Phi for All

Tolmosoff, you demonstrate an appalling lack of understanding of evolutionary timescales. I would suggest you study evolution a bit more before calling it a myth, and certainly before you go calling Darwin "out of his mind". The first thing you'll learn is that we're way past Darwin's early work on the theory. That's science for you.

jsaldea12 has continued to post the same pet theory after having it debunked, against the requests of Staff, and so has been permanently banned due to repeated inconsistencies with the purpose of this forum.

It was a comment on your earlier comment. I would say either both are really relevant, or both aren't. Since I was commenting on what Severian had said about government in general, I didn't feel it necessary to tie it to Bush. You brought up a point I didn't agree with and I wanted to mention my interpretation of what Severian said. I was trying to point out that science requires a creative spark in order to come up with the ideas that will later become theories, and creativity is difficult to measure in terms of productivity. That's all, iNow. It really isn't necessary to call my comments non-sequitor just because I'm disagreeing with you about Severian's motives. I think you're missing the fact that my comment was based on something you yourself brought up. It was my take on what Severian meant, since I don't think Severian really intended to make you look silly. I think government in general does stifle science, and I also think, from what I've read and been told, that the Bush administration did more than the usual amount of stifling. Governments fund research with certain objectives and parameters in mind, and I would imagine those parameters often interfere with true scientific pursuits.

I just saw it as a comment on how a scientist's creative genius is often difficult to quantify by governmental productivity standards.

Top notch.

You can check used bike listings online and add "mpg" to the search: kawasaki eliminator bn125-a5 - 6,155 miles in excellent condition. approximately 85 mpg!

Fair enough. My point was basically that it's not good to throw off the mixture in the air we breathe. If more water vapor is present in the air due to global warming (since the total amount of water itself doesn't change), then it makes sense to do what we can about global warming. Again, I'd like to remind you that the argument is not for plants themselves, but for the air we humans breathe and the crops we grow for food. Plants may thrive in a more CO2 rich environment (albeit with less of the nutrients for use as food), but I'm more concerned about me. As swansont noted, the earth will survive just fine, it's the humans we're concerned with here. Does it need to get serious to be a concern? Considering that some of the early onset symptoms are reduced neural activity and increased blood pressure, isn't even a bit more unacceptable? Can you trust even your own judgment in this if your brain might not be running at full capacity due to prolonged exposure to higher than normal CO2 levels? And if it's unacceptable now, isn't now the time to do what we can to keep it from getting worse? From the article, "The first compilation, to my knowledge, of published data supports the claim and shows an overall decline of the (essential elements):C ratio. Therefore, high [CO2] could intensify the already acute problem of micronutrient malnutrition." So using science, this tells me that the best data we have at the present suggests the theory is sound, subject to further tests and review, of course. Right now the theory is a nail on a board rather than a fancy polished hook, but it'll hold my hat for now. You were arguing that the only factor in alternative energy sources "being foisted on the country" were those used in AGW mitigation, and then you started using examples of bad small cars. My argument against that is that these alternatives provide more than just AGW mitigation, and that they are in the early stages of development considering how they've been suppressed for the last 30 years through lobbying by the oil industry. Can you please point out the Strawman? I don't think there is one, my friend.

CO2 *is* being increased in the air we breathe and methods of curbing the human causes are available to us. Water *is not* being increased in the air we breathe, unless you have evidence to the contrary, so bringing it up here is a Red Herring logical fallacy known as Strawman, and is a poor argument. Denying them CO2 would kill them, and was not part of my argument. *Increased* CO2 levels are what reduces the micronutrients, and since we can't stop anything other than our own additions to the pollutant levels, this is what we should concentrate on, what the AGW solutions will help fix along with any actual AGW trends. I mention it because it shows that the solutions are not just throwing our money away on something that may or may not be true. We *know* that excess CO2 is harmful to us. How are my comments about the oil lobby Strawmanning with regards to your comments about automobile failures? I fail to see your reasoning here.

Just because there are traces of CO2 in the air we breathe and that much of it is produced naturally, it doesn't mean an increased level of CO2 isn't a pollutant. Increased CO2 can lead to Hypercapnia in humans, and has been shown to reduce micronutrients in our crop foods. Just because CO2 is emitted from natural sources like volcanoes adn other organisms, it doesn't mean an excess of it isn't a pollutant in the human environment. Strawmen, all. Again, lobbying by the fossil fuel industries have suppressed normal market development of alternatives. We're 30 years behind where we should be due to complacency, political maneuvering and spin/scare tactics. It's easy to point to the failures and claim they represent the alternatives; there were a lot of failures and problems when oil's infrastructure was being developed. It's part of the process and sustainable energy has had to fight an entrenched oil and gas lobby that has suppressed technology and advancement at every turn.

I could agree if the changes being suggested gave no benefits other than mitigating AGW effects, but I think moving immediately to more sustainable energy sources and pollution reduction makes sense even if our AGW fears are out of proportion, even though the evidence suggests they are not. I'm not heavily swayed by the arguments about "throwing trillions of dollars away" when many of the changes proposed will mean more responsible use of resources no matter what happens to the global climate. I support the immediate implementation because many of the changes should have taken place 30 years ago but were suppressed by lobbyists and never had their fair chance at shifting market stances.

My bad, I'm 60 miles *east* of the divide. Altitude must have gotten to me, sorry.

I'll second that. If Cap'n doesn't respond here within a couple of days, I'll post a thread in the Mods forum.

I'm in Colorado, about 60 miles west of the continental divide, which puts me at the western edge of the eastern half of North America, hydrologically speaking. Ouch. Your father's family got torn too?! You all must live near a continental shear zone.

Thank you, Cap'n Refsmmat, Administrator for the Administering Administration.

I would join some discussions and get a few posts to your credit first, otherwise the anti-spam software might flag you and you don't want that. We do appreciate your asking first. Having a link to your blog in your signature is not against the rules, but it can signal that you're only here to draw traffic elsewhere. We welcome you to SFN and hope you stay and contribute for a long time.

Welcome back, our bluebird of the Apocalypse! The monkeys stand ready to whisk on your command. We all figured you knew too much and the chances of you getting whacked by MI6 before the polls closed were pretty high.

A bigger human has a better chance of growing a muscular prehensile tail to fire more guns. The man who can uncover his ass to cover his ass would be more successful.

You joined a science forum to ask *this* as your first question?! I'm taking bets that your interests are going to lie more in the field of marketing than in training and development.

That's hilarious! Did Fleming know the commercial wasn't for real? In the US, we use celebrities a lot to push products. I think it's the idea that a familiar face is more trustworthy, rather than the celebrity being knowledgeable about the product.

Source? Is this a conspiracy concept, something that has actual testimony or evidence, or did you pick it up via tinfoil airwaves?

Yeah, I'm tired of this myself. We get it. Thread closed.

Why is this 5 year old thread being resurrected?

You should only respond to the posts that are written, not the voices in your head. Then we understand what you're talking about.

I don't like to elevate celebrities to "hero" status personally unless they are good role models for children, which I don't think Jackson was. I excused much of his early eccentricities until the child sexual abuse charges came out in the early 90s. I stopped listening to his music then, but I can't tell you how many times I listened/danced to his early songs. They were really enjoyable. He was a musical genius for his genre. I always thought his life would have been completely different if he hadn't had his nose broken and badly repaired in the late 70s. I think this made him fascinated with plastic surgery, and the idea of looking completely different. This escapism seemed to be at the root of his purchase of Neverland, which isolated him further from reality. If it turns out he's really dead, I'll mourn the early Michael. I'm glad I Got To Be There.

Click on the word "ballooning" in post #2. GDG was kind enough to hyperlink to a Wikipedia description.