slash-dotters won't admit it, but a majority of them second your comment.

Totally Hot Like On TV : Isn't that the CowboyNeal option?

I will say this: I would hit them...

Peer-review is not supposed to be the end of science. But in global warming we hear "Consensus! Peer-reviewed!" But that is besides the point.

Even saying that, the IPCC WG4 has only 70% of its references from peer-reviewed sources. And even if that is not enough...

Science is supposed to be duplicated and experimented with and replicated before its set in stone as solid. Global warming from greenhouse gases is set in stone. The amount this is warming the Earth is NOT. Feedback effects and factors are not set in stone. This is still being studied.

And when this science is making decisions that will effect every nation in the world, the litmus test must be that much higher. Even one mistake is cause to look it over in detail simply because so much money is involved in the end. Did you know that Al Gore's company that sells carbon credits is worth 3 billion dollars? Propaganda exists on both sides of this argument whether you want to believe it or not.

I will take the leftovers and leave you with the actual chemicals and munitions. Obviously judging from your apparent lack of common sense you have already suffered from those diseases.....Sorry about that, guess we got a little carried away in the Great War....

Can you blame us Yanks? After all, we saved your asses twice from those evil German Rulers and liberated you in the name of Spain..err I mean US!! I swear, we 'liberated' you..

Ares/Constellation was attempting to create a new 'modern' rocket versus 1970's technology. You can't simply take new technology, strap it together with a rocket and watch it fly to space and back. This takes time and money. The fact that Neil Armstrong rarely speaks out should say more about what he thinks then anything else. Maybe he does have some support for his employer, but that is besides the point when he very rarely speaks out.

Rocket science is difficult for a reason....and the reason we won't get to the asteroid belt in our lifetimes is because we have politicians who are not visionary and can only think up to 3 months in the future. We do not have a JFK in office to make goals and follow through on them. Say what you want about our current president and previous presidents, none of them has invested what is required to have NASA seriously content to explore like it is intended.

I am not arguing that commercial is not the way to go...its just that any commercial venture will have the same issues with rockets that NASA does. Until we have the technology to escape the gravity well of Earth reliably, space flight is an expensive luxury at best...and more then likely we will end up sinking just as much money in some commercial company as we would into NASA.

It was called "oops" in the original...

I mean really, what could go wrong when sending massive amounts of energy through the air?

you can kill yourself on 9 volts believe it or not, its not the voltage, but the amperage which does the damage.

voltage is often higher in higher amperage delivery systems, and therefore that is why this confusion generally exists. I know you aren't saying otherwise, but shrug, it can't be said enough in my opinion.

If someone did "lick the connectors" on this baby when it was fully charged, well use your imagination, but it could very well just shock them to the ground, but that is the best case scenario. As a rule, its a very bad idea to complete a circuit on batteries larger then D's. Your laptop battery will probably just shock you badly, or maybe just make you twitch and let go (I am just guessing because I wouldn't try it...)....the car battery...well we all know how that can kill people and how it does indeed kill a number of people every year.

Sodium and water true, but that would require the battery to shed its compartment or no longer be sealed, which more then likely would happen on the inside and would release all the energy at once, which to me would probably cause more problems then water getting in there...

1) You do the same thing in automatics, automatics have gears that you can change just without the clutch. I lost traction in a brand new dealer loaner because the traction control would not let me accelerate when I was stuck in ice (I know how to drive in ice) Instead of just sitting there like an idiot, I downshifted, turned off the traction control and pulled out onto the street without causing an accident to people on the street I was turning into, or behind me on the hill watching as I slid backwards because of the nice traction control.

2) Same thing if you really want to....But I don't see the point. I did drive a car with OD for a bit (When I was a little younger) and it was nice to engage that and just watch the RPM's rip upwards and have some fun.

3) I had the brakes fail once on my car (That is auto) and I used the downshifting technique to slow myself down and gradual usage of the parking break to stop. I use engine breaking a lot just to practice in case something like that ever happens again.

4) That is up to debate, I rather enjoy being able to drive an auto like a manual and at the same time not have to worry about sliding backwards into someone because I am not paying attention at a stoplight. I have seen lots of people in manuals do this, and it just irks me that these people drive cars they don't know how to use.

In the end, you can do a lot of the same things in an automatic...I just prefer automatic because if I am out with friends and I want to get drunk and I was driving, I can ask someone else to DD and not worry about him not being able to drive my car and perhaps ruin the clutch... Also I can let others borrow my cars if they need to without worrying about the clutch or the car...

Lets face it, I do agree more people who drive manuals are better at driving, but that does not mean all of us automatic drivers are terrible at driving...

Everyone throws out the term "natural" like it means anything. There are plenty of "natural" stuff in the environment that will kill you if you ingest it....and there are plenty of artificial things that are healthy for you.

I don't even think this is an argument someone can really make, its all in what the food actually does for you that means anything.

That changes nothing! Eat the damn cheese or the nanny state will come get you!

"they are coming to take me away ahhahaha...."

Oh BAM, our country can't talk about bad policy anywhere now because of ONE NUT...you got us good there AC.

So Al Gore who recently purchased real estate by the beach is a tard by your definition?

And here I thought I was the only one who thought that man was a bloated waste of space...

Universally is a strong word. Any evidence for global warming comes with the same amount of evidence against it.

In this article we have people claiming its Global warming causing it, which is said without proof once again...but if we listen to Dr Mörner who has studied ocean levels for 40 years...there is no measurable increase in sea level, and he is an expert in his field...not one person who wrote the Nobel winning report was an expert in sea-level change and yet they make all sorts of claims on being experts on that..

Here is a nice list of everything global warming "causes" as said by the media and scientists:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

If you want to discuss more: lets discuss NASA data being stacked:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

As you can tell station data has gone down in last few years, and if you plot it against temperature rise, you get a very obvious trend:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

That tells the story of how bad the NASA datasets are which are one of the main data-sets used in AGW Debate..or we can just get it straight from NASA/..

James Hansen’s colleague Reto Ruedy told the USA Today weather editor:

“My recommendation to you is to continue using CRU data for the global mean [temperatures]. “What we do is accurate enough” — left unspoken: for government work — “[but] we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.”

So in other words the NASA data is worse then the data that was doctored purposely by CRU

There is a debate whether you want to bury your head in the sand or not, because the data does not point to ONE thing causing current warming, assuming there is warming considering how much of the data is suspect currently....

And even assuming today's trend is warming, there is debate on the ocean causing a majority of it... Or solar cycles...the science of the climate is far from settled, we have just now scratched the surface...

Very few times I will say this, but very occasionally a comment makes me spit out whatever I am drinking all over the keyboard, and you sir did it. Congratulations sir, now I must be off to clean off my main keyboard..

Yes, we do not like the French here, didn't you hear? They just hold up white flags and yell weird mutterings at us, no real sport there to be honest. Long live the Freedom Fry.