Avalanches are (at the end) the result of gravity in a very LOCALIZED area - involving loose things.
GLOBAL Warming is EVERYWHERE.
New York City is a 'big' place and has a lot of people in and around it. But, the island of Manhattan is smaller than DFW Airport found between Dallas/Fort Worth, TX.
The amount of land inhabited by humans is small compared to the amount of land available (not that all mountain tops are inhabitable).
The surface of the ocean is much larger than the surface of the Earth covered by land.
Humans occupy a very small area of the surface of the Earth.
Then, there is more than 5 miles of atmosphere over the surface of the oceans and land. THAT is a lot of volume for man to fill up. It's just not currently possible.
...is what I wrote. While open to interpretation I also mention the Great Lakes - if you're not certain where those are and what area was being referred to then go look it up.
Ultimately: that glacier when away without the help nor cause of man. Period.
How was the plant-mass initially lost? What caused it to be lost? Caveman clear-cutting? Slash-and-burn agriculture?
The bottom line, and my point, is that the massive melt off was not anthropogenic. Just like all the previous cycles that believed to have passed over the face of the Earth.
I really like your 'drag tabs together to form split pane views' idea - it sounds like a new feature of Windows 7 - at least from one of the commercials currently out for it. (I personally can barely stand Windows.).
X11, which I guess your are not using, helps with sizing up windows when you need to see both at the same time with the ability to middle-click on the maximize button to only vertically maximize the window and to right-click on it to horizontally maximize.
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) critics seem to espouse ideas such as the solar cycle hypothesis...
Umm, if Mars has seen ice cap shrinkage why wouldn't Solar Cycles be the most likely cause of our current terrestrial warming (which hasn't happened in the last decade - thus the change of nomenclature to "climate change")?
All the data seem to indicate is that the warming is happening on a scale that it has not before.
O rly? It's believed that the northern U.S. was covered in a 5,000 foot thick ice cap (some time in the last 100k years). It created the 5 Great Lakes. What caused the atmosphere to warm so much as to see that completely disappear? It must have been very dramatic. I wonder, though, concerning the current state of glacial changes, has there been a change in precipitation in the areas that feed those shrinking glaciers?
Also, if Anthropogenic Global Warming were true, why hasn't recorded human history, vis-a-vis, the last 1,000 years or so, shown a consistent increase in global temperatures? It would be very easy to conclude that humans have been burning more wood over the prior year for the duration of their history (beginning prior to the last millennium) and that CO2 would also have been increasing year over year as well. But, there was a mini-ice age in the last millennium. That doesn't compute.
What ALSO doesn't fit with AGW is the fact that the Earth, very much without the help of humans, has waxed and wained in and out of warm and cold periods. WITHOUT HUMANS. Back and forth. Over and over. Explain that. Please.
You should actually go to the link provided in the parent post and see where the damning data manipulation is actually happening.
I think the solution is to replace the current political culture with like-mined persons who are brave enough to stand up to the leaches (that in particular includes the small to very large companies that depend on government spending) and start cutting - cutting spending, favors, and anything else that is superfluous to maintaining order and other basic government services.
It's going to have to be persons willing to die for that goal.
They wouldn't some so crazed to make a living or even get rich (just like newspapers, TV stations, car dealerships, radio stations, singers, song writers, record labels, dry cleaners, Google, Microsoft, hospitals, architects, engineers, and anyone else who gets up in the morning to work in this world and/or starts/runs a business - do you get where I'm going with that?) if those same insurance companies were allowed to offer their services across state lines. That is: there would be better pricing if there were better competition.
Libertarians are more about individuals' freedoms.
The GPL is about software itself being free: free from others making it closed sourced. The BSD-type of license make the wielder of the software free to do what they want with the software - even make it closed sourced (as long as there is accreditation of origin).
So, it's not surprising when a Libertarian criticizes 'free software' - assuming that software is not released under a BSD-type of license.
The design purpose of EBR-I was not to produce electricity but instead to validate nuclear physics theory which suggested that a breeder reactor should be possible.
With this goal (not the supply of electricity to anything), and a partial meltdown, no wonder the cost was so high.
Space travel, now, is not so experimental as a breeder reactor was then; there have been numerous successful launches of payloads into space. Surely there have been many more than there have been failures.
"Gee, $5 million to power a measly 50 houses? What a waste!".
Just a reminder: the goal wasn't to power houses (or anything else) but to find out if a breeder reactor was feasible.
How can you justify dismissing an entirely new field of development based purely on the high costs for the initial prototype?
1 Gigawatt output is a prototype? I mean, if so: more power to them.
Finally, my goal is not to poo-poo lofty ideas. I just believe there are many more practical, if not safer, means for the Japanese to generate power. But, if they are able to make it practical, watch out for the environmentalists to complain about birds flying into the power delivery path.
We absolutely should have gone into Rowanda. That was a HUGE failure of Madeline Albright and the Clinton Administration. The unresponsive parties shall bare their responsibilities in as much as they could have done something and didn't.
I just can't put my finger on it.
Then let me put it on part of "it" for you:
No-Fly Zones. The whole of the story around why No-Fly zones were set up and how Saddam tried to shot down allied targets is sufficient reason for invading (and finishing what should have been completed a decade prior). The freedom of the millions is lagniappe.
You forgot to mention that the reactor was a "research reactor" - where they were learning about the technology.
Furthermore:
The design purpose of EBR-I was not to produce electricity but instead to validate nuclear physics theory which suggested that a breeder reactor should be possible.
So, while the Japanese have shown themselves to be quite efficient, in many things, why do you presume to compare apples to oranges and that which actually was (and is in other nuclear power plants) to what which is not yet (and might not ever be)?
Slashdot Mirror
You need to read this as well: http://oneutah.org/2009/11/28/climategate-source-code-more-damning-than-emails/.
Or, will you go there and claim you saw nothing?
Assholes, eh?
Here are the real 'assholes': check out the little program the CRU created to always 'confirm' their findings: http://oneutah.org/2009/11/28/climategate-source-code-more-damning-than-emails/
Worse.
Example.
Ever.
Avalanches are (at the end) the result of gravity in a very LOCALIZED area - involving loose things.
GLOBAL Warming is EVERYWHERE.
New York City is a 'big' place and has a lot of people in and around it. But, the island of Manhattan is smaller than DFW Airport found between Dallas/Fort Worth, TX.
The amount of land inhabited by humans is small compared to the amount of land available (not that all mountain tops are inhabitable).
The surface of the ocean is much larger than the surface of the Earth covered by land.
Humans occupy a very small area of the surface of the Earth.
Then, there is more than 5 miles of atmosphere over the surface of the oceans and land. THAT is a lot of volume for man to fill up. It's just not currently possible.
...is what I wrote. While open to interpretation I also mention the Great Lakes - if you're not certain where those are and what area was being referred to then go look it up.
Ultimately: that glacier when away without the help nor cause of man. Period.
How was the plant-mass initially lost? What caused it to be lost? Caveman clear-cutting? Slash-and-burn agriculture?
The bottom line, and my point, is that the massive melt off was not anthropogenic. Just like all the previous cycles that believed to have passed over the face of the Earth.
Perhaps he assumes the temperatures are holding steading (being normal).
I really like your 'drag tabs together to form split pane views' idea - it sounds like a new feature of Windows 7 - at least from one of the commercials currently out for it. (I personally can barely stand Windows.).
X11, which I guess your are not using, helps with sizing up windows when you need to see both at the same time with the ability to middle-click on the maximize button to only vertically maximize the window and to right-click on it to horizontally maximize.
Umm, if Mars has seen ice cap shrinkage why wouldn't Solar Cycles be the most likely cause of our current terrestrial warming (which hasn't happened in the last decade - thus the change of nomenclature to "climate change")?
O rly? It's believed that the northern U.S. was covered in a 5,000 foot thick ice cap (some time in the last 100k years). It created the 5 Great Lakes. What caused the atmosphere to warm so much as to see that completely disappear? It must have been very dramatic. I wonder, though, concerning the current state of glacial changes, has there been a change in precipitation in the areas that feed those shrinking glaciers?
Also, if Anthropogenic Global Warming were true, why hasn't recorded human history, vis-a-vis, the last 1,000 years or so, shown a consistent increase in global temperatures? It would be very easy to conclude that humans have been burning more wood over the prior year for the duration of their history (beginning prior to the last millennium) and that CO2 would also have been increasing year over year as well. But, there was a mini-ice age in the last millennium. That doesn't compute.
What ALSO doesn't fit with AGW is the fact that the Earth, very much without the help of humans, has waxed and wained in and out of warm and cold periods. WITHOUT HUMANS. Back and forth. Over and over. Explain that. Please.
You should actually go to the link provided in the parent post and see where the damning data manipulation is actually happening.
Yes.
And if inquirer's goals for using either one are not yet clear, this can help 'em see what each has to offer (for better or worse).
(Good advice.)
You mean his policy of using Federal money for Stem Cell Research based on fetuses' stem cells?
Because Stem Cell Research has worked and businesses have well funded them but not fetus-based research which has been a miserable failure?
You're absolutely correct.
I think the solution is to replace the current political culture with like-mined persons who are brave enough to stand up to the leaches (that in particular includes the small to very large companies that depend on government spending) and start cutting - cutting spending, favors, and anything else that is superfluous to maintaining order and other basic government services.
It's going to have to be persons willing to die for that goal.
Yeah, my first thought was:
Sigh, then I actually read the post... so,
Check it out: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
Now, now, now... there's no need to let a good rumor go to waste.
They wouldn't some so crazed to make a living or even get rich (just like newspapers, TV stations, car dealerships, radio stations, singers, song writers, record labels, dry cleaners, Google, Microsoft, hospitals, architects, engineers, and anyone else who gets up in the morning to work in this world and/or starts/runs a business - do you get where I'm going with that?) if those same insurance companies were allowed to offer their services across state lines. That is: there would be better pricing if there were better competition.
It depends on what the meaning of Y is.
That might not be the case in every state.
Libertarians are more about individuals' freedoms.
The GPL is about software itself being free: free from others making it closed sourced.
The BSD-type of license make the wielder of the software free to do what they want with the software - even make it closed sourced (as long as there is accreditation of origin).
So, it's not surprising when a Libertarian criticizes 'free software' - assuming that software is not released under a BSD-type of license.
You just completely invented a situation that doesn't exist to bent truth into a lie.
(Kind of makes your point sound like a cow's opinion.)
What about raising property taxes... creatively?
Nope.
You forgot to quote the quote:
With this goal (not the supply of electricity to anything), and a partial meltdown, no wonder the cost was so high.
Space travel, now, is not so experimental as a breeder reactor was then; there have been numerous successful launches of payloads into space. Surely there have been many more than there have been failures.
Just a reminder: the goal wasn't to power houses (or anything else) but to find out if a breeder reactor was feasible.
1 Gigawatt output is a prototype? I mean, if so: more power to them.
Finally, my goal is not to poo-poo lofty ideas. I just believe there are many more practical, if not safer, means for the Japanese to generate power. But, if they are able to make it practical, watch out for the environmentalists to complain about birds flying into the power delivery path.
We absolutely should have gone into Rowanda. That was a HUGE failure of Madeline Albright and the Clinton Administration. The unresponsive parties shall bare their responsibilities in as much as they could have done something and didn't.
Then let me put it on part of "it" for you: No-Fly Zones. The whole of the story around why No-Fly zones were set up and how Saddam tried to shot down allied targets is sufficient reason for invading (and finishing what should have been completed a decade prior). The freedom of the millions is lagniappe.
Thanks for the link.
You forgot to mention that the reactor was a "research reactor" - where they were learning about the technology.
Furthermore:
So, while the Japanese have shown themselves to be quite efficient, in many things, why do you presume to compare apples to oranges and that which actually was (and is in other nuclear power plants) to what which is not yet (and might not ever be)?
No offense taken - please be as vocal as possible about that serious issue.