jackson33

If I read the article, they are saying almost certainly life formed on comets. First, all material comets/meteor are thought to have formed or had been part of something that formed about the time our planet did. If you want to stretch the issue, I suppose its possible a life bearing planet could have existed 1-3 billion years ago and for some reason disintegrated. Another possibility, though off the average reservation, is that living organisms could form during the process of the stars formation, where pressures heat and electrical charges would be the greatest. Just a thought...

pioneer; There was much other environmental activity, with great success and goes back to the end of WWII. Highway Trash, the first I recall, where roadside rest area became popular. For the most part folks just stopped throwing trash out auto windows. Then many local governments began controlling burning of trash, leaves which long before 70, virtually every state was in control. Many things to boring but effective and W/O mandates made great progress along these lines. Lady Bird and Lyndon Johnson, were certainly on agreement with the Natural Beauty of our Highway Countryside. *The Highway Beautification Act* signed by Johnson in 1965, offered by Congress was no doubt a joint work of the two branches. President Johnson passed in 73, when for some reason Lady Bird, took up the Highway Signs and Interstate medians as projects. Her work was later honored by a Congress, think in 88.

Thanks for confirming my post, but everything said has been in the news for several days. In short, taxes collected for a particular purpose are not being spent on that purpose. To increase the tax would do little, if the States are allowed to freely spend the money on whatever...Remember that 24B directly linked to projects, is dwarfed by what each State collects independent from the Fed, but is also collected under the pretense of Road/Bridge repair. If your trying to say, Congress should increase Fed Gas/Diesel tax .05, then fine and this is your right. I just happen to disagree....

286 Billion was collected in 2006, from Gas/Diesel taxes, paid at the pump by consumers. This does not include State or local taxes nor the Hi way Users tax which Truckers pay up to 550.00 each year or the Motor home owners pay. Also not included are billions paid by truckers who pay additional taxes for every mile driven in each State, which goes directly to that State. According to an*AP* dispatch on 8-9-07, which I receive 10 to 20 daily on ATT Front page and an article on *CNN.com/politics*, 8% of the US funds go to highway/bridge maintenance. However by law, the fund collections must be returned and done so by grants to the states and on a per/capita basis. Since in the US (much more in Europe), we collect over half a trillion in taxes for the expressed purpose of Road/Bridge repair or operations pertaining to road control (Weigh Stations, Safety Checks etc) I hardly think a Fed 5 cent increase should be needed and the revamping of local priorities the objective of Congress.

President Bush, has already said the proposed 5 cent a gallon gas tax increase "was not the way to go". Though not said and in an election year, I would think a veto would be reality. The Interstate/Road/Etc. repair fund or the taxes that are collected from Gas/Diesel are distributed rather loosely. About 8% is directly spent and the rest sent back to the states as *Grant Money*. Minnesota decided to build a Sports Stadium and few states are actually spending these funds on roads.

lucaspa; There are three reasons I only give referance when posting. 1- No one can ever accuse me of a virus. 2- I frankly don't know how. 3- I always assume the person replying to my post is as smart or smarter than I am. Since we are arguing a topic, knowing you education, I seriously doubt anything I could say, is or could be new to you. Disputed theory that becomes mainstream is fine and probably 95% of these I would never argue or frankly respond to. Again however, with regards to current accepted theory, my usual reply is to question not necessarily to dispute. On this thread, my response is out of respect and the consistent long replies. My normal reaction would be to ignore and move on... In my world we referance Ice Ages toward there end. 120k and 12k YA, the last two minies. If you feel there were no warm period (above todays average mean) from 200k to 12k YA, then fine, but wrong IMO... No, I do not ignore any data offered. More often than not I have seen it before and in various form. I will admit # of generations, would not normally catch my attention but for some reason it did, thinking the author was inching toward another interest *speed of mutation*, which you know micro-isms can mutate noticeably in a few years, to survive medications. As for educational comparisons from yesterday to today, the level is not material. As for the current methods, your probably correct and I have no idea from the experience angle. I can only go by what others say of todays and recall my own.

Google *Earths Population 10,000 years ago* and have a ball. In fact The National Academies Press, in a SEM release in 1993, estimates the population was 10 million, 8k year ago 260 million and does give referances.... Ice Ages; Of course I picked out the extremes. The warm extremes are higher than todays, which is the basis for the argument. No sir, I often question the excepted opinion/theory but rarely will use as a challenge. If I have a basis or premise to challenge, even then its offered as alternative viewpoint. I might suggest, most every theory today accepted, was at some point disputed theory. Today we have a much different approach to learning, than when I was learning. We used to get an hour or so lecture and the second hour was used for questions, Many times the intend of the person lecturing would take a total shift in outcome. Today its a 30 minute reading from some text (or close to it), with no question allowed, in most cases. Science.Com and some others take most material from the academia you suggest, with an occasional editorial. FOX News on the other hand are press releases in total from a variety of sources. Don't think they have one scientist on board, maybe other than Meteorologist. Seems to be full of attorneys and a few specialized Doctors...The point is, thats my way to keep current.... You are welcome to let this thread die. Seems no one much interested and we will not change the others mind. Your attitude on the Dino's, is pretty much along the same lines, but may join in that thread later. Actually its that issue, which gave me interest in this thread, along with a work on Ancient Migrations of humans.

lucaspa; I have heard Wiki, is not the most reliable. Also I agree a google search could lead to confusion. In some ways I prefer a two sided view of an issue, which in my world leaves room for a diverse understanding. In addition I receive three daily Science news emails and follow Fox News Web site and their Science Department. On diversity in humans, I prefer to look at todays mating habits to explain what you feel is lack of diversity. (Personally I see a great deal, under pigment, size, weight, intelligence and in the immune systems) which by the way is unique to a species. People, mate according to desire or at worst what is acceptable by the opposite. Probably not making sense, but for most of human existence IMO, mating was done and at the will of the fittest, to the ones which pleased the mental desire. Sapiens I suspect existed in minority for some time, until some unknown factor took hold. You lost me on the logic for few sapien couples, but couldn't discuss if understood. If arrogant enough I could say, this could have been a bottleneck and even that unknown factor happened 100K years ago, but 50 still seems a little low... The Wiki estimate 5M population, probably did have a referance and as I recall was from a google search *erectus to sapien* search. On the Ice Age; Downloaded your site and scanned. If this Ice Age was that of 140-120K, falling into the Illinoian glaciation (many ups and down), this was the latest major event, some thinking the 12-14KYA mini, a cycle event on the warming trend from 120K figure. The speculations on previous ages, with far less geological evidence, are suggested to have been extreme by comparison. Some days I feel lucky that I have no set basis for my opinions and often worry that the real minds in this world are too set on what was learned or limit research to particular types of research, Scholarly works.

1veedo; Rather than going back over historical reporting of an issue, please read Paragraph 1, post 20. On current long term cycle, solar involvement; I have no argument and agree they are involved. I would think our outer 2-3 layers of Atmosphere are more involved, but NASA is just now getting to this study....

1veedo; Have already asked for forgiveness for lack in grammar skill and will add debate skills if you like. On the post you refereed to was a direct response to the previous post by iNow, last three paragraphs. I did respond to off topic comment, but maybe not the only guilty party. Don't understand you statement on Pangloss, since his/her responses/post seem to be articulate, in general. On moisture/rainfall/clouds, as said is the way I understand it. Atmospheric moisture and related CO2 levels are not relate-able IMO. Unless you account for the retention of heat to allow liquid water. Climate conditions, primarily cloud cover, front movements and temperatures are reasonably constant. The problem is most observations are local to the 10-15% of earths mass we inhabit. What goes on over oceans, desert or remote areas have not been counted in any historic figure and recent surveys are just beginning to include these stats. Also note the near instant alteration of temperature with Cloud cover, compared to what CO2 levels contribute over decades or centuries. Rather than rambling on, IMO, cycles are the reason for any increased temperature and IMO the only result of mans CO2 emission has resulted in the said to be current heaviest forestation on the planet, since possibly the Dino period.

CDarwin; As said, an exact figure is not possible and it depends on what are classified Modern Mans descendants. I concede Modern Man is about 100k years old, at best, but erectus to ergaster to habilis could take you back that 3 million years. Frankly, IMO, they were direct ancestors to MM. I used one million as an arbitrary figure to the disputed 3myo Habilis. My answer to jotten, probably should have been much higher and could have gone back to the 6 millions year figure where many feel vertebrates/primates first walked upright, or on hind legs. Of interest, according to Wikipidia, estimated human population 10k years ago was 5 million. On Ice ages, of the four majors 110k years ago was not one. Certainly the 12k year ago was much less and probably a cycle with in a cycle. Think -3 and -5 given compared to the big mama, 700m years ago and -10 to todays mean. Here again, much is disputed and I could find many stats giving completely different limits.

"Climate change - RELIABLE & HONEST REPORTING". In equating historical reporting to the current issue Climate Change or GW is relevant to the thread and the questions asked by the author. Very few sources offer opposing viewpoints to the agenda seemingly shown in editorials, comments or news stories used if they have an agenda, even when their audience may be divided, on the GW issue. On IPCC, not all (if not most), those listed as contributors to the recent report agree *in total* with the findings or pending catastrophic results for *no action*. In response to iNow, on "toward the positive". IMO; We are on track for an improved International Economic impact, which could be hurt by many of the suggested remedies for GW. Call it trickle down or an effort to influence, but many Nations in addition to China and China (a third of the worlds people) are direct examples of such advancement. In response to 1veedo, Grammar. I have heard this to many times to argue and have apologized many times, which I now do to you, even if a second time, at this forum. Mango; Evaporation, which causes moisture/cloud cover, is the result of the sun. CO2 or other so called MM or natural emissions prevent the sun rays from getting to the planets surface. This would mean less moisture, less rain and less cleaning of the atmosphere by falling Rain/Snow. Its this scenario which some feel will lead (as it has) to an Ice Age. Also a prime argument opposing GW as other than a cycle, in this case with-in a cycle. At least its the way I understand it....

iNow; Would you like a list of things, Science or Medical folks have said were going to prematurely kill humans and the eventual the next generations of S&M people revoked. Someplace, I read a study written around 1900, by a group of scientist saying man would never survive traveling in a car over 40 MPH. Most non MMGW-believers I know, say study SHOULD continue on GW, whether directed at Man Made or Natural Causes, but insist to alter current activity or be punished or to try and alter economical advancements is at best pre-mature. Business/Corporations are in business to make money. Much of going green is for now acceptable new concepts such as bio-degradable, cleaning waste water for agricultural use, aluminum studding and paper not made from trees (a little expensive) and many others. Except for aluminum & maybe batteries, *Recycling* is NOT cost effective, but many of us do it and all waste management companies have elaborate programs. Government will embrace GW for a variety of reason. Not only for the Taxes the idea offers, but for granting research money and the resulting business activity which can be created. S; W/O getting into battle over future problems, Carbon Credits are referenced in Kyoto and IMCC, although neither spelled out just how it will work (as a failure to comply punishment) but most do think in the end, non-producing Nations will gain over the producers. I look at this as redistributions of nation wealth.

lucaspa; In my loosely stated post to give an opinion on possible generations of human ancestry, I reviewed a google search on *Homo Erectus to Sapien* which most statistics were taken. Tried to infer there are many different views and tried to indicate the uncertainty of any opinion...which I will put much of yours into that category. I will hold to my potential limit of 50K, assuming HS have been around that million years. 88% of Amphibian Species are Frogs (some 5000 different), which known today some date back 250 million years and very much resemble todays Frogs. They are often referenced to show evolutions slow process in some cases. This according to Wikipedia... I am a little curious, since every time I post with regards to this issue, there are so many dead set on a particular pattern. For instance "100K years ago there were 50 pairs of HS". Disregard any possibility for evidence, why not 110K years ago, 57 pairs. For the record however, I am aware of the Mini Ice Age about that time, but doubt your figures. Think you get my point. As for mating habits; they differ in Humans today, only the puberty issue of importance in the past could be argued. So you don't respond with credentials, which have been hard earned I'm sure, your profile indicates a profession which required much Biology. I have only an interest in the field, no background and what there was, long since changed.

As science takes less fragments to simulate more what was, most of these answers to these questions change by the day...however; Primate remains have been found, back to near 55 Million years ago. Home Erectus predecessor to Homo Sapiens, remains have been found dating two million to 600k years ago. (There was a report of a 3 million years old find which I have not seen a follow up on). HE and HS, are thought by many to have existed simultaneous for a long time. The earliest HS was for a long time thought to be about 6 to 700k years ago, but a recent find indicates 1 million years. HS is considered where modern man evolved from. This would give you about 50 thousand generations to get where we are, however its possible many more are involved as these HS lived short lives and sex itself was not regulated. Compared to others primates we have had less chance to mutate, certainly in later years. I like to use Roaches which have been around a while, no doubt mutating to conditions and today are found in most the world, with extremes in there make up. However there are other species of complex life, as the Frog which have changed very little.

Mango; My hope is the United Nations will become an Organization, which can play a roll in World Affairs. However, as for the recent reports inferring GW is a man made event caused by industrialized nations is to far out of line with reality and obviously oriented to distribution of National Wealth, I would rather not argue their findings. I do find it interesting, your quoting IPCC while asking for independent thoughts over the WEB. NASA, has charge of the Antarctica Outpost, which has taken Ice Cores from what the SH should have been like going well back in time. Northern Poles have been explored nearly as far back in time, with Ocean core samples, geological finds and many other sources computed give a pretty clear picture of at least what things should have been like, back to 240 million years ago, the beginning of the Dino period or end of a rather large Ice Age. These figures for GH gases are fairly constant to what probably was before then and actual weather patterns can be simulated to a degree. If this is not a form to conclusive, I can only argue these findings do not show it inconclusive. Personally, I don't' oppose any research into GW, man made or not, however when that question is present to usual automatic reply is to alter mans activity or do nothing to upset the status quo and I'll side with letting the research go on, but leave the blame open. Weather conditions, primarily atmospheric moisture/clouds/rain-snow fall, are very important to short time changes. Most occur over the 70% of Earths surface, the oceans and we have very little historical statistics to go by. IMO, the pre 40's warm dry spells, the pre 80's cold spells and the current warming trend are more related to these conditions which I also feel are headed back to cooler weather patterns. The Magnetic Field shifts, may have value but we do know the Sun shifts every 11 years or so W/O major changes, that Mars had a last one, some time ago and know very little of our own.

What your asking for is a site, which agrees with your thinking. While I agree with your rather brief summation, the best way to learn the various viewpoints is read the extremes. While your at it, you might check out historical climate change, which involves cycles which the planet has endured with some evidence back millions of years. Additionally there are many who feel, solar activity is involved. I do question *references* since any view, pro/con, mans involvement are well documented and easily researched...

I really don't argue an atom, could be a Universe. I do suggest small as defined in current logic is far from reality. The dust speck differs in total atoms and these specks are general off something else. Not sure what mathematic formula has to do with hypothetical speculations of additional universe, but I am sure some one could compute the odds. On dimensional universe or for that matter anything in another dimension, my understanding is in co-existence to each other. That is we live in a dimension with ours and if something exist in another, we or they would never know. As for exotic theory, I sometimes will read for ideas, but have no desire to explore...

S; What if we are part, say of a dust particle in some super giant Universe, why would that dust particle we see or the one in that Giant universe (to us) be the end. Just imagine the time difference in such a scenario. If in burning a log, there were billions of civilizations in that log, then they would have lived billions of generations (their time) while just lighting that fire. Interesting thought; If there is a God (Not necessarily from our understanding) then why would this entity be different to the smaller/larger units with in the total...All things being inclusive. Maybe mis-taught as well, but those folks are long gone and I may not be remembering the actual lessons. Only the images and the derived comparisons, which I had... I am yet convinced, however in time the actual make of a an atom will be much more complex than know understood, which is already somewhat complex. I remember telling my Mom about bed bugs. Now were talking micro-ism's in the billions on every inch of the humans skin, many not common to others. What is really small, has a long way to go...IMO.

Don't recall saying it was correct...but it was accepted in the 40-50's....

Matt; Many years ago, when I attended school, we would see a diagram of what an atom should look like. The nucleus centered and electrons revolving around that center. We then would go to science class and see a diagram of our solar system, the Sun and all the planets revolving around that center. Later many of us figured size was relevant to perception. To explain this, if all we can see and all we know of whats seen by our telescopes was reduced and placed in a speck of dust, then everything would very much seem the same. Later we learned that micro-ism's, even bugs of sort, exist at each level of smallness our microscopes achieve. Adding to the thesis on Earths relativity to all things; An interesting point is our home, the Earth, is a very small place even in our Solar System. Of the total mass, which makes up this solar system 99.80 percent is the sun and the majority of the rest belongs to Jupiter. On the distance thing, yes and if you could travel 186,200 mile per second, it would take you 8 minutes to reach the sun, 100,000 years to cross our Galaxy a couple million years to reach Andromeda (our closest galaxy) and 14 plus Billion years just to reach what we now see as our *known universe*. From all we suspect, if you ever could get there, what we see, would have long been gone and regenerated into something else, maybe even more than once. We are truly a small place in a very large place and who will ever know what limits there are to largest or smallest.

The War Powers Act of 1973, actually took some power from the President, whom up until then under precedent had assumed additional powers not granted by the Constitution. It has been argued since as to whether a breach in the *Separations of Powers*. The Constitution is not very clear in itself. The Supreme Court has ruled the President under the Commander In Chief title, meaning *State of War or eminent threat* can act alone. However the Constitution does require advise and consent from Congress and for either funding or declaration of War. Opinion; Once an issue is determined of viable interest to National Concerns, I don't care for what reason, that determination must stand until the issue is either resolved or truly lost. In the Case of *Bush Doctrine for Afghanistan* and the over throw of Saddam or *Iraq Action*, all concerned parties and the general public in these cases were privy to much if not all the information, the President had or any other person, to make a decision. The decisions were properly made, accepted by Congress and according to the polls the American people. Coalition Nations, such as Spain, Australia, UK and others also had a choice and did participate in that Action. Every problem and accusation made since, has come from hesitation, political and changed minds of many parties. You cannot accomplish a goal under these condition when the goal of the original intent is continuously changed for reasons other than failure.

Reality; Light is a result, of some Electromagnetic energy, as it reflects off matter and then only to the degree our eye/brain or our equipment can understand as light. Darkness could be explained as the lack of matter. Emptiness/Something then so to speak... Opinion; Darkness is an entity (something) which we do not yet understand. We do understand that what we perceive as darkness is full of all sorts of EME, somehow could be the reason even energy is limited in velocity at C.

IMO; The first human explorations of Mars will be from short shuttle trips from an orbiting craft, suitable for longer term habitations. Much like the current Space Station now orbiting earth. Many years, rotating crews in much the same manner, back and forth from the Moon or even Earth. NASA, has a recent article fearing there little Rover's now on Mars may be coming to there end for the current 3-4 week dust storms. Hidden in the article was the fact, temperature have risen from there usual -60 to + 60 degree C and the rise should continue with increased retention on solar heating. Keeping to OPINION, I see no reason, in a hundred years or so where solar powered heat units placed around the surface of Mars, could produce heat sufficient enough to start some form of plant life, stimulating the storage of carbon and production of oxygen. As for Solar Wind Storms, the primary deflections coming from a planets Magnetic Fields, these play with the Ionosphere or outer layer of an atmosphere. During peak activity ours will reach 2000 degree, even with this protection from our MF. Mars still has some Ionosphere, with a atmosphere not currently suitable for humans (depth of which is no importance). The lack of a strong MF, is said to have created a patchy ionosphere, not a total collapse of all. Every thing I read tells me there lower atmosphere could be altered, recreating the upper. Remember you have a greater distance from the sun 50% over Earths distance.

It would be very difficult to alter the orbits of planets or any disruption of gravitational effects. The total mass of everything in our solar is 99.80% of what is called our sun. 1/5th of one percent makes up all the planets, asteroids, comets or debris. Mars is said to have quite a few caves or what appears to be caves. Logically this should be, as the planets mountains, valleys are higher lower than anything found on earth. Might add, the largest known volcano, is also found on Mars. Rather than going into gravity on the Mars; a 200 pound person on earth would weight 180# on Venus, 75# on Mars and 33# on the Moon. Earth is the most dense object in the solar system, but has nothing to do with gravity or what atmosphere can be held. As for long term problems, this might be the worst to solve. Your organs have evolved to your form and the gravity which they evolved in... Harmful radiation emitted by the sun or for that matter the good values are diminished somewhat by distance. Venus is 67 million miles from the sun, Earth/Moon about 93 Million Miles away and Mars about 142. Its said our current solar technology for power, would not work on Jupiter's Moon, which is about 484 Million miles away. IMO; I feel they could develop a light weight material to make domes, similar to a clear plastic. The major problem, until terraforming were near completion, would be from the dust storms which are massive and at very high speeds. This dust, no doubt has larger objects moving at 100m/p/h speeds and would tear up or damage most any dome construction.