeding to do to get things to market.

Nonetheless, even though coffee with no caffeine exists, I still don't have any idea why you'd caffeinate it, so your point still stands.

NIC CARD!

Exactly -- the kid of dumbass who studies coffee (and its effects on the heart), yet makes the statement that "robusta" has a robust flavor, is the type of dumbass to say "NIC Card".

I actually think hackers are more likely to find these mistakes awful; they correspond to type errors in a programming language -- and you can't have those.

The Army just came up with a gun, and they backronymed it into "PHASR" --- you know, like on Star Trek? Get it? Really fucking funny, right? See here: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8275&f eedId=online-news_rss20

Well, here's their acronym:
"Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response" == PHASR,

and the official usage will be something like, "PHASR rifle" -- which makes sense.
PHASR performs the role of a goddamned adjective, even though "phaser", in common use, is a noun.

That's so retarded!

Yet the idiots who named it clearly intended for it to be called "PHASR", not "PHASR rifle", or "PHASR sniper rifle."

So that means that if the jarheads use it semantically correct ("PHASR rifle") they'll sound like idiots saying "NIC card" -- but if they just say something like, "I blasted him with my PHASR!", you'll be thinking, "How did you blast him with your 'stimulation response'?" and then, "well, was that a 'PHASR rifle/pistol/dildo that you blasted him with?" PHASR is just an adjective, right?

There's an increasing trend for this sort of retarded name-i-fyin':

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles /2005/10/04/robotic_vacuum_maker_bu_team_up_on_ant isniper_device/

"REDOWL"? Why not just call it a "FUCKTARD", and come up with a backronym for that?

I read about Gigantopithecus a few years ago on New Scientist, so this is pretty old news.

Still quite remarkable that such a creature should exist, though, non the less.

And when you think about it, this does give much more credence to the idea of the Yeti and the like...

Recorded climatic history goes back a very long way. Ice cores show a huge amount about climate and give information over thousands of years

Ice cores contain an abundance of climate information --more so than any other natural recorder of climate such as tree rings or sediment layers. Although their record is short (in geologic terms), it can be highly detailed. An ice core from the right site can contain an uninterrupted, detailed climate record extending back hundreds of thousands of years[my emphasis].

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today! Earth's atmosphere today contains about 370 ppm CO2 (0.037%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.[my emphasis]

Yeah, killing a scientist is really a bad thing.

For those who have no idea what I'm talking about I would refer you to this link about the new definition of science from the folks who are trying to bring us Intelligent Design.

Has a patent ever been invalidated based on the premise "We had no business issuing a patent on this"? I'm not talking prior art or technicalities, but "this was patently absurd".

No. Example: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2178

Xylitol also binds to the bacteria that cause dental plaque. It also appears to inhibit bacteria growth. See http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16021564.500 .html

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation for the phenomenal world, but ... we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes

That's not fundamentalism, that's inherent in the nature of science. Natural causes are those which can be theorized about, tested, get results back from, etc.

I see your point. I'm not sure that's exactly what Lewontin is talking about, though. In fact, he seems to be making the opposite point: that the scientific method does not inherently imply materialism, but that materialism is a distinguishable underlying philosophy. I would say that it is explicitly the philosophy that he is defending, though that may be an overinterpretation.

See my other posts for a brief (maybe not so brief) discussion on a valid theistic philosophy of science -- in fact, the philosophy which arguably developed the scientific method.

Study the evidence of evolution yourself, not just the arguments. Evolution is extremely good at explaining many natural phenomenon, in the same way that Newton's theories were extremely good at explaining natural phenomenon. Neither did so perfectly at the extremities, but did so along the observable ranges of the time. Already the theory of a smooth evolution has given way to a theory of faster mutations...

Maybe you missed the bit where I said I've no problem with evolution? =) It is a well-considered opinion; I very nearly went into biology.

Again, I feel it's quite valid for me to write about evolutionary dogma while holding no objection to evolution itself. The party line in this debacle is that evolution/abiogenesis are unchallenged science -- yet, as you say, the model is still under development. Even Gould writes, "What good is half a jaw or half a wing?" (No surprise that he originated punctuated equilibrium.) So, I think it's valid to point out this double standard in the public sphere, particularly in the classroom. Other posters have written that any good biology teacher will cover the flaws in evolution; I agree, but I know it often doesn't happen. And it certainly does not happen in the popular press.

Then, when people overstate the case for evolution and then use that to challenge Christians, it gets a little silly. And so I point that out also.

As for the Miller experiments you quote, that is a case in point. Those experiments are a dead end, despite many decades of tweaking as well as constantly shifting notions on what the prebiotic soup was composed of. They are still quoted dogmatically, even though coacervation and RNA-world models have gotten much farther... and even those models are still far from producing sustainable replication. Again, I have no objection to the notion that a viable model of abiogenesis can arise, but it is sheer dogma to assert (and it has been!) that it is settled science.

Paul Davies has a fascinating article in New Scientist (subscription site, sorry) that speculates about entirely new laws for governing complexity, noting that the threshold where these laws emerge is the same complexity threshold that abiogenesis experiments are stuck trying to get past -- macromolecules larger than 60 units (of whatever, amino acids or nucleotides). Again, like panspermia, this is quite an admission of faith.

Yet, this admission was published in the popular press -- am I contradicting myself? Hardly; the press contradicts itself. That very magazine has breathlessly condemned any questioning of evolution, while publishing articles inconsistent with that position.

Not to be too explicit here, but the world is not flat, it is not 7,000 years old, Adam and Eve did not frolic with the dinosaurs.

Many hold evolution as dogma just as strongly as any religious belief. No dissent is permitted -- at least, not on the public stage.

Did you actually read the article you were referencing?
Perhaps you meant this one: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6561 The key idea here is that micro-changes are a world away from the increasing complexity of added genetic material. I'm not arguing changes or gene mutations here - (e.g. dog breeding) it's the order of magnitude differences of increased genetic material required for higher order life forms evolving from lower order forms.

Evolution from lower life forms indicates an increase of genetic material from the lower form to a higher. Sure, dogs are bred to weed out undesirable traits and to accentuate desirable ones, yet this is still a dog. In 100,000 years of breeding, I'm not going to get a dog that has the slightest bit more genetic material than the one I started with 10,000 years ago.

Really?

Human brains enjoy ongoing evolution
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7974

There is currently a worldwide multibillion dollar business based on intelligent design. (Human) engineers have been designing organisms for years.

Some scientists claiming that intelligent design should not be taught because some religious people believe in it is silly. Scientists should focus on the message, not the messenger - newscientist is much very good at this

As an example scientists are actually having difficulty determining if a particular plant is naturally occurring, whether it was created, or whether it is a cross between a naturally occurring plant and a human-created plant. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/gm-food/d n7729

Researchers at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Dorset, UK, tested the herbicide glufosinate ammonium on plants in fields previously sowed with oilseed rape modified to carry a gene conferring resistance to the herbicide. But a single charlock plant carried on growing happily, raising fears that the gene for herbicide resistance had crossed over to the charlock and created a herbicide-resistant strain.

For a theory to be "scientific," it must provide the basis for testable hypotheses.

Here are two sides of this particular debate:

1) "There is no superweed and there never has been," echoes Brian Johnson, ecological geneticist at English Nature, the nature advisers to the British government. "It's more likely that herbicide resistance in charlock has evolved naturally."

or

2) But according to some media reports, "genetic testing of the purported hybrid showed that it carries the same gene as the GM crop."

How do you decide which hypothesis is correct? You do science. But what if science shows that the new plant was not evolved naturally through mutation and/or natural selection, but was in fact created? Then you have a provable example of intelligent design.

Why would anyone want to close their eyes and cover their ears and say "I can't hear you - there is only evolution - there is no intelligent design - I'm not listening to you"? When actual real scientists are creating organisms which other scientists cannot distinguish from similar species found in nature?

Both sites are asking for public help processing the data, via a special screensaver called Einstein@Home.

--Greg

The 50 year old UK-based weekly science magazine is about to start podcasting - probably this week. http://www.newscientist.com/

New Scientist, one of my favorite magazines will begin podcasting soon. http://www.newscientist.com/podcast/

Malaria vaccine possible within six years
11:18 31 October 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Shaoni Bhattacharya

A malaria vaccine could be available within 6 years if new trials of the most promising candidate prove successful, say experts.

Malaria vaccine research received a $107.6 million injection of funds on Monday, part of a $258.3 million donation from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for the study of malaria and its treatment.

The cash boost will accelerate the development of an effective vaccine, says Melinda Moree, director of the Malaria Vaccine Initiative (MVI). The anticipated date for a vaccine could be as early as 2011. At one point what the world considered to be fairly unattainable is actually coming along quite rapidly, she told reporters. It is absolutely possible to make a vaccine against malaria."

MVI will work with GlaxoSmithKline on the most promising vaccine candidate yet, called RTS,S, which, in trial in Mozambique, cut the rate of severe malaria in children aged 1 to 4 by 58%. This was the first time that a malaria vaccine candidate had shown protection against severe disease in children.

The new series of planned trials will examine whether the vaccine is safe and effective when given to infants alongside other childhood vaccines. Research will then proceed to a phase III trial to permit licensing. The trials, to be conducted in locations across Africa, will have about 17,000 subjects.

more at the url above.

At least according to this article. The current vaccine has to be given each year. Some of the money is also earmarked towards treating malaria, which should help in the interim.

Which is exactly the problem. Evolution allows people to be atheists. It undermines the power of the religious establishments and they hate that.

Worse yet, AFAIK most Western Christians also believe the theory of evolution is broadly correct - i.e. that anything it has wrong is detail, like having the sequence of ancestry a bit off here or there, or having some missing fossils, but the overall principle being sound. What does that do to 'Made In God's Image'? What becomes of the Fall, and hence of Original Sin, and hence of the need for Christ's salvation?

Certainly it's possible to overcome all these problems and accommodate modern biology and cosmology within a Christian worldview, but it requires a good deal of mental flexibility, a rather different mindset to the absolutist fundamentalist.

It's interesting to notice that the Vatican has already come pretty much to terms with evolution and modern cosmology - indeed, they were said to be quite delighted with the Big Bang model, since the alternative was Steady State and a universe with nothing for a creator to do at all!

Basically what it boils down to is: if evolution is taught, then some of those kids will realise that God is an unnecessary addition to their worldview and will drop him into the same bin where they already put Santa Claus. If it is not taught, then some of them will continue to believe in God. That's enough for the fundamentalist. That's a soul saved from hell. Perhaps introducing intelligent design will save a few kids from this insidious atheist menace. Perhaps then, bit by bit, it might be possible to expand on intelligent design and introduce creationism proper, and from there roll back the whole materialist worldview...

There was a very good investigation into the fundamentalist agenda here in the New Scientist a few weeks ago. It was the 8th October 2005 issue, if you want to track it down at your library. Interesting stuff.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8230

Here is how they noticed a pattern:
Michael Borowitz, at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, says: "The shapes of the major clusters are often similar but in any system there is noise, and those noisy dots are in the same place too. That's hard to explain by biology. It is very difficult for me to believe that these were independent experiments." Borowitz is an expert in interpreting flow cytometry graphs, which he regularly uses to identity abnormal populations of cells in the blood and bone marrow of leukaemia patients.

Three other experts contacted, including Paul Robinson, a professor of immunopharmacology and biomedical engineering and Director of the Flow Cytometry Labs at Purdue University in West Lafayette, say that the graphs appear concerningly alike.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/gm-food/d n7729

Researchers at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Dorset, UK, tested the herbicide glufosinate ammonium on plants in fields previously sowed with oilseed rape modified to carry a gene conferring resistance to the herbicide. But a single charlock plant carried on growing happily, raising fears that the gene for herbicide resistance had crossed over to the charlock and created a herbicide-resistant strain.

For a theory to be "scientific," it must provide the basis for testable hypotheses.

Here are two sides of this particular debate:

1) "There is no superweed and there never has been," echoes Brian Johnson, ecological geneticist at English Nature, the nature advisers to the British government. "It's more likely that herbicide resistance in charlock has evolved naturally."

or

2) But according to some media reports, genetic testing of the purported hybrid showed that it carries the same gene as the GM crop.

Why would anyone want to close their eyes and cover their ears and say "I can't hear you - there is only evolution - there is no intelligent design - I'm not listening to you"? When actual real scientists are creating organisms which other scientists cannot distinguish from similar species found in nature?

Don't like your science job? There is a new opening for a scientist at M.I.T.

Some of the replies below comment on the operations-per-second estimates of the brain, so I won't. There is, however, a really interesting project at the Brain Mind Institute in Switzerland to simulate, in large detail, a full neocortical column of the brain on several BG/L racks, donated by IBM for this cause. As a consequence, this project is called the "Blue Brain Project", and you can read a bit more about it here:

IBM
http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/pr.nsf/pages/n ews.20050606_CognitiveIntelligence.html

New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7470

Main site (which doesn't seem to be working at this moment!)
http://bluebrainproject.epfl.ch/

I noticed on newscientist that the US Air Force Research Lab is filing a patent "to bury secret messages in ordinary, unprotected communications by adding tones that can be deciphered at the other end of the line."

Info here. (Well, the second entry anyway)

I wonder how they plan on getting around ideas like this, even if they do get to monitor all VOIP traffic?

Using metals as a fuel source is the cover article on the current New Scientist:

Metal: The fuel of the future
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825221.100 .html

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6366

and my word verificatio image read "mankind"

They are obviously not aware of the Navy's latest plans to use high intensity soundwaves to destroy incoming torpedos

Well the new HPV vaccine targets two common strains believed to cause 70% of cervical cancer cases, would that be sufficient? HPV does have other strains (just like with any virus), but it isn't seasonal, so you don't need to be continually re-vaccinated. Read this article in new scientist about it. It's not mentioned as much, probably because it's less common, but HPV also causes penile cancer.

There's more recent ones, like for Hepatitis (various) and Chickenpox.

There are also Malaria vaccines under development by big pharmaceutical companies. You can read about the history of vaccines here.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2843

Well, Slashdot has not reported this yet ;-) Vaccine Appears to Ward Off Bird Flu Bird flu vaccine trials to begin Low-dose bird flu vaccine tested on humans

If I recall coreectly, people working on the space elevator (Lawrence Livermore Labs) were creating long strings of bucky balls (carbon nanotubes) as it is a very strong, very light material. The problem that they discovered (this was a few years ago) was that if you put 0.5 parts per billion of buckyballs into a fish tank (500 gallon aquarium), within 3 days, 20% of the fish start exhibiting signs of mental retardation. Within 5 days, the number soars to 80%, accompanied by 10% of the most severely affected fish dying. Within one week, all of the fish are either showing signs of extreme mental retardation, or have died. The part that they found most troubling was that if predatory fish ate those dead or dying fish, then they too would experience the same symptoms, and die in exactly the same way and in the same length of time. Preliminary disections showed that the carbon nanotubes could get past the membrane that surrounds the brain. Once they got in, they tended to cause severe damage to the brain. At least one report is here: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4825

I don't see the killer demand or application for this? Reading slashdot while on the can?? Although this is pretty cool to stare at:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4602 -- an old story and pic

At least some of the heat in the Earth's core is from radioactive decay.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg187251 03.700

Additionally, planetary formation theories state that during the Earth's formation, it would have melted from the accretion impacts that created it. While pressure alone will melt the metal-silicate materials deep in the Earth, it won't create heat (melting actually costs energy, even if kept at constant temperature). Gravitational contraction will create heat, but the Earth hasn't contracted much in the past 4 billion years (gravitational contraction was a proposed mechanism for the Sun's output, but was shown to be insufficient). While my explanation was simplified and doesn't tell the whole story, it is mostly correct.

> This looks like NS is trying to keep out of the political crossfire on the marijuana debate

I don't think that is the case. New Scientist has had some articles that could be considered "pro-marijuana," or at least non-negative. (one example)

In another study, Barry Jacobs, a neuroscientist at Princeton University, gave mice the natural cannabinoid found in marijuana, THC (D9-tetrahydrocannabinol)). But he says he detected no neurogenesis, no matter what dose he gave or the length of time he gave it for.

I read this article on NewScientist.com a few hours ago. Marijuana DOES NOT INDUCE BRAIN CELL GROWTH. When they tried using THC from pot, it did not induce new cell growth regardless of dose or duration.

Although we have advanced technologically since the last serious epidemic and are able to communicate effectively allowing people to take precautions, there exists one serious difference between modern Western society and previous. Our ultra clean lifestyles of the last 50 years or so mean our imune systems have not faced the daily bacteria count of previous generations. While we may appear healthier and wealthier, are we really as robust?

VIRUS IS NOT BACTERIA. Viruses are always, constantly, wildly mutating, always have, always will be. The viruses out there today are not the same that roamed the land 50 years ago. As a result, our immune systems are not adapted to what our grandpa's was.

It makes NO difference how "tough" you are. We're talking about an unexpected random mutation producing a particularly deadly virus. It can happen anytime. Sometimes, quite seldom, thank God, other factors appear which make it even more dangerous, such as ability to spread using wildlife.

The interesting thing, for me, is not this fact. This has been known for decades. No, the truly interesting fact is that despite all our knowledge, the solution is still hampered by our economic models and by good old greed.

In another study, Barry Jacobs, a neuroscientist at Princeton University, gave mice the natural cannabinoid found in marijuana, THC (D9-tetrahydrocannabinol)). But he says he detected no neurogenesis, no matter what dose he gave or the length of time he gave it for. From this New Scientist article.

Arctic ice shrinking as it feels the heat

Antarctic Peninsula glaciers in major retreat

Wikipedia: Ozone depletion

Arctic ozone hole could reach record size

Pinatubo Volcano Research Boosts Case For Human-Caused Global Warming

It seems it is you who should preface your statements with a warning label of your ignorance.

Arctic ice shrinking as it feels the heat

Antarctic Peninsula glaciers in major retreat

Wikipedia: Ozone depletion

Arctic ozone hole could reach record size

Pinatubo Volcano Research Boosts Case For Human-Caused Global Warming

It seems it is you who should preface your statements with a warning label of your ignorance.

Arctic ice shrinking as it feels the heat

Antarctic Peninsula glaciers in major retreat

Wikipedia: Ozone depletion

Arctic ozone hole could reach record size

Pinatubo Volcano Research Boosts Case For Human-Caused Global Warming

It seems it is you who should preface your statements with a warning label of your ignorance.

First of all, let's be clear: we are facing warming. Using proxy data from a variety of sources such as tree rings and ice cores it is possible to calculate some decent estimates of global temperatures over the last ten thousand years or so. There are obvious cycles, and a fair amount of fluctuation, but current temperatures represent a significant upswing - that is acceleration - in warming over the last century or so.

Given that, the question of causes remains. Volvano activity certainly throws out a lot of C02, around one hundred and thirty to two hundred and thirty million metric tons a year. In comparison the US produces around five billion metric tonnes a year by itself convincingly dwarfing volcanic output. You also point the finger at solar activity, claiming it is ignored - it isn't. As you point out the IPCC includes it in their considerations and found, depending on the model used, that it accounted for effects of sixteen to thirty six percent that of those caused by CO2 and other greenhouse emissions. There are questions as to how well solar activity actually correlates with global temperature as well, so it's an open topic.

On the other side of things: Our present understanding of physics is fairly unequivocal that CO2 and other gases can cause warming by trapping heat. Using ice cores and other methods to reconstruct historical CO2 levels we find that CO2 correlates extremely well with global temperature. We also find that CO2 levels have spiked beyond anything in recent history (recent history being the last four hundred thousand years) in just the last 150 years - again correlating extremely well with the recent acceleration in warming. Given the extremely good correlations and the clear reasons to believe in causation (which is to say, physics) it would seem that the burden of proof should fall to those who suggest human CO2 emissions are not having a significant impact on global temperatures.

Are we killing the earth? I doubt it - I expect the earth will simply get warmer and keep on going. The question is: are we making life for ourselves much harder and much more costly, and is that preventable? There is strong evidence that human CO2 emissions are having a significant impact on climate, and that is certainly the cause over which we have the most direct influence. It makes sense to do something about it if we can.

Jedidiah.

> When the northern ice caps melt then the cold water starts to cool the ocean, > and there would be fewer hurricanes. That is what the environmentalists told
> us all during the 80's and 90's. How come we have had the terrible hurricanes
> this year and last...

I don't recall any such thing being said, but then I did smoke alot of pot during the 90s. Like a proper hippy should.

It's not as simple as the oceans cooling en masse. The melting of arctic ice affects the gulf stream, lessening the flow of warm water northwards. Thus tropical oceans are warmer causing more hurricanes.

> Why is it happening if the ice caps are melting? How about explaining
> Antarctica's glaciers getting larger?
> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1806

You really shouldn't confuse trends with single instances. That article itself asks whether this reversal is a trend or a blip: " The big question is if the change marks the end of the retreat, or just a short-lived reversal."

Even if the antarctic ice sheet is expanding, you might have observed that the emphasis these days is not on global warming but climate change. And climate change will benefit nobody but speculators.

> They also said we created the hole in the ozone; however in 2004 the hole in
> the ozone was recorded as getting smaller by up to 20%.

That's one year. See http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=graph+ozone+ho le+size for graphs of ozone hole trends.

> Still think we are causing global warning? Remember the Ice Age?

I don't think you appreciate the sensitivity of complex systems. Yeah global climate changes. But a giga tonnage of atmospheric CO2 released over a much shorter period of time than the system is used to, could cause all sorts of changes to the system.

Spend a few hours studying chaotic systems and how minor changes in quasi periodic systems can cause a bifurcation into a completely new set of behaviours.

The idea anyway, as people keep trying to point out, is that we take care to value our environment and our effect on it over plastic crapola, fat cars and not giving a toss about anything but the here and now.

> I know I'm going to get slammed for this post, the same way I do when I defend
> MS, but hey what can ya do?

Not try to play devil's advocate.

When the northern ice caps melt then the cold water starts to cool the ocean, and there would be fewer hurricanes. That is what the environmentalists told us all during the 80's and 90's. How come we have had the terrible hurricanes this year and last... Why is it happening if the ice caps are melting? How about explaining Antarctica's glaciers getting larger? http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1806

They also said we created the hole in the ozone; however in 2004 the hole in the ozone was recorded as getting smaller by up to 20%. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNew s/20041002/Antarctic_ozone041001?s_name=&no_ads=

Take a few hours and read about how much crap volcanoes spew into the environment (e.g. sulfur dioxide). Do some Google searches on how many erupt each year... compare that with our fossil burning. The environmentalists have always been pretty disappointed with the results. Don't forget to include the ocean volcanoes when you do it.

Still think we are causing global warning? Remember the Ice Age? Scientists are starting to dispute whether or not an asteroid caused it. Where were we with our wicked cars then? We all know that Solar activity had been written off as crap until recently when the numbers were just to obvious... the environmentalists account for it now by saying that ONLY 10-30% of the warning is being caused by the sun.

I just wish you guys would preface all your "we are killing the earth" talk with, hey we really don't know, but we THINK "we are killing the earth". I certainly will ay I don't know for sure, but the evidence isn't cut and dry in your favor. The media is, but not the facts. Just some food for though. I know I'm going to get slammed for this post, the same way I do when I defend MS, but hey what can ya do?

Old news. Try the new flavors:

Climate doesn't swing to the rhythm of the sun

'Earthshine' fall heats global warming debate

Sunspots more active than for 8000 years

Old news. Try the new flavors:

Climate doesn't swing to the rhythm of the sun

'Earthshine' fall heats global warming debate

Sunspots more active than for 8000 years

Old news. Try the new flavors:

Climate doesn't swing to the rhythm of the sun

'Earthshine' fall heats global warming debate

Sunspots more active than for 8000 years

I'll see your article saying no link, with one on the same date saying there is a link. Increased Cancer risk And then to top it off I'll put in Most scientific papers are probably wrong also from the same day. So no it isn't becoming any less likely, but they do prove the New Scientist's article's point.

Yeah, that was Splashpower too. This article from 21 Jan 2005 mentioned that the company "has been promising to launch its SplashPad charger for the past three years," so it's probable that you're remembering earlier coverage of the same thing.

I wonder if they're working on 100:1 lossless compression as well...

This seems like a pretty direct observation.