Hey! Two Cold Wars in one lifetime, how lucky can a generation get?

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

On the note of socialism, the only way to be equal on everything to everyone is to deny everyone everything.

That reminds me of the line 'I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally.'

"Shadwell hated Southerners, and, by inferences, was standing on the North Pole."

[Valynth]

You would need a significant amount of TNT, and if surveillance is as good as people say it is, such a thing probably would have been noticed.

But yes, that is rather underhanded...

I think that is what happened, because N. Korean scientists were mainly trying to get more time since they don't really have any capabilities for nuclear weapons with the insanely small amount of time they were given to pull it off or be killed.

[superluser]

Which must mean that Bill Clinton was even dumber, because all he could do for his entire presidency was play with sluts and cigars in the Oval Office.

No, Bill Clinton was stupid for other reasons.  Remember, I hate both Clinton and Bush.

As to global warming, I'll have to go with the Stern Report, the National Academy of Sciences, the journal Science, the American Meteorological Society, NOAA, and a host of other scientific bodies.

[Alondro]

North Korea does or did have one to two nuclear warheads.  Whether they would actually work is another issue.  

Dirty bombs are the biggest real danger from Iran.  You don't need relatively vast technical know-how or capability to make a lot of nasty radioactive fission products and scatter them far and wide with high explosives, thus tainting the land for centuries.  Plus, you can then give them to your allies to sneak into Israel, which Iran's leaders quite vocally wish destroyed, and have recently declared will be destroyed soon.  Are they just spouting rhetoric again, or do they actually have something in the works?  

Heck, you can get all the relevant physics for all sorts of nuclear reactions from Wikipedia these days.  That's how I built my back-yard particle torus!  It makes me glow at night.  

EDIT, cuz I'm getting an error when I try to insert a quote:  NOAA, and the American Meteorological Society predicted a very active Atlantic hurricane season last year... *cough*...  Need I say more on the accuracy of long-term meteorological forecasting today?  And simply because an article in in a science magazine, it doesn't make it true.  That South Korean cloning guy who faked all his research had quite a number of papers in journals, don't forget. 

[superluser]

EDIT, cuz I'm getting an error when I try to insert a quote:  NOAA, and the American Meteorological Society predicted a very active Atlantic hurricane season last year...

So they did.  Frankly, it's not a meteorological issue, but they do agree with the consensus.

And simply because an article in in a science magazine, it doesn't make it true.  That South Korean cloning guy who faked all his research had quite a number of papers in journals, don't forget.

They didn't catch Hwang Woo-Suk because he was part of a small group and he forged his data.  The data on climate are much less prone to forgery, because the data are usually part of large, bureaucratic, government-operated continuing projects where the data are part of the public record.  Knowledge of such a forgery would have to be known by dozens--if not hundreds--of people worldwide.

I've got a challenge for you.  Name one scientific group (not a person, a group) that believes that global warming isn't happening, serious, and caused in large part by humans.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

To fit that query, superluser, he has to match -all- of those.

So, if he can find a group that believes global warming is happening, serious, but not caused by human activity, that's not enough for you? Or happening, caused by humans, but not serious?

See, the way I understand it, there is no argument about it happening. There is some argument about how serious it is. And there is a -lot- of argument about how much Humans are responsible for it.


Funnily enough, most of the media seems to gloss over that last part. And the second part, too, come to think of it.

[superluser]

See, the way I understand it, there is no argument about it happening. There is some argument about how serious it is. And there is a -lot- of argument about how much Humans are responsible for it.

As to how serious it is, did you miss the Stern Review?  It suggests that global warming could cost us 20% of our GDP.

For the rest, I'm just going by the quotes from Wikipedia.

All but one of the quotes seem to say, ``It's real, humans are causing most of it--though there might be some part of it that's not caused by humans--and it's either very serious, or we weren't asked to look into how serious it is.''

[Jim Halisstrad]

"Shadwell hated Southerners, and, by inferences, was standing on the North Pole."

Oh lawd, is that sum Good Omens?

*edit*


I wish I could actually contribute to the topic.  But, I'm not real big on politics.  Mostly it was just late at night and I was all like "Hah, global silliness, lol."

[Valynth]

See, the way I understand it, there is no argument about it happening. There is some argument about how serious it is. And there is a -lot- of argument about how much Humans are responsible for it.

As to how serious it is, did you miss the Stern Review?  It suggests that global warming could cost us 20% of our GDP.

For the rest, I'm just going by the quotes from Wikipedia.

All but one of the quotes seem to say, ``It's real, humans are causing most of it--though there might be some part of it that's not caused by humans--and it's either very serious, or we weren't asked to look into how serious it is.''

Wikipedia is rarely a reliable source of information, especially about politically charged things like global warming.

I'd also like an estimate on how the damage to our GDP is caused specifically by people panicing about global warming. 

In fact, if you look at human history the warm points are some of the most prosperous times, so even if this global warming claim is true, we just might actually benefit from it as stated by history.

I'm also willing to state that the sheer amount of biomass on the earth produces more "green house gasses" that human industry regularly.

[bill]

The main issue I have with global warming is that it's been politicized so bloody much that it's impossible to look at it straight.

[superluser]

Wikipedia is rarely a reliable source of information, especially about politically charged things like global warming.

Funny thing, Wikipedia cites sources.  Which is what I used, rather than trusting that the Wikipedia quotes were accurate.

I'd also like an estimate on how the damage to our GDP is caused specifically by people panicing about global warming.

I think I'd like some dinner, so I'm going to go get some.  There may be a metaphor here.

[Alondro]

I'd like to note a certain little time in the 1700's called the "Little Ice Age".  It shut down the monsoons in India and led to mass starvation and crop failures, plus the fabled "Year Without a Summer".

If your crops get hot, you can water more.  If they freeze, you might as well stab yourself through the eye with an ice pick and get it over with. 

I should also like to note that here in the Pine Barrens where I live I can pick pieces of coral up from the sand in the center of the state.  The entire area used to be ocean-front sand dunes.  Somehow, I doubt humanity had anything to do with those high ocean levels!

Plus, this period in history has had the highest solar activity that we know of.  The warming corresponds very nicely to it.  If it should reverse, the global cooling doomsday people from the 70's will be back out in force again.

[superluser]

If your crops get hot, you can water more.

What?  This isn't the four classical elements.  The opposite of fire isn't water.  If your crops get too hot, they die.  If you water them, they get soggy and dead, not cold and alive.

Somehow, I doubt humanity had anything to do with those high ocean levels!

Funny, I don't recall saying that we had anything to do with any other climate change.

I just said that we have something to do with *this* climate change, which is what the scientific consensus is.

I do note that I asked you to name one scientific group that believes that global warming isn't happening, serious, and caused in large part by humans.

I also note that you didn't name one.

Plus, this period in history has had the highest solar activity that we know of.

Really?  I'd like to see a reference for that, especially given that the energy reaching the Earth is decreasing.

[Valynth]

Since you are so quick to scream "SCOURCES SCOURCES!"  I challenge you to find an experiment that validates your claims and can be reproduced to get the same results regardless of the people performing them.

Until then all your fancy sources are worth nothing.

Also, you better start realizing that we humans with our "polluting ways" are doing nothing more than taking advantage of a naturally occuring phenomena.  Fire. It FREAKIN' HAPPENS!  Volcanoes?  THEY FREAKIN' EXPLODE!  Year without a summer?  Caused by a volcanoe.  Most CO2 emissions of the year?  Volcanoes.  Volcanoes throw more "green house gasses"  out into the atmosphere in one explosion than we throw each year!

[superluser]

Since you are so quick to scream "SCOURCES SCOURCES!"  I challenge you to find an experiment that validates your claims and can be reproduced to get the same results regardless of the people performing them.

Until then all your fancy sources are worth nothing.

Also, you better start realizing that we humans with our "polluting ways" are doing nothing more than taking advantage of a naturally occuring phenomena.  Fire. It FREAKIN' HAPPENS!  Volcanoes?  THEY FREAKIN' EXPLODE!  Year without a summer?  Caused by a volcanoe.  Most CO2 emissions of the year?  Volcanoes.  Volcanoes throw more "green house gasses"  out into the atmosphere in one explosion than we throw each year!

Okay.

Let's calm down here.  I realize that I haven't exactly been acting as civilly as I should have been, but let's just count to ten, go punch some flour sacks and come back when we're not quite as angry.

I should point out that experiments on climate change would require for a control a duplicate Earth where the industrial revolution never happened.  So we'll have to make do with studies.  This is going to take some time to collate--and it's 1AM, so I'll have them by tomorrow.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Funny thing, Wikipedia cites sources.  Which is what I used, rather than trusting that the Wikipedia quotes were accurate.

Not to denigrate your research, but selective sources are no better than a selective review of sources.

By that, I mean that wikipedia isn't exactly the most trustworthy of places to get data. By inference, it's also not exactly the most trustworthy place to get a list of sources, either.

It's not a bad starting place, but I'd want to check more places than just there. Preferably some with some provenance in the area we're discussing, which I don't think -I- have...


... Also, you didn't answer my query. You stated that wikipedia cited sources that all said "it's real and humans caused it, but we weren't asked about how serious it was" (I'm paraphrasing my understanding of your understanding, here, so I might have the wrong end of the stick) but that's the end of it.

As far as the Stern Review goes, a quick google brings up a review of a critique (as the first hit) that claims:

    In sum, the Stern Review is very selective in the studies it quotes on the impacts of climate change. The selection bias is not random, but emphasizes the most pessimistic studies. In this sense, the Stern Review reminds one of Lomborg (2001). The discount rate used is lower than the official recommendations by HM Treasury. Results are occasionally misinterpreted. The report claims that a cost-benefit analysis was done, but none was carried out. The Stern Review can therefore be dismissed as alarmist and incompetent.

    This is not to say that climate change is not a problem, nor that greenhouse gas emissions should not be reduced. There are sound arguments for emission reduction. However, unsound analyses like the Stern Review only provide fodder for those skeptical of climate change and climate policy – and may well further polarize the debate.

    Climate policy is for the long-term. It will only be successful if a broad coalition – of countries and of stakeholders within countries – supports climate policy and continues to support climate policy. To my mind, this calls for a sober analysis, rather than hyperbole.

Just to put this in context, the person reviewing it is one Prof. Dr. Richard S.J. Tol of the University of Hamburg, who appears to be:

• Senior Research Officer of the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin Ireland
• Associate of the Research Unit on Sustainability and Global Change of Hamburg University and Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science in Hamburg Germany
• Principal Researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije University in Amsterdam
• Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Diemnsions of Global Change, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.

Given he's managed to do all that, I suspect he -might- have some idea of what global climate change is actually doing. Certainly more precise ideas than -I- do.

Other criticism seems to revolve around Stern taking the IPCC report as a basis, which is flawed, since, from what I gather, many of the scientists quoted as supporting the IPCC aren't really all that interested in supporting it, and weren't supporting the final version - which was massaged by politicians before being published. Note that this is hearsay from the web, however, and I cannot confirm any of it - but there is a lot of it about, and I've certainly heard the "final version isn't what we said" thing before. Anything that can get a bunch of scientists to sign a petition claiming they were misrepresented is.. actually, scratch that. You could get that free with your breakfast cereal. :-]


All that suggests that "it's here, it's real, and we did it" is -probably- a bit of a misunderstanding. Certainly all the folks I talk to who claim to have read up the original data suggest that "we did it" is, possibly, still an undecided factor. "it's here" and "it's real" are both more or less accepted. Also suggested is "if we do everything possible, everything we'd -like- to do but can't justify" the results for the US would be, honestly,  trivial in the face of Russian and, particularly, Chinese output of CO2 and/or greenhouse gases.



Oh, and, uh, "us" ? You mean just the USA? I'm not part of the USA, you know. I visit sometimes, but only because my wife has family there, and the major trade routes travel via LAX. I'll accept that the US GDP is a big number, but, from out here, it looks very much like the greenback is becoming less and less the backbone of international commerce that it used to be. Certainly the GBP is a -lot- stronger than it used to be, against the dollar. As far as Europe is concerned, the Euro is looking fair to taking over from where the USD used to be...

[Axis]

I would feel a whole lot safer if we had a missile defense system, that you know, worked before provoking a nation with a lot to spare.  By work, I mean catching 99% of the missiles is still failure. 

It must have been a nice meeting though.

*sound of construction*
*Putin wakes up*
Putin-"Vhat is this noise coming from Poland?"
*Walks to window and looks at Bush building an missile defense system*
Bush-"Why, hello thar neighbor!  Don't mind these, they're for North Korea and Iran."

[Alondro]

Another thing about the global warming BS is that it takes all the focus away from environmental conerns that are very real and very dangerous right now!  Like mercury, for instance.  It's incredibly toxic in even parts per million quantities to fetal brain development, and there has been suggestion (from an article I read in Discover magazine) that it may be responsible for the 'hot-spots' of autism in New Jersey and Texas.  Mercury levels everywhere are rising thanks to the burning of low-grade coal with no scrubbers... primarily from China. 

Another massive problem that no one wants to touch at all is the fact that humanity is overpopulating the planet.  Very soon a huge percentage of the population will lack potable fresh water sources due to over-use and pollution (uhm.. China again, and India), plus food prodution is going to eventuallly hit a wall unless every acre of arable land is converted to farming (and not for ethanol production!).  The world cannot support 9 billion people without exterminating virtually all other large animals save for those humans use for food, as many are predicting in 20-40 years.

Global warming is just a distraction from having to think about some very unpleasant realities. 

As for someone talking about the sun and its influence on global climate hange, what do you know!  I just got my latest Discover magazine and there's an article about a group who've been researching cosmic rays and found hat lots of cosmic rays makes more clouds and cools the Earth, and when there are lower cosmc ray levels there is less cloud cover and more warming.  I'll post more tomorrow when I'm home again and can look at the article carefully.

Oh, I don't know if anyone else heard about this, but last week I heard a report about South Africa having record cold for days, with ice storms and all kinds of wintery stuff they rarely ever get.

The climate changes all the time.  We only have about 125 years of truly accurate records.  Only our arrogantr natures could believe that what we consider perfect weather is the norm for a planet that has been around long before humans even started making finger paintings on cave walls.  When we have 10,000 years of accurate readings, then it'll be a significant enough timescale to make any real conclusions.  We've only just found out in the past few decades about coronal mass ejections and other solar phenomena that can have enormous effects on our planet.

Scientific consensus without considering any alternatives is foolish.  It's consensus that has led to many great errors in science.  We look back on things like civilizations on Mars and life on Venus as nonsense, and we think of breaking the sound barrier as a piece of cake.  But there was a time not so long ago when the 'consensus' of science held beliefs that were the polar opposites of what we now know.  And remember, it was a 'consensus' that led the Roman catholic Church to persecute the likes of Kepler and Copernicus for their discoveries of the solar systems true structure. 

I'm afraid that human-induced global warming is taking on all the trappings of an orthodox religion, where anyone who questions it is practically labelled a heretic and subjected to ridicule.  If it can be PROVEN that humanity has caused global wamring and that it will destroy the world, so be it.  I simply don't find the evidence, the REAL evidence and not the over-exaggerated predictions, very convincing.

Anyway, we need to come up with a viable alternative fuel anyway before the price of gas and energy gets so high we all have to declare bankruptcy everytime we drive to Walmart.     We're gonna run out eventually, so logically we should find something else that won't ever run out for a million lifetimes starting now.  That's the best reason to control energy use.

[Valynth]

Do you have any idea how much land in America isn't used for farming?  There are huge swaths of land here that have never been cultivated, but could easily provide a HUGE quantity of food.  The reason why they've remained uncultivated is because we're already producing so much food that food is loosing value and therefore people don't produce it in order to get more money on what they DO produce.

I've seen this same "WE'RE GOING TO OVERPOPULATE BY 2001!"  alarmist crap before, but here we are in 2007 and the only people starving are those who don't sit down and farm, as it was back when they made the claims.

Mercury on the other hand, I agree that we need to stop it, but how are we gonna stop China?

[superluser]

Not to denigrate your research, but selective sources are no better than a selective review of sources.

This is true, but I also looked on Conservapedia's site on global warming, and they list no groups that disagree with the consensus.

In the US, the premier scientific bodies are the National Academy of Sciences (publishes Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (publishes Science).  Both of those groups have released statements that global warming is real, serious and being caused by humans.

The only other US groups that I would place on a par with those groups on any subject other than their own discipline would be the American Physical Society and the American Chemical Society.

The American Physical Society last made a formal statement on global warming in 1996, in which it said, ``increasing emissions of greenhouse gases will inevitably cause the levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere to rise, which will change the Earth's climate.  While the inevitability of climate change is generally accepted, the magnitude and nature of these changes are still uncertain.''

The American Chemical Society said, ``most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century.''  It adds that it's uncertain how much of this is due to human actions, but continues, ``the overwhelming balance of evidence indicates that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the prudent and responsible course of action at this time.''

There is one group that used to disagree in 1999, but they're reevaluating their position because ``the current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members.''  That's the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

(I was hoping to force someone else to mention this, and I was scrupulous to mention that all but one agreed with the consensus.  Ah, well.)

If you want me to start looking at scientific groups outside the US, I can.

... Also, you didn't answer my query. You stated that wikipedia cited sources that all said "it's real and humans caused it, but we weren't asked about how serious it was" (I'm paraphrasing my understanding of your understanding, here, so I might have the wrong end of the stick) but that's the end of it.

I assumed that it was rhetorical.  Your query was:

So, if he can find a group that believes global warming is happening, serious, but not caused by human activity, that's not enough for you? Or happening, caused by humans, but not serious?

No, I asked him to name one scientific group that believes that global warming isn't happening, serious, and caused in large part by humans.  I suppose that I should add that the statement should have been made after 1998 or so.

What that means is that if he can find a group that disagrees on one of those points, then he will have met my challenge.  If he wants to take the AAPG as an example, he's welcome to it.

Given he's managed to do all that, I suspect he -might- have some idea of what global climate change is actually doing. Certainly more precise ideas than -I- do.

When I first ran across the Stern Review, all I saw was that it had been commissioned by Her Majesty's government and that the BBC had given it some positive reviews.

That was a while ago.  If someone of Dr. Tol's credentials is criticizing it, I may have to reevaluate the report.

Also suggested is "if we do everything possible, everything we'd -like- to do but can't justify" the results for the US would be, honestly,  trivial in the face of Russian and, particularly, Chinese output of CO2 and/or greenhouse gases.

True.

Oh, and, uh, "us" ? You mean just the USA?

(Let's see, where did I use `us'...``could cost us 20% of our GDP.'')

Well, Sir Nicholas Stern wouldn't be writing a report about the US for HM Government.  He was talking about global GDP, so that's you, as well.

Another thing about the global warming BS is that it takes all the focus away from environmental conerns that are very real and very dangerous right now!  Like mercury, for instance.  It's incredibly toxic in even parts per million quantities to fetal brain development

True.  There are many issues that need to be addressed.  Climate change is one of them.  We will need to address the Chinese coal plants, as well.  After all, if every other country in the world stops using all fossil fuels, and China continues on its current trend, it will all be pointless.  I hope China agrees to reduce its carbon footprint, because I don't know how we can force them to stop, short of a total trade embargo.

We look back on things like civilizations on Mars and life on Venus as nonsense, and we think of breaking the sound barrier as a piece of cake....And remember, it was a 'consensus' that led the Roman catholic Church to persecute the likes of Kepler and Copernicus for their discoveries of the solar systems true structure.

I don't think that there was ever a consensus about life on Mars--except, perhaps that it didn't exist.  I suppose there isn't a consensus about that anymore.  Also, Copernicus wasn't persecuted for his theories (because he paid his dues), and I don't recall anything about Kepler or Brahe being persecuted.  Galileo was, though.  I'll take your word on the sound barrier.

We're gonna run out eventually, so logically we should find something else that won't ever run out for a million lifetimes starting now.  That's the best reason to control energy use.

Hey--so long as you agree that we need to control our energy use, I don't see any need to fight.

I've seen this same "WE'RE GOING TO OVERPOPULATE BY 2001!"  alarmist crap before, but here we are in 2007 and the only people starving are those who don't sit down and farm, as it was back when they made the claims.

If I may, I'd like to make a snarky comment about this.

I've seen this sort of argument before, as well.  I never saw it in reference to 2001, though.  I first saw it in 1798.  Thomas Malthus claimed that human population growth was outpacing agricultural growth, and that if population continued to grow that way, by the 1850's, there would be mass starvation.

If I recall correctly, by the 1850's, there were *more* people than Malthus had predicted, and more food than they needed.

P.S. I haven't been impressed with Discover since they were sold to Disney.  And I hear that Disney sold Discover to Bob Guccione, Jr. (no, not Bob Guccione, Sr.)
P.P.S. Haven't had a chance to look for those studies.

[Reese Tora]

Hmm, the US produces more food than it uses, and could produce more food than it currently does.

The problem is as much distribution as it is creation.  I don't recall if this is still in practice, but in the past the US government has paid farmers to NOT farm in order to keep produce from becoming almost valueless due to surpluses beyond the farmer's capability to sell.  Humanity as a whole is producing technology that extends the ability to create food, but people don't generally want to give the surplus food away to those who can't afford it.

Some charitable organizations buy surplus food to sent where it's needed, but that's still only a drop in the bucket.

I believe Swift made A Modest Proposal to deal with a number of these issues that would appeal to Charline.

(Yes, this is entierly off the top of my head, no sources cited, availability subject to change, some restrictions may apply, and void where prohibited.  )

[Alondro]

Producing the food isn't the problem so much as it is using up water for irrigation.  And though the US can produce more crops, will that be enough for 2.5 billion more people (if the population increase doesn't stop). 

If we take a rough estimate, saying that an average adult needs about a kilogram of food per day to be healthy, with 2.5 billion more people the world would need to produce 912.5 billion more kilograms of food every year.  About 1 billion metric tonnes.   The resources used in transporting food aside, we must also take into account that those additional people will need space to live and water for themselves.  The fresh water supplies will be used up first.  Already there are large concerns about areas of the Midwest and Western US where the ground water has been dropping rapidly due to heavy irrigation use.  And let's not forget that the Colorado River doesn't have enough water left after humans have taken from it to reach the Pacific Ocean most of the time. 

And to answer, there aren't any organized scientific groups I know of who dissent global warming.  Only individual scientists.  Most who do disagree with it are afraid to say anything because they are visciously attacked when they do, compared to Holocaust deniers and other cruel things.  My brother has already been a victim of this. 

The fact is that the CO2 levels have gone from 35 parts per million to 36 ppm in the past decade or so.  That's an increase of 2.9%.  What are the levels of other gasses such as methane and water vapor, which are even better at trapping heat?  Which, I might add is the problem with hydrogen fuel and even ethanol (CO2 and H2O result from burning it.  3HC-CH2OH).  We'd end up adding a huge amount of hot water vapor to the atmosphere, which could cause the same warming problems people fear unless it also leads to increased low cloud formation to block incoming sunlight.

As the population grows, there is simply no way to stop the human race from having a greater and greater effect on the planet.  Collapse is inevitable unless population growth stops.  Unless you rely on imaginary future technology to solve the problem "Well, by then we'll have made super-crops that can grow on cell phone signals!"  That's what I always hear when people are confronted with the problem.  They make up technological advances out of thin air while avoiding the overwhelming issus of practicality and basic resource depletion.

The simplest solution to CO2 levels and human overpopulation is for everyone to just stop breathing.  And people won't be driving cars any more as an added benefit.  Think of how much CO2 won't be released then!   Well well, once more the simplest solution to the problems is humanity's extermination.  Funny how it always works out that way. 

Found this little tidbit from Wikipedia.  I'd read the same ideas years ago, but I don't remember the book it came from.

Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. The writers of the Scripture wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, and from that vantage point the sun does rise and set. In fact, it is the earth's rotation which gives the impression of the sun in motion across the sky.

Also, Brahe did come under fire for his work.  Copernicus avoided it by not publishing his book on the subject until the end of his life and including a preface from soemone else stating that the work was merely a mathematical device and not intended to represent reality, and Kepler's work would have gotten him in trouble if he hadn't been in an area which was going contrary to Roman Catholicism. 

Heliocentric writings were banned by the Catholic Church from the 1600's up to 1757, when Isaac Newton's Principia made it clear that only heliocentrism could be the reality of the solar system.

[Knight]

Oh, bah.  Anyone that can avoid emotional denial knows that thermonuclear global war is an inevitability, especially with programs like mutually assured destruction (MAD) integrated into every nuclear capable country.  All it takes is an error on a computer screen or someone with a crazy plan and this whole fucker will light up like a christmas tree, probably in my lifetime.

Who wants ice cream?

[Alondro]

I'll add to that:  If Islamists can have jihad, then right-wing Christian KKK-Neonazi radicals have the right to equal opportunity, for they are oppressed by the evils of the Western world too!

Jehovah akbar!   

And then the roaches take over as they have planned for eons.   

[Valynth]

Technically those two groups are the same thing, they just favor two different races.

[bill]

Who, the roaches?

[Valynth]

Who, the roaches?

yes bill, the roaches clearly care about the different human races. 

I meant radical Islamic - KKK Christians.

They have about the same racial methodology coupled with religious fanaticism.  About the only difference I found is that the KKK Christians favor white-anglosaxon and Islam favors middle-eastern, non-jewish.  Of course both make exceptions for those who prove themselves "loyal to the cause."

[superluser]

This is going to take some time to collate--and it's 1AM, so I'll have them by tomorrow.

Well...tomorrow turned into a week.  Here you go:

Crowley[1] (US) says that only 1/4 of the warming seen in the 20th century can be explained by natural causes.  Bertrand & al.[2] (Belgian study printed in the UK) say that natural causes can only account for 17/45 of the warming over the last 150 years.  Bauer & al.[3] (German study published in the US) confirm Crowley's data.

(I found free PDFs of these works on the web.  Just google the titles)


[1] Crowley, 2000: Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years. Science, 289 (5477) 270-277
[2]Bertrand & al. 2002: Climate of the last millennium: a sensitivity study.  Tellus 54A (3) 221-244
[3]Bauer & al. 2003: Assessing climate forcings if the Earth system for    the past millennium.  Geophys. Res. Lett. 30(6), 1276

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Do the natural causes they've accounted for include the warming up of the sun?

[Taerkar]

Interestingly enough, some of the earlier Soviet ICBMs had such primitive targeting and guidance systems that their silos had to be built with a slight orientation towards the US to begin with.

The biggest problem with a missile defense shield is that unless you're expecting your enemies to be suicidal in the first place, it's not really going to matter much. Anyone that launches a few missiles, if they make it through the shield or not is irrelevant, is going to be facing the probability of annihilation from the skies from the US nuclear arsenal. If they have enough to do the same to the US, they have enough to overwhelm any defense that's currently practical, rendering the matter moot anyways.

It's wasteful and idiotic for our foreign relations.