Search results

I generally let little things go, but poor language skills are often accompanied by poor education and general ignorance. Not all the time, but it is a warning sign.

Seriously? "Proudness?" "Proud" has a noun form: pride.

Ilk.

You and your ilk. Ilk. Ilk. ILK! Ilkilkilkilkilkilkilkilkilkilk! Ilk.

You sure you weren't just bulimic?

Police shootings spur workers' compensation awards By Luke Broadwater The Baltimore Sun...

There are two kinds of people who think there is any certainty in science: imbeciles and true believers. Though the second may be a subset of the first.

Subject demonstrates excellent grasp of the patently obvious. Recommend immediate promotion.

By that logic, there's no difference between a horse and an automobile. As you say, same functionality. And in all likelihood, solar panels will be vastly more efficient. Your question, in case you've forgotten in your drooling worship of fossil fuels, was not "How much energy does it take to...

You think that a semiconductor is no different from a vacuum tube? OK.

More than it will take in 100 years. It's weird that you, a scientist, seem to have trouble with the notion that in 100 years, our methods of doing things now will seem primitive and quaint, despite the fact that you have before you, pretty much everyplace you look, thousands of examples of...

No, we need to progress in research and development, and in the meantime overinvest in fossil fuels. Then at some point, the value of those investments will crash, a whole lot of people will go broke, and we'll shift more-or-less gradually to other sources, and people, companies, and countries...

Or solar. Or zero-point energy. Or chemical compounds we haven't figured out yet, or some we're working on, like nitrogen-stabilised metastable helium. Or fusion. Or some physical concept we haven't even thought of yet.

I think we'll probably be off oil well before then, and not because of the IPCC. We'll just improve better, cheaper energy sources.

The causes are suspected, not know. I think the evidence is pretty strong, but a long way from the confidence level of, say, gravity.

All I'm saying is that the evidence shows cyclic mass extermination events. We don't know the cause, except for the most recent one, and have no idea if it's the same cause every time, or what. If seemingly random events start showing a pattern, it's a pretty good indication that they aren't...

No, climate change killed off all the critters. The asteroid caused the climate change. For a scientist, you don't seem to have a real good grip on causality.

That's the current theory.

Yup. It's been 65 million years since the last mass extinction event. That's right smack dab in the middle of a 50-80 million year range.

It's led to doom and gloom every 50-80 million years for over half a billion years. Maybe it's time. We're right in the middle of that range.