Surprising legitimate research: Black holes may not be able to form

On 9/30/14 10:33 AM, Mike Collins wrote:
Lord Vath wrote:
clip


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

For a religious person isn't your sig the ultimate blasphemy?

he's Zeus...

On Friday, September 26, 2014 2:11:07 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

I might be a little bit worried about the resulting 7,2 metre rise in sea
level since both of my children live close to the 6M contour line.

So if you expect others to cut back on their own carbon emissions, you and your kids must all be squeaky clean WRT your own carbon emissions. That means each of you must emit much less than two tons per year and preferably MUCH less than that, perhaps zero. Good luck.

(P.S. It might be cheaper and more convenient for your kids to simply pull up stakes and move to higher ground now.)

On Friday, September 26, 2014 7:32:27 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Yes, but global warming deniers don't give a **** about their children
or their children's children.

Obviously.

Since your CO2 emissions are well above the apparently already-too-high five ton per capita per year world average, we can confidently conclude that you don't give a **** either.

Obviously.

On Saturday, September 27, 2014 10:29:18 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:


The problem is that the Earth is heating up, which is changing our
climate patterns in ways that are not generally beneficial to humans.

Would you prefer that the Earth become cooler instead instead of warmer?

On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 04:07:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

The problem is that the Earth is heating up, which is changing our
climate patterns in ways that are not generally beneficial to humans.

Would you prefer that the Earth become cooler instead instead of warmer?

It probably doesn't matter much. The problem isn't the absolute
temperature, but the rate of change. Too fast, and it's a serious
problem for human societies.

On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 16:49:58 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:


It probably doesn't matter much. The problem isn't the absolute

temperature, but the rate of change. Too fast, and it's a serious

problem for human societies.

Deniers are like those who won't pay for insurance.

Then when they get caught out they bleat like lambs about how unfair life is.

Can we tie Snell to a stake on one of those tropical islands about to be inundated?

Somewhere like... say.. Kodiak?

wrote:
On Friday, September 26, 2014 2:11:07 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

I might be a little bit worried about the resulting 7,2 metre rise in sea
level since both of my children live close to the 6M contour line.

So if you expect others to cut back on their own carbon emissions, you
and your kids must all be squeaky clean WRT your own carbon emissions.
That means each of you must emit much less than two tons per year and
preferably MUCH less than that, perhaps zero. Good luck.

(P.S. It might be cheaper and more convenient for your kids to simply
pull up stakes and move to higher ground now.)


As a marine ecologist my son has to live near the coast.
However the coast may move soon:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1001102546.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0707103633.htm

On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 23:26:09 +0100, Lord Androcles wrote:

There speaks a wise man who will take advantage of a situation he has no
control over. It sure beats griping.

-- The Reverend Lord Androcles.

It sure does!

Bill
--
Email address is a Spam trap.

On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 20:18:40 UTC+2, Lord Androcles wrote:

You failed geography101, huh? Kodiak is 56o N, the tropics end at 23.4 o N.

Not really, sunshine, you just failed humour 101. :-)

Off topic/ You get 3 Years out of a washing machine? You must live in some alternative reality. Our Bosch has rust bubbling up through the panels, from the inside, in under 18 months. It has just had major component parts replaced under our extended guarantee. /End of

On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 5:07:00 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Saturday, September 27, 2014 10:29:18 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

The problem is that the Earth is heating up, which is changing our
climate patterns in ways that are not generally beneficial to humans.

Would you prefer that the Earth become cooler instead instead of warmer?

That would also not be generally beneficial to humans.

Instead, the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should have
remained absolutely constant, so that the human impact on world climate would
be exactly zero - *unless* it was necessary to deliberately modify the climate
in order to prevent a natural ice age.

Current global warming is happening as an accidental, unplanned consequence of
use of fossil fuels to meet our energy needs. Well, we do get energy out of it.
But since the impact on the climate wasn't considered in advance, there's no
reason to be confident that it will be the sort of impact that we want.

If there were only, say, 100 million people living in the whole world, but they
had at their command the same level of technology as we do, presumably it would
be simple enough for them to maintain a high standard of living for themselves
_and_ at the same time preserve a world that, for the most part, is in its
pristine natural state, un-disfigured by human interference.

Thus, for example, herds of bison would continue to roam the Great Plains, just
as they had done in the past.

Given that we don't have this ideal situation, and it is true that a prosperous
economy gives people the power to insulate themselves from difficulties in the
weather, while poverty has impacts worse than climate change, we do face
difficult choices, it would appear.

But the difficulty of the situation is largely an illusion, because we can
address carbon emissions without buying into the Green political agenda.
Nuclear power lets industrial civilization continue to hum along and grow
without the problem.

John Savard