Perspectives of a Colorado Curmudgeon on topics ranging from Basketball to Music to Science & Religion to Travel to Memories, touching on a bit of everything.
Don't know if you are in agreement or being sarcastic. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, even though one judge ruled it is and the pinko greenies believe it is. His point was that a beneficial gas essential to plant life certainly couldn't be harmful. If I'm missing something, please enlighten.
Bizzy - time to get the brain a bit more bizzy. Of course carbon dioxide is vital for plants, playing an important part of the carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide not harmful and not a 'pollutant'? I would like to see how well you would do in an atmosphere of 100% CO2 :-) Dose makes the poison, and since the advent of the large scale burning of 'fossil' fuels [a real misnomer in my opinion], the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have gone from about 280ppm to nearly 400ppm. CO2 is one of the five primary greenhouse gases, and thus the concern for increasing levels in the atmosphere. So it is indeed vital, and it is indeed not a classic 'pollutant' but it does not logically follow that it is harmless. To paraphrase Monty Python or some such great source of wisdom - the problem with the uninformed is that their being uniformed precludes them from realizing that they are uninformed [I think the original descriptor may have been stupid ;-]
I read something about that the other day, "Stupid people are too stupid to know they're stupid."What bothers me is the global warming zealots are more interested in pushing their socialist agenda rather than applying sound science to arrive at honest conclusions. There is an immense amount of chicanery in the soft sciences these days. Back in the 60's, when I subscribed to Scientific American, the scientists were all worried about global cooling.
I went easy on you Doc. I didn't even get into the "science" of one species changing into another. LOL!
BB - one of the great things about science is that it is self-correcting. There are many examples of incorrect scientific understanding giving way to a more correct [but always incomplete] understanding. Most of the zealots on both sides of climate issue are not scientists but politicos and lobbyists. Unfortunately in our culture, 'the science' does not speak for itself but rather requires advocates. Some advocates are sane and rational, while others are not :-)ps one species does not change into another - subgroups of a species become isolated for whatever reason and continue their genetic stability/variation independent of one another until sufficient change has occurred such that they can no longer reproduce with one another; something that generally takes a very long time, but also something that has been observed in our lifetime.
Speaking of stupid, Denver may be able to benefit from some of that. Jim Irsay, owner of the Indianapolis Colts fired Peyton Manning. My personal opinion of Irsay, who inherited the team from his father, is he is a greedy, ungrateful schmuck who never earned a dime in his life. We could throw in his drug addiction also. Peyton increased the value of the franchise, solely owned by Irsay, by hundreds of millions of dollars. Peyton also wanted to finish his career with the Colts.But the idiot decided it was time for Peyton to go due to a temporary disability, and “rebuild” a team around the talented Mr. Luck, a quarterback who will be the number one draft pick, which the Colts have. Adding to the stupidity was the release of other quality Colts players, all which adds up to what I call “Colticide.”Peyton has talked to Denver, Arizona, Miami, and will talk to Tennessee today. Would like to see him end up with the team with the best chance of getting to the Super Bowl. Denver looks like the best fit due to great offensive line, etc. However, there is much to be said for Tennessee as they are a big rival and play the Colts twice a year. Would be sweet to see Peyton return as a Tennessee Titan and play the Colts in Indy. Most of the Colts fans would be cheering the Titans.
Re: global warming. What frosts me is the claim, "The science is settled." Must have been made by a politician because science is never settled, except maybe in the sense of f=ma.
Hugh - I agree that in the strictest sense, science is never settled; there are always details to be worked out, and often in searching for the details, new paradigms emerge. However, some scientists would use the term in some instances, e.g. the findings from multiple scientific disciplines indicate that the universe and earth are very old, and thus the old earth vs the young earth issue is settled in the scientific sense.And Phil - I agree with your thoughts and sentiments; have mixed thoughts about Peyton in Denver, but in many ways believe that it would be a good thing for everyone here.
Post a Comment