Now here's a debate I would LOVE to see

[BSmack]

mvscal vs Stephen Hawking on global warming.

Asked about the environment, Hawking, who suffers from a degenerative disease and speaks through a computerized voice synthesizer, said he was "very worried about global warming." He said he was afraid that Earth "might end up like Venus, at 250 degrees centigrade and raining sulfuric acid."

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006 ... 622829.htm

I'm pretty sure mv's response would involve calling him a name.

[mothster]

mvscal vs Stephen Hawking on global warming.

Asked about the environment, Hawking, who suffers from a degenerative disease and speaks through a computerized voice synthesizer, said he was "very worried about global warming." He said he was afraid that Earth "might end up like Venus, at 250 degrees centigrade and raining sulfuric acid."

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006 ... 622829.htm

I'm pretty sure mv's response would involve calling him a name.

obviously anyone who is wheelchair-stricken and has the spine of a pretzel doesn't know wtf he is talking about

[Goober McTuber]

Mr. Hawking should stick to what he knows
---I think it is physics.

And if we apply that standard to you, you will be restricted to posting about cheap beer and how great life was in the 50's.

[Bizzarofelice]

obviously anyone who is wheelchair-stricken and has the spine of a pretzel doesn't know wtf he is talking about

Call him?

[Risa]

Hi, Bsmack. Do you also have the Hawkins quote about how Earth's days are numbered, and the only hope for Man is the moon or Mars? which was followed up a day or two later by a scientist remarking that 'there's plenty of water' on Mars (!) and some atmosphere, so we could probably do it under domes?

I think Hawkins knows something.

Since there's nothing I can do about it, and would end up one of the people destroyed in whatever mega-catastrophe comes from the sky or sea or earth or man's hand, reckon i'll just enjoy the tribulation until it kills me, too.


Whatever happened to that troll, anyway? him and chris reeves used to have some epic fights.

[The Doktor]

In my previous life, I was an Iceman. The Ice Age was a rather cold time in history, so I found life to be quite a struggle. Thankfully, Global Warming came and saved the day for us.

We got good tans and had the very finest of foods.

[Wolfman]

I'm still trying to figure out where this
sulfuric acid rain is going to come from.

BTW--whatever happened to "acid rain" ??
I remember when it was the topic de jour
of the enviro-doomsday folks !!

And notice how most these days just make
a reference to "climate change" ??
Makes it easy to cover both warming and
cooling !!
How convenient !

now to a reality that Hawking could make:
Eventually the sun will end up consuming
this planet. Now that does make it our destiny
to be the vanguard of DNA and go out into the
galaxy !

[Mikey]

I'm still trying to figure out where this
sulfuric acid rain is going to come from.

BTW--whatever happened to "acid rain" ??
I remember when it was the topic de jour
of the enviro-doomsday folks !!

Acid rain is a result, to a large degree, of emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), mostly from coal burning power plants. It's still a problem, but due to (da horrah!!!!) tighter emissions regulations it's not as much of a problem as it was.

Instead of showing your ignorance by babbling on about stuff you know nothing about, maybe you should try exercising your brain cells for a few minutes and read something. You might actually still be able to learn.

http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/index.html

[ElvisMonster]

Elvis Monster should stick to what he knows.

:eyerub:

Yep. It's still there.

[War Wagon]

...obviously anyone who is wheelchair-stricken and has the spine of a pretzel doesn't know wtf he is talking about

:rubseyestwice:

Yep. That's still there, too.

[Wolfman]

("rubbing my eyes")
fixed ??

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I'm still trying to figure out where this
sulfuric acid rain is going to come from.

BTW--whatever happened to "acid rain" ??
I remember when it was the topic de jour
of the enviro-doomsday folks !!

Acid rain is a result, to a large degree, of emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), mostly from coal burning power plants. It's still a problem, but due to (da horrah!!!!) tighter emissions regulations it's not as much of a problem as it was.

Yeppers.

I have to cover acid rain in the "Humans Impact on Ecosystems" (aka "Bad Humans, Bad!") section of the biology curriculum, and what Mikey says is pretty much about all I mention. Growing up in the Hudson Valley in the 70's, I was taught about how the sulfur emissions from the midwest caused the acid rain that rendered many Adirondack lakes pretty lifeless. Recognizing the problem and addressing it helped bring the lakes back.

I also got to learn about biological magnification and how GE's dumping of PCB's in the Hudson River was the reason we couldn't eat the fish we caught from the Catskill Creek (a tributary of the Hudson near my childhood home). Once again, once the problem was recognized, steps were taken to get rid of the PCB's and things improved.

You don't have to be a granola-eating, tree-hugging, patchouli-doused, Deadhead hippy freak to agree that humans pretty much crapped on nature big time for a long time. I mean the Cuyahoga River was actually on freaking fire in '69. That's just damned wrong....

[Rootbeer]

Hawking and his fellow alarmists should be the first to colonize Mars. Go build your perfect world, cripple. Make sure to take enough sympathizers to change your diapers.

[Goober McTuber]

I think Hawkins knows something.

Maybe he could put a spell on you.

[BSmack]

Mr. Hawking should stick to what he knows
---I think it is physics.

And if we apply that standard to you, you will be restricted to posting about cheap beer and how great life was in the 50's.

And don't forget how the Syracuse Nationals shoudl have been the Green Bay Packers of the NBA. He still hates Bob Cousey you know?

[Terry in Crapchester]

...obviously anyone who is wheelchair-stricken and has the spine of a pretzel doesn't know wtf he is talking about

:rubseyestwice:

Yep. That's still there, too.

Throw a "Sincerely, mvscal" on the end of it and it makes sense.

[poptart]

Now here's a debate I would LOVE to see: mvscal vs Stephen Hawking on global warming.

Myself, I'd prefer to see bradhusker v. Al Gore.

And in a pinch, The Doktor matching wits with Victoria Jackson might entertain.

[PSUFAN]

What better debate scenario exists than the pillow talk of James Carville and Mary Matalin?

[indyfrisco]

obviously anyone who is wheelchair-stricken and has the spine of a pretzel doesn't know wtf he is talking about

RTS resets are always fresh.

[BSmack]

...he was afraid that Earth "might end up like Venus, at 250 degrees centigrade and raining sulfuric acid."

Yeah.....right. He should probably stick to theoretical physics. At least with an obscure, esoteric subject like that he can more easily fake it.

That is a scenario that will never happen on this planet under any circumstances. If it were possible, it already would have happened millions of years ago. The so-called "Greenhouse Effect" is not the only or even the primary driver of climate change. There are feedback loops that have yet to be understood or even indentified that prevent the earth from runaway warming or runaway ice ages.

Sorry, I think I'll take the word of the guy who sits in Isaac Newton's Chair over that of some self professed Internet "expert" on this one.

For starters, you postulate something that cannot be proven when you say that "is a scenario that will never happen on this planet under any circumstances". If you're going to be that careless formulating your argument, how is anyone supposed to take you seriously?

[Tom In VA]

obviously anyone who is wheelchair-stricken and has the spine of a pretzel doesn't know wtf he is talking about

RTS resets are always fresh.

Sincerely,
2002

[BSmack]

obviously anyone who is wheelchair-stricken and has the spine of a pretzel doesn't know wtf he is talking about

RTS resets are always fresh.

Sincerely,
2002

2002 was a great year for percedan.

sin

RTS

[BSmack]

postulate something that cannot be proven

Like this?

"...might end up like Venus, at 250 degrees centigrade and raining sulfuric acid."

If you're going to be that careless formulating your argument, how is anyone supposed to take you seriously?

Try again.

It is simple logic dumbfuck. You cannot, no matter how hard you try, prove a negative.

[poptart]

Is Venus the fat one or the ugly one ... ?

At any rate, I don't know if she a squirter, but I'd postulate she drips something similar to sulferic acid.

[Mikey]

postulate something that cannot be proven

Like this?

"...might end up like Venus, at 250 degrees centigrade and raining sulfuric acid."

If you're going to be that careless formulating your argument, how is anyone supposed to take you seriously?

Try again.

It is simple logic dumbfuck. You cannot, no matter how hard you try, prove a negative.

Nothing to prove here.

It's a simple matter of, if it hasn't happened before it will never happen in the future.

One of the first principles of physical science.

[BSmack]

Nothing to prove here. It's a simple matter of, if it hasn't happened before it will never happen in the future.

One of the first principles of physical science.

A simple look through the telescope shows that HAS happened. Ergo, for mv to say it never can happen again is foolish at best.

[BSmack]

Nothing to prove here. It's a simple matter of, if it hasn't happened before it will never happen in the future.

One of the first principles of physical science.

A simple look through the telescope shows that HAS happened. Ergo, for mv to say it never can happen again is foolish at best.

Earth isn't Venus, dumbfuck. Venus has no magnetic field. It is literally baked by the sun.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-54179

If that isn't enough, Venus' atmosphere is 96% CO2. Ours is .03% CO2.

And we all know that it is completely impossible to demagnetize something.

[BSmack]

Yes, of course. SUVs are now going to demagnetize the Earth as well as emit CO2. Let me guess...you blame Bush.

Needless to say, you are a complete dumbfuck.

Let me know when you decide to speak in coherent sentences. OK?

[Tom In VA]

[BSmack]

Go ahead and postulate a scenario that will "demagnetize" the earth.

Sorry Charlie, that's your fucking problem. You were the one who stated that it is impossible for the Earth to ever overheat in the same way that Venus did.

[Uncle Fester]

Nothing to prove here.

It's a simple matter of, if it hasn't happened before it will never happen in the future.

One of the first principles of physical science.

Sin,

Chernobyl?

[Eaglebauer]

Science is not mv's bag.

[BSmack]

That is absolutely true. There two entirely different sets of circumstances at work. The conditions on Venus do not and never will apply on Earth.

Again, you demonstrate you are incapable of formulating a logical argument.

To say that those conditions will "never" apply, while it sounds nice enough, is logically indefensible. The conditions on this planet have fluctuated wildly in the past 5 billion years. To postulate an absolute limit to those fluctuations is insane.

BTW: In no way did Hawking say that humans would definitely trigger such an event.

And it most definitely is "your fucking problem" to demonstrate how that apple will become this orange.

I'll leave the lights on.

That's good, because you would be eminently more qualified to run a Motel 6 than to engage in anything requiring the simplest degree of logic. Frame something in a positive manner and we might have something to talk about.

Again, I think I'll roll with MC Hawking on this one. And if you don't get that joke, it's because you just aren't that fly.

[BSmack]

The conditions on this planet have fluctuated wildly in the past 5 billion years.

And in all of those 5 billion years worth of wild fluctuations how many of them have resulted in runaway greenhouse or ice age effects?

To postulate an absolute limit to those fluctuations is insane.

To postulate that there are feedback mechanisms which moderate those flucuations is "insane"?

Ah, so now you're switching back to the fail safe argument. Keep flopping flounder.

[Risa]

Go ahead and postulate a scenario that will "demagnetize" the earth.

Serious question: how close is earth to having the magnetic poles flipped?

that actually has happened before (to bring up something Mikey says, above), hasn't it? how long does it take for something like that to occur, though?


Also, just because we haven't seen it happened, doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. The universe is huge, it's old, and it's been recycled who knows how many times. I say (again), if Stephen Hawkins says there's the possibility, then Stephen Hawkins knows something. BSmack is right. He's not an idiot. He's able to see shit -- he's the ape bringing down the sabretooth with a tool while the rest of us peons flee to the caves at the beginning of 2001. He's the ape with a straw and a termite hill getting fat while the rest of us starve and don't know that we starve. He's Tesla and Edison's Assistant.

He's just saying we gotta be more careful and more respectful of our Mother. He also said Man was in danger, which is a different emphasis from the planet. The planet will still be here, but what happens to man?

[smackaholic]

...he was afraid that Earth "might end up like Venus, at 250 degrees centigrade and raining sulfuric acid."

Yeah.....right. He should probably stick to theoretical physics. At least with an obscure, esoteric subject like that he can more easily fake it.

That is a scenario that will never happen on this planet under any circumstances. If it were possible, it already would have happened millions of years ago. The so-called "Greenhouse Effect" is not the only or even the primary driver of climate change. There are feedback loops that have yet to be understood or even indentified that prevent the earth from runaway warming or runaway ice ages.

what he said.

The earf apparently has some sort of built in regulating system which keeps our climate within an extremely narrow temperature range needed to maintain life. The fact that "scientists" are getting their panties in a wad over a half degree variation shows just how damn well this works.

Could we fukk it up if we tried? Maybe. I guess we could purposely knock down ever fukking tree possible and spray everything with round up so nothing grows back. We might eventually destroy enough of the CO2 eating vegetation to get ourselves in trouble, but, the fact is, we don't do that. Believe it or not, we actually grow shit back after we chop it down.

[Risa]

Is Venus the fat one or the ugly one ... ?

she's the one who has more sense than to pull this. serena lost her mind.

http://www.perezhilton.com/topics/uploa ... G_1563.jpg

[socal]

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

U.S. Panel Backs Data on Global Warming

Growing Washington acceptance of climate change is seen in the top science body's finding.
By Thomas H. Maugh II and Karen Kaplan
Times Staff Writers

June 23, 2006

After a comprehensive review of climate change data, the nation's preeminent scientific body found that average temperatures on Earth had risen by about 1 degree over the last century, a development that "is unprecedented for the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

The report from the National Research Council also concluded that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming."

Coupled with a report last month from the Bush administration's Climate Change Science Program that found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system," the new study from the council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, signals a growing acceptance in Washington of widely held scientific views on the causes of global warming.

The council's review focused on the controversial "hockey stick" graph, which shows Earth's temperature remaining stable for 900 years then suddenly arching upward in the last century. The curve resembles a hockey stick laid on its side.

The panel dismissed critics' charges that fraud and statistical error were responsible for the graph's sharp upward swing, noting that many studies had confirmed its essential conclusions in the eight years since it was first published in the journal Nature.

"There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change … or any doubts about whether any paper on the temperature records was legitimate scientific work," said House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), who requested the study in November.

The finding was a rebuke to global warming skeptics and some conservative politicians who have attacked the hockey stick as the work of overzealous scientists determined to shame the government into imposing environmental regulations on big business.

Geophysicist Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University, lead author of the study that debuted the graph, said it was time "to put this sometimes silly debate behind us and move forward, to do what we need to do to decrease the remaining uncertainties."

Though scientists have cited various factors as evidence of global warming — including the melting of polar ice caps and measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide — the hockey stick encapsulated the issue in an instantly recognizable way.

"It's a pretty profound, easy-to-understand graph," said Roger A. Pielke Jr., director of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. "Visually, it's very compelling."

The chart drew little attention until it was highlighted in a 2001 report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

After that, "the hockey stick was everywhere," Pielke said.

It also became an easy target.

"If you are someone who's interested in critiquing climate science," he said, "the hockey stick would be a lightning rod."

One prominent attack came from the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), who last year launched an investigation of Mann and his colleagues. Barton demanded information about their data and funding sources — an effort widely viewed as an attempt to intimidate the scientists.

Barton's committee has launched an inquiry into the statistical validity of the hockey stick. Larry Neal, the committee's deputy staff director, criticized the National Research Council panel Thursday for having only one statistician among its 12 members.

The crux of the dispute is that thermometers have been used for only 150 years. To determine temperatures before that, scientists rely on indirect measurements, or proxies, such as tree ring data, cores from boreholes in ice, glacier movements, cave deposits, lake sediments, diaries and paintings.

Mann and his collaborators tried to integrate data from many such sources to produce climate records for the last 1,000 years. Their report was filled with caveats and warnings about the uncertainties of their conclusions — caveats that were overlooked as the research achieved more celebrity.

The panel affirmed that proxy measurements made over the last 150 years correlated well with actual measurements during that period, lending credence to the proxy data for earlier times.

It concluded that, "with a high level of confidence," global temperatures during the last century were higher than at any time since 1600.

Although the report did not place numerical values on that confidence level, committee member and statistician Peter Bloomfield of North Carolina State University said the panel was about 95% sure of the conclusion.

The committee supported Mann's other conclusions, but said they were not as definitive. For example, the report said the panel was "less confident" that the 20th century was the warmest century since 1000, largely because of the scarcity of data from before 1600.

Bloomfield said the committee was about 67% confident of the validity of that finding — the same degree of confidence Mann and his colleagues had placed in their initial report.

Panel members said Mann's conclusion that the 1990s were the warmest decade since 1000 and that 1998 was the warmest year had the least data to support it.

The use of proxies, they said, does not readily allow conclusions based on such narrow time intervals.

The report said that establishing average temperatures before 1000 was difficult because of the lack of data, but said the trend appeared to indicate that stable temperatures could extend back several thousand years.

[Mikey]

The earf apparently has some sort of built in regulating system which keeps our climate within an extremely narrow temperature range needed to maintain life.

It's called "The Lord". Tell me you knew.

If it gets all out of whack and mankind dies off, that just means that Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus is coming back to take us all (well us believers, anyway) home!!!

[Dinsdale]

We're talking about the same Hawking that spouted a bunch of poo about black holes(theories he stated in absolutes as fact), that by their very nature, contradicted themselves, and years after those "theories" made him famous throughout the scientific community, recanted and pretty much said "yeah, I didn't really know what the hell I was talking about on the black hole thing."

That Stephen Hawking?


Maybe the fact the Earth stays within a certain temerature range has to do with the Earth staying a resonably constant distance from the sun, with a relatively constant amount of gravity keeping a relatively constant amount of gasses in an atmosphere that's relatively constant in size?


Just a thought...