>> ^NetRunner:
He mostly talks about offshore drilling here, but you can be sure he also means the Artic National Wildlife Refuge.


Ermm, if thats true he makes NO mention of it here, that would mean (cynically) that he values oil and ecomony over EVERYTHING ELSE.

Dumbass.

He mostly talks about offshore drilling here, but you can be sure he also means the Artic National Wildlife Refuge.

>> ^choggie:
Aspartame causes this. People making money off shit bad for the body.
Fluoride, the same.
and phenylketoneurics....tell us, what is that??? Harmless huh???
Those above referenced statements sound like yer basic pap from the mind of some party-line insect....no doubt, some "expert"


Chogglestein, I'm not sure what two Psychologists would get out of writing an article for Skeptic magazine, claiming there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism, maybe they're just sick and crazy doctors?

And are you referring to "phenylketonuric/phenylketonuria" which is an inherited genetic disease due to the faulty metabolism of phenylalanine? The latter which is found in most diet drinks? I've been diabetic for more years than I have fingers and toes, and have enjoyed diet Coke and diet Pepsi without incident in these times. Hell, for a year in my first apartment (I know I'm stupid so don't point it out) that's all I drank, between 6-10 a day. Was I addicted? No, I was addicted to alcohol at the time though! Now it's a random one, or two I enjoy a week, and I've yet to suffer ill effects from the phenylalanine or aspartame. And considering my condition, and sweet tooth, I've ingested more than my fair share of aspartame, I'm sure.

On the issue of the Vaccine-Austim hooplah, however, I'll of course concede that, yes, having such a large amount of shots in one day is over the boards, doing so could potentially injure a child. Also, Qruel, I understand the ppb mercury leves you cited, these vaccines, however, are not using methylmercury, they are using ethylmercury, which (I cite Wiki here): "Unlike methylmercury, ethylmercury has not been found to bioaccumulate.[1] The toxicity of ethylmercury is not well studied, but exposure standards based on methylmercury (such as those currently recommended by the EPA) are not demonstrated to be equivalent for ethylmercury. What does that mean? It means it is easily flushed and expelled by the human body. Unless, of course, a particular human body has problems with that. I note here, that we are all not the same 100% biologically, as Lewis Black said: "What's good for you might kill the bastard sitting next to you."

So, even though there is less observable, and confirmed, damage for ethylmercury, it is still treated as if it were as dangerous and bioaccumulated as methymercury.

Here's another article written by Kristina Chew, PhD, about the Vaccine-Autism hoopla, and her own personal experience with it, as her child has autism: http://www.autismvox.com/the-vaccine-autism-urban-myth/

Here's another good artice over at The Skeptic's Dictionary: The Anti-Vaccination Movement (AVM).

What is shown, for the most part, in these Vaccine-Autism cases is a correlative link. "100 of these 200 kids had X Vaccine, and they got Autism, ergo, the vaccine caused it." A few months ago I had a similar discussion with some "Right-to-Lifers" in my town over a billboard they put up outright saying that abortion caused breast cancer. The "evidence" they cited on their website was decades old, and all refuted by modern studies. Not to mention her strongest "evidence" was that in the last ten years in Canada the rate of abortions and breast cancer went up. I told her so did the use of computers in the home, does that cause cancer too? She screamed the same nonsense into me that "You don't think doctor's would lie about this to make money? What about cigarrettes!".

When it is a personal experience, with a lot of emotion involved, IE; parents with their children, you look for a pattern. We are pattern-seeking primates (as Dr. Shermer mentions in the Skeptic Mag article) and as Carl Sagan pointed out in Demon Haunted World, we tend to find lots of pattern where there is none.

As it still stands there is no solid scientific evidence to prove having these vaccines and children getting autism. I will gladly accept that they do when the evidence is presented.

And I'll say what I said to the Right-to-Life lady on the phone:

"Correlation dose not equal causation, you cannot have causation, not yours."

Right. I get ya now. Valid point. So, what would have been better, to be crystal clear this is a video made of still images?

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
I understand what you are saying and its academic; average persons (especially less versed in science and more likely to be cynical of global warming claims) hear "satellite pictures" and think camera recording actual "as seen by the naked eye" images. By using a barely technical definition of "image" and "photograph" you subvert the suspension of disbelief and invite nit-picky criticism which undermine the base argument of global warming claims. That's all I am saying.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
Hey, so stumbled on your comments in reply to my comments, and I'll just stick one point in there...

This footage is very much a video composed of satellite images.

A still image is data. It is photons of a certain wavelength being recorded at a certain time from a certain location/direction. What they recorded with their satellite were images shot by a camera that records a specific spectrum of light, just not the spectrum we see. Each day of these pictures was pasted onto a model of a globe (with land masses, etc), and each of those globe-days were then played in sequence to show, in a meaningful way, what that camera had taken pictures of.

Its not simulated in the sense that there is added data based on calculations, the image is simulated in the sense that data from the images is pasted onto a model of a globe to illustrate the changes with respect to landmasses and everything (the satellite wasn't suspended out there and snapping only the video's angle). Its all 'data' exactly like the data recorded with a consumer digital camera (which is usually filtered and responsive to the electromagnetic spectrum between 380 and 800nm, whereas their camera captured microwaves with wavelengths somewhere around 1mm to 1cm). Nothing sinister going on here!


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
it is especially hurtful in respect to the whole global warming argument: show doubters footage like this while telling them it's "satellite video" will immediately lose points because it's clearly NOT a video. By being misleading you hurt the base supposition. Fence-sitters and the unconvinced will feel insulted and even MORE unconvinced. I too am astounded that people still want to deny global warming's dangers and it's things like this that make it harder to get people to open their eyes.

I understand what you are saying and its academic; average persons (especially less versed in science and more likely to be cynical of global warming claims) hear "satellite pictures" and think camera recording actual "as seen by the naked eye" images. By using a barely technical definition of "image" and "photograph" you subvert the suspension of disbelief and invite nit-picky criticism which undermine the base argument of global warming claims. That's all I am saying.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
Hey, so stumbled on your comments in reply to my comments, and I'll just stick one point in there...

This footage is very much a video composed of satellite images.

A still image is data. It is photons of a certain wavelength being recorded at a certain time from a certain location/direction. What they recorded with their satellite were images shot by a camera that records a specific spectrum of light, just not the spectrum we see. Each day of these pictures was pasted onto a model of a globe (with land masses, etc), and each of those globe-days were then played in sequence to show, in a meaningful way, what that camera had taken pictures of.

Its not simulated in the sense that there is added data based on calculations, the image is simulated in the sense that data from the images is pasted onto a model of a globe to illustrate the changes with respect to landmasses and everything (the satellite wasn't suspended out there and snapping only the video's angle). Its all 'data' exactly like the data recorded with a consumer digital camera (which is usually filtered and responsive to the electromagnetic spectrum between 380 and 800nm, whereas their camera captured microwaves with wavelengths somewhere around 1mm to 1cm). Nothing sinister going on here!


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
it is especially hurtful in respect to the whole global warming argument: show doubters footage like this while telling them it's "satellite video" will immediately lose points because it's clearly NOT a video. By being misleading you hurt the base supposition. Fence-sitters and the unconvinced will feel insulted and even MORE unconvinced. I too am astounded that people still want to deny global warming's dangers and it's things like this that make it harder to get people to open their eyes.

Hey, so stumbled on your comments in reply to my comments, and I'll just stick one point in there...

This footage is very much a video composed of satellite images.

A still image is data. It is photons of a certain wavelength being recorded at a certain time from a certain location/direction. What they recorded with their satellite were images shot by a camera that records a specific spectrum of light, just not the spectrum we see. Each day of these pictures was pasted onto a model of a globe (with land masses, etc), and each of those globe-days were then played in sequence to show, in a meaningful way, what that camera had taken pictures of.

Its not simulated in the sense that there is added data based on calculations, the image is simulated in the sense that data from the images is pasted onto a model of a globe to illustrate the changes with respect to landmasses and everything (the satellite wasn't suspended out there and snapping only the video's angle). Its all 'data' exactly like the data recorded with a consumer digital camera (which is usually filtered and responsive to the electromagnetic spectrum between 380 and 800nm, whereas their camera captured microwaves with wavelengths somewhere around 1mm to 1cm). Nothing sinister going on here!


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
it is especially hurtful in respect to the whole global warming argument: show doubters footage like this while telling them it's "satellite video" will immediately lose points because it's clearly NOT a video. By being misleading you hurt the base supposition. Fence-sitters and the unconvinced will feel insulted and even MORE unconvinced. I too am astounded that people still want to deny global warming's dangers and it's things like this that make it harder to get people to open their eyes.

Ahoy! I responded to your comment! Good day to You!

In reply to this comment by enahs:
And yes, I was just trolling. Bored tonight.

Ahoy! I responded to your comment (as well as others) on the NASA polar animation post. Have a good'n!

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
this can't possibly be actual, unenhanced satellite footage. I accept this as a simulation, I "believe" global warming I am a "tree-hugger" but I don't being lied to esp when it's unnecessary.

thank you so much for taking the time to research that and contribute such a quality post

Q

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
nib, lucky for me they've got a fair amount of that PIG book available for free on Google books so I just took a quick look at it before I head to bed.

One of the things that stood out was a group of pie charts which shows carbon dioxide among a few other greenhouse gases. It's not a greenhouse gas if it has zero effect on global temperature.

The book was apparently written by a lawyer, Christopher Horner, who is a recognized expert on "global warming legislation and regulation". That's something, but he's no climatologist. Chapter 1 is dedicated to calling environmentalists "anti-American communists". The first paragraph was really all I needed to read to understand that this book has no value to me.

It's endorsed by Richard Lindzen, who is a climatologist and has worked in related fields as well. His position seems to be similar to what I said in my initial post; that the temperature is rising but we're not entirely sure why yet. He's been criticized for taking payment of $2500/day from oil/coal companies for consulting services. He's been funded and/or supported by Western Fuels and OPEC.

The book is also endorsed by a few senators, and nobody believes anything they say so I think we can just ignore that.

The following organizations have taken the stance that global warming is at least partially due to human activity:

The aforementioned IPCC
The National Science Academies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US
The US National Research Council
The American Meteorological Society
The American Geophysical Union
The American Institute of Physics
The American Astronomical Society
The Federal Climate Change Science Program
The American Association for the Advancement of Science
The Geological Society of London
The Geological Society of America
The American Chemical Society
The Institution of Engineers Australia
The American Association of State Climatologists
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists

The American Association of State Climatologists, by the way, is made up of state climatologists, assistant climatologists under the state climatologist and retired climatologists. They state a membership count of "approximately 150". That's 70 more than you claim exist in the country.

@ doc m

I could be completely wrong in the case of LEO as when i last looked at this project it was in its early stages. however my comment is based off of game AI and the state of social AI and its lack of use within games due to its shoddy state ( due to its complexity) any one with a interest in AI specifically in games ore interactive systems should head over to www.gamasutra.com get a free account and read there articals.

Penn, while very entertaining, seems to me to fall into the religiously libertarian camp like a lot of well to do white men who want to feel that their success has nothing to do with white mans affirmative action.

The premise that capitalism does not have an authoritarian bias, and that unrestircted markets solve real problems is an unquestionable artical of faith in that camp, and P&T do seem to suffer from it.

As for walmart, I think that alot of the pro-sweatshop set likes to point out europe did it(and it's in the US, so is slavery [check out florida]), but let's not forget that technology has advanced since the industrial revolution, and this is no longer neccesary. Add that to the fact that sweatshop investment shifts to the most oppresive regimes where the cost of keeping workers docile can be externalized. The old sweatshop-> labor union model does not work in a globalized ecconomy, the historical referance is whofully inaccurate.

I think P&T were blinded by their religious belifs concerning the invisible hand of the markets, and dropped the ball on spotting thier own bulls hit.

a ton of canadian bands including metric and death from above toured japan together about a year ago. it was called the artic wind tour (i think).

'shroomy, I had missed your "science" comment before. cold does not make things float. in fact almost every substance contracts when colder. (same weight & smaller volume means what?) so colder means more dense, and most things would sink when colder.

The oddity of water is that it expands when frozen. So it actually floats as ice. And yes, there is ice at the north pole, a lot more in antarctica. (Soon to be a year round unfrozen sea in the artic circle though, so you keep-on keeping on with your global warming is a myth story.) It's as solid as your grasp of science.




---------
no, it is a super-conductor.

most semi-conductors couldn't generate the kind of EM fields this does. the question is at what temperature can you make a material act like this, so this one is relatively high temp, liquid nitrogen (77K). It's probably an exotic material like Yttrium-Barium-Copper Oxide (Note the resistance goes down to zero).

Semiconductors are what make computers possible. Silicon and III-V materials are used because you can either make the device conduct electrons by applying a voltage, or it doesn't conduct when there is no voltage. That makes a possible 0's and 1's... and Intel Processors when you put a couple million of those devices (switches) together.