or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

OK - we are on the same page, to use a horrible cliché. Dichroic prisms are actually very efficient - not much light is lost.
Already answered - there is certainly consensus among scientists on GW. Anyone who disagrees must either unknowingly be unable to read basic data or must believe that there is a global science conspiracy to fabricate data. If the former then simple reading of the literature will fix that. If the latter then no data or argument will convince them. On AGW there is also consensus, but it depends on how the question is asked. If it is restricted to "do you believe that the...
No - because that is not what the studies claimed. Read those studies.     Quote: Sorry - which elements of that are not what was claimed in that article? It explicitly claims that the scientists feel ostracized: "Williams (2007) expresses the outcome of being ostracized (i.e. the excluded 3%) - as “the kiss of social death.”" It explicitly claims that there is no 97% consensus, and actually argues that a minority agree with AGW: "As this report shows, there’s no 97%...
That's a good question. However - what @waterrockets posted is not a copyrighted article, but a post from another site that comprises lots of individual pieces of content from other sources that may or may not be copyrighted, and it is attributed, so I wonder if that makes a difference.
I think that you are misreading the label, or reading too much into its location. Three sensors positioned around a color splitting prism clearly implies separate color sensors. I don't know what you mean by "a larger optical path" in terms of that feature. The total amount of light in the system is determined by the numerical aperture. In a three-color sensor arrangement, an average of 2/3 of the light is lost at the sensor color filters. Splitting the light and removing...
That's OK - you answered it anyway and illustrated the problem immediately. The article author uses his own rejection of the criteria to invalidate the studies. It is a straw man itself. None of the studies asserted that 97% of scientists believe that all warming is anthropogenic, nor did they attempt to establish the extent of that extreme view. The ostracization argument still makes no sense - the skeptical scientists feel ostracized because they, themselves,...
I'm not sure how to answer that. If you are trying to rebut my comments on the article you were quoting from then your argument is a bit lacking in detail, and doesn't seem to address any of my criticisms. Can you elaborate?
It would have been better if you had attributed that, up front, to the Friends of Science article published by heartland.org. Unattributed material is generally regarded as plagiarism in scientific debate. Either way, it is an unsubtle attempt at obfuscation. The article "97% CONSENSUS? NO! GLOBAL WARMING MATH MYTHS & SOCIAL PROOFS. The “Science” of Statisticulation", made an attempt to argue that consensus did not exist by questioning the validity of the samples and...
 I think the current storage options make more sense. The safety issue could, no doubt, be solved, but at the expense of even heavier payloads. As a best case scenario I did a quick calculation on energy to escape the earth's gravitational field, assuming that one used gravity assist from Venus to kill enough solar orbital speed to sling it at the sun, and while it's only a fraction of the energy generated from the waste, it is not insignificant in terms of cost because...
Maybe I've been lucky, or just selective in the live music I choose to attend. I completely agree with you on the over-amplified stuff though - I've always suspected that it's simply because the bands and sound engineers have wrecked their own hearing and can't tell how bad it is. I find it un-listenable.
New Posts  All Forums: