WSB Forum » Open Discussion

(108 posts)

Conflicting Science in Global Warming/Cooling

  • Started 3 months ago by HMC Rich
  • Latest reply from WorldCitizen

  1. An interesting article on the differing views from a variety of scientific institutions.

    See, right wingers do pay attention to science.

    When I first came on this blog I think I said the evidence for man-made global warming was not conclusive. I was roundly criticized for not being a proponent of the global warming crowd and fashionable mainstream media reporting on the subject.

    This is a balanced article because it points out in about 15 years the possibility of finding the data that helps us get closer to the causes of temperatures rising or declining.

    The article uses scientists that lean in all directions.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  2. Oh Crumb, I meant to put this in Politics. Oh Well. Have a great Sunday!!!

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  3. HMCRich..

    global warming is not in doubt. Global warming has not been in doubt in the scientific community for some time.

    the current debate is over "the" cause of global warming...

    in the meantime, we continue to spew several of the top contending contributing factors into our atmosphere and justify it because that one might not be "the" one.

    if you had a roof that was leaking for several different reasons.. some of which you couldn't take care of right now... wouldn't you fix those that you could anyway to cut down on the water damage?

    it's high time we started looking at the roof of our world the same way. fix what we can now and work on the rest as we can.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  4. Daily Mail lol

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  5. NFiorentini
    Member Profile

    It has always struck me as odd when people who do not understand the science decide that the people who've spent their lives studying climatology, meteorology,chemistry, physics, etc., are wrong. Somehow, some columnist or some political pundit is correct, while people such as WeatherUnderground's Dr. Jeff Masters and UW's Dr. Cliff Mass are wrong, as are thousands of other researchers located all over the globe.

    I'll trust science before I trust pundits and conspiracy nuts.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  6. NFiorentini
    Member Profile

    BTW, who is David Rose?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/independent-columnist-apologises-for-plagiarism-2354706.html?origin=internalSearch

    Real name: Johann Hari. Degrees in social and political science (not real science...in case you're confused). An admitted plagiarist. And an avid Wikipedia entry alterer apparently.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Hari

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  7. another "scientist", the last one quoted is Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Benny is a social anthropologist... That's the side of anthropology that is not considered "hard science" by even other branches of anthropology.

    Benny is also a German libertarian (those who think Ayn Rand was too soft....)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

    This is fun. Can we find a real climate scientist in the article?

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  8. BTW: For more right wing knee slappers check out this thread on slashdot:
    http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/01/28/2234257/dont-worry-about-global-warming-say-16-scientists-in-the-wsj

    from the comments:

    Claude Allegre is the first scientist cited. This is from his Wikipedia entry

    Claude Allègre
    In 1996, Allègre opposed the removal of carcinogenic asbestos from the Jussieu university campus in Paris, describing it as harmless and dismissing concerns about it as a form of "psychosis created by leftists".[6] The campus' asbestos is deemed to have killed 22 people and caused serious health problems in 130 others.[7]

    ------------
    If wingnuts were not so freakin dangerous to the rest of us they would be hilarious.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  9. So, Rich, before I read the article you linked, can you tell me what your own take on climate change is?

    —Do you believe climate change is not happening?
    —It it happening, but not caused by humans?
    —Is it happening, but just not as fast as people think?

    And what, if anything, do you think we should do about the climate?

    Thanks in advance.

    –David

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  10. Jiggers
    Member Profile

    Jiggers

    The Earth is billions of years old. It has always had its own climate change cycle. That's how it regenerates itself. We are actually on the tip of n ice age. But it will take thousands of years to complete. And the human race won't be around to feel its hell.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  11. Jiggers...

    nice theory
    may even be true
    but the simple truth is that if this is a natural progression,
    we humans are accelerating it at an alarming rate

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  12. NFiorentini
    Member Profile

    I for one anxiously await Dr. Jiggers' research results and peer-reviewed papers.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  13. If right-wingers want to "pay attention to science," they should probably learn what it is (they could start by learning what the scientific process and peer review are).

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  14. Greenland ice core data. Is this a lie?

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0133f3742509970b-pi

    Discuss.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  15. It's not the whole truth, that's for sure:

    1. That chart is sourced from CO2Science.org, whose position on global warming is hardly objective.

    2. The chart on CO2Science.org is "adapted" (says so right on the label) from a scientific paper. I'm a librarian, so I looked up the paper in question. I wonder why CO2Science.org didn't provide a link?

    3. Possibly because if you look at the paper in question, that chart doesn't plot ice core data at all. It's an experimental reconstruction.

    4. The paper never makes the claim that the prior two sites claim that it does. All it says is that their results are consistent with prior findings on Greenland temperature trends over the last 1000 years.

    5. This paper neither claims nor proves that current warming has the same cause that warming during the Medieval Warming Period did. It postulates no cause for the MWP nor for modern climate trends. It DOES have implications for Greenland's effects on ice-sheet melting and sea levels going forward.

    6. Mann, et al published this paper in the journal Science in 2009 finding that while the MWP showed substantial warming similar to today's in some regions, the effect was NOT global. The sole mention of this paper on CO2Science.org's website does not mention this conclusion.

    Discuss.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  16. ROFLOL

    i think i will stay out of this sandbox tonight:)

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  17. DBP, thanks for being courteous. I found Mr. Rose's article interesting because he mentioned various contributors in the scientific community. Yes, it has a sun related slant to it. There may well be different issues and models involved. It raised questions and should not questions be allowed in these discussions? Apparently in the scientific community, it is very hard to buck the prevailing theories set by "established" scientists and institutions.

    David, I believe in Climate Change. I do not think man is wholly responsible for it. I want to know a percentage. We all know climate change has been a natural part of the our earth since the beginning, whenever that was. Just the fluctuations the past 2000 years has shown that. Given the "science" we have been taught we know before humans were a large population, there were major changes in the climate and temperatures. I don't believe anybody would disagree with that.

    I mean, did the world warm up when humans decimated woolly mammoths and their flatulence stopped in the last great Ice Age? Just having fun.

    Volcanic injection of sulfer dioxide and volcanic sulfer aerosols in the atmosphere have caused some global cooling according to the USGS. (You can look it up Ken). The USGS also says..."the carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has never caused detectable global warming of the atmosphere". Humans generate about 80 to 270 times more carbon dioxide than the earth's volcanic emissions. How much does this human factor relate?

    My opinion is that possibly there might be some influence from the 6 Billion people on earth, but again, how much? Remember the fraudulent report on Himalayan Glaciers dissappearing soon?!

    There is a scientific war going on between scientists. It is getting nasty. Climategate exposed flaws and peer review problems by the researchers. I believe 52 scientists co-authored the IPCC report. Over 1000 researchers and other scientists disagree with the findings.

    I cannot conclusively make a decision regarding man's ability to cause global warming. I do believe in the possibility. All options must be presented.

    Anyway, global warming and cooling happens in cycles, it is happening now and will happen in the future.

    For me the jury on all the causes is still in deliberation. Global warming could be caused by Solar Variation. Maybe they all add up to something, but it seems we have more research to read through. I watched a presentation by Henrik Svensmark. Sometimes in scientific research there is an elegance to certain theories. His data is impressive to me but I know nothing.

    If you know something I do not that is fact based and not politically motivated, please share it.

    I can't tell you what we should do about something if I don't know all or most of the causes. What I do know is that we should learn what we can, objectively, and decide on a course. Fighting pollution can't hurt the process, but worrying about reindeer flatulence seems a bit silly to me too. I can't stop giggling over this article about cow flatulence. http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/scientists-attach-rectal-methane-collecting-backpacks-to-cows/1390

    I just hope the governments of the world do not require humans to have rectal methane collecting backpacks.

    My chili is finished. My legume heavy dinner might contribute to the expansion and expression of methane gases.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  18. For kicks, I have a few the HMC Rich Theories of man made global warming:

    The Electrical Grid. Expansion of the electrical grid causes global warming on two fronts.
    1. where there is electricity, there are magnetic fields. Since there is more electricity (power grids expanding ever into the wilderness) going on around the world, the earth's rotation magnifies the dynamo effect causing a sort of magnetic friction, which in turn causes a microwave effect, which heats up the earth's atmosphere just like your burrito gets heated up on the carousel of your microwave oven, Since there are jet streams, the earth gets the warmth spread more evenly through convection streams or currents.

    2. Or, this hypothesis, It is actually windier than usual on Earth but the wind chill factor makes it seem colder and we turn up the heat in our homes, cars, buildings etc. Latent heat rises from the households into the air, which some people call atmosphere, and heats it a bit.

    3. The Other Big Bang Theory. Since the repeal of Sexual Repression, more people are having sex, which generates body heat. That heat is absorbed into the atmosphere causing global warming. An interesting side effect has been noticed. When global temperatures were higher in the 50's and 60's, a correlated effect was found. The SAS EFFECT (Smoke After Sex Effect) was documented by the tobacco industry. Interestingly enough, more people smoked in the 50's and 60's in the US and other Western Countries. It was natural for everyone to light up after sex. But as the west became more aware of the health problems posed by lighting up (aka generating a secondary heat source) global warming decreased for a bit on that front. Once again the levels rose in the 90's due to another SAS event, although much more reduced... the SCAS EFFECT((Smoking Crack After (and sometimes before))Sex) Effect. The evidence is highly volatile and addictive. Overall the evidence shows a gradual increase in man-made global warming due to another Man Made Event called (SPBS Effect) Smoking Pot Before Sex Effect. Every year more people smoke pot. The temperatures would be rising and causing the earth to bake more but since the adherents to this theory are themselves baked, they have less sex than the target groups of smokers I previously mentioned. Also, a related sub effect was observed by the last group. Global warming due to getting the munchies. Cooking that extra grub contributes to the additive effect of global warming.

    Man made global warming might or might not be real but it certainly has been interesting to participate in.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  19. metrognome
    Member Profile

    The 'Daily Mail' has lost so many major libel suits I'm surprised it is still publishing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

    datamuse, nice job.

    IF humans are one of the causes of accelerated global climate change, and I believe it is clear that we are, it is because we have arrogantly chosen to trash this planet primarily in the interests of amassing wealth, either as nations or as individuals (I guess since the Supreme Court has determined that corporations are individials, I don't need to mention corporations separately.)

    Maybe people felt that the planet was so big, the oceans so deep, the forests and jungles so huge, the air and water so plentiful, that we couldn't possibly damage our home. Maybe they just didn't care.

    The planet is clearly making it known that we were wrong. The question is: is the plutocracy willing to reduced it's bottom line? Are humans in general willing to sacrifice something of their lives to ensure that we have breathable air and drinkable water and that we take steps to ensure that we reduce the pressure on this planet?

    I kinda doubt it. Maybe Newt's right -- we need to colonize the moon so we can destroy it as well.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  20. munchkin22
    Member Profile

    munchkin22

    I'm subscribing to HMC Rich's theories. They're more fun and don't make my head hurt thinking about them.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  21. Here's another theory. since the advent of Foxnews and universal wingnut talk radio in the 90s, the intensity of hot air released by the wingnut nation is heating the atmosphere at an alarming rate.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  22. 365Stairs
    Member Profile

    365Stairs

    Yes...our very little but energic Mother Earth is about 4 billion years old...give or take a few hundred million in either direction. The universe...a staggering 13.8 billion years old...

    To get to this day...she's had to naturally evolve and build herself up and tear herself down with dramatic violence many many times from the inside out. She continues to do this in similar, although with less drama, but greater impact* today.

    Many other times in those many years, she's been struck by outside influences causing any and sometimes all of the previous internal growth efforts to shift the patterns of stability and foster whole new paths.

    We, as a collective, should be thanking the tremendous maturity and gravitational influence of Jupiter on a daily basis that these outside influences dont happen as often as they once did.

    We should be thanking ourselves we were not around as intelligent beings in those days.

    *greater impact* means that her inhabitants are greater in number and growing at a pace never perceived in "history". 6+ Billion humans and counting....absorbing her natural resources at alarming rates without sustainable replensishment.

    6+ Billion creating new & inventive industrial ways to increase our functions while we live...

    6+ Billion ways damage to the protective outer layers of skin that keep us relatively safe from harmful radiation... in our truly and amazingly perfect orbital space...92 million miles away from our much needed primary energy source.

    Since you're never supposed to ask a lady her true age...that is not in question her and she'll probably lie to you anyway. She, like our solar system siblings will continue to revolve and orbit with or without us for at least another 4.5 billion years - until our central star reaches it's evolutionary destiny...

    Anyone with intelligence who doesn't question or understand the relative impact of 6+ Billion lives combined with our growing industrial needs and unnatural & outpaced resource absorbtion of our mother earth has missed the point.

    Yes, CO2 Levels have probably been higher in mother earths violent past. But at those times, she was able to regulate those levels with precious resources that grew out of necessity and actually liked it...providing even higher levels of oxygen...and very little if any damage to our atospheric layers.

    Hypocritically, I drive an SUV everyday that consumes precious fossil fuels and every day I'm sorry. I still use many of the unnaturally made plastic products but try to recycle and look forward to innovations of more natural compostable uses for the same products.

    I worry every day about these hugely conflicting reports that confuse people and are the basis for this large argument...and I worry more for the next 50-100 years of projected ocean rise and cannot fathom (pardon pun) why coastal cities have not begun there migration inland already.

    My position is that in the next 10 years there will be enough people that do get it and demonstrate hard factual evidence and make sustainable decisions to at least limit the damage further - perhaps gain ground by planting 100 million or more CO2 loving trees in the process...

    The oceans have risen and lowered many times before...again with less of an impact* than we will face later.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  23. NFiorentini
    Member Profile

    People who actually know what they are talking about have written extensively on the subject, all available via a Google search. If you *really* want information from someone with knowledge and expertise, I suggest Dr. Jeff Masters. But the fact that people keep listening to and repeating easily-debunked pseudoscience and jibberish from political hacks is indicative that they have no regard for what is true.

    It's sad when people cling to punditry rather than to what is true. It's hard to imagine a stronger force for ignorance than confirmation bias.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  24. Rich, I can't help but wonder what kind of detrimental effect of 40+ years of excessive power consumption from screaming Gibsons, and the collective power they've drawn, has had on the environment...

    Mike

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  25. dat amusing datamuse said:

    I'm a librarian, so I looked up the paper in question.

     
    Now, as we all know . . .
     

     1) Warming is caused by heat, and

     2) Librarians are totally HOT !!!!
     

    Therefore:
     

     3) Librarians cause warming.

            (Global and otherwise.)
     

         
     
     

    *************************************************************************************

    On a more serious note . . .

    HMC Rich, I laffed so hard at your post (#18) . . . I farted . . .
     

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  26. munchkin22
    Member Profile

    munchkin22

    DBP: ergo, more warming...

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  27. DBP: +2 for the Terry Moore comic panel!

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  28. Good Point Mike. Rock On Dude. I think I had better go to the Feedback Lounge and experiment.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  29. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    i think man-made climate change skeptics understand that things like the internal combustion engine are contributing to global warming on a visceral level. they'll never admit it, though. they're just looking to assuage their guilt by denying that any such thing is possible. that, and they like the testosterone rush that follows every time they hear a V-8 engine scream down their streets. makes them want to play the national anthem or something.

    but forget the climate change argument for a second.

    have you seen the color of the seattle skyline when there's a temperature inversion over elliott bay?

    i want climate change deniers to tell me that that color is a good and fine thing, and that we shouldn't cut - or tax! - the amount of emissions we have to breathe.

    and corporate "citizens" are the worst offenders.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  30. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Ah yes, the learned scientific community. Invariably proven wrong. It was accepted science that frogs evolved from pond detritus, the sun rotated around the earth... that was science..as we knew it. Plate tectonic theory? Never a mention in 1950's texts... We can't model the complexities of global warming. We can enter data points of choice, and imply causality...particulalry if we have an agenda that fits. However we DO know that plant and mammalian entrance into this world occurred when CO2 levels where four times higher. We also KNOW that Mars and Earth have had equivalent surface temperature rises that correlate strongly with solar energy output...and Mars has no atmosphere.. so how does that wok? Science is as political as any other discussion. The more liberals we have, the stronger the case we have for global warming... hmmmm fewer liberals means less global warming! The carbon emissions of today are a pittance of the emissions of CO2 in history of earth. Rotting vegetation emits more CO2,methane, N2, than industrial use of carbon fuels.... stop composting people... you are destroying the environment. Industrial emissions are less than 3 per cent of the total emissions per year of greenhouse gases..... that's not hard data to find... see the global carbon cycle... it's not static and their is no natural optimum. It's been higher and lower, and this in not an extreme case. Now Ms F... how many giga tons of industrial greenhouse gases are emitted annually (internal combustion, power generations etc) and how many gigatons of "natural" greenhouse gases are generated? Annually.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  31. kootch...

    i know you have more common sense than that...

    composting creates secondary environmental gain and the cited greenhouse gas production can be mitigated by choosing closed system composting over open pit.

    can you show me where the secondary environmental gain is from industrial greenhouse gases?

    if "natural" greenhouse gases
    and industrial greenhouse gases
    are both a problem

    wouldn't it make sense to work at cleaning them both up
    instead of arguing about which one is worse?

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  32. Uh, Kootch? If there isn't a possibility that it could be proven wrong through further testing and refinement of hypotheses, it ain't science. Of course models aren't perfect. That's why they're called models.

    We also KNOW that Mars and Earth have had equivalent surface temperature rises that correlate strongly with solar energy output

    By your own logic, this'll be wrong tomorrow.

    And Mars does have an atmosphere. It's mostly CO2.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  33. btw kootch...

    if science is so bogus
    why the rush to provide scientific evidence for your arguments?

    having you cake and eating it too is nice
    as long as no-one else picks up the tab

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  34. As a bonus, here's some commentary on that Daily Mail article.

    Balanced? The author LIED about what was in the press release that he based his article on. Please.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  35. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Dueling scientists...the assertion was made.. only "credible" scientists" or some such clap trap.... there is not scientific consensus and the more it gets studied the less credible the "real" scientists become. I am not prepared to fund any more Solyndras or Fiskers, or SolarOne... with not ready for prime time production and technologies... and throw an economic system into chaos for chanting zealots whatever their stripe. Aren't you glad that carbon loads gave rise to c-4 plants? You may well need all that CO2 and more to convert to sugars and carbohydrates with a world population that is presently undernourished. They also use less water resources than C-3 plants and give off more oxygen..... ya get more nutrient value from C-4 plants, with less inputs. If we can't expand the cultivation zones... more pressure on oceans for protein, more pressures to burn down forests for marginal agriculture gains... etc. Do continue the studies... but to call a closed carbon system which has been recycling greenhouse gases for millions of years "full to capacity" is premature. Too bad we didn't keep those slow to degrade plastic bags....they could sequester CO2 for a lot longer time than paper.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  36. It's pronounced "Kook-man", by the way.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  37. Do you have a problem with credibility, kootch?

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  38. kootchman
    Member Profile

    No JoB... from CO2 doth come sugars and carbohydrates.... and I got news for ya... if it decomposes, and it is an aerobic bacterium it is emitting CO2. The itsy bitsy teensy weensie part of plant life that escaped the carbon cycle and got sequestered in coal, oil, natural gas is the exception to what happened to most organic life which went upsy daisy in the air as CO2. Our contribution is itty bitty. . Now ole Datamuse... if you have information to the contrary.. do tell.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  39. WorldCitizen
    Member Profile

    zgh2676

    Kootchman:

    I read post after post you type and I can only come to one conclusion: You're providing comic relief.

    My hunch is you're a far left, socialist party organizer with heavy science related credentials whose worked for the Federal government in the 80s combating the increasing attacks on social welfare programs while championing the burgeoning LGBT movement's foothold into the mainstream segment of society, all while rallying to increase funding and research into the detrimental effects of increased consumption of fossil fuels and the necessity to transition to a higher density, public transportation centered urban society, where people learn to live within their means. I bet you also chair a very public watchdog group whose main stated goal is to help oversee the implementation of more regulatory oversight into the banking industry and protect consumers from the far-reaching effects of corporate malfeasance.

    This blog is most definitely being used by you as an outlet to showcase the inconsistencies and outright laughable stances those affiliated with the far right take on a day to day basis to justify their decision making.

    May I say, I applaud you, sir!

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  40. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Yea... if you say so, and think so. Your bleeting points are taken in stride.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  41. is that bleeding points or bleating points?

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  42. WorldCitizen
    Member Profile

    zgh2676

    Subtle sheep reference? Nah, probably just a type-o.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  43. worldcitizen..

    if only ...

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  44. I like the idea of subtle sheep.

    They mostly come at night.

    Mostly.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  45. NFiorentini
    Member Profile

    Dr. Phil Plait wrote about the originally-posted article from Johann "David Rose" Hari...
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/30/while-temperatures-rise-denialists-reach-lower/
    ...and Dr. Plait has written extensively on climate change denialism (skepticism implies a willingness to consider the evidence, whereas denialism means desperately holding onto a preconceived notion despite reality and evidence).

    And Dr. Jeff Masters, founder of WeatherUnderground.com, has devoted much of his daily blogging to climate change...
    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/category.html#Climate+Change

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  46. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    The carbon emissions of today are a pittance of the emissions of CO2 in history of earth. Rotting vegetation emits more CO2,methane, N2, than industrial use of carbon fuels...

    look up the word "aggregate."

    btw, i call b.s. let's see a citation for that one - one that factors in china's use of coal.

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  47. ok..
    i have to say it
    the emperor has no clothes

    there is an oxymoron in the title

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  48. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Jeez redblack why cite for ya..? You never look anyway. But since you asked... How about one with big pictures? Hell animal respiration gives off more CO2..... let's go on an animal killing spree to cut CO2 emissions. We aren't "creating" CO2... it's been here for billions of years... in a closed system. Some sequestered, some released by biological processes. CO2 rise means more CO2 plant will respond .. capturing the CO2 and sequestering it in vegetative matter or marine organisms, or carbolic acid rain scrubbed from the atmospher by exposed rock facings..ie The Himalayas.... all to become limestone or coal or some such.... even coral reefs. Humans have thrived, increased in population, evolved in much much denser CO2 environments.

    http://www.personal.psu.edu/jam5646/edg100/project2.html

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  49. Seriously kootch?

    You did a pretty decent job demonstrating your science understanding in post 30 with the quote "It was accepted science that frogs evolved from pond detritus..."

    It is certainly difficult to blow at least three concepts in such a short phrase, but you managed it.

    Now that you've made your concept of scientific rigor clear in post 48, I can only come to the conclusion that you are secretly a writer for the Onion!

    WorldCitizen nailed it didn't they?

    BTW: I do love the project 100 page from http://www.personal.psu.edu/jam5646/edg100/proj1.html where they use flip flops & the Pythagorean theorem to estimate distances. I'm kind of surprised he posted a grade school project to the web!

    Posted 3 months ago #         
  50. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    This has led our group to the conclusion that the real source of global warming is a combination of the forces of both humanity and nature.

    your source isn't half as bombastic as you are, kootch.

    they're a little more honest, though... if not a bit naive.

    Posted 3 months ago #         

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^