Science, fuck you.

Science, is when you go to a glacier and set up timelapse cameras and see that the ice is actually melting.

If I can drink one soda in the after noon, and then feel the effects of the soda on my body when I lace up my gloves, the earth can sure as shit feel the effects of a "little" bit of ice melting.

To bad its not just a little bit of ice.

Correct me if I am wrong but is this not a scientific paper about Polar Climate change?

What about the TED video on melting glaciers?

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html

No kidding, letting ice melt in a drink will make it weaker. What we should be testing is the "bruising" of the gin, and all the stuff people are snooty about.

Sift out the ice.

The problem with this is that they let the ice melt. If you drink it right away, the martini is not diluted.

I agree that the ice should be sifted. Since the debate seems to be the act of shaking...

Shaken martini stays cold longer too.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
>> ^residue:
Uh..If you let a bunch of ice melt in one and not the other one, of course it will taste different..

Yup, they should have sifted out the ice, and it would be a more fair test. Or at least done both the melting and the sifting.


Why? They made the martini's faithfully. If the difference between a shaken and stirred martini is that one is watered down, that's difference enough.

I guess people were expecting some more subtle mechanism, which might also be interesting to look for, but this result is unambiguously enough to confirm the difference between shaken and stirred martinis. If you want to test the difference between a stirred martini and a sifted, shaken martini then have at it. I'd be interested to see the results.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
>> ^residue:
Uh..If you let a bunch of ice melt in one and not the other one, of course it will taste different..

Yup, they should have sifted out the ice, and it would be a more fair test. Or at least done both the melting and the sifting.


I'm guessing they just made the shaken one first - then as the ice is basically melted made the stirred one. This way they both are about the same temperature.

>> ^residue:
Uh..If you let a bunch of ice melt in one and not the other one, of course it will taste different..


Yup, they should have sifted out the ice, and it would be a more fair test. Or at least done both the melting and the sifting.

Uh..If you let a bunch of ice melt in one and not the other one, of course it will taste different..

The argument is not about whether the climate is changing. the question is, did mankind (and specifically C02 emissions) cause it?

consensus has nothing to do with fact, so it really doesn't matter even if 100% of scientists believe something.

To put carbon emissions in perspective, the average human breathes approximately 15 times a minute, over the course of the day this adds up to approximately 0.9 kg of C02, so in a year each human produces 328.5 kg of C02 just in the act of breathing alone. There are just over six and a half billion humans living on earth, so by simply being alive humans produce 328.5 * 6.6 / 1000 = 2.168 billion tonnes of C02 per year.

Here are some other numbers for comparison:

Global industrial C02 emissions: 24.16 billion tonnes per year
Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes: 220 billion tonnes per year
The ocean as part of the carbon cycle: 330 billion tonnes tonnes per year

total human impact is 2.2168 + 24.16 = 26.3768 billion tonnes, or 26.3768 / (220 + 330) = 4.7957% of total C02 emission

total animal/bacterial impact is 220 / (330 + 24.16) = 62.11% of total C02 emission

Seeing ice melt, or droughts occur may say something about climate change but it says nothing of the cause of such a change. The cause of the change is what is causing controversy, not the change itself.

<embed src="http://i40.tinypic.com/sv786u.jpg">

>> ^raverman:
I'm truly amazed when i hear people say they don't "believe" in global warming.
You can SEE million year old ice melting in greenland.
You can SEE unpresedented 10-15 year doughts in Australia & Africa
Around the world 95% of scientists are BEGGING us to avoid disaster.
Whats not to believe? Scientists because they discredit religion?
or just 'in principle' because of a right wing prejudice against environmentalists? It's just so damn petty and closed minded.

I'm truly amazed when i hear people say they don't "believe" in global warming.

You can SEE million year old ice melting in greenland.
You can SEE unpresedented 10-15 year doughts in Australia & Africa

Around the world 95% of scientists are BEGGING us to avoid disaster.

Whats not to believe? Scientists because they discredit religion?
or just 'in principle' because of a right wing prejudice against environmentalists? It's just so damn petty and closed minded.

^

Each dream has a transparent substance that is unable to hold back harm and also prevents you from dealing with the threat. This could represent a fear of something that you are clearly aware of, yet can do nothing but watch as it inevitably approaches. The glass shatters and the ice melts, so the barrier between you and whatever you fear is something that is tenuous and its breach is inevitable, thus causing you anxiety.

Your mentioning of beavers is interesting too. Beavers represent hard work, and in your second dream it is the pressure associated with hard work that is saving you from sharks, but it will soon be all for naught as the protective barrier of the ice inevitably melts away. The sharks may perhaps represent your co-workers or your employer, maybe your creditors.

Monkeys, particularly of the gorilla variety, are known for savagely attacking rival harems to steal their women. In this dream, the gorilla monkeys might represent threats to your relationship. The protective layer of glass is too fragile to keep them back. It may represent the fear that some meathead is going to try to steal your lady friend at a party.

All told, it probably means you want to kill your father and marry your mother, but that's just my interpretation.

Your video, Amazing NASA satellite video of Artic Ice Melt, has made it into your personal Highest Rated Videos listing. Congratulations on a job well done. For you contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Well, in regards to global warming, yes they can. Especially since the global warming side has taken some serious blows recently. Being faced with evidence that contradicts warming trends, the retraction of the IPCC report that started the whole thing by some of its authors, record increases in Arctic sea ice, discovery of deep sea volcanic vents causing ice melting in the caps, and an increasing number of climatologists bailing on the idea, global warming has hit the back burner. It also no longer seems to be proper to call it global warming since we stopped warming about a decade ago. So, now it's proper to refer to it as climate change to cover all your bases. I sat on the fence reading up on global warming for a few years. I've come to the conclusion that it is false, although we should definitely still strive to clean up after ourselves since it is entirely possible to make your immediate area an absolute crap hole. I see the constant pushing of global warming and climate change in the face of contradictory evidence to be another excuse for extensions of government control and regulation. People can buy as many hybrids as they want for all I care, as long as we don't hit lows of government intereference like in England where people are being fined for having too much garbage. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041098/Families-break-bin-rules-overfill-110-fine--drunken-yob-receive.html Although the forced change to the mercury filled bulbs are a start towards making an unnecessary shift just for the sake of feeling environmentally responsible.

Also, I agree it was a completely avoidable situation, but probably not for the same reasons as you. If we never started blocking domestic oil expansion in the first place we could already of had many of these areas up and producing already.

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.