You argue that subtle changes can have no large effect, but I bet you'd be the first to argue that a few degrees can cause a tipping point in global warming, right? Pick one. As far as precession goes, no one "notices" this, as if we wake up one day and the Earth shifted a few degrees. We know it happens about a degree every 72 years, full cycle every 26,000. And no, GPS satellites would not be affected because their measurements are relative to Earth, whereas precession is measured relative to stars.

Also if the ocean currents had changed, we knew that already. Ever looked at a nautic map? Ever heard of El Niño? Ocean currents shift all the time.

Eyjafjallajökull? Maybe not massive, but we noticed its effects and it didn't have to be massive.

You can really believe that hiring 5 *temporary* employees to clean up a mess and give some advice costs more than the price difference between a mac (which wouldn't have necessarily fixed this, and mac techs probably cost more) and pc times, what, thousands of laptops?

Well, that and the giant, structure rattling earthquake.

I admit I did too. To be honest I didn't know that that "endemic" meant a problem concentrated to an single area. Seemed more synonymous with "intrinsic". It's used in all ways in the article itself. The "epidemic" is the noun in the summary, if it reached "epidemic" proportions then it would make sense, since it would describe the proportions. The article by Orwell in the other reply, while dated, it actually spot on. It seems the author is guilty of the same thing most are (including me), sacrificing clarity for sounding eloquent and intelligent.

It should at least be "becoming an epidemic", though as a noun it only refers to disease. Endemic is just wrong as it's the antonym to epidemic. Endemic would be more proper if people shined lasers at planes only in Detroit or something. Why can't they just use "widespread" or something like that?

So, what part of "the asteroid would need to be split" are you not understanding? They've stated that the movie's scenario, especially is distance, would need a massive explosion. They're giving the distance that the movie's bomb would need to work. If you read the actual paper linked in the article they say:

"The distance from the Earth at which the bomb is detonated is taken as 63,000 miles (101000km) [2]."

It's a little late to be asking that now.

Read it again. The article is actually for a distance of the radius of the Earth plus 400 miles, which is just under a total of 3,500 miles out. Pretty much the putting a paper bag over our head distance. The article states it would have to be 8 billion miles out to work.

You're certainly right. I only use the word natural in this case because without modern advances, it really was the only way to be healthy. I personally have no moral issues with eating meat (I grew up on a farm and did lots of hunting). That doesn't mean I have no feelings regarding people torturing animals, even if they're about to die. Not real big on trapping or netting either.

I actually think there's one very major reason that it's a good thing that people have vegetarian diets, hashing out any problems, especially the more elusive long term ones, that could arise. While overpopulation should be the reason, it's space travel. The first off world inhabitants will likely not have anything more than chickens and their eggs for animal protein for a very long time, and that's if they're lucky.

Actually, that's wrong too. Sure, we can't read them, but that doesn't make them not writings.

I would think evolutionary science alone should be enough to show that we need meat. The fact that we evolved to eat it and that you have to eat a wide variety of plants which are not all found in the same area to replace it should be enough to show that you need meat to survive on a healthy, natural diet. The Aztec had lots of problems surviving on a nearly vegetarian diet. Their bones were yellow from eating mostly maize. The agricultural revolution made people shorter, grow smaller brains, live shorter lives, and have more problems with their teeth and diseases than their hunter/gatherer ancestors. How about how people who regularly consume fish, especially when young, are smarter than those that don't? It isn't impossible to be healthy without meat, but you're using modern science and agriculture to get around something you actually do need. Maybe it won't (immediately) kill you, but to say it's unneeded, or has no negative effects is certainly erroneous.

"If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics."

This is an old idea. I believe the old Apollo missions' suits were designed this way to prevent the fine (and very sharp) dust of the moon from contaminating the lunar module. Can't believe we've regressed so far.

Yes, let's try to create massive worldwide algae blooms, cause the one's were getting already have been fantastic.

But, ice caps are a big factor when modeling climate. Even if there was a solution, you still haven't really pinned down the root cause of gravity. So your answer is "no", but it makes both incomplete to the point that they are both useless except in situations with very few variables, e.g., a few planets, or a week's worth of climate.

If God exists, how can there be evil, a Devil, and Hell? Why would a perfect and benevolent being have need to create of such things? If all things come from God, then God created evil.