Lovejoy ruins another sound bite.

I recall an astrophysicist being asked by a reporter, "What's a
comet",
well knowing the answer would be directed to the 'un-washed masses',
his two word reply was "dirty snowball", rather like describing earth
as
a "mudball". Soon "dirty snowball" became 'mainstream theory'.
Obviously comet Lovejoy was a bit more than a 'dirty snowball'.

Like how did the universe begin? "Big Bang", two word sound bites
are all that's needed, (if god made the universe using a big bang,
he's got alzenhiemer's:-).
Like why is the climate changing, "Blame Man", it's the magic **two
word sound bite for dummies** that sells.
Fun to watch.
Ken

On 12/19/11 8:18 AM, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Like why is the climate changing, "Blame Man", it's the magic **two
word sound bite for dummies** that sells.

You should looks at the *science of climate change* and ignore the
political bantering.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pap...odayRT2011.pdf

Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/...idt_etal_1.pdf

The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html

Energy balance points to man-made climate change
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48057

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
...
I recall an astrophysicist being asked by a reporter, "What's a
comet",
well knowing the answer would be directed to the 'un-washed masses',
his two word reply was "dirty snowball", rather like describing earth
as
a "mudball". Soon "dirty snowball" became 'mainstream theory'.
Obviously comet Lovejoy was a bit more than a 'dirty snowball'.

Like how did the universe begin? "Big Bang", two word sound bites
are all that's needed, (if god made the universe using a big bang,
he's got alzenhiemer's:-).
Like why is the climate changing, "Blame Man", it's the magic **two
word sound bite for dummies** that sells.
Fun to watch.
Ken

I'm with you on both of those comments. As for the naysayers in support of
man induced climate change and the universal big bang, remember how easily
data can be manipulated to support a certain cause. Even scientific data.
Example: kids doing high school science experiments often "fudge" answers to
get things to turn out correctly. Why would things be any different if it
meant keeping a job or supporting a cause. Collected "evidence" or data or
not!

JJ

On Dec 19, 6:07*pm, "John Jove" wrote:

I'm with you on both of those comments. *As for the naysayers in support of
man induced climate change and the universal big bang, remember how easily
data can be manipulated to support a certain cause. *Even scientific data.
Example: kids doing high school science experiments often "fudge" answers to
get things to turn out correctly. *Why would things be any different if it
meant keeping a job or supporting a cause. *Collected "evidence" or data or
not!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16215244

On Dec 19, 9:07*am, "John Jove" wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ...

I recall an astrophysicist being asked by a reporter, "What's a
comet",
well knowing the answer would be directed to the 'un-washed masses',
his two word reply was "dirty snowball", rather like describing earth
as
a "mudball". Soon "dirty snowball" became 'mainstream theory'.
Obviously comet Lovejoy was a bit more than a 'dirty snowball'.

Like how did the universe begin? "Big Bang", two word sound bites
are all that's needed, (if god made the universe using a big bang,
he's got alzenhiemer's:-).
Like why is the climate changing, "Blame Man", it's the magic **two
word sound bite for dummies** that sells.
Fun to watch.
Ken

I'm with you on both of those comments. *As for the naysayers in support of
man induced climate change and the universal big bang, remember how easily
data can be manipulated to support a certain cause. *Even scientific data.
Example: kids doing high school science experiments often "fudge" answers to
get things to turn out correctly. *Why would things be any different if it
meant keeping a job or supporting a cause. *Collected "evidence" or data or
not!

JJ

Not enough influencial people who take operate at a level that can
give an appropriate response to these two things,for instance it is
not 'climate change' but rather whether humans have control over
global temperatures,they do over pollution but not global temperatures
themselves.

'Big bang' is so extremely offensive to the reasonable person as
taking a wider perspective it attempts to put humans outside the
normal evolutionary stream by assuming we can see the evolutionary
Universal timeline directly and if it doesn't frighten people into
taking a second look at the core ideology then we then the problem is
human nature.

I firmly believe it is harder to get empiricists to alter their views
to more stable and reasonable perspectives then it is to land men on
the moon and while the latter was a superb engineering feat,it takes
only a brief detour to look at a belief that the moon has variations
in latitudinal speeds (rotation) to put the brilliant engineering feat
in the dullest astronomical atmosphere and these things are so
offensive .

On Dec 19, 9:07 am, "John Jove" wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ...

I recall an astrophysicist being asked by a reporter, "What's a
comet",
well knowing the answer would be directed to the 'un-washed masses',
his two word reply was "dirty snowball", rather like describing earth
as
a "mudball". Soon "dirty snowball" became 'mainstream theory'.
Obviously comet Lovejoy was a bit more than a 'dirty snowball'.

Like how did the universe begin? "Big Bang", two word sound bites
are all that's needed, (if god made the universe using a big bang,
he's got alzenhiemer's:-).
Like why is the climate changing, "Blame Man", it's the magic **two
word sound bite for dummies** that sells.
Fun to watch.
Ken

I'm with you on both of those comments. As for the naysayers in support of
man induced climate change and the universal big bang, remember how easily
data can be manipulated to support a certain cause. Even scientific data.
Example: kids doing high school science experiments often "fudge" answers to
get things to turn out correctly. Why would things be any different if it
meant keeping a job or supporting a cause. Collected "evidence" or data or
not!
JJ

Can't blame needy scientists for going for bucks, especially when
the predictions are untestable and sell tabloids.
However the comet Lovejoy is there for all to see and measure, so
it's hard to **** up.
As a theoretician myself I can say that real astrophysicists are very
excited by subjecting a comet to a very hot oven, measuring the
plasma and then having an observation of the result.
Congrads to NASA et al !!
Regards
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:07 am, "John Jove" wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
...

I recall an astrophysicist being asked by a reporter, "What's a
comet",
well knowing the answer would be directed to the 'un-washed masses',
his two word reply was "dirty snowball", rather like describing earth
as
a "mudball". Soon "dirty snowball" became 'mainstream theory'.
Obviously comet Lovejoy was a bit more than a 'dirty snowball'.

Like how did the universe begin? "Big Bang", two word sound bites
are all that's needed, (if god made the universe using a big bang,
he's got alzenhiemer's:-).
Like why is the climate changing, "Blame Man", it's the magic **two
word sound bite for dummies** that sells.
Fun to watch.
Ken

I'm with you on both of those comments. As for the naysayers in support of
man induced climate change and the universal big bang, remember how easily
data can be manipulated to support a certain cause. Even scientific data.
Example: kids doing high school science experiments often "fudge" answers to
get things to turn out correctly. Why would things be any different if it
meant keeping a job or supporting a cause. Collected "evidence" or data or
not!
JJ

Can't blame needy scientists for going for bucks, especially when
the predictions are untestable and sell tabloids.
However the comet Lovejoy is there for all to see and measure, so
it's hard to **** up.
As a theoretician myself I can say that real astrophysicists are very
excited by subjecting a comet to a very hot oven, measuring the
plasma and then having an observation of the result.
Congrads to NASA et al !!
Regards
Ken

I don't know enough to take side on this but if the snow is heated out of a
dirty snowball surely the dirt is left behind.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:48:01 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

I don't know enough to take side on this but if the snow is heated out of a
dirty snowball surely the dirt is left behind.

Of course- and there is good evidence that some of the bodies we call
asteroids are, in fact, what is left of comets after all the volatiles
are lost (most famously, 3200 Phaethon, the parent of the Geminid
debris stream).

On Dec 20, 3:48 am, Mike Collins wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



On Dec 19, 9:07 am, "John Jove" wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
...

I recall an astrophysicist being asked by a reporter, "What's a
comet",
well knowing the answer would be directed to the 'un-washed masses',
his two word reply was "dirty snowball", rather like describing earth
as
a "mudball". Soon "dirty snowball" became 'mainstream theory'.
Obviously comet Lovejoy was a bit more than a 'dirty snowball'.

Like how did the universe begin? "Big Bang", two word sound bites
are all that's needed, (if god made the universe using a big bang,
he's got alzenhiemer's:-).
Like why is the climate changing, "Blame Man", it's the magic **two
word sound bite for dummies** that sells.
Fun to watch.
Ken

I'm with you on both of those comments. As for the naysayers in support of
man induced climate change and the universal big bang, remember how easily
data can be manipulated to support a certain cause. Even scientific data.
Example: kids doing high school science experiments often "fudge" answers to
get things to turn out correctly. Why would things be any different if it
meant keeping a job or supporting a cause. Collected "evidence" or data or
not!
JJ

Can't blame needy scientists for going for bucks, especially when
the predictions are untestable and sell tabloids.
However the comet Lovejoy is there for all to see and measure, so
it's hard to **** up.
As a theoretician myself I can say that real astrophysicists are very
excited by subjecting a comet to a very hot oven, measuring the
plasma and then having an observation of the result.
Congrads to NASA et al !!
Regards
Ken

I don't know enough to take side on this but if the snow is heated out of a
dirty snowball surely the dirt is left behind.

Mike, don't call me Surely ;-), Marilyn's ok (wifes name is Lynne).
Well there isn't much water out there near the Oort belt, where
comets can spend eons.
It would be nifty if we attached a probe to an outbound comet.
Ken

On 19/12/2011 14:18, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
I recall an astrophysicist being asked by a reporter, "What's a
comet",
well knowing the answer would be directed to the 'un-washed masses',
his two word reply was "dirty snowball", rather like describing earth
as
a "mudball". Soon "dirty snowball" became 'mainstream theory'.
Obviously comet Lovejoy was a bit more than a 'dirty snowball'.


Why so?