posted
Oh, and in other Olympic news; Golf and Rugby will be played for the first time in Rio for medals. Tiger Woods has already said he's in.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn: you are assuming that global warming actually exists, and is not just the product of bad science and politics.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Oh, and in other Olympic news; Golf and Rugby will be played for the first time in Rio for medals. Tiger Woods has already said he's in.
Rugby yes! Golf what?!
But I suppose it's no different than pistol shooting or archery, except both of those have practical use.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lyrhawn: you are assuming that global warming actually exists, and is not just the product of bad science and politics.
I assume gravity exists, and is not just a product of bad science and politics, but that's stupid, and you've made me see the light. Perhaps many of my former assumptions are just that, assumptions based on bad science and politics.
Say, what do you think the chances are that global warming *does* exist, and the anti-global warming bugbear is itself a product of bad science and politics? I would think that if you are actually willing to credit those who deny global warming simply because there must exist two equally valid opinions on any subject in Ron's Fairy Tale Land of Binary Arguments, then you should be euqally willing to credit the idea that it *does* exist. Really, since every issue comes down to a binary: either something is "true" or is "false because of bad science and politics," then we should probably examine all of our assumptions this way. If we ever get a hint or even the faintest whiff of that terrible enigma: Bad Science and Politics, then we know we've disproved something outright.
For instance, I get a little bit of a tummy ache when I eat ice cream. My doctor tells me that I am a little bit lactose intolerant. But the thing is, I can drink milk in my coffee with no problem! That doctor is under the influence of BAD SCIENCE AND POLITICS! EGADS SIR! It stands to reason therefore that I must NOT get a tummy ache when I eat ice cream! THE LOGIC IS SOUND MY FRIENDS! And I would never have discovered that terrible doctor's corruption by BAD SCIENCE AND POLITICS, if I hadn't noticed how wrong he was!!! I can now go out and eat all the ice cream I want! If I get a tummy ache, it's a coincidence! I am SO FREE!!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, all those reasons you gave are "why they wanted Obama to fail" reasons. None are "why think the Olympics would be bad for America" reasons. That is my point. More than they wanted America to succeed in getting the Olympics (something countries usually want - and Chicago is part of America) they wanted the President to fail.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lyrhawn: you are assuming that global warming actually exists, and is not just the product of bad science and politics.
Even OSC believes global warming is a real problem. Whether or not it's man made doesn't really matter. People against man made global warming now say that global warming IS real, but that it's a natural phenomenon and we have nothing to do with it. They cite centuries old patterns of warming and cooling periods, etc and so on. Regardless of whether or not you think the full extent of global warming is actually going to happen...
Do you deny that snow packs in mountain ranges are retreating, smaller every year, and melting faster every year? The information is out there if you don't believe me. The problem is, shifting weather patterns, cited as an effect of global climate change, are moving rains and raising temperatures, which means less snowfall, and the snow lasts few and fewer days. That means in the summer, cities that are fed by melt water don't have any. It's not just an issue in America, though the American west has huge, huge looming long term water shortage issues, basically in every territory between the Mississippi and the Pacific. Overuse of aquifers in places like Iowa and Nebraska, over use of melt water in downstate California either in cities or farms is going to be a problem with northern California cuts off even more water heading south since they control the source point. And don't even get me started on Las Vegas. The west is the American boom region now, but the country is going to undergo a reverse migration in 50 years when life there at those numbers is unsustainable.
Now, this is going to cause a lot of problems for the United States. Imagine how much trouble it will cause in the third world. It's going to cause wars. People are going to fight over resources at a level we haven't seen in a long time. Al Gore is traveling around he world not just clamoring for emissions controls, but also chiefly for conservation. He wants people to use less, so that when these problems come to a head, we'll be that much better able to handle what comes. He's engaged in a preventative mission that could prevent more wars than any other cause in history. I question whether it will work, because there are so many people out there who call him a fraud that his work is twice as hard, but the rest of the world believes in global warming, and the rest of the world thinks it was a pretty good idea. I recognize that you think it was a poor choice because you don't believe in the underlying rationale, so you think he's just shouting for attention or whatever, but for the billions who believe in the looming crisis (and the crisis that already exists in areas where conservation efforts could save lives NOW), his award makes perfect sense.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: [QB]I assume gravity exists, and is not just a product of bad science and politics, but that's stupid, and you've made me see the light. Perhaps many of my former assumptions are just that, assumptions based on bad science and politics.
thats a false analogy. man cant create or destroy gravity and it would be futile to try and stop it all together. to think of passing legislation to stop gravity is comical. "gravity is ruinging my life i want to pass legislation to stop it." or one better, "i can gain politically by attempting to legislate gravity so im going to back and enact laws that will enforce my political ideology."
i acknowledge the changing of the global climate. what i dont acknowledge are the "scientific" claims as to mans complete responsibility for the change (it was warmer then cooler now its both. so ill refere to it simply as "change").
it hasnt happend overnight and it wont end overnight. there is not need for haste in passing such legislation.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lyrhawn: you are assuming that global warming actually exists, and is not just the product of bad science and politics.
There is no assumption there, do your homework. The science behind climate change is sound. The only reason anyone has any doubt is because of bad, politically motivated science.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit, it seems to me that it is the other way around.
Lyrhawn, you live in the Detroit area. Tell me, when was summer this year? I don't recall that we had one. And we had frost warnings in August!
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, have you done the research? Can you present some evidence that backs you up that has not been easily countered a million times?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lyrhawn, you live in the Detroit area. Tell me, when was summer this year? I don't recall that we had one. And we had frost warnings in August!
Heh. This is why no one here takes you seriously.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
This has been driving me nuts. I'm sorry. Your username is wrong. Did you use babelfish or another online translation program? You've got two adjectives which do not agree in case. I'm assuming you were going for "Infinite Capacity" or perhaps "Capacity of Infinity." (Fringe opinions hazard "Large Infinity" as a guess, but that's a tautology, so I'm ignoring it.) What you were (presumably) looking for is "capacitasinfinita" for Infinite Capacity.
Never, ever do English-to-Latin translation with babelfish. It never goes anywhere good. If you ever have other need for a Latin phrase, I'm happy to advise, or you can try the Latin community on Livejournal, who handle a lot of such requests.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
its the second part of the phrase "finitum capax infiniti". i didnt want a username that long. it wasnt an online translation and thanks for the offer.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Rabbit, it seems to me that it is the other way around.
Lyrhawn, you live in the Detroit area. Tell me, when was summer this year? I don't recall that we had one. And we had frost warnings in August!
I'm sure you realize the limitations of anecdotal evidence like that. One year out of a century's worth of study and statistics isn't significant. What matters are trends over time. You can't just say "it was cold this summer, so clearly all that data on warming trends is bunk." Doesn't work that way.
Either way, yeah, Summer did seem to come a little later than it usually does, and if you remember, mid-July to mid-August was blazing hot. Also this was one of the hottest Septembers we've ever had. How does that fit into your recollection? The National Weather Service is predicting a warming than average winter for the midwest, but a colder and snowier than average winter for the northeast. What? That's crazy! Warmer in the midwest but colder in the northeast? Must be because the planet is bipolar.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Rabbit, it seems to me that it is the other way around.
What seems to you is irrelevant unless you have actually read several thousand scientific papers on the subject. Perhaps you could give me an example of peer reviewed science supporting climate change which you think demonstrates bad science influenced by a political agenda? What part of the science was faulty? What part of it was politically motivated rather than scientifically sound? How do the flaws in that paper influence the vast body of scientific evidence on the subject?
I'm sick and tired of dilettantes like you spouting off about what about the bad science behind climate change. What qualifications do you have that give your opinion on a scientific issue any validity? I bet you haven't read a single one of the links I've given you to the real science issues.
You and your kind sicken me. This isn't a game. The fate of the world could very literally ride on how we choose to act or not act on this issue and yet idiots like you, who can't tell the difference between science and science fictions, have the gall to insult people who have literally dedicated their lives to figuring this out. And you don't even bother to learn what's actually been done before forming an opinion and shooting off your mouths.
In fairness to Ron, if "his kind" is "people who form an opinion without reading the relevant scientific studies," "his kind" consists of at least 80% of the population.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
In fairness to Ron, if "his kind" is "people who form an opinion without reading the relevant scientific studies," "his kind" consists of at least 80% of the population.
Your estimate seems kind of low to me. However, I have not read any studies on the topic.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In fairness to Ron, if "his kind" is "people who form an opinion without reading the relevant scientific studies," "his kind" consists of at least 80% of the population.
Let me clarify "his kind" are those who form the opinion that thousands of scientists across the world have been doing bad politically motivated science without reading the relevant scientific studies or at a minimum reading the summaries of that work written by people who have actually read it and who are qualified to comment on its quality.
As I said, this isn't a game. Its critical. It is very likely the most critical public issue of our time. Making baseless, unfounded uneducated accusations about the science behind climate change and using those to recommend action or inactions is recklessly irresponsible.
I recognize that I was highly uncivil in my attack on Ron, but I have had enough of it. I read the actual scientific literature on this stuff daily. We are in a legitimate crisis. Politically motivated fools have delayed action on this for 20+ years beyond the point where the science was unequivocal. That delay has almost certainly already cost millions of human lives. The time for being polite about is long past.
And no, that isn't hyperbole.
[ October 12, 2009, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
In fairness to Ron, if "his kind" is "people who form an opinion without reading the relevant scientific studies," "his kind" consists of at least 80% of the population.
Tom, I'm not sure what I've done to offend you but lately you seem to jump in to every debate in which I'm involved for apparently no reason but to insult me. I'm getting rather sick of it. It's arrogant and condescending and despite what you may think, when you do it -- you aren't above the fray you are diving into it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: We are in a legitimate crisis. Politically motivated fools have delayed action on this for 20+ years
fools like the ones who have hindered and thwarted all efforts to create and utilize nuclear power as a means of easing the energy crisis and curbing carbon emissions?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure what I've done to offend you but lately you seem to jump in to every debate in which I'm involved for apparently no reason but to insult me.
I'm not doing it to insult you. I'm doing it to warn you that you're being pompous and irascible and damaging the very causes you're trying to advocate for. This topic makes you very hostile, to the extent that I think you might consider trying to avoid discussing it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: We are in a legitimate crisis. Politically motivated fools have delayed action on this for 20+ years
fools like the ones who have hindered and thwarted all efforts to create and utilize nuclear power as a means of easing the energy crisis and curbing carbon emissions?
Perhaps, but not exactly like them.
The primary reasons that nuclear power has been dead for the past 30 years are economic. Yes, many environmental groups have opposed expanding nuclear power and irrational fear of nuclear power in general has certainly had some impact, but the bottom line is that nuclear power isn't economical and has only succeeded at all because of heavy government subsidies.
I have very mixed opinions of nuclear power. I think its an option we can't afford to ignore at this time of crisis but it is far from the panacea many proponents suggest. When you consider the full life cycle of the nuclear power plant, nuclear power can't be considered carbon neutral, although it is certainly an improvement over coal. Furthermore, the supply of nuclear fuel is actually very limited. Technologies that might increase that are still at an early experimental stage. Concerns about the waste that nuclear plants produce are quite legitimate and no country has as yet implemented a remotely satisfactory solution to that problem. There are certainly some people who have opposed nuclear power for foolish reasons but there are others who have legitimate concerns about the technology.
There are places where laymen's opinions are relevant in the climate debate. The role of science is to understand the principles involved and to predict as best as possible how different alternatives will influence the climate. But given that contribution from science, there are many questions about how we should respond to this crisis that are questions of values and philosophy rather that scientific fact. For those questions, every voice should be heard. I think nuclear power and the role it should play is in that regime. The debate over whether nuclear power should be pursued on a wider scale involves far more than the scientific issues.
[ October 13, 2009, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure what I've done to offend you but lately you seem to jump in to every debate in which I'm involved for apparently no reason but to insult me.
I'm not doing it to insult you. I'm doing it to warn you that you're being pompous and irascible and damaging the very causes you're trying to advocate for.
And you think its effective to warn me about being pompous and irascible by being pompous and irascible yourself?
quote:This topic makes you very hostile, to the extent that I think you might consider trying to avoid discussing it.
Which is something I have largely done for a couple of years now. But I will note, that this is one subject on which I have the right to be pompous and condescending. I do in actual fact have far greater expertise in this area than anyone at hatrack who has ever questioned my opinion on this subject.
It is also a subject in which I think my hostility against climate change deniers is fully justified. Everyday in the scientific literature I read more sound science that has me absolutely terrified about the future. I'm not talking about stuff coming from the media or pop science reports, I'm talking about the latest sophisticated rigorous scientific studies and they are becoming increasingly alarming on a daily basis. It is not hyperbole when I say this has reached crisis proportions. I really wish I could find some big holes in the science. I really wish I could believe its all wrong because I don't want them to be true any more than Ron or you or any one else.
And then in parallel with reading and studying the real scientists, I come by hatrack and read people like Ron spewing garbage arguments that any educated high school student should be able to tear apart. And then more sensible people like capaxinfiniti start saying there is no reason for alarm, no reason to act just yet.
And sometimes I don't care if you or anyone else here at hatrack things I'm being pompous or rude. Somethings need to be said. This is no longer an academic issue. It is critical and important.
The time for being polite to climate deniers is past. These people's ignorance is very literally threatening the welfare of billions of people on this planet. And yes, that is deserving of my anger.
I've posted calm reasoned arguments on this subject in the past. I've given references and resources that anyone here can understand. I've done what I can do from a calm rational approach. Eventually its necessary to call a spade a spade. People who are continuing to deny the severity of the climate crisis are either fools or evil. And there comes a point, when you've made every effort to teach the fools but they've refused to learn, when the difference between being a fool and being evil becomes negligible. That time has arrived.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Actually there's enough Uranium deposits to last humanity 100,000 years.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Actually there's enough Uranium deposits to last humanity 100,000 years.
Only if you count the Uranium that is in sea water. No technology exists that would allow us to concentrate the Uranium from sea water on a industrial scale and the laws of thermodynamics dictate that no technology ever will exist that would allow us to do that for less energy than we could get from the Uranium. And even if we could somehow overcome that basic thermodynamic barrier, it would only last about 1000 years unless you someone can get breeder technology to work on a commercial scale. Which by the way, hasn't happened yet and even the French have given up on it.
P.S. As a warning to Blayne and any one else who posts in this thread I actually know what I'm talking about here. If you are going to post this sort of thing, you better come prepared to back it up with solid references or I will consider you a fair target. Misinformation on this subject is doing serious harm. It isn't innocent. I'm not going to overlook it anymore than I would overlook child abuse.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Isaac Asimov is my source, there is according to him and his sources enough minable deposits of uranium to last humanity based on predicted energy consumption rates 100,000 years. I trust his Phd more then your random internet anomynousness.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Of course, Asimov is (at minimum) about 20 years out of date.
Except I think you are citing a fiction book by him from 1956.
Nope, I'm referring to his popular science article on nuclear fusion.
I'm not familiar with that particular article on nuclear fusion, but I think you have the facts confused since Uranium isn't a fuel used nuclear fusion. Hydrogen isotopes are used in nuclear fusion not Uranium and their abundance is in fact great enough that it could theoretically fuel the planet for 100,000 years. Unfortunately, nuclear fusion is a technology that has been estimated to be 20 years a way for at least 40 years. Its safe to say it won't be feasible available for at least 20 years, probably much longer. In any case, climate change require an immediate response and that can't come from nuclear fusion.
You don't need to trust my opinion on this. Here are several sources that estimate mineable reserves of Uranium lasting for a few decades at most at current levels of demand and some of these are pro-nuclear sources.
P.S. Blayne, really don't take me on on this one unless you want to be thrashed You are basing your comments on 30 + year old popular science articles that you may not have fully understood. You don't have to trust me, but I promise you that if you want to challenge me I will crush you because I do actually a great deal of expertise in this.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure what I've done to offend you but lately you seem to jump in to every debate in which I'm involved for apparently no reason but to insult me.
I'm not doing it to insult you. I'm doing it to warn you that you're being pompous and irascible and damaging the very causes you're trying to advocate for.
And you think its effective to warn me about being pompous and irascible by being pompous and irascible yourself?
quote:This topic makes you very hostile, to the extent that I think you might consider trying to avoid discussing it.
Tom has the right of it, Rabbit. I agree with your fervor, mainly because I think
1. We really ought to stop paying the Muslims to fly planes into our buildings. We'd be better off putting everybody in prisons and mental hospitals back out on the street tomorrow, with no meds, and give them high-powered assault rifles, than to keep buying Middle Eastern oil. It's self-destruction. The constant problems in the Middle East are made 1000x worse by giving the crazy people money to buy weapons.
2. The particulate matter and carcinogens from burning fossil fuels is making city dwellers very, very sick, in many cases.
whether or not we we be seeing real worldwide catastrophe from global warming, the above two issues are more than enough good reason to find non-fossil fuel sources of energy. However, having said that, please try to calm down. Yes, I know that Ron is irritating. Yes, I know Blayne can be annoying. If you want to reach people, you must remember that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. No?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Articles are you know usually long and very essay-like, and in the case of one of the more charismatic pillars of the scientific community usually have quite a bit of build up to its conclusion like y'know most essays. So while the article of ostensibly about nuclear fusion it started with a comparison with nuclear fission and how fission is already for then a sufficient valid source of energy for Humanity but goes on to say that even so fusion is just that much better.
However while it is possible I misread it I am highly doubtful, I clearly recall him mentioning Uranium lasting potentially 50 to 100 thousand years, thinking back on it maybe he said it would last 50 to 100 thousand years based on its halflife ie have that much time to use it but I don't have the article on hand and is a bitch to find online.
IP: Logged |
quote:and the laws of thermodynamics dictate that no technology ever will exist that would allow us to do that for less energy than we could get from the Uranium
I'm confused by this claim. That's like saying the laws of thermodynamics say we can't get more energy out of petroleum than we put into extracting it out of the ground.
I'd like to know what you mean. (I actually think this is an important question, in light of the last few posts on this thread.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:However while it is possible I misread it I am highly doubtful...
Blayne, Asimov was -- he's been dead for a few decades, now -- a self-avowed polymath, meaning he wasn't an expert at much. In fact, many specialists even in his own day complained at great length about the things they believed he got wrong in his non-fiction (and his fiction).
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
[nitpick] He died 1992, and he was writing until at least 1990. [/nitpick]
Or are you one of those people who thinks "few" includes 2?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:However while it is possible I misread it I am highly doubtful...
Blayne, Asimov was -- he's been dead for a few decades, now -- a self-avowed polymath, meaning he wasn't an expert at much. In fact, many specialists even in his own day complained at great length about the things they believed he got wrong in his non-fiction (and his fiction).
A case of Science Marches On, many of the times he included science in his fiction he cant be helped if what he wrote happened to be cutting edge at the time he wrote.
However he WAS a Professor in Chemistry which was his Phd so its not like he never specialized in something.
IP: Logged |
quote:and the laws of thermodynamics dictate that no technology ever will exist that would allow us to do that for less energy than we could get from the Uranium
I'm confused by this claim. That's like saying the laws of thermodynamics say we can't get more energy out of petroleum than we put into extracting it out of the ground.
Yeah; that bit is not correct at all.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:and the laws of thermodynamics dictate that no technology ever will exist that would allow us to do that for less energy than we could get from the Uranium
I'm confused by this claim. That's like saying the laws of thermodynamics say we can't get more energy out of petroleum than we put into extracting it out of the ground.
I'd like to know what you mean. (I actually think this is an important question, in light of the last few posts on this thread.)
The Uranium concentration in sea water is three parts per billion. In order to use that uranium as reactor fuel, it would have to separated from the sea water and concentrated to near 100% purity. That process is one which results in a decrease in the entropy of the system. That decrease in entropy isn't some abstract incomprehensible concept, it is precisely quantifiable and depends only on the initial concentration in the sea water, the amount you recover and the final concentration required for reactor fuel.
One of the consequences of the second law of thermodynamics is that work is required to decrease the entropy of any system. The minimum amount of work required for any separation process can be calculated from basic thermodynamic principles and is independent of the process used for the separation. In other words, no advance in technology can possibly do the separation for less than that minimum amount of work. It would violate the laws of thermodynamics.
And you are right, that principle applies to oil as well as Uranium, but it doesn't mean we can't ever get oil out of the ground for less energy than we can get burning the oil. It means that if the oil is below some critical concentration in the ground, we can't get it out using less energy than could be obtained from the oil. Imagine for a moment that you took one gallon of oil and evenly distributed it over the state of Texas, can you see that collecting all that oil back together again would require more work than you could get by burning the gallon of oil.
Now you might think that this is just a technological limitation, if we could just invent nanites or something that would go about scavenging the oil or uranium we might be able to collect it all back together again for less energy. And since current technologies for separating oil from dirt or Uranium from seawater all use far more energy than the theoretical minimum, it is possible that new technologies will require less energy than existing technologies. But what we learn from the second law of thermodynamics is that there is a minimum amount of work required to do the separation, period, regardless of what technology we use. That minimum work increases as the concentration in the soil or water decreases. Below some critical concentration, the minimum amount of work required for the separation will be greater than the energy available from the fuel and at that point, no technological improvement can fix the problem.
The laws of thermodynamics are something of a bummer. I've heard them summarized this way. First Law: The best you can do is break even. Second Law: you can only break even at absolute zero. Third Law: you can never get to absolute zero.
[ October 13, 2009, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:and the laws of thermodynamics dictate that no technology ever will exist that would allow us to do that for less energy than we could get from the Uranium
I'm confused by this claim. That's like saying the laws of thermodynamics say we can't get more energy out of petroleum than we put into extracting it out of the ground.
Yeah; that bit is not correct at all.
Fugu, If you think that is not correct, you do not accurately understand thermodynamics. I recommend you lookHere, and here, for a detailed explanation of the minimum work of separation.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: There is no assumption there, do your homework. The science behind climate change is sound. The only reason anyone has any doubt is because of bad, politically motivated science.
I dunno. I have doubt due to scientists expert in climate change that break their self-imposed hiatus from posting on Hatrack in about six days Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: There is no assumption there, do your homework. The science behind climate change is sound. The only reason anyone has any doubt is because of bad, politically motivated science.
I dunno. I have doubt due to scientists expert in climate change that break their self-imposed hiatus from posting on Hatrack in about six days
I left because I needed to finish a couple of projects. I'm back for a day or two to reward myself for having completed the first of those. Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: There is no assumption there, do your homework. The science behind climate change is sound. The only reason anyone has any doubt is because of bad, politically motivated science.
I dunno. I have doubt due to scientists expert in climate change that break their self-imposed hiatus from posting on Hatrack in about six days
I left because I needed to finish a couple of projects. I'm back for a day or two to reward myself for having completed the first of those.
Yeah Mucus, she can stop at any time! Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
