Harold Squared

In space limited resources and room will encourage us to reconsider food production. A few alternatives I have been thinking about are chimeric plants with enough animal genes to produce meat in their fruit or roots versus synthetic foods compounded from proteins derived from yeasts or similar organisms. A third alternative would be tissue cultures. All would be less messy and more humane, I would think. Thanks in advance for your participation.

There ARE some creatures, frogs, I think, which CAN be frozen and restored to viability. Amazing and certainly worth further investigation.

I am sure no one is threatening to do so, as our colleague Strange seems to agree with my claim that only UNpleasant weather is attributed to AGW. Funny business indeed.

I respectfully submit that Strong's money speaks louder than yours and that his motives may differ. As to WHY politicians might have a hidden agenda, I would say increased control over the means of production by cap and trade schemes and looking as if they are doing something in the public interest while doing so, in order to court the "green" lobby and stay in office. Another reason the playing field is far from level is mass media bias. The mass media has determined that their best interest lies in scaring people with emotional appeals rather than rational arguments, e.g. "If it bleeds, it leads." Since doom and apocalypse are the stock in trade of the AGW cult, they get more ink, metaphorically speaking. Never mind how often they have cried wolf in the recent past.

Then "only Tim" has a clue.

You guys are talking about CONSPIRACIES, as if they were real or something. Wow! To answer the last question first, politicians are likely to support a political agenda regardless of scientific merit, that is why they are politicians and not scientists. And who might be these saintly and impoverished donors to the environmentalist cause? People like Maurice Strong, and Kenneth Lay of Enron fame, there are two luminaries for you.

By law and at higher cost? Certainly. Thanks for the update, though...

All I see is a pair of questions. So is it the official position of the AGW crew that some recent period was the absolutely most salubrious climate and any deviation from that must be apocalyptically disastrous?

Then welcome and thanks for your participation. The amazing contributions of the Curies and Meitner in the face of institutionalized sexism argue persuasively, at least to me, that biological factors are not significant compared to those imposed by culture.

I guarantee this: no one will ever say, "This beautiful spring day can be attributed to Global Warming." People griped about the weather before the AGW fraud raised its ugly head and will continue to do so after that myth has been laid to rest.

You are being fooled by wind and solar which are pretty much blind alleys as far as meaningful contributors to industrial scale energy production. Maybe you should invest more locally, in a resale shop or velomobile dealership? That way you can see more readily what is going on in the business and hopefully intervene if needed? Just my $0.02, may you prosper always.

It had better be faster to build, since such facilities in the USA at least, are always exploding and burning, look it up and weep, my friends. SEGS I and II and Solar One all were affected. If I recall correctly Solar One has ceased operations altogether as a power generation facility, while many nuclear power stations built in the 1970s are still chugging along.

Looks mostly like transitional to me, particularly in the bladder. Hope this helps.

Conspiracy theory? And what is wrong with this? If there is a conspiracy involved, it should be identified as part of the investigation. It is amazing to me how otherwise rational people treat conspiracies as if they were mythical creatures instead of vital and even indispensable tools to achieve certain goals, e.g., every political revolution known to history. Weighing in on whether we are being observed by extraterrestrial beings, it seems unlikely at present since our rate of energy utilization is paltry, yet even at this stage we are engaged in a formal search for other sentient species in the stars. Just because we haven't been found yet doesn't mean nobody is looking. Knowing what we ourselves consider a priority seems like a reasonable starting point for inferring alien motives and first and foremost we seek to gratify our curiousity, hence science and this very forum.

As long as any continent. And as for the polar bears, let's move them to the o.p.'s bedroom since our colleague is so concerned about the poor suffering apex predators.

The human mind seeks explanation for what it encounters. This much is true for ancient minds as for modern minds. With experience and different encounters explanations change, but this does not always invalidate earlier explanations. The material universe is vast but finite and the capacity of the mind is infinite even if merely confined to numbers. Speaking of numbers, the ancients identified four or five "elements" which made up all earthly matter. Today we still know elements in greater variety and precision but still finite. We struggle against our limitations as did our ancestors, and yearn just as ardently for meaning.

Fascinating. Thank you.

Evidently some researchers are experimenting with removing the cells from organs using detergents and whatnot, to obtain a net of connective tissue. This framework is then seeded with stem cells and becomes, ideally, a viable organ once more, fully biocompatible with the source of the stem cells. Comments and corrections on the subject are most welcome, thanks in advance to all participants.

Build stators around the caskets of Ohm and Watt and let their moldering bones be the rotors. As they spin in their graves you will have limitless power. Go forth and conquer!

What exactly do you mean, o.p.? Do you doubt the modest rise in global mean temperatures of late, the alleged cause of said increase, or the supposition that this phenomenon will inevitably be disastrous? These are some of the elements of the anthropogenic global warming cult, er, folly, er, hypothesis. Which would you like to know more about? Hoola, thank you for bringing up the issue of selection bias and the example. Of course, if you were to confine the examples to the topic in question, you could probably find such on both sides of the AGW question. Early on in the thread, perhaps, a colleague from Florida maintained that global warming and its alleged effect on coastlines would be more damaging overall than global cooling. Would he have given the same response had he lived in, say, Idaho? Arrhenius, an early proponent of the AGW hypothesis, predicted "more equable and better climates" as a consequence, but he was a resident of more northerly latitudes.