JackC

Is this a boobie trap?

+1 and another. Why? Just why? Agreed. A pointless waste IMHO.

I've used the same argument to justify not learning to juggle chainsaws.

What was every person's motive not to sign? Truth or Career? A physicist's career depends on truth. "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." ~ Richard Feynman

I put about 100 jumps on a VortexII packing it like that. I'm no rigging expert but I never had any problems.

So you're OK with defining a conservation area of some yet-to-be determined size and that religions don't get a free pass. So you entire argument is one of size. A street is OK, but a country isn't. Is that it?

So you're OK with a ban so long as its dealt with at a local level? Just so I know where you are going with this. In the UK we have conservation areas where you have to comply with certain building requirements so as not to dramatically change the character of an area. Are these OK? How big an area can they cover before it is not OK? Should religious groups get a free pass?

Hmm... you are the one who doesn't give a fuck who you offend or how you do it, that's just tough shit, and yet I'm narrow minded for choosing the word "yodeling"? I think you just sank your own argument.

I lived close to a large mosque for a while and had to listen to the incessant yodeling coming from the PA in the minarets. It's like having to sit through the most tuneless of the auditions from the X-Factor 5 times a day, 365 days a year. It gets really frickin annoying after a while.

Are you in the right thread? I thought this thread was the one were we all agree on how the asshole per capita ratio in SC is approaching unity.

Her old band Goodness gets together every now and then and does some live shows around here. Great choice. I haven't seen her live yet but it's on my bucket list. Apparently, she's doing a couple of shows in Seattle in January but as much I like her, I can't justify a 4800 mile trip for one gig in the middle of winter. Next time maybe.

Top of the heap for me is Carrie Akre. Damn that girl can sing. Although I have to say Hayley Williams is really impressing me lately. I'm also partial to the pairing of Louise Post and Nina Gordon and for the shear barking lunacy of the woman, Katie-Jane Garside.

I've never tried one but the NeoXS might fit the bill.

JackC asked a question. I provided the answer. Ask a stupid question...

Whisky tasting?

Humans burn fossil fuels do they not? Fossil fuels add a net increase of CO2 to the atmosphere do they not? In fact 75% of the net atmospheric CO2 increase is due to humans burning fossil fuels. The rest is mostly due to deforestation. link Nevertheless, the radiative forcing due to CO2 is well understood and is the largest of any of the greenhouse gases primarily due to the relative concentrations. link That what AGW research is all about. The mechanism is as simple as I have said it is and is indisputable fact; it is the extent and the consequences of that mechanism and the complicated and chaotic interactions with other factors in the environment that are the subject of investigation. But if you force even the most chaotic system in a certain direction, eventually and on average it will tend towards that direction. Fact. But the whole AGW discussion has just turned into a pissing contest now. It's pointless.

Is that a threat?

There, fixed it for you So which one is false? your presumption that one of these must be false for GW to not be happening is false, therefore the whole line of logic is false Find one system that you can prove does not behave like this and you will have disproved thermodynamics, and I can virtually guarantee that you will win the Nobel prize for physics.

There, fixed it for you So which one is false?

Which one of these is false? a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas b) The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing c) Thermodynamics works Gulp gulp gulp Put down the Kool Aid and tell me which one is false.

At its very core, AGW is that simple. What happens to the temperature of a system when you apply heat and reduce the ability for that system to radiate heat away? Chaotic weather patterns and heat sinks, variable driving sources, feedback loops, limited data sets. But underlying all of those complications are three known and indisputable facts. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing and the laws of Thermodynamics work. The undeniable conclusion is global warming.

Which one of these is false? a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas b) The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing c) Thermodynamics works

Perhaps one of the people that think GW is bullshit can tell me which one of these is false? a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas b) The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing c) Thermodynamics works Because unless one of those statements is false, GW must be true.

Since our whole discussion is about what people think, I would have thought that you could figure out that's what I meant from the context. See the second set of brackets added to make sure it's absolutely crystal clear for you. Anyway, point being, no, people who think there is no god do not attribute anything, good or bad, to god. That's basic logic. The logic was right the first time. Non-existent entities cannot not affect anything. Beliefs notwithstanding.

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows it's all Gnomes.