I expect there are bad eggs in each house.
That's a reasonable assumption. The hat seems to choose based on fairly arbitrarily set criteria (it's a hat, after all, and not that smart). Unfortunately old Godric might have been a noble fellow, but he obviously didn't see that every character type has it's strengths and weaknesses:
1. "Boldness" = tendency towards callousness and bullying (G)
2. "Loyalty" = low self esteem (H)
3. "Wits" = Arrogance, aloofness,lack of empathy (R)
4. "Ambition" = Egomania
If each person had been placed with others who would balance out those weaknesses, they would all have been better off. I recall that someone in the book said something to that extent toward the end: 800 years too late, IMO.
So you are not interested. That is you. It might be boring to you, but it has a lot of real estate to explore in the search for exobiology and experimentation to try adapting earth based organisms.
It has about 4 sq metres of real estate to explore. More, if you are motivated to dig more. And slime and mould will grow find on Mars: mystery solved. Feel to watch that mould grow to you hearts content.
I could keep myself quite interested.
Sure. Recline the seat. Return the seat to the upright position. Recline the seat. Return the seat to the upright position. Recline the seat. Return the seat to the upright position. Recline the seat. Return the seat to the upright position. Recline the seat. Return the seat to the upright position. Recline the seat. Return the seat to the upright position. For six months. And then do the same on Mars.
No accounting for what it takes to amuse some people.
As for being bored on the trip, you do realize that at one time it took two months to make it from Spain to the New World. That was with limited provisions and a much larger crew with far less entertainment options.
What new world are you referring to?
Making the trip is possible in 150 days. Preventing getting bored requires a mirror of Netflix, Hulu, Wikipedia and people that are no so prone to attention deficit as you.
Right, so you plan is to watch Netflix for six months on the way to Mars, then watch Netflix for 6 months while you are there (plus the occasional digging and unblocking. And then, what? Watch Netflix for six months on the way back?
That's just great. Except from my perspective, we could achieve the same ends without you ever leaving your house. So the is NO WAY that we are going to pay for your little cheeto's fueled excursion. You want to commute to Mars and back watching Netflix for the duration? That's fine, but you can pay for it.
We are not all so broken.
You want spend six months nauseated in a tin can watching Netflix, then six months cowering underground watching Netflix, and then six months in the vomit can again, watching Netflix. Because to you, this represents an animated diversion from your ordinary life.
I have no conception of how boring and tedious your life must be.
Flying in aircraft is interesting. I still find it interesting, even after 25 years of doing it. When it takes 10 hours though, it's boring, and I want it to be over. Going to Mars, and being on Mars, is like a long flight, but with worse food, and mindless, repetitious work to do as you schlep through your 6-12 months. So when the novelty of it wears off and it becomes routine, who is going to go willing?
Mars is boring. Humans have evolved to roam about and forage for things. We like to roam. Mars is more like a cramped, dirty, underlit basement that you can't leave, and have to share with people you can barely stand. But never mind, tomorrow you can unblock the toilet again. But you won't be going outside and having adventures, or looking forward to a nice coffee, or meeting a nice girl, or seeing new sights and or experiencing new cultures, or making any new discoveries. But maybe you can occupy yourself with more digging in the ground like a worm - but don't damage your suit!
I'm being an Honest Dissenter. As for "Citing Myself" I take it you're incapable of reading the post. I cited NASA for the Stratospheric Optical Depth, NOAA for the Global Historical Climatology Network Dataset so that Anyone could pull the data for themselves
You cited an organization that quite explicitly claims that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - to prove that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Explain to me me how that works.
Do you understand NASAs data better than they do?
1. If NASA's data says the sun is causing the warming, why does NASA say otherwise? Show working
2. If volcanic SO2 is causing the warming, why did it get progressively warmer and not just drop off? Show working
We know it is "greener" (it's not actually green) in some areas because of science. The same science tells us that it is browner in others. Also, the same science gives us other observed effects that are detrimental, and others are projected which we have yet to see (some beneficial, but in the whole detrimental).
You can't accept part of the science and ignore the rest.
What's more, the idea was not controversial until it was revealed that some powerful industries might need to change their ways and that the money trough of coal and oil extraction would have to be fenced off.
When I was a child (in the 70s) I was fascinated by discoveries in the solar system and our neighbouring planets. Why was Venus hotter than Mercury, despite the latter being closer to the Sun? Well, it turns out the Venusian atmosphere has large concentrations of CO2, a known greenhouse gas, and this made it much hotter on the surface of Venus than on Mercury. This was known, and nobody blinked an eye. There was no mention in any of the literature of that era about the idea being controversial when applied to Venus.
Facts don't cease to be facts because they later turn out to be inconvenient.
The claim being discussed is that humans are largely responsible for Global Warming and must take immediate action to stop it.
If this is the case this would contradict, rather than demonstrate your earlier assertion: Meanwhile, I'm sorry to say, none of the similar predictions of the past have come true — at least, none that the adherents of the Climate Science are able to cite today..
If, as you are now claiming no evidence has been presented then the earlier claim: one of the similar predictions of the past have come true can't be true, because no predictions would have been made.
Rather than argue with facts and data of which I've presented plenty had you read the thread.
Stop lying. To quote myself: Don't cite yourself as an authority though, because that is the equivalent of just making a baseless assertion. Show us your research, show us the data, and we'll take a look.
Rather, you'd resort to jailing of dissenters.
You aren't a dissenter. Liars aren't dissenters: you can't "dissent" from truth. You can't dissent from facts: screaming "death, you're persecuting meeeee" as you plunge over a cliff, having decided to "dissent" from the fact that humans can't fly. Fraudsters aren't dissenters - people who commit fraud should pay back the people they defrauded. I think you and your pals are deliberately lying about the causes of climate change, in an attempt to avoid mitigation. Thus, you push the burden of mitigation onto others.
It's no surprise when that's your position that people with the data showing the problem remain silent rather than place their live, careers, and family in the wake of your wrath over reason.
First you claim to have already posted the citation to your paper, and now you say you HAVEN'T, and we shouldn't be surprised that you DIDN'T.
I'm not surprised, not at all.
Read up on this concept of "burden of proof", dimwit.
You (that's you!) said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim(that's you!) , but with someone else (that's me!) to disprove.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim (that's you!), and is not upon anyone else (like me!) to disprove.
I repeat: Hate to break to ya, but you can shout "the sky is not blue" to your heart's content, nobody is obliged to listen to you. You feelings don't matter. All that matters is what you can prove.
Wow, asshole, you really are running ahead of everyone here. "Unable to prove" is equal to "lying" in your opinion?..
Can you prove your claim?
The specific prediction of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is that the Lower Tropical Troposphere (LTT) will warm faster than the Earth's surface. We do not see this. In fact, the OPPOSITE is seen.
Better call your mates at climateaudit and get them to publish a retraction.
Never let someone who says it cannot be done interrupt the person who is doing it.