or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

 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.
Agreed that there is lots of bad live music, but I've heard plenty of good stuff too, and not just classical. You only have to hear it once to realize the difference.
Although you only have to go and listen to some good, live music, to realize what it should sound like. That's not so uncommon, is it?
There certainly were allegations, and those were investigated multiple times and found to be false. Interesting that you bring up the example of tobacco - because it argues exactly counter to your position here. The parallel is that the studies were strongly indicating that tobacco was damaging to health, and the tobacco companies were claiming data manipulation and lack of proof - just like the current climate studies indicate global warming and the energy lobby is...
Disagree. The data interpretation is made by the climatologists, and precedes the political response. You cannot hold science responsible for political decisions arising from its findings. Scientists are not minions either - now you are just being insulting.
I didn't think that was a straw man. How else is one to take your previous comment about the truth? Peer-reviewed publications are how science communicates its results - hence my request for peer-reviewed studies as evidence. If it's not peer-reviewed then it has not passed the test. If it is generated by those with no qualifications and is not peer-reviewed, then how would you estimate its value? The topic of discussion was climate change, so obviously it cannot be just...
Now you are conflating the science with the political and economic response. If you are saying that you don't disagree with the science but you think that the political response to it is inappropriate then that is a different argument altogether. But you weren't saying that - you were claiming that GW isn't happening. And the consensus of climate scientists is easy to judge - just like in any other scientific field - read the literature which, in this case, is virtually...
I wasn't questioning the data - I was pointing out that it was being completely misused to imply "global" cooling. Same with that link. US climate, not global climate.
That's fine - if you want to give equal weight to non-scientific assertions as to peer-reviewed studies by qualified scientists then you are quite entitled to do that. I'll bet you don't choose your medical practitioners on the same basis though. So let me get this straight - you accuse me of thinking that the earth was created in 1978 for providing data from 1978 to present, when your graphic was just for 2014. What are you saying? You think the earth was created last year?
New Posts  All Forums: