swansont

Economics and politics don't belong in this discussion — that can be debated in another thread. Restrict it to the science, please. Are you asking for a peer-reviewed article that directly rebuts McIntyre and McKitrick's critiques? (not sure of the context of your last sentence) AFAIK the bulk of their work does not appear in peer-reviewed journals. If they are not, then it doesn't require a peer-reviewed rebuttal. Such an article likely wouldn't get published if the original article did not appear in a journal. Articles that link to peer-reviewed research should suffice in that case. As far as their 2005 paper in GRL, there were rebuttals in that journal: von Storch and Zorita, and Huybers (pdf). And also this article in Journal of Climate ("Energy and Environment" is not generally considered a peer-reviewed source; it's not listed by the ISI)

We're discussing anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Your quote concerned itself with natural sources.

You've agreed that this is incorrect: Use of the statement "net cooling of 1940 to 1976" is a strawman based on cherry-picking data (since 1940 was very near the peak temperature.) The cooling period was much shorter. You do realize that this completely irrelevant to the discussion, right? Opinions don't belong here; this is a thread for discussing science. If you have opinions to share, open a thread in politics or general discussion.

Cool. I remember a class years ago where the teacher exposed some polaroid film with radioactive sources, and then took a picture, and we saw the exposure from the radiation. But do-it-yourself is cooler than a store-bought apparatus.

The two flip through their calendars at different rates — they will disagree on the date and time. Nothing to do with rewriting history — they will agree on what happened, just not when it did.

The calculation seems fine, but the unanswered question is "what does this mean?" The question is worded awkwardly, since an object doesn't "have" power. That's the power gravity is generating by acting on the object. But if you tried to do work with the object, the power would change quite rapidly. P=Fv is more useful when the system is under load and moving at constant speed.

There are different "sized" infinities. That is, there are infinite sets that are demonstrably larger than other infinite sets. Claiming otherwise, especially with an appeal to ridicule fallacy thrown in, does nothing to enhance your credibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number You haven't shown that you've created infinite universes — that requires an infinite number of decisions. You also haven't shown that "too many" is actually infinite. "Too many" hasn't been defined, much less rigorously defined. And also, please do not use "texting" shorthand (e.g. U R ). This isn't a chat room.

WorldNetDaily is not a valid scientific source. Got any peer-reviewed articles?

Be-8 splits into two alphas in very short order. It's one of the rare even-even nuclei on/near the line of stability that's not stable, since alphas are so tightly bound. The other nearby unstable Be isotopes beta decay.

Many claims, and not a single citation. Learn from the examples of others here: make a claim, back it up.

Reforming the fuel will not be 100% efficient, nor will the fuel cell, nor will the motor. You have to account for all of these steps.

And why is that a problem?

The subject matter at hand is the physics involved with whether c (or alpha, or any other physical constant) has changed. Discussions of what creationists claim or should claim, and other creationist arguments not quoted here, are off-topic.

AFAIK Dyson's original concept for the sphere was for energy collection only, so there was no need to consider gravity. Nobody was going to live on it. But you do have the problem of heating everything up as the sphere comes to thermal equilibrium, if the sphere contained the planet.

Why? This is not supported by anything.

But the change in gravity will not be noticable for things far enough outside of the solar system; the change in location of the mass is very small. If it's large enough to be a problem, then the systems were already perturbing each other, which would have been causing orbital issues. And of course the sphere has no effect inside the sphere, assuming that the sphere's mass is uniformly distributed.

It also has a use in exit signs, watches and gun sights.

How can there be "too many" universes? There are an infinite number of them.

The OP made it clear that the context was dealing with someone on another forum. We get rid of "fundy nutjobs" by not having relevant sections to discuss "fundy" issues, or any other issues dealing with religion. People (nutjob or not) can discuss those things elsewhere. How Dawkins expresses himself isn't relevant to discussions here, either.

Dilation appears because of relative motion, but it's acceleration that moves one individual into a different inertial frame. Dilation "works," i.e. it is present, in the absence of acceleration.

Tritium is a source of betas, not alphas. I don't think there are any naturally occurring alpha emitters lighter than lead. As far as the link in the OP goes, it says it was published on April 1st, and elsewhere they admit that one of their experiments is a joke. Care to guess which one?

Relativity as well as electrodynamics, since constant c shows up there, too. Tha fact that your radio works while you move in your car is evidence that c is currently unchanging.

I'm guessing This Foxtrot cartoon

Reminds me of a Doonesbury from ages ago. (paraphrased from http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1994/09/loeb.html) A rumpled professor holds forth from a lectern while his students dutifully scribble away in their notepads: " . . . and in my view, Jefferson's defense of these basic rights lacked conviction. Okay, any discussion of what I've covered so far?" "Of course not," he thinks to himself. "You're too busy getting it all down." "Let me just add," he goes on, "that personally I believe the Bill of Rights to be a silly, inconsequential recapitulation of truths already found in the Constitution. Any comment?" The students continue to take notes. "No, scratch that!" he says, raising his voice and waving his hands. (the students busily scratch out their previous notes) "The Constitution itself should never have been ratified! It's a dangerous document! All power should rest with the executive! What do you think of that?" They keep writing, their faces blank. "JEFFERSON WAS THE ANTICHRIST!" the professor screams. "DEMOCRACY IS FASCISM! BLACK IS WHITE! NIGHT IS DAY!" The students are still taking notes as the professor collapses on the podium, thinking, "Teaching is dead." "Boy, this course is really getting interesting," one student says. "You said it," another responds. "I didn't know half this stuff."

The moon has been receding from the earth, though, so this is something that has not always been true. The coincidence is the right size and orbit but that also includes having sentient beings alive at the right time. Some current eclipses do not cover the sun to that extent — you can get an annular eclipse when the moon is near apogee. Total eclipses will become less common over time and will cease in a few tens or hundreds of millions of years.