Reaper

Here's an update: Now, while I know this is primarily about global warming, I think it is also appropriate to extend it to resource depletion too, as some people do have objections to that as well. If anyone, perhaps someone much more knowledgeable than myself on these issues, would like to post a rebuttal here they can, otherwise, you can review my latest comment (i.e. Post 14) in the other thread. UPDATE: And here's another member's comment in response to the above:

What types of threads, exactly, qualify for going in there? How exactly does a thread end up going in there, and do you get infraction if it happens to be one of our own? Not that I will try to create such a thread, but I'm just curious....

Here's my first post at SFN: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=347651#post347651 Thought I put that there before it disappears forever, because after a while you can't go back to your first post. Mine was just a lame introduction one.....

You know, it would actually be interesting to see where they are denying building the wind turbines, BEFORE everyone starts screaming "conspiracy" here. I haven't seen any references or links yet, so I am quite a bit skeptical about this alarmist attitude going on around here, especially since there are branches in the military that actually do provide funding for alternative energy sources, or other so-called "green" technology. It's really not that easy though. In order to detect anything, the radio waves have to come back to the source. Otherwise you are pretty much running around in the dark.

Note that the article begins with the words "college dropout".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3292050.ece What do you guys make of this? Oh, and here's a jpeg image that shows all the various epoches from the distant past to today: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00276/an385_276938a.jpg

I got a measly 22.

It seems to me that this person is probably some guy who seriously needs to get laid. Probably lives in his parent's basement. ====================== And I wouldn't worry too much about the fate of human males, or human females. In about ~10 million years it is predicted that the Y-chromosome will be nothing but junk DNA. Of course, other species have long since used other chromosomes or environmental factors for determining sex.

I much rather prefer the wormhole method. Just get a couple of rockets, attach a wormhole, and launch one of them to the Tau Ceti system and back at relativistic speeds....

Well, I take it that this thread has now become a haven for people with super inflated egos. Of course, it is much easier to be a bullshitter online than it is in real life . You know, it would be nice to see who voted for what.... can it be changed to reveal the shameless ones among us?

I just saw them, and if human scientists were still around, I think the planetary inhabitants would be classified as "cockroaches". It's nothing but steel bars, concrete slabs, plastic, radioactive waste, roaches, Styrofoam, and Twinkies in the 27th century....

--> http://qntm.org/?camtime So, do you think we should ban time travel?

Yikes!

No, not quite. This guy doesn't quite make it there. I don't think anybody can match the other guy in sheer stupidity. Sorry seven8s, I can't see a single thing you are saying! You are going to have to speak up .

1. See #2 2. Who else? There are already plenty of semen donors in this day and age, I'm sure there will be plenty in the future, and certainly when they actually do attempt to colonize interstellar space. 3. Use robots or some sort of sophisticated A.I. program to raise the first generation/initial colonists. Alternatively, you don't have to actually use up all the embryos when they arrive on the planet/colony. As for infrastructure, you can probably use von-Neumann probes to go to the planets and build it before they arrive, as that would make the colonization process a bit easier and safer....

I got a high score of 8000!

There are problems with the Kardashev scale though, as it makes too many assumptions about the nature of extraterrestrial civilizations or space-faring species, along with the fact that its based on one data point (our own Earth). I would suggest reading Evolving the Alien by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart, as they cover the problems with it in that book.

Oh my . I suggest you take a look at this site over here before you go off spreading that garbage around . It's not so much that we don't have the technical capability but rather whether or not we can find worlds and bodies out there that can be suitable for permanent human habitation. In our own solar system the only bodies for which we are actually actively planning on settling on are the moon, Mars, and some near-Earth asteroids. Titan is also being considered for possible human colonization (if not actually live there, then certainly establish some sort of base so that we could exploit it's resources). How we are going to do this, well, that's a problem for my current generation to solve.... as far as I know some predict that we will be able to do it as early as 2030 to as late as 2200. ================== As for interstellar colonization, I don't know when we will actually do that. However, there have been several ideas proposed as to how they could do this, ranging from using generation ships to "seeding" other planets to just relying on comets and asteroids across the galaxy. Another idea I recently stumbled on is to freeze human embyos and ship them off to other worlds, so that they could be fertilized on site...

Has anyone noticed that seven8s hasn't actually talked about science in his short time on this site in general? Look at his profile. Now, about conservapedia...... (e.g. Let's get back on topic so that this thread isn't locked. Really? I honestly didn't think there was any bias at all in wikipedia (well, as much as possible...). The one great thing about wikipedia is that the fact that anyone can edit it almost guarantees that it won't be biased in any significant way (though there are plenty of people who wll try no doubt). When I first stumbled into conservapedia, it was so biased and very stereotypical, that I thought it probably was a joke. But it wasn't, which disturbes me a little because some of these people really do believe all the crap they write on the site. The fact that it is taken so seriously over there is what makes it so funny and hysterical

As much as i agree with you, you should know that something like that is NEVER going to happen . Your better off trying to teach a dog how to speak Spanish....

There's an old saying: Ignorance is bliss. Those who know more tend to have less reasons for being optimistic.

90 nukes?! You would need more like 500 or so, and each about ~15 megaton yields, to really do serious damage. While the use of tactical nukes may not actually destroy large cities, their use could easily prompt nations and armies to use their more deadly arsenals. War games have been played that revolved the around the possible use of tactical nukes and they found it very difficult to refrain from actually resorting to using their 20 megaton warheads, no matter which side you are on.

Hey! Has anyone here ever heard of a site called Conservapedia? Basically, its a wiki that is intended to be an encyclopedia, and claims to portray things from the conservative side of the political spectrum. Just discovered it 2 days ago. You can view it right here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page The site is so hysterical, and biased. But, I am having a hard time establishing whether or not it is only a parody or if it does indeed try to be a legitimate encyclopedia (I'm sure that some people do actually take it seriously...) Here's what uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia, has to say about it: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia

Hey! This thread still lives on....

What do you guys make of neurodiversity --> http://neurodiversity.com/main.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity The wiki site gives a general discussion of it. Basically, in a nutshell, it is the notion that just as you can find slight physical differences in other people (e.g. different sizes, shapes, etc.), people are also born with differences in brain structure and the personality types inherent in them. Typically, most people who are mildly autistic, or have some related "disorders", usually embrace this idea. The general idea is that many people who are diagnosed with this and other problems are so because of societal problems than any genuine brain disorder. There has been many cases in history when psychiatry and psychology has been abused in order to suppress and make people conform to societal norms (e.g. Hysteria, Homosexuality, etc.), so the idea isn't that quite far fetched. ====================== While I do see this applicable for some people (myself included), there are other claims I don't necessarily agree with (e.g. high functioning autism can still be quite problematic if not handled properly). But I do agree with the fact that people who are, or are classified as having some sort of disorder tend to be discriminated against in all levels of society. I've for example have run into a fair share of people who genuinely believed that all autistics are "retards", or "crippled". Not just autistics, but people who have, say, dyslexia, ADHD, etc; People who could function normally given patience (sometimes a great deal is necessary, I know from personal experience) or some minor interventions. And never mind what I thought of those who are supporters of the MMR conspiracy.... What's your take on it?