Reaper

That doesn't really follow though. A net positive energy from a source doesn't necessarily guarantee that there will be less emissions, as the most recent studies I posted clearly show. And it isn't enough that the source has a positive net energy increase, but it must also reliable, in that it minimizes environmental impact and provides at a good enough price (and NOT just money is important when I'm talking about price). Your sources, and indeed as recent studies point out, did not take into account of this. And second, regarding sugar ethanol, corn ethanol is not quite as good as sugar ethanol, as ethanol from sugar has a larger energy ratio AND as a result doesn't take up as much land. But alas, we cannot grow sugar up in the North, and on top of that, to provide for hundreds of millions of people, even that will inevitably take up more land as the demand for ethanol goes up. More land means that you have to cut down forests or destroy other ecological areas that would otherwise help keep the carbon emissions under control. Do you mind providing a source for this, or data? Because all of mine show a positive correlation with ethanol subsidies and rising food prices. It is, however, not surprising that the costs would carry over to other food industries and the like (e.g. less feedstock for animals, etc.) True, but that doesn't appear to be the case right now. It's really not that simple though, because corn has a bunch of other uses too, and all of them compete with each other on the market. Corn is not only used as food for humans, but also as a sweetener, feedstock, and even non-food products such as packaging and cellulose. As a result, the demand for ethanol will inevitably use up more land. And, using up more land means that you may have to cut down forests, displace indigenous species (and put them at risk), more fertilizer runoff, more pesticides, etc. Or even, using up land that could otherwise be used for food. You can see this already taking a toll on the Amazon, for example.

Does the crackpot have to be currently active on this site (e.g. alanejackson), or can it be one from the past (e.g. Farsight, Zarkov, etc.)?

Oh goodie! *gets bingo chips*...........Bingo!

They do, but they often don't tell you the "whole" story, so to speak. Often when they say "concurrent study of *place math class here*", I find that they really mean that you have to already know it, and a bit more. So, I'm afraid to just dive in even if I already have the math background that they list (or if it's a concurrent study of it). Oh, and you can view the course descriptions for physics right here. Sorry for not including it in the OP: http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/Physics/Undergraduate/phcourses.html EDIT: I should mention that my university does things a little bit differently, in that the classes are term based, and not semester based. Meaning that you take classes each term, and there are 4 terms a year, 2 terms a semester (which means 4 finals a year, yikes!). While this setup means that you only have to worry about 3 classes at any one time (as opposed to 6 in a regular setting), the material is quite condensed, so I don't really have the time to sit down and truly learn (and not just memorize) the math they present in these classes (sure, some of them have math reviews when you first start the class, but that really is no substitute for actually taking a class at that particular math subject and becoming proficient at it).

I'm going to be in my sophomore year in college next year, and I'm still trying to figure out in what order I should take all of my classes in. Here's the thing, I'm a physics major, looking to specialize either in nuclear or statistical physics. And, as I found out the hard way, taking physics courses requires quite a bit of mathematical sophistication. Now, my particular university doesn't really tell you how much math you really need to take a particular course, i.e. many of these courses will tell you that your mathematical background doesn't have to be as high as it should be (e.g. I took an introductory modern physics class, it stated I only needed to know up to Calc 3, and then they went over concepts that required a background in differential equations to solve. Not that I wasn't able to adapt, but they really don't put as much emphasis on mathematical proficiency as they should...). But, yeah, what I'm wondering is just how much math should I take in order to do well in higher level physics courses. So far, my plan is that for my sophomore year, that I would take primarily math courses, all the way up to Advanced Calculus II. You can read all the course descriptions right here: http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/Math/Ugrad/macourses.html (Of course, not every single one up to that point, but certainly many of the higher level ones). Other ones include Linear Algebra I & II, discreet math, Statistics II, and all the other courses covering differential equations. I even put in a couple of computer programming classes. But yeah, I focusing heavily on math for this next year, and probably for some part of my next year. Is this a good idea or a good approach? If not, how exactly would you recommend I go about this?

Oh, everyone knows that the way to study is to have a big screen in front and a keyboard so that you can procrastinate (a video game controller and a T.V. works just as well ). Sometimes I really do wonder how I got this far.....

I suggest you read this: http://qntm.org/?coffee, and http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html . There isn't likely to be a bottomless well of energy with this.

I don't necessarily agree with that last part there. But, at the risk of having yet another thread locked related to this topic, I'm just going to leave it at that......for now .

Did you also know, Farsight, that Einstein was wrong about a few things!? What will we ever do....

EDIT: Alright, I just read through the old posts. It's the same old stuff. Nothing new. Oh well, I'll just go over the more recent posts: Thanks for confirming that . And thank you for confirming that you aren't going to actually adequately counter any future points I may make. And we have given a great deal many of rebuttals to his personal opinions. Yet, he still insists that the climate models are still unreliable and pushing that view all over the place. Of course, why take my word for it, this and other debates are all over this site. Read the above. Then stay out of my way. If you aren't actually going to contribute to the discussion, I suggest you keep your big mouth shut and post elsewhere. --------------------------------------------- And of course they are most likely to be wrong. Do you mind going over the specific details over how you came to your conclusions? You know, show us the math, methodology, etc? This way we can see whether or not they are legitimate. Oh my, you quote someone who has no expertise in climate science. And with no way to verify this claim. I wonder why that is..... As I said before, if you want your claims to be taken more seriously, you are going to have to cite data from climate scientists. So far you have failed... Which has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion. I dare say, this is a very desperate appeal, to say the least. Well, actually, there is reasonable amount of certainty with climate predictions. I could show you the specifics, yet again, but why bother? You certainly don't seem interested in them. Alright SkepticLance, you've talked the talk, now its time for you to walk the walk. Either debate properly, or give up, or prepare to be torn to shreds. Enough of this; I'm willing to take you seriously, but only if you prove yourself.

Oh good grief, you haven't even seen what I was going to say yet and already you make rash judgments. First of all, he hasn't been backing them up with anything resembling evidence, logic, or reason. Hell, the figures he posted and "calculated" are made up from thin air, and he doesn't seem like he even knows how interpret data. He has no knowledge of even the fundamental basics of climate science. And he's done this several times before, and has been debunked several times before. He's merely covering old ground again. You appear not to be familiar with our history: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31472 http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30362 http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=99&order=desc&page=3 Just to name a few threads. The argument is getting old, and quite frankly this whole issue has been dealt with long ago. All we are doing now is debating over how long it will take for him to either STFU or admit he's wrong, or both.

Gee, a simple hello would have been nice. I should be fortunate that you stand alone in your view . Of whom you constantly ignore or hand wave away, so what difference does it make? Oh please! I decide to nuke one thread and you get all whiny about it.... You could have said something like: "Reaper, you are totally correct, and I, SkepticLance, am wrong. There is no way I could possibly argue or counter against yours and iNow's all powerful arguments because all the evidence is in your favor". Of course, this certainly wouldn't win back any respect anytime soon, given our long debating history, but it would go a long way. Besides which, the reason you are reluctant is because you know you don't stand a chance. Well, whether you like it or not, here I am and it's time to finish what we started. Now then, lets see if you changed your tactics at all or came up with something original....

I do too.

Swansont, how many traits in a row must you see in one post before you win a game of crackpot bingo?

Maybe a Dyson Sphere? I hope? But, it's probably something to do with dark matter, maybe they actually have a visual of it...

Not really: http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13289-biofuels-emissions-may-be-worse-than-petrol.html http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/03/05/want-to-increase-your-greenhouse-gas-emissions-use-biofuels/ http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5867/1238 And here's a quote:

Well, he also does try to disprove God in the book too, and states that it is possible to use science to that end. I'm quite fond of his Ultimate Boeing 747 argument in particular. But, to the OP, if you do want a book that presents much stronger scientific arguments against God's existence, try also reading God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger. There is no peer-reviewed scientific paper that disprove the existence of a deity, but there certainly is a crap-load of evidence that suggest that belief in a deity (or the supernatural in general) is probably due to the peculiarities of human cognition and the human brain rather than to any "effects" that a supposed deity might have. Which, of course, makes the notion of the actual existence of a god(s), spirits, soul, etc., very questionable.

Oh man, my finals were a total bitch to deal with and study for! Although, I did extremely well on most of them; I got a 97% on my statistics final for example.

Yes, most of the stars that we see, even on a clear night, are in our own galaxy. You can see another galaxy with the naked eye though, a galaxy known as M 31 (i.e. Andromeda). Correct me if I'm wrong, but Andromeda is the only galaxy visible to the naked eye.

Ah yes, I see you are back to your old tricks again SkepticLance. No physical evidence, no data, constant lack of understanding, hand waving, strawmans, et cetera... One would think that after constant criticism by virtually everyone on this site, everyone ranging from admins to physicists to climatologists to college students, and hey, even the general informed layperson, and for over a year, that you would finally learn that you are just plain wrong. But then, you continue to amaze and scare me. Anyways, I don't have the time right now to look over and counter all of your specific claims at this minute, as it is late at night at my part of the world. But I'll get to debunking your B.S. yet again as soon as possible, rest assured. Quoted for emphasis. SkepticLance, I do say that you are very clearly outmatched here.

I guess it won't be long till this thread ends up in the trash can .

My main weakness was basically my work habits and the tendency to procrastinate in general. Needless to say, this is something I've gotten much better at avoiding now. Another weakness of mine, and this happens in math, is carelessness. Sometimes I will make careless mistakes, and they often have adverse effects on my grade. I'm still working on getting rid of this one...

Hey guys, miss me much? I'm back after over a month! I have to say, I miss scienceforums.net already. Had to take a break from this and keep up with my studies at school and finish the year. Needless to say, my summer vacation has started, so I'll be around more often, and I'll certainly be posting more too. I have to say, not much has changed on this forum (especially all the global warming related threads going around here...). As always, I will be there to clamp down on pseudoscience and other sorts of nonsense . After this year, I now feel so much more knowledgeable and have so much more confidence in life in general .

Yeah, I'm bored and it's just another one of those threads...... Anyways, if you ruled the world, what would you do? Or rather, what do you wish would happen, as opposed to what would probably happen.... I could say that if I ruled the world, there would be world peace, no poverty, no pollution, etc.... but, meh, I know that's a bunch of baloney. I will be honest, if I ruled the world I would probably establish a military dictatorship.

Anybody here know how to compute pi factorial? Pi isn't an integer, or a rational number, so I'm at a loss at how to do it....