Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Here it comes. (Score 2) 292

by blau (#39157189) Attached to: Cars Emit More Black Carbon Than Previously Thought

Third, it is trivially proven that there is no genuine consensus among scientists [climatedepot.com] that the warming is caused by humanity, or what to do about it. There is at best a preponderance of opinion among scientists that it is caused by humanity. It isn't necessarily clear how strongly those views are held.

From the link: "The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers."

Oh wow!!! LOL!

You can tell that the guy who wrote this was a producer for Rush Limbaugh's show.

Comment: Re:Different thing (Score 1) 776

by blau (#37902394) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Results Released Today

Come again?

Parent asked: BTW, what does tobacco have to do with this?

I pointed out that there is a connection (link to article showing that the same anti-science agenda think tanks which worked to discredit and obscure studies linking lung cancer to tobacco smoke exposure are now campaigning agains AGW).

How is this an ad hominem?

Comment: Re:We're not there yet... (Score 1) 535

by blau (#37887328) Attached to: Droughts Linked To Global Warming

pro-AGW: $50 Billion, while the other side got skeptical of AGW: $19 Million.

There are links to references and such on that page. I think my work here is done.

Are you serious? Some industry-sponsored (Heartland Institute) aussie climate scientist pulled that number out of his ass (at least there is no telling where it came from).

Another funny from your link:
The U.S. alone has spent $30 billion on federal programs directly or indirectly related to global warming in just the last six years, according to one estimate.

...which in the original Fox News article turns out to be:
The Bush administration, after all, is by far the largest funder of global warming alarmism, pouring about $30 billion of federal dollars into climate- and alternative energy-related research over the last six years.

LOL?

Space

+ - ROSAT re-entry->

Submitted by blau
blau (759804) writes "From the DLR website: "Since its decommissioning, atmospheric drag has caused the satellite to lose altitude. In June 2011, it was at a distance of only about 327 kilometres above the ground. Due to the fact that ROSAT does not have a propulsion system on board, it was not possible to manoeuvre the satellite to perform a controlled re-entry at the end of its mission in 1999. When the spacecraft re-enters the atmosphere at a speed of approximately 28,000 kilometres per hour, the X-ray observatory will break up into fragments, some of which will burn up by the extreme heat. The latest studies reveal that it is possible that up to 30 individualpieces weighing a total of 1.7 tons mayreach the surface of the Earth. The largest singlefragment will probably be the telescope's mirror, which is very heat resistant and may weigh up to 1.7 tons. [] At present, scientists expect the X-ray satellite, which completes an orbit around Earth inabout 90 minutes, tore-enter around between 22 and23 October 2011. [] All areas under the orbit of ROSAT, which extends to 53 degreesnorthern and southern latitude could be affected byits re-entry. The bulk of the debris willimpact near the ground track of the satellite. However, isolated fragments could fall to Earth in a 80 kilometre wide path along the track."
From a Guardian article about the satellite (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/19/german-satellite-crash-earth): "The German space agency puts the odds of somebody somewhere on Earth being hurt by its satellite at one in 2,000 – a slightly higher level of risk than was calculated for the Nasa satellite. Any individual's odds of being struck are one in 14 trillion, given that there are 7 billion people on the planet.""

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Sueing others for being copycats... (Score 1) 345

by blau (#37151746) Attached to: More Photoshopped Evidence In Apple v. Samsung

Please... Neither does this look "strikingly similiar", nor does it work anything like an iPad or Galaxy Tab.

Besides did a working version of this thing even exist? Because the device shown in that video is obviously a non-functioning dummy and whoever did the video sucks at editing. LOL!

Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson

Working...