Live rocket launch in 10mins here

 

http://www.spacex.com/webcast/

I would not give the term "conspiracy theorists" to the many scientists who claim otherwise.

Many?

 

http://jcmooreonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/729px-Climate_science_opinion21.png

I would not give the term "conspiracy theorists" to the many scientists who claim otherwise.

 

Like who?

more space porn:

 

http://www.sickchirpse.com/14-stunning-photos-of-space-that-will-crack-a-hole-in-your-brain/

]

So there's a moon called Titan with flowing seas of methane?

 

Fuck me.

 

There's also two galaxies having a boot off?

So there's a moon called Titan with flowing seas of methane?

Fuck me.

There's also two galaxies having a boot off?

get yourself on the Sky channels in the 500s, there's some cracking programmes about planets/moons & shit. Fascinating stuff

get yourself on the Sky channels in the 500s, there's some cracking programmes about planets/moons & shit. Fascinating stuff

I won't be able to resist flicking on northern birds going that far up the sky channel listing :-)

I won't be able to resist flicking on northern birds going that far up the sky channel listing :-)

I did think that when I typed it

I did think that when I typed it

:-)

 

Seriously though it does baffle my mind.

 

If species can survive living on an underwater volcano in temperatures hitting 1000 Celsius on our planet, what's saying there's nothing at the bottom of those methane seas on Titan??

Edited January 21, 201511 yr by gonzo

:-)

 

Seriously though it does baffle my mind.

 

If species can survive living on an underwater volcano in temperatures hitting 1000 Celsius on our planet, what's saying there's nothing at the bottom of those methane seas on Titan??

And that’s what makes it all so fascinating

Like who?

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

 

These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences^[60][61]
• Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics^[62][63][64]
• Timothy Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg^[65][66]
• Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University^[67][68]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa^[69][70]
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland^[71][72]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester^[73][74]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University^[75][76]
• William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University^[77][78]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University^[79][80]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo^[81][82]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.^[83][84]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology^[85][86]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware^[87][88]
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri^[89][90]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa^[91][92]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.^[93][94][95]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.^[96][97]
• Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego^[98][99]
• Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University^[100][101]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University^{[102][103][104]}
• Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo^[105][106]
• Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem^[107][108]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia^{[109][110][111][112]}
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics^[113][114]
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville^[115][116]
• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center^[117][118]
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University^[119][120]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa^[121][122]

 

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.^[123][124]
• Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).^[125][126]
• Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.^[127][128]

Edited January 21, 201511 yr by bgoefc

 

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

 

These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences^[60][61]
• Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics^[62][63][64]
• Timothy Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg^[65][66]
• Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University^[67][68]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa^[69][70]
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland^[71][72]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester^[73][74]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University^[75][76]
• William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University^[77][78]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University^[79][80]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo^[81][82]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.^[83][84]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology^[85][86]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware^[87][88]
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri^[89][90]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa^[91][92]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.^[93][94][95]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.^[96][97]
• Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego^[98][99]
• Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University^[100][101]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University^{[102][103][104]}
• Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo^[105][106]
• Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem^[107][108]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia^{[109][110][111][112]}
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics^[113][114]
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville^[115][116]
• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center^[117][118]
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University^[119][120]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa^[121][122]

 

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.^[123][124]
• Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).^[125][126]
• Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.^[127][128]

 

 

So you think they are more likely to be right, rather than the 98% of scientists who disagree with them?

 

(I won't bother copying and pasting a list)

Why would anyone want to be considered a 'dude', whether it be a space one or a cool one. As everyone knows 'dude' means a donkey's cock (not possessing a donkey's cock I hasten to add).

So you think they are more likely to be right, rather than the 98% of scientists who disagree with them?

 

(I won't bother copying and pasting a list)

 

its all about opinions. I have a science background. I have read the papers and i believe its natural phenomenon.

 

Kent implied these guys were crackpots, the details and published papers of the above authors suggest otherwise.You implied there were no eminent scientists by asking "who?". There they are listed above.

It's not about opinions - it's about evidence. And the overwhelming majority of the people I trust to review and make a decision about that evidence (ie NOT YOU) have done so and concluded that climate change is man made. I am not arrogant enough to believe I have a better grasp on the situation than they do.

 

The following video sums up my stance pretty well.

 

It's not about opinions - it's about evidence. And the overwhelming majority of the people I trust to review and make a decision about that evidence (ie NOT YOU) have done so and concluded that climate change is man made. I am not arrogant enough to believe I have a better grasp on the situation than they do.

 

The following video sums up my stance pretty well.

 

 

Oh dear! You don't get science do you? You review the evidence and form an opinion dear fellow.. Get arrogant, otherwise your simply a sheep Ba!!!

Can't be arsed reading the whole thread, but, as long as it's not at the expense of human progress, why shouldn't we be being less profligate with what is, after all, a finite set of resources?

 

Do more research into nob extensions (which I don't need) for a start, then folk wouldn't feel the need to drive around in gas guzzlers...

 

Treating our planet like a shit tip and pissing away what we've got for what is in most cases unnecessary fucking shite that ends up in landfill - it's madness whatever way you look at it...

 

Brian Cox had it spot on when he was summing up a bit about fusion energy - didn't catch the whole programme (in fact it's one of the few things I've seen of his) - but I was very impressed by his outlook.

Edited January 22, 201511 yr by Youri McAnespie

Oh dear! You don't get science do you? You review the evidence and form an opinion dear fellow.. Get arrogant, otherwise your simply a sheep Ba!!!

Ah - the sheep argument. In this case however, a sheep being led by some very well qualified shepherds!

Did the dinosaurs all use hairspray and drive around fuel burning vehicles?

Treating our planet like a shit tip and pissing away what we've got for what is in most cases unnecessary fucking shite

One of the best examples of this I can think of is helium. We've got about 25-30 years supply left after which, we'll have depleted the earths known supply. We aren't able to create it artificially either.

 

And what do we do? Stick it in party balloons?

Did the dinosaurs all use hairspray and drive around fuel burning vehicles?

 

 

I tell you what, I've been suffering with bad AIDS this week and as such have been watching Rising Damp of an early evening, and I've noted that Rigsby was very much a man ahead of his time regarding awareness of CFCs and ozone depletion, he mentions it in almost every episode (regarding Alan's use of hairspray and how it's destroying the planet).

Edited January 22, 201511 yr by Youri McAnespie

One of the best examples of this I can think of is helium. We've got about 25-30 years supply left after which, we'll have depleted the earths known supply. We aren't able to create it artificially either.

 

And what do we do? Stick it in party balloons?

 

Did you watch PBS last night as well then?

 

Anyway Kent, necessity is the mother of invention, I'm sure we'll be able to create some more somehow using science of some kind, we can't have kids going without inflatable Minions or Elsas that last about twenty minutes before floating off into the sky then popping and choking a Roseate Tern.

Edited January 22, 201511 yr by Youri McAnespie

Did you watch PBS last night as well then?

 

Anyway Kent, necessity is the mother of invention, I'm sure we'll be able to create some more somehow using science of some kind, we can't have kids going without inflatable Minions or Elsas that last about twenty minutes before floating off into the sky then popping and choking a Roseate Tern.

Ha ha - no. But I'm pleased to hear that they were talking about it.

 

I reckon in 100 years or so once we've none left, we'll discover that it had a useful property in the production of limitless energy or something equally profound and we'd have already sucked up our entire supply in a pissed up high pitched voiced frenzy.

 

Having said that - it is without fail very amusing so perhaps it's a fair trade off! :-)

One of the best examples of this I can think of is helium. We've got about 25-30 years supply left after which, we'll have depleted the earths known supply. We aren't able to create it artificially either.

 

And what do we do? Stick it in party balloons?

 

you need to read a little more chemistry kent. Where has this Helium gone?  Has the earth suddenly found the ability to fuse 3 atoms into carbon as per stars? Has it escaped the earths gravity? No. 99.99999999% of the helium thats been around since the earth formed is still here on earth.

Edited January 22, 201511 yr by bgoefc

I don't know enough about climate change or helium either way to debate it

 

so I go to read up on it

 

and I read scientists saying we are running out of helium

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-ballooning-problem-the-great-helium-shortage-8439108.html

 

so are they wrong?

 

“There is a finite supply of this lighter-than-air gas on Earth so if we keep using it for non-essential things like party balloons, where we’re just letting it float off into space, we could be in for some serious problems in around 30 to 50 years’ time,” Dr Wothers said.

 

dunno, but maybe

 

so I googled "are we running out of helium" - and this guy says no and has a complicated looking charts that probably back him up

 

http://www.tcetoday.com/~/media/Documents/TCE/free-features/870helium.pdf

 

fuck knows

 

as for climate change

 

well we had an ice age, then warmed up again, so am inclined to think it's natural progression of some sort, but lynx africa and general human behaviour is bound to have an adverse effect on the planet at some point

 

just so long as it's not in my life time eh

you need to read a little more chemistry kent. Where has this Helium gone?  Has the earth suddenly found the ability to fuse 3 atoms into carbon as per stars? Has it escaped the earths gravity? No. 99.99999999% of the helium thats been around since the earth formed is still here on earth.

More stuff on Helium

 

http://www.chemicool.com/elements/helium-facts.html

No. 99.99999999% of the helium thats been around since the earth formed is still here on earth.

Is that the case? Where is it exactly?

 

Zico's 'don't worry about running out of helium' article seemed to suggest otherwise.

 

'practically all of the Earth’s helium – 99.997% to be precise – has escaped into space through a peculiar mechanism called ion outflow.'

 

Anyway - I'm not really sure why you've got the massive hump about this other than because I disagreed with you about climate change? I suspect neither of us really understand enough about chemistry to debate the complexities, so until then, I'll stick with the scientific concensus. If that concensus changes as new evidence is presented, I'll happily switch sides and start burning stacks of tires for fun.

 

Back to space stuff though, we may have lost Pluto as a planet, but we might be gaining another 2 soon!

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/01/the-solar-system-may-have-two-undiscovered-planets/