September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Everyone's a critic | Main | Kids today »

Dec 27, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

James Protzman

Man, that is depressing as all get out.

4ty8er

People! people! (banging on a table with a shoe)!
This has happened before and will happen again; that is why it has been changed by the political correct left; to "climate change" and not "climate warming".
Don't worry; the problem is not with the climate, but; with people copulating too much and living longer.
This old world cannot be expected to survive much longer supporting such a large population.
Maybe a global war, or an epidemic that nobody can find an antidote for or a way to control it will finally put back what was a serene way of life.
But that is just my humble opinion.
Jim I am sorry you are so depressing.

RBM

@ 4ty8er

Hahaha,

Of course you're right - James is depressing, NOT Mother Nature.

@James

Here James - watch Sagan's Pale Blue Dot. You're much better now, aren't you ?

scharrison

I, for wonnn-uh, thoroughly enjooyy Carlll Sssagannzz work-uh, and finnnd it verrry enlighteninnng-uh.

RBM

@ scharrison

Ya' need a reboot there, bud. Ctrl-Alt-Del salute !

bobthesurgeon

...hmmmmm....so from an investment point of view..after reading these comments...should i

1) sell pfizer (viagra) because people are copulating too much
2) buy pfizer ( viagra) because the end of the world is near and people will say "wtf..lets copulate"
3) sell my beachfront property because its going to be submerged
4) buy more beachfront property because dick cheney will want to set up oil rigs on it

can all you astronomy majors help a guy out?

cheripicker
cheripicker

Now now Chicken Littles. Before we all pop our Prozac and start heading for the hills, let’s suspend this assault on reason for a moment.
The report concludes with 9 recommendations, all regarding the need to improve our understanding, measurement and prediction of all things related to climate change. Nowhere does it contain a single prediction of anything that is going to happen or the impact it might have on mankind, positive or negative. There is nothing here to imply that we should be scaring ourselves or our children to death, which is what I hear happening just from driving my 12 year old daughter’s car pool.
Their definition of an “abrupt” rise in sea level is an upward adjustment in the prediction of sea levels rising over the next century from 11 to 17 INCHES.
Now turn to chapter 8 page 118 in my favorite children’s science-fiction book “An Inconvenient Truth” You know , the one with all the scary maps of what it would look like in Gore’s completely unsupported scenario where Greenland completely melts like a .snowball , causing sea levels to rise 20 FEET. Bye-bye Boca.
The only other semisalient prediction is that there might be increasing drought in the American southwest! OhmyGod! The world’s breadbasket? Who knew? I for one will truly miss the flash floods, lush vegetation and crowded cities, which are the main reasons I and my camera visit there so often.
Congratulations on your contributions to world peace, Al. I’m just puzzled that you didn’t bag the science award as well.

Ed Cone

The scientists with the US Geological Survey are careful and, well, scientific in their analysis of the data.

But some of the analysis does seem alarming. The impact of ice-melt, for example, goes beyond rising sea levels to changes in the systems that govern climate: "The large freshwater fluxes that these events represent also underscore the significance of rapid losses of ice to the climate system through their effects on ocean circulation. An important component of the ocean’s overturning circulation involves formation of deep water at sites in the North Atlantic Ocean and around the Antarctic continent, particularly the Weddell and Ross Seas. The rate at which this density-driven thermohaline circulation occurs is sensitive to surface fluxes of heat and freshwater."

And a relatively small rise in sea level could have serious consequences.

cheripicker

“The large freshwater fluxes that these events represent also underscore the significance of rapid losses of ice to the climate system through their effects on ocean circulation. An important component of the ocean’s overturning circulation involves formation of deep water at sites in the North Atlantic Ocean and around the Antarctic continent, particularly the Weddell and Ross Seas.”

And what exactly does that cause to happen?

From reference linked above:
“Because of the present uncertainties in the projections of potential changes in sea level and the ability of the rating system to respond easily to a 1-foot rise in sea level, there are no immediate program changes needed. However, the possibility exists for significant impacts in the long term; therefore, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) should:
1.)continue to monitor progress in the scientific community regarding projections of future changes in sea level and consider follow-on studies that provide more detailed information on potential impacts of sea level rise on the NFIP;
2.)in the near term, consider the formulation and implementation of measures that would reduce the impact of relative rise in sea level along the Louisiana coast; and
3.)strengthen efforts to monitor development trends and incentives of the Community Rating System that encourage measures which mitigate the impacts of sea level rise.”

Nothing there to warrant alarm, or suggest a crisis, an apocolypse or a big problem.
Lots of mights, coulds and ifs all around. We need more monitoring, better tools, models, etc...

For those who insist on worrying themselves and others, my advice: 1. Don’t buy oceanfront property or sell what you have. 2. Quit beating our kids over the head with this stuff. They already have more real and imagined things they worry about than any of us know. 3. If you really seek an informed opinion about global warming , go get at least three thick books, one each that seems skeptical, neutral and sold on it being a crisis. Limit your selections to those that take 3 or 4 days to read, make you use your brain and are heavily referenced. Avoid the pop-up cartoon variety. Tabloidish headline-grabbing sound bites will not teach you much. Let’s face it, up until now Al Gore has been the country’s preemminent educator on the subject and that’s what’s really scary.

RecycleBill

Seems like we've seen cheripicker's sort of logic 'round this blog before... Seems like it was about a year ot 2 ago... Different name but seems the previous cherripicker kept trying to tell us the economy was strong and a whole buch of other neocon BS that turned out to be wrong.

Isn't there some kind of spray we can use to end this neocon pestilence? Maybe a case can be made to bring back DDT after all. You know, with new green labeling stating, "Caution: Only for use on NEOCONS!"

cheripicker

Very good analogy(ies). Your dots between global warming, the economy, defense and pesticides just connect so logically and intuitively into one nice little dung ball which perfectly fits inside your skull.

RBM

@ cheripicker

Your suggestion to use books as a primary and only mode to learn about climate change is fundamentaly flawed, to be polite.

The web can bring one up to date much more effectively.

Although anyone who'd bring up Gore like you did probably wouldn't want to work that hard. Afterall you evoked the 'what about the children' argument earlier, which really isn't any argument at all.

Disclosure: I think both US parties suck.

scharrison

"And what exactly does that cause to happen?"

Between the hampering of the deep water oceanic circulation and the increase in surface fresh water, oxygen-producing sea life and plants will be affected, probably greatly. Right now there is a balance; plankton provides oxygen for us and the beginning of the food chain for fish. A major change in their life cycle, whether it kills them off or allows them to mutate and/or overproduce, would screw up this planet a lot more than oceanfront flooding.

But neither I nor other people should have to explain the dangers of radical and rapid changes to ecosystems that have slowly developed over millions of years. To work from the assumption that problems "might" occur is to ignore countless examples that prove they will.

cheripicker

List three of those "countless examples" and what each proves will occur in the future. If you can prove something how could I possibly ignore it?

Ishmael

I guess there is no reason to fear anything that isn't chasing you with a knife.
And of course fear isn't the objective of all the scientific data, which just exists and can be manipulated in any way to forward just about any aim. But to disregard it altogether is to depend on what? Superstition? Faith? Fatalism?
Why is science that deals with the condition of our earth so suspect when science that leads to new technologies that aid medicine or even entertainment exalted and deemed wonderful? I think it is because we don't want to feel "had" by all the technological advances that have given us more freedom to do what we want yet might also be aiding our eventual destruction.
It's only human nature to want to hide our eyes and plug up our ears. We can always hope that it is a bunch of BS or that some miracle of nature will heave itself out in the open at just the right moment.

RBM

@ Ishmael

I guess there is no reason to fear anything that isn't chasing you with a knife.

LOL !

Good juxtaposition regarding technology.

cheripicker

What have I said in this thread that shows disregard for anything other than blind hysteria? The links cited in the initial posts made no particular predictions so what exactly is it that I have disputed or am ignoring? Hell, I've been criticized just for reading books on both sides of the debate.
What seems to be so offensive to everyone is that I would dare question the blind acceptance that whatever climate change is occurring is necessarily going to cause some ill-defined global armageddon, and that we must act to stop it, could stop it if we wanted to, or that anyone knows how to stop it. It is this same slavish devotion to inevitable doom that truly defines superstition, faith and fatalism.
There is a huge difference between the science of invention and discovery and the pseudoscience of predicting ANYTHING decades or centuries in advance. Were any of the advances in medicine or entertainment you refer to reliably predicted or inherently predictable decades in advance?
Can the best financial experts in the world predict the stock market and don't equally qualified experts have access to the same data, yet some become bears and others bulls at a given time? And since nobody else has, please define for me specifically what it is that you all know lies so certainly in our future that it is apparently close to the point of requiring a miracle to stop it.

Ed Cone

"Four types of abrupt change in the geologic record stand out as being so rapid and large in their impact that, if they were to recur, they would pose clear risks to society in terms of our ability to adapt."

That's what the report says. It's scientific document, written in measured language, not a Hollywood disaster movie.

The scientists, working from the data cited, seem to regard the possibility of some bad stuff happening as realistic. Not sure what, or who, CP is arguing with.

scharrison

"List three of those "countless examples" and what each proves will occur in the future. If you can prove something how could I possibly ignore it?"

I've learned that "proving" something to someone who isn't prepared to accept it is kind of a waste of time, but others might benefit from it, so...

This guy (Alex Flecker) from Cornell,

http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/flecker/flecker.html

along with a few of his assistants, removed a specific fish species from a section of a river in Venezuela, and:

http://www.cals.cornell.edu/cals/public/comm/news/archive/fish-diversity.cfm

"Because the organic matter that shades nitrogen-fixing algae was no longer eaten by the removed species, biomass on the streambed increased 450 percent. "That resulted in much more bacterial respiration, which, in turn, converted more carbon to carbon dioxide and decreased the amount of carbon swept downstream for other organisms," said Flecker, associate professor of ecology and evolutionary biology.

The loss or decline of just this one species could reverberate throughout the stream's network and have long-lasting negative feedbacks on the food web, affecting fish populations, algae, bacteria, insects and other fish species, as well as ecosystem function and the flow of protein to humans and other animals, eroding an important ecosystem service, the authors conclude."

Probably one of the best examples of the "domino effect" in large ecosystems was proven from the systematic slaughter of the great whales during the second half of the 20th Century. After a half-million were killed, reducing their populations to about 14% of what they had been, killer whales switched to eating mostly harbor and fur seals, and when they became scarce the orcas turned to sea lions and sea otters. Which led to a boom in the sea urchin populations, who then overgrazed the kelp forests, which, in addition to being their own little ecosystems that harbor countless small fish species, kelp also produces a lot of the oxygen you and I breathe...

For my third thing, I'm going to give you an assignment: try to calculate the full impact that one anthropogenic behavior (cotton cultivation) has had on the plants, animals and people in and around what used to be the Aral Sea. Have a box of tissues handy.

Beelzebubba

i guess humans are a blight on the planet after all. i needed a damned good excuse for uxoricide..BRB.

cheripicker

"Four types of abrupt change in the geologic record stand out as being so rapid and large in their impact that, if they were to recur, they would pose clear risks to society in terms of our ability to adapt."
That's what the report says. It's scientific document, written in measured language, not a Hollywood disaster movie."
Nothing controversial there, but it's not so much a scientific discovery or prediction as an historical observation. Where in there is a prediction that one of the big four is going to happen? The key word in your quote is "if". I think my points have been clear so I won't repeat them. What, or with whom are you arguing? If it's merely
that you "seem to regard the possibility of some bad stuff happening as realistic" then I have none with you, but is that really saying anything?

Ed Cone

The report says increased drought and rising sea levels (with related climate changes) are likely. It sees some worrisome potential in current trends.

You seem to be saying that anything other than predictions of imminent disaster are worth ignoring. That standard doesn't seem relevant to the USGS report, or particularly useful in and of itself.

cheripickr

not at all Ed. Speaking of historical observations, that you claim not to understand my points no matter how many ways I spell them out, is absolutely no surprise. My initial post was simply in response to James Protzman's instant depression and as a supplement to 48ty8ers insightful observations. From there the conversation took on its own life, as conversations do. What I like about these people is that they make their positions on these issues clear, rather than just dismiss mine (they do that too of course) or the manner in which I express them (your specialty).This enables a lively exchange of ideas , which I find more useful than simply having mine graded.

Beelzebubba

There are 3 types of people in here: 1) ones who can count, and 2) ones who cannot. The cyphering that goes on makes my face twitch.

cheripickr

initial confusion, then suddenly got it. My 2nd LOL in this blog, both attributable to you. You are MY prozac

Ed Cone

When I say I don't understand something, it simply means I don't understand it.

My impression was that you were dismissing the concerns the report raises, and that you had asked repeatedly about reasons for concern.

Spag

I can't believe some of you still believe this man made global warming nonsense.

greg

Here's a challenge for the skeptics: show us a model that does a better job of explaining climate patterns that DOES NOT include human-induced change.


I didn't think so.

Moreover, there are many good reasons for getting off fossil fuels, aside from climate change, from:
1) $4/gallon gas (which will come back)
2) the immediate human health effects from fossil fuels (such as decreases in air quality)
3) national security -- propping up dictators in west africa and the middle east
4) developing new technologies that can be sold to the world (Toyota has only fallen 1/2 of what Ford has in market cap since October).

I can't believe some of you still believe that this man-made climate change is nonsense when it is so clearly in the immediate economic interest of the oil companies (that pay for the skeptic-crap) that you believe climate change is nonsense.

Ever feel you been cheated?


cheripickr

Greg, by far my greatest concern, and the only predictable outcome regarding global warming, is that without a less gullible public politicians WILL in the not-to-distant future make stupid, feel-good, politically motivated, fear-exploiting, heartstring-pulling important policy decisions that the world will pay a very big price for, especially the poor. That is the only significant consequence any of us will live to see.

Climaticide may or may not some day occur with or without man's help or interference. Nobody knows. There is no precedent in human history of reliable prediction of the natural world's behavior a century later, whether by science or tea leaves. Predicting the behavior of politicians seeking to remain in power is relatively easy.

Call me shortsighted but until whichever model you choose's predictive abilities can be validated prospectively over at least a 10-20 year period (yes we can afford to wait that long) it would be foolhardy to base policies on them that would otherwise only draw resources from more certain and immediate needs.

If you really want to understand what we know and don't know with an open mind rather than convenient, blanket dismissal of the "skeptic crap", it takes lots of time and effort, and a willingness to be honest with yourself about which of two conflicting conclusions makes more inherent sense. Don't get me wrong, skepticism is key to this, but it needs to be applied to both sides.

Per your example above, financial bias in research doesn't discriminate between private and public funding, nor the ideology behind the funding. I've been chasized for using books for my education as being too outdated or outmoded, so here is a good introductory article to the web reference that seems to me the most honest, truth seeking and unbiased that I could find. Good luck!

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean/agwfallacies.pdf

scharrison

"...here is a good introductory article to the web reference that seems to me the most honest, truth seeking and unbiased that I could find."

Apparently you were forced to choose between this "paper", a 2 year-old copy of Better Homes and Gardens, and a well-thumbed and drooled upon copy of Highlights while you were sitting in the waiting room at the Heritage Foundation. Follow me, please...

Robert Ferguson, the President of SPPI (Science and Public Policy Institute) that published this strawman build-up/tear-down primer, worked as a staffer for several Republican Congressmen, then he was farmed out to the industry-funded, pseudo-science brigade.

The reason you think this is "fresh" data, is because the SPPI is a new construct. See, these folks are uncovered for the frauds they are within a few years' time, so they have to form brand spanking new "institutes" on a regular basis.

Ferguson originally headed up the "Center for Science and Public Policy", which was the research paper factory of the "Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation", which has received some $1,182,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35

greg

Cheripickr: I had a look at the paper you suggested -- half of it simply describes the scientific process -- which is the same process used in all research and development. So unless you want to throw out the entire science/technology approach to understanding, then we're stuck with this approach for climate change too.

As for the forecasting--you CAN assess the predictive ability of models without waiting 10-20 years. You simply start the model 100 years ago and see what job it did of predicting the last 100 years (note: the models can't contain any information about the last 100 years--that would be cheating.)

Look at the job that the climate models do when you run this sort of test -- the results are in the IPCC's latest assessment. The models do a reasonably good job -- certainly better than any model that DOES NOT contain human-induced change.

So whether or not you disagree with the way the models are structured, you can't argue with the results -- Hence the consensus position.

As for "feel-good, politically motivated, fear-exploiting, heartstring-pulling important policy decisions"... ignoring the evidence & scientific consensus would seem to be doing just that. Change is hard, and most politicians are too gutless to be real leaders -- they'd much rather just tell us all is well.

Certainly the implications of who's right and wrong are completely asymetric.

Let's just assume that I am wrong and there's no human effect on climate -- so for now, let's assume that the evidence for this doesn't exist -- for now, let's assume that the models don't exist.

What happens if we actually took steps to reduce greenhouse gasses?

We'd go a long way to making sure that we're not held hostage to:
1) $4/gallon gas (which will come back)
2) the immediate human health effects from fossil fuels (such as decreases in air quality)
3) national security -- propping up dictators in west africa and the middle east

And we'd be a long way down the path in creating:
4) new technologies that can be sold to the world (Toyota has only fallen 1/2 of what Ford has in market cap since October).

Now what is the downside: well, the cost in dealing with climate change. But HERE is where I see the fear mongering. On every major public policy decision, corporations have grossly exaggerated the cost of compliance and grossly underestimated the benefits of change. So I have no reason to believe that this trend won't continue in the climate change debate.

--
Now, let's assume that I am right, after all the evidence and models support me.

BUT let's assume that we take your advice (and here i'm not exactly sure what you are recommending, other than more reading) and we do nothing.

So let's assume that there are severe implications of climate change:
(and just as an aside, 100 years ago you could have easily--and in fact researchers did--predict what would happen if Louisiana lost the buffering effects of the coastal wetlands. Katerina was in no way a 'natural disaster'.)

--

So there's the asymmetry, if we accept the science and act on climate change, many benefits will be derived, at some--undoubtedly, given history--much lower cost than is being thrown around. Whereas if we do nothing, we can end up paying BIG TIME. Certainly the $30 billion the government spent after Katerina will look like peanuts.)

And that cost will not be borne by us, but by our children.

As a matter of public policy, I think we owe it to them to be as responsible as possible.

And so as far as responsibility goes: "so here is a good introductory article to the web reference that seems to me the most honest, truth seeking and unbiased that I could find."

Honestly??? The most unbiased thing you could find is written by a group that The New York Times reported received $230,000 in funding from Exxon in 2002 and $90,000 in funding from ExxonMobil in 2006.

Come 'on, if that's the results of your investigative ability, then I can't really take your scientific analysis too seriously.

Ever feel you've been cheated.

cheripicker

Greg, more to come on all this later. I'm at work. But in the meantime could you link me to the sources of the claim below about the prediction made by researchers 100 years ago? That would appear to make a very persuasive argument if it was indeed based on a prediction of global warming causing rising sea levels, which then indeed occurred, rather than erosion of the Mississippi delta, settling of buildings, etc.

Still, I think the hurricane itself had SOMETHING to do with the disaster, and when you blame Man for it, I assume you mean the inherent risk of building below sea level in America's largest silt refuge was the main culprit, not global warming spawning the hurricane itelf. As you probably know the Gulf's been pretty quiet lately, much to some scientists' bewilderment.

(and just as an aside, 100 years ago you could have easily--and in fact researchers did--predict what would happen if Louisiana lost the buffering effects of the coastal wetlands. Katerina was in no way a 'natural disaster'.)

Beelzebubba

Using the government model, the threat is not valid until the damage estimate is complete, body counts are being done and trillions of dollars are thrown at the problem. The beneficiaries of the action taken are the industries and services which attend the current HNICs(head neocons in charge). Brown&Root, Halliburton and Blackwater present their profitability model to the cabal. The Secretary of Defense presents photos. The next lackey creating an illusion of competence will call it a slamdunk cakewalk, which will end up being a lifetime struggle against an imagined threat that they, themselves, created, nurtured and enabled. Exploitation of the herding impulse is made easier because it occurs in the prerational region of the brain. Prechter describes it simply: It represents in the left-right struggle 1) the survival impulse among producers to keep the means of their sustenance vs. the survival impulse among nonproducers and their sympathizers to appropriate it, and 2) the impulse among some people to direct others' behavior vs. the impulse of others to do as they please. Government policies are in response to social mood, not facts. If addressing climate change will keep them in power, they will be all for it(before they voted against it). Changes in sentiment, not science, determine policy. If leaders do not change policy to match the mood, the herd will change leaders.

cheripicker

Well said (I think). You are about ten times smarter than me and entertaining to boot. You remind me of Dennis Miller, which is probably an insult to you, since he is not so much an intellectual giant, but is similarly quick-witted and off the wall. However, I suspect that about half of both your wit and wisdom sail right over my head. Dumb the best stuff down a little so the thicker-skulled among us don't miss anything. Actually I get everything you just said, but that isn't always the case.

Beelzebubba

cheri. thanx. i appreciate this forum for expression. but i'm as dumb as they come. i guess some politely bite their tongue when i get a day or two off and try to share my opinions down their throat. I enjoy everyone's attempt to disguise their slant. Some of the disguises are horrible. Some are very subtle. Ed runs a respectable place. He is more generous than some of his visitors would be...and.. if it's my idea, it's already dumbed down. As some other smartass said , "The ancients stole all my best stuff."

RBM

@ Beelze

Which Prechter ?

Heinz C. maybe ?

cheripicker

Well, if the rest of us can disguise our biases, kudos to you if you can pull the same ruse with a low IQ. I suspect that skill is overall the more useful of the two.

greg

Sorry for the confusion yesterday cheripicker-- I didn't mean that the effects of climate change were predicted in New Orleans 100 years ago, my point was that human activity can have predictable interactions with climate (ie, if you remove the buffering effects of wetlands, you leave yourself much more susceptible to climate). When the Swamp Land Act was passed in the 1850s, not everyone thought it was such a great idea -- b/c of the effects like that seen after Katerina.

100 years ago, our ability to predict climate change was nowhere near what it is today.

However, you can use models to look at what the climate was 100 years ago, and then project it forward to the present with and without human-induced change (again, without putting any information in the model about what the actual climate HAS been for the past 100 years -- that would be cheating)

If you do that, the models WITH human-induced change do a much better job of approximating what has happened over the last 100 years than the model WITHOUT human-induced change.

So that's why, in the public interest, we have to take climate change seriously as a matter of public policy. (regardless of the behavior of callous politicians...)

At least until someone can show a model that predicts climate more accurately without human-induced change...

And if someone can, that's great -- but until then the science is clear, Exxon-funding, notwithstanding.

cheripickr

Greg, thanks, just trying to zero in on any prospectively validated predictions out there (I take it there are none) and any elaboration on Katrina being “in no way” a natural disaster. While you and I don’t agree on much here I want to say that I find your manner in discussing divisive issues refreshing. While it may be intuitive for you when debating to respectfully acknowledge, rather than nitpick or dismiss, the other side’s points , then muster your most logical argument to address them one by one, I have found that this approach doesn't come so naturally for many.

It is interesting how some people’s instinctive reaction to opposing views is first visceral anger, followed by shrill denigration of the source rather than challenging their arguments. I have found this is to be a reliable indicator of the depth and confidence of that person’s own knowledge, as well as the validity of any claims to tolerance, open-mindedness, or regard for diversity of thought. I doubt there is much to be learned from them.

I am much closer to the beginning than the end of my education on this, and while I have been accused more or less accurately of bringing default ideologic baggage to specific issues, (in case you haven’t noticed I am a fiscal and economic conservative) I consider this simply my current residence on life's journey and have no intention of remaining there if my education steers me elsewhere.

I would love to continue this discussion/education by email with you or anyone interested (perhaps spag and scharrison to really spice things up--maybe Beelze could referee). I think I’ve probably stunk up this blog enough lately. Let me know if interested. Also any high quality books/sources you would recommend to balance my noggin a little would be appreciated (I already read the Nobel Skeptophobe’s Field Guide--steer me to the actual science).

RBM

@ cheripickr

"Nobel Skeptophobe’s Field Guide" - got a pointer ? Google returned nothing.

Since I made the comment about book learning on this subject, to clarify: books take time which I believe is a liability in this case.

Beelzebubba

read much, but not books~B Franklin

cheripicker

I meant Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". Beelze has inspired me to strive for more creativity in my sarcasm. I think my preference for books has more to do with the relative comfort of my leather recliner compared to my desktop computer chair than anything else.

RBM
my preference for books has more to do with the relative comfort of my leather recliner compared to my desktop computer chair

My solution has been a living room computer with a TV-out S-video feed output to my 30 inch TV viewed from my recliner :-)

cheripicker

My wife won't let me do that

RBM

Ha! Another asset to being single !!

Previous girlfriend and I had pretty much totally different viewing habits. 2 TV rooms was the only effective solution.

Beelzebubba

Scientific method: 1) Gather evidence 2) Examine the evidence 3) Hypothesize about its meaning 4) Test the hypothesis 5) If the test yields the expected results, invite a large number of others to duplicate the test to see if they achieve the same results 6) If the same results are achieved, accept the hypothesis as fact...the working hypothesis is established and taken as fact until proven wrong. This is Richard Maybury's model used by most homeschoolers across the country. These methods are used to teach children a model of how they should a construct a functional model. It has served the scientific community for hundreds of years. The most important thing a rational model does is predict. This tool is not taught in content method. The pledge to a cloth and a metaphysical state is stressed heavily in content method, however.

RBM

@ Beelze

The most important thing a rational model does is predict

Give me the flow chart you're on !

If the result of the prediction is 'NO' - where is one left ?

cheripicker

What's the record for most comments on a post? We're at 49 and counting

bobthesurgeon

..the record is on a brittney spears blog and we have a whole lot more to go...the good thing is yall ( pardon the spelling) havent posted not one picture..which means all of you can read..im impressed..happy y2k+9

The comments to this entry are closed.