At a purchase price of just $35,000 this is a genuine short-term housing option that could be used in a variety of applications.
So, is that US $35,000 or AU $35,000?
If it's the latter, it's really quite cheap and could be helpful to build cheap, sustainable housing. Hell, I'm an out-door buff and I'd love to buy one of these that can be reused when I go on long treks and climbs.
Sure as hell beats living in a tent for weeks on end.
I can see folks like archaelogists loving this sort of thing - they go on long digs where they'd really need to set shop, and nothing would come close to something like this. Best of all, this provides for an excellent place for storing artifacts and the like and in setting shop.
However, I think that for Joe Regular to buy it, it would perhaps need to be a *little* cheaper - US $5,000 or so.
Ah yes, I'm not a skeptic but rather a fool because I refuse to buy into a theory that you thump your chest about. Wow, thanks - are all you GW advocates this arrogant and condescending to those that share views different from yours?
Yes, man-made pollution is bad and we need to take steps in curbing that - I never disputed that point. My point was that there is no foolproof connection between rise in CO2 levels and rise in Earth's temperature. And I never disputed that rise in Earth's temperature could be harmful.
But you still haven't answered what I did ask - where is the foolproof connection between rise in CO2 levels and Earth's present rise in temperature? We hardly know this planet's climate and have not more than a few hundred years of records while ice-ages are on the scale of thousands and millions of years. To think that we can predict something without even considering all the factors is quite amusing. Fortunately, just about only half of the climatologist community buys into this partially or fully. And thankfully, science has not yet degraded to the point of having just a few reach a consensus without conclusive evidence and have that as an accepted theory. I'm sure, more than half of the physicists a few hundred years ago would have thought Earth was the center of the Universe, that did not however make their theory right. Surprisingly, the "liberals" of today thump Global Warming much the same way.
When you want to question scientific studies based on logic and alternate studies, you let me know.
Have you even *read* some of those papers? Half the variables are assumed, and the rest are conclusions reached by extrapolations with inadequate data. I'm a physicist, and if I tried publishing papers of that kind, I'd be laughed out of my profession. I'm surprised that consensus science is still so accepted in some communities, and worse yet, there are proponents of such methodologies.
You want to show your cajones? Then do a study on global warming and publish it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Oh yes, the classic, "you think you're smart? Go do something yourself" - hah!
Realize this - I do not need to disprove something to disagree with something. It's a theory, and the onus is upon those who're supporting it to provide conclusive incontrovertible evidence. The CFC-Ozone layer link was similar, and once Crutzen, Rowland and Molina proved the link, they won the Nobel. I'm keeping an open mind, let the climatologists prove the theory and I'll buy it.
And that said, I support Kyoto and cutting down of pollution because it's quite likely (and to some measure, obvious) that the release of toxic substances into the environment will come to bite us back in the asses in some form or the other. That opinion is however independent of my belief (or rather the lack thereof) in global warming.
GW is consensus science, and has so many assumptions that would make any half decent scientist cringe. The saddest part is that a lot of very smart people buy into it for reasons other than its scientific significance, which seriously casts a doubt on the reliability of science today.
Global Warming today is what Nuclear Winter was a few years ago.
That was exactly my point, dude. There're way too many factors involved, and we are yet to find a direct connection between Earth's rise in temperature and the rising CO2 levels. We do not know what happens to the CO2 in between the whole climate cycle, and whether all of it goes into heating the planet or not. Trust me - am an agnost in this context, I do not believe either way. But when people reach conclusions without any conclusive evidence, it surprises me.
If you look up the statistics, just about half the climatologists world-wide believe in part or in full in the GW theory. IMHO that is not enough.
I'm a scientist too, a physicist to be exact. In my line of work, theories like this would get thrown out of the window and would shame you for life. I'm surprised how easy it is for environmentalists, geophysicists, climatologists and the like to come up with half-baked theories with partial basis and get away with it.
You have to change the orthography, which several Turkish languages have done three times in the last hundred years.
True, but English has been adopted far more widely and has a lot more speakers across the world than Turkish. It would be next to impossible to undertake a mammoth task such as that.
If the Tablet PC converts what you write to character data (as opposed to images), then there is crucial differences. You can output in an easy to read form that's easy to check for errors and easy for other people to decipher. Your input method is less important than how the data is stored and displayed.
Agreed, but the tablet PC is still heavy, cumbersome and not as flexible as a piece of paper. Also - there are no equivalents of such simple things as post-it notes or whiteboards.
I wasn't arguing for handwriting, I was putting across my opinion. Didn't realize one had to justify one's opinions. I was giving my reasons for preferring pen and paper, and the tactile sensation is one of the most important factors. I like the feel of writing, and it aids my problem solving capabilities.
And I wasn't blaming the user, but the user has as much responsibility as the language. The alternative is to change the language, which is fairly hard. Besides, there are obvious advantages to writing that won't disappear anytime soon.
and is going to take many more decades to completely marginalize handwriting.
Even if you have a Tablet PC, you're still doing the same thing. From post-it notes to labnotes to scribbling something to writing on white boards and ad infinitum - handwritten media go on and on.
The point is, I don't see the need to. You may have a lot of other alternatives, but there is no medium that is as effective and as flexible as handwritten medium for a lot many things.
The "majority" of the world's physicists don't think Newton's law of Gravity is true, all of them do. The "majority" of the world's geneticists do not think that the DNA has a double helix, all of them do. The "majority" of the world's chemists don't think that U-238 is radioactive, all of them do.
The majority of the climatologists think Global Warming maybe true, all of them don't.
There was "widespread acceptance" that the Earth was the center of the Universe, that did not make it true.
There is evidence that greenhouse gas levels have risen and there is evidence that the Earth is warming up. But there is no absolutely conclusive evidence to connect the two.
Until it can be proven absolutely conclusively to the dot, no amount of "widespread acceptance" is going to convince me otherwise. But wait, being a skeptic is wrong, right? Because there are some of us with the balls to question a theory with lots of ifs and maybe's.
TeX or LaTeX are neat for writing papers, but not for doing your labnotes or solving a research problem. Writing also helps you think while you are at it, because of the time it takes to get your idea on paper. Not to mention the ease in switching modes - I can write, draw and do everything without bothering to or having to switch between programs. Thought to action, the easiest possible way.
I hate trying to decipher my handwritten equations, worse yet, someone else's.
Most physicists or mathematicians I know have pretty standard and decent handwriting, atleast when it comes to writing their equations. It's more a question of practice.
Capital S versus s, u versus v, x versus y, 2 versus Z, 5 versus S, l versus 1, it's all a mess.
Maybe if people had taken their handwriting classes in 2nd and 3rd grades seriously, they would not be making mistakes of trying to confuse writing 5 and S.
Times change, and the ineffable qualities get ignored for the ineffable qualities of the next generation.
The alternative is not half as good, and is not half as capable. Ironically, tablet PCs try to emulate the good old handwriting, and do so poorly. As for the "next generation", man has been writing in some form or the other for thousands of years.
A large percentage of the people across the world (especially in places like China and India) will continue to use good old pen and paper. It's not going to go out of style for a long, long time.
I do not know, cursive made my handwriting better.
In fact, I've two sets of handwriting - all my equations and math stuff is written straight up, and the rest of the stuff goes cursive. Makes it a lot easier for me (and those reading it) to decipher what I've written.
Cursive also made me write a whole lot faster - the flow that you get from cursive is something that makes one enjoy writing.
You're apparently not into the pure sciences like math or physics.
I'd hate to be able to type in my equations, there's a feel to working things out on paper and pen. Besides, the tactile sensation of writing on paper is simply wonderful. No amount of typing can replace that.
Nothing beats a good old fountain pen and writing on good paper =)
I saw something else at SIGGRAPH a couple of years ago - a 3d Spatial Visualization Monitor of sorts.
Actuality Systems, Inc. came up with something called Perspecta 3D, which will allow 3d spatial visualization of things, but contained in a nice bubble of sorts.
A plant not taking safety precautions and having cost-cutting measures that killed thousands is not the same as a company making weapons.
Corporate greed is not a 100% American trait.
Where oh where in my post did I even mention America? I merely said that it should be the same for ALL companies, no matter what or where you're from.
We're not here to discuss corporations of other countries and their behaviors - I was talking about Dow Chemical and how the US is being quite unethical in not extraditing someone whose "cost-cutting measures" killed thousands.
WRT global warming that is a large corpus of experimental and observational data which combined point a big finger at human activity being a major contributor to global warming. Note I do not say the only factor.
In short, you do not have absolutely conclusive evidence.
And I think it is you demonstrating both arrogance and ignorance by attacking the messenger not the message.
Oh, I'm merely following the footsteps of the venerable great master geophysicist here, who tries getting his points across by badmouthing those who disagree with him.
I wasn't jabbing at America, I was jabbing at the lack of international justice in matters such as this.
A foreign company was responsible for large-scale devastation and deaths in thousands, and yet the management of the company get away scot-free.
Don't you think it's a little unfair? Swindling money and getting away with it (a la Enron) is one thing, but killing people and getting away with it is another.
Over 15,000 people were killed and thousands more have been scarred for life. The entire ecological system in that city is in ruins and there is no life or vegetation growing there.
There is something called responsibility for your actions. Just because you are a corporation does not excuse you from that. American or not.
Yeah, except that the chairman of UC has been charged with culpable homicide in India, and declared a fugitive. But the US govt. has so far refused to let him be extradited for trial.
You're confusing peer-review with consensus. When I come up with a theory, the validity of the theory is verified by my peers - which is what Newton did. Consensus would have been if Newton, Hooke and other members of the Royal Society "decided" that something would be so, without proving their point.
None of the Global Warming proponents have come up with any conclusive evidence linking the Earth's rise in temperature with greenhouse gases.
Can you predict accurately to the dot what the average temperature for the month of December will be ten years from now? Fifty years from now? Hundred years from now?
If you can, I'll take your word that there is indeed a connection between the Earth's increase in temperature with Greenhouse gases.
You're reaching a conclusion without knowing all the variables, and yet take offence when someone refuses to believe you.
Worse, you start abusing them and thumping yourself up as a knowledgeable scientist when you do not even consider all the factors involved in the subject of discussion.
Can't respond politely without abusing the person you're arguing with, eh? Must be a fault in your upbringing.
That is how science is done, dickhead.
Really? No one reached a "consenus" on Newton's theory of Gravity. How would it sound if I said that physicists have reached a consensus that the distance from Earth to the Sun is 10,000 miles?
Does the Maunder minimum mean anything to you? If not, shut up.
Oh yes, as a matter of fact it does. Maunder minimum happened due to solar activity (or the lack of it). Which was exactly my point, which you completely ignored - climatic change could be happening due to other factors such as solar activity and other natural processes. Taking merely a few variables and coming up with an equation to fit your theories is not science.
I don't claim to know as much as you do about the physics behind it, but what I do know is that there is no absolute conclusive evidence on Global Warming. You simply do not have all the variables at hand.
I can say for sure that the distance between Earth and the Moon is 384, 403 kms. I can say for sure that Gravity absolutely works, no matter what. Can you say that about Global Warming?
Global warming is as effective a theory as the theory of Aether once was.
that CO2 levels have risen dramatically
How do you know that it hasn't happened before? And how do you know that it happened purely as a function of human activity?
And more importantly, how do you know that this release has been triggered more by other factors?
Don't even try and pretend you know the effect of this a hundred years from now - no amount of equations can equate to factors that you do not even consider.
And whether its natural or not we need to do something about it because like it or not human civilisation is balanced on a knife edge.
Because of what? Because the Earth is getting a little warmer? Now that's dramatic.
The Earth's climate has more danger from solar activity than any amount of greenhouse gases that we may release. The fact that someone who claims to have a PhD in Geophysics ignores this fact is amusing.
In fact, 18 minimas have happened in the past 8,000 years and all of them have been caused by the Sun's contraction. I'm quite certain that when the normal weather came around, people like you would have tried finding something to blame it all on, a consensus rather than gather the facts.
I do hope you live in one of the Jesusland states - the flat ones in the middle that will vanish under monsoons and a rising sea level. Survive that.
Oh, how prophetic. Someone who generalizes anyone who disagrees with them as being a Bible-thumper.
And anyone who uses Michael 'Jurassic Park' Crichton in defence of his science gets all the credibility he deserves.
His past works are not in question here - that article by itself is a good summary on today's state of science. But I forget, you're the one who judges and generalizes everybody based on what you think is right, so anything that Crichton writes must indeed be full of crap.
Slashdot Mirror
The site says -
At a purchase price of just $35,000 this is a genuine short-term housing option that could be used in a variety of applications.
So, is that US $35,000 or AU $35,000?
If it's the latter, it's really quite cheap and could be helpful to build cheap, sustainable housing. Hell, I'm an out-door buff and I'd love to buy one of these that can be reused when I go on long treks and climbs.
Sure as hell beats living in a tent for weeks on end.
I can see folks like archaelogists loving this sort of thing - they go on long digs where they'd really need to set shop, and nothing would come close to something like this. Best of all, this provides for an excellent place for storing artifacts and the like and in setting shop.
However, I think that for Joe Regular to buy it, it would perhaps need to be a *little* cheaper - US $5,000 or so.
People in glasshouses get stoned.
People in cardboard houses....get burnt?
Ouch.
Ah yes, I'm not a skeptic but rather a fool because I refuse to buy into a theory that you thump your chest about. Wow, thanks - are all you GW advocates this arrogant and condescending to those that share views different from yours?
Yes, man-made pollution is bad and we need to take steps in curbing that - I never disputed that point. My point was that there is no foolproof connection between rise in CO2 levels and rise in Earth's temperature. And I never disputed that rise in Earth's temperature could be harmful.
But you still haven't answered what I did ask - where is the foolproof connection between rise in CO2 levels and Earth's present rise in temperature? We hardly know this planet's climate and have not more than a few hundred years of records while ice-ages are on the scale of thousands and millions of years. To think that we can predict something without even considering all the factors is quite amusing. Fortunately, just about only half of the climatologist community buys into this partially or fully. And thankfully, science has not yet degraded to the point of having just a few reach a consensus without conclusive evidence and have that as an accepted theory. I'm sure, more than half of the physicists a few hundred years ago would have thought Earth was the center of the Universe, that did not however make their theory right. Surprisingly, the "liberals" of today thump Global Warming much the same way.
When you want to question scientific studies based on logic and alternate studies, you let me know.
Have you even *read* some of those papers? Half the variables are assumed, and the rest are conclusions reached by extrapolations with inadequate data. I'm a physicist, and if I tried publishing papers of that kind, I'd be laughed out of my profession. I'm surprised that consensus science is still so accepted in some communities, and worse yet, there are proponents of such methodologies.
You want to show your cajones? Then do a study on global warming and publish it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Oh yes, the classic, "you think you're smart? Go do something yourself" - hah!
Realize this - I do not need to disprove something to disagree with something. It's a theory, and the onus is upon those who're supporting it to provide conclusive incontrovertible evidence. The CFC-Ozone layer link was similar, and once Crutzen, Rowland and Molina proved the link, they won the Nobel. I'm keeping an open mind, let the climatologists prove the theory and I'll buy it.
And that said, I support Kyoto and cutting down of pollution because it's quite likely (and to some measure, obvious) that the release of toxic substances into the environment will come to bite us back in the asses in some form or the other. That opinion is however independent of my belief (or rather the lack thereof) in global warming.
GW is consensus science, and has so many assumptions that would make any half decent scientist cringe. The saddest part is that a lot of very smart people buy into it for reasons other than its scientific significance, which seriously casts a doubt on the reliability of science today.
Global Warming today is what Nuclear Winter was a few years ago.
That was exactly my point, dude. There're way too many factors involved, and we are yet to find a direct connection between Earth's rise in temperature and the rising CO2 levels. We do not know what happens to the CO2 in between the whole climate cycle, and whether all of it goes into heating the planet or not. Trust me - am an agnost in this context, I do not believe either way. But when people reach conclusions without any conclusive evidence, it surprises me.
If you look up the statistics, just about half the climatologists world-wide believe in part or in full in the GW theory. IMHO that is not enough.
I'm a scientist too, a physicist to be exact. In my line of work, theories like this would get thrown out of the window and would shame you for life. I'm surprised how easy it is for environmentalists, geophysicists, climatologists and the like to come up with half-baked theories with partial basis and get away with it.
I think your opinion sucks. There. I'm just putting across _my_ opinion. I'm not going to give you any reason, though.
Good for you.
You have to change the orthography, which several Turkish languages have done three times in the last hundred years.
True, but English has been adopted far more widely and has a lot more speakers across the world than Turkish. It would be next to impossible to undertake a mammoth task such as that.
If the Tablet PC converts what you write to character data (as opposed to images), then there is crucial differences. You can output in an easy to read form that's easy to check for errors and easy for other people to decipher. Your input method is less important than how the data is stored and displayed.
Agreed, but the tablet PC is still heavy, cumbersome and not as flexible as a piece of paper. Also - there are no equivalents of such simple things as post-it notes or whiteboards.
I wasn't arguing for handwriting, I was putting across my opinion. Didn't realize one had to justify one's opinions. I was giving my reasons for preferring pen and paper, and the tactile sensation is one of the most important factors. I like the feel of writing, and it aids my problem solving capabilities.
And I wasn't blaming the user, but the user has as much responsibility as the language. The alternative is to change the language, which is fairly hard. Besides, there are obvious advantages to writing that won't disappear anytime soon.
and is going to take many more decades to completely marginalize handwriting.
Even if you have a Tablet PC, you're still doing the same thing. From post-it notes to labnotes to scribbling something to writing on white boards and ad infinitum - handwritten media go on and on.
The point is, I don't see the need to. You may have a lot of other alternatives, but there is no medium that is as effective and as flexible as handwritten medium for a lot many things.
The "majority" of the world's physicists don't think Newton's law of Gravity is true, all of them do. The "majority" of the world's geneticists do not think that the DNA has a double helix, all of them do. The "majority" of the world's chemists don't think that U-238 is radioactive, all of them do.
The majority of the climatologists think Global Warming maybe true, all of them don't.
There was "widespread acceptance" that the Earth was the center of the Universe, that did not make it true.
There is evidence that greenhouse gas levels have risen and there is evidence that the Earth is warming up. But there is no absolutely conclusive evidence to connect the two.
Until it can be proven absolutely conclusively to the dot, no amount of "widespread acceptance" is going to convince me otherwise. But wait, being a skeptic is wrong, right? Because there are some of us with the balls to question a theory with lots of ifs and maybe's.
TeX or LaTeX are neat for writing papers, but not for doing your labnotes or solving a research problem. Writing also helps you think while you are at it, because of the time it takes to get your idea on paper. Not to mention the ease in switching modes - I can write, draw and do everything without bothering to or having to switch between programs. Thought to action, the easiest possible way.
I hate trying to decipher my handwritten equations, worse yet, someone else's.
Most physicists or mathematicians I know have pretty standard and decent handwriting, atleast when it comes to writing their equations. It's more a question of practice.
Capital S versus s, u versus v, x versus y, 2 versus Z, 5 versus S, l versus 1, it's all a mess.
Maybe if people had taken their handwriting classes in 2nd and 3rd grades seriously, they would not be making mistakes of trying to confuse writing 5 and S.
Times change, and the ineffable qualities get ignored for the ineffable qualities of the next generation.
The alternative is not half as good, and is not half as capable. Ironically, tablet PCs try to emulate the good old handwriting, and do so poorly. As for the "next generation", man has been writing in some form or the other for thousands of years.
A large percentage of the people across the world (especially in places like China and India) will continue to use good old pen and paper. It's not going to go out of style for a long, long time.
I do not know, cursive made my handwriting better.
In fact, I've two sets of handwriting - all my equations and math stuff is written straight up, and the rest of the stuff goes cursive. Makes it a lot easier for me (and those reading it) to decipher what I've written.
Cursive also made me write a whole lot faster - the flow that you get from cursive is something that makes one enjoy writing.
You're apparently not into the pure sciences like math or physics.
I'd hate to be able to type in my equations, there's a feel to working things out on paper and pen. Besides, the tactile sensation of writing on paper is simply wonderful. No amount of typing can replace that.
Nothing beats a good old fountain pen and writing on good paper =)
The cop won't even suspect it's a doll if it can move its arms around.
I saw something else at SIGGRAPH a couple of years ago - a 3d Spatial Visualization Monitor of sorts.
Actuality Systems, Inc. came up with something called Perspecta 3D, which will allow 3d spatial visualization of things, but contained in a nice bubble of sorts.
You can see some of their gallery images.
It was really cool, and I think that something like that is a lot more likely to become commonplace than other 3d display techniques.
But it's probably going to be very, very expensive initially.
Yeah, I realized a little after I'd posted - I mentioned it rightly in the post but wrongly in the title.
Yes, I do believe there was a previous treaty between India and the US - but I'm unable to find the details of it online.
And no, UC never faced any investigation in the US over the incident.
Yes, they do.
But ofcourse, laws are bent where money is concerned.
A plant not taking safety precautions and having cost-cutting measures that killed thousands is not the same as a company making weapons.
Corporate greed is not a 100% American trait.
Where oh where in my post did I even mention America? I merely said that it should be the same for ALL companies, no matter what or where you're from.
We're not here to discuss corporations of other countries and their behaviors - I was talking about Dow Chemical and how the US is being quite unethical in not extraditing someone whose "cost-cutting measures" killed thousands.
WRT global warming that is a large corpus of experimental and observational data which combined point a big finger at human activity being a major contributor to global warming. Note I do not say the only factor.
In short, you do not have absolutely conclusive evidence.
And I think it is you demonstrating both arrogance and ignorance by attacking the messenger not the message.
Oh, I'm merely following the footsteps of the venerable great master geophysicist here, who tries getting his points across by badmouthing those who disagree with him.
I wasn't jabbing at America, I was jabbing at the lack of international justice in matters such as this.
A foreign company was responsible for large-scale devastation and deaths in thousands, and yet the management of the company get away scot-free.
Don't you think it's a little unfair? Swindling money and getting away with it (a la Enron) is one thing, but killing people and getting away with it is another.
Over 15,000 people were killed and thousands more have been scarred for life. The entire ecological system in that city is in ruins and there is no life or vegetation growing there.
There is something called responsibility for your actions. Just because you are a corporation does not excuse you from that. American or not.
Should you rather be referring to the presence of spherical reproductive object commonly present in male anatomy?
Yeah, except that the chairman of UC has been charged with culpable homicide in India, and declared a fugitive. But the US govt. has so far refused to let him be extradited for trial.
You're confusing peer-review with consensus. When I come up with a theory, the validity of the theory is verified by my peers - which is what Newton did. Consensus would have been if Newton, Hooke and other members of the Royal Society "decided" that something would be so, without proving their point.
None of the Global Warming proponents have come up with any conclusive evidence linking the Earth's rise in temperature with greenhouse gases.
Can you predict accurately to the dot what the average temperature for the month of December will be ten years from now? Fifty years from now? Hundred years from now?
If you can, I'll take your word that there is indeed a connection between the Earth's increase in temperature with Greenhouse gases.
You're reaching a conclusion without knowing all the variables, and yet take offence when someone refuses to believe you.
Worse, you start abusing them and thumping yourself up as a knowledgeable scientist when you do not even consider all the factors involved in the subject of discussion.
Can't respond politely without abusing the person you're arguing with, eh? Must be a fault in your upbringing.
That is how science is done, dickhead.
Really? No one reached a "consenus" on Newton's theory of Gravity. How would it sound if I said that physicists have reached a consensus that the distance from Earth to the Sun is 10,000 miles?
Does the Maunder minimum mean anything to you? If not, shut up.
Oh yes, as a matter of fact it does. Maunder minimum happened due to solar activity (or the lack of it). Which was exactly my point, which you completely ignored - climatic change could be happening due to other factors such as solar activity and other natural processes. Taking merely a few variables and coming up with an equation to fit your theories is not science.
I don't claim to know as much as you do about the physics behind it, but what I do know is that there is no absolute conclusive evidence on Global Warming. You simply do not have all the variables at hand.
I can say for sure that the distance between Earth and the Moon is 384, 403 kms. I can say for sure that Gravity absolutely works, no matter what. Can you say that about Global Warming?
Global warming is as effective a theory as the theory of Aether once was.
that CO2 levels have risen dramatically
How do you know that it hasn't happened before? And how do you know that it happened purely as a function of human activity?
And more importantly, how do you know that this release has been triggered more by other factors?
Don't even try and pretend you know the effect of this a hundred years from now - no amount of equations can equate to factors that you do not even consider.
And whether its natural or not we need to do something about it because like it or not human civilisation is balanced on a knife edge.
Because of what? Because the Earth is getting a little warmer? Now that's dramatic.
The Earth's climate has more danger from solar activity than any amount of greenhouse gases that we may release. The fact that someone who claims to have a PhD in Geophysics ignores this fact is amusing.
In fact, 18 minimas have happened in the past 8,000 years and all of them have been caused by the Sun's contraction. I'm quite certain that when the normal weather came around, people like you would have tried finding something to blame it all on, a consensus rather than gather the facts.
I do hope you live in one of the Jesusland states - the flat ones in the middle that will vanish under monsoons and a rising sea level. Survive that.
Oh, how prophetic. Someone who generalizes anyone who disagrees with them as being a Bible-thumper.
And anyone who uses Michael 'Jurassic Park' Crichton in defence of his science gets all the credibility he deserves.
His past works are not in question here - that article by itself is a good summary on today's state of science. But I forget, you're the one who judges and generalizes everybody based on what you think is right, so anything that Crichton writes must indeed be full of crap.
And you're a scientist? Sheesh.
Wasn't Pelorat the name of the old guy (Historian?) who went with Trevize in the last couple of books in Asimov's Foundation series?