iNow

Well, for our generation anyway, that would truly be a bridge to nowhere. While I am greatly against burning more fossil fuels and exasserbating the climate issues, drilling should be an option (if for nothing other than to continue manufacturing of plastics and other products that rely on petroleum). However, this continued "Drill, Drill, Drill!" rhetoric is misleading and trapping us in the past. We should be yelling, "Invent, Invent, Invent!" as described by Thomas Friedman. He had the full hour on Charlie Rose last night and spelled it out quite well. Here's a link for those of you who'd like to watch (video will be available soon): http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/09/09/1/a-conversation-with-thomas-l-friedman

Yawn. I already know HOW this thread will end. I guess the question now is WHEN it will.

You'll be able to watch it here: http://webcast.cern.ch/index.html

That's what we have Florida for.

I can't help but agree with your larger point. There are so many things we can and should be doing to move ourselves more toward an enlightened, compassionate, and/or utopian society. This planet is well connected enough now to consider all nations as part of our ingroup.

It seems his appeal is not limited to citizens of the US. This implies to me that there is some actual content and rational reasons underlying why he is receiving the response that he is. While they cannot vote in our elections, I find that this article lends further support that this isn't some mere support from his base: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7606100.stm All 22 countries in a BBC World Service poll would prefer Democratic nominee Barack Obama to be US president, ahead of his Republican rival John McCain. Mr Obama was favoured by a four-to-one margin across the 22,500 people polled. In 17 of the 22 countries surveyed the most common view was that America's relations with the rest of the world would improve under a President Obama. If Mr McCain were elected, the most common view in 19 countries was that relations would remain about the same. In total 22,531 citizens were polled in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, the UAE and the UK. A parallel survey was conducted with 1,000 US adults.

We're giving them aid right now, too. The fact remains that they are living in an area that is only going to get hit by more storms every year. http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSN08483383._CH_.2400

There are lots of folks "not" against it. There are, however, also lots of folks who realize that drilling is like treating a heart attack with an ice cream cone, further delaying without good reason what has needed to be done for decades now already. Interesting history on the Killian docs thing. Thanks.

They're just going off the grid, with diesel generators as back-up. That just seems so pedestrian... way too common for this thing. Good link. Thanks, Cap'n.

I'm pretty sure the answer to that is a big no, but it's an interesting question. What IS the source of power for the LHC?

Not relevant to the topic, now is that? Open a new thread if you'd like to discuss it further. I'd be happy to engage you on why we don't need the term atheist (just like I don't call myself a non-racist or a non-numerologist)... Again, new thread though...

Here is a link to the portion of the program discussing what I mentioned above: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmUj76Ayfpw&feature=related To watch the entire 50 minute special regarding the evolution of skin, click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj8q1AYHSSA&feature=PlayList&p=8E1AC724FD6A9549&index=0&playnext=1

I wonder if it's worth the investment since global warming is going to cover those islands completely with water in a few years...

When I was in high school, I really wanted to get involved with updating our virtual reality technology to move us closer to a holodeck... Ah... That never panned out. Oh well.

In addition to better parasite control, I want to reinforce your cooling point. Part of the reason we lost our fur coat was because we ran so much. The body developed more sweat pores, and these liquid producing glands replaced many of the areas on our body previously covered by hair follicles. The cooling result from the loss of hair was less related to "insulation" issues, and more related to "replacement with a better cooling system." ...namely, sweat. I saw it on the History Channels special (called "Evolve") on the evolution of "skin" recently.

From Meet the Press: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4u373oHLz8 I, for one, should like to think the world would be a better place with IBM Selective Typewriters. I saw the entire program at home, but h/t here for the YouTube clip.

Now you're talking! Well done. I totally screwed up question 2, and forgot the original question. My bad. Here's my speculation. Longer lived plants are likely to reproduce more slowly than shorter lived plants, therefore, shorter lived plants will be easier to see adapting to climatic changes. So, you have a forest of trees that live 200 years each. Those trees, once established, will be there for a very long time, regardless what happens to the climate (although, many might die). You also have a flower living below those trees that only lives one month. We're much more likely to see the effect of climate on the flower since it has to respond so much more quickly to change or become extinct. The tree, however, might be able to ride it out until conditions are favorable again. I'm just guessing here, though. I'd also question how confident you are that "as a rule" plants that live longer won't be seen changing their locations as quickly. The above was all speculation based on the assumption that #2 is true (which it very well may not be).

Fact Checking. A short video by CNN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tc7BF_Fd7I Here's a post which summarizes reports from Newsweek, the Wall Street Journal, and TPM, along with a video: http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2008/09/palin_comparison_ix_the_bridge.php The outright lying of the McCain [campaign] is shameless and brazen, so we shouldn't be surprised [that] they defended themselves with still more lies.

No, not every piece of evidence. Only those which prove your assertions true, and which are valid and repeatable.

Okay. That provides some context. Thanks. I'll offer you my preliminary thoughts, but encourage you to keep looking on your own. 1) What is being done to stop this? I'm not sure, nor if anything really can be done. As part of nature, these plants will go where they survive best. Since we are changing the climate, they are surviving better in different areas, and often surviving worse in areas where they previously lived. The only answer I can offer is that we are trying to curb the impact humans are having on climate change, but when you look at how slow this is and how many people are still perpetuating denialist lies, it's tough to be optimistic. 2) Why do plants that live longer tend to move slower up? Be cautious with how you phrase this. You make it sound as if the plants are putting on a pair of boots, grabbing a backpack, and trekking up the mountain in search of new opportunities. What's really happening is that plants lay their seeds, and those seeds either grow new plants or they do not. With the changing climate, some seeds just don't germinate like they used to, and they have to find a way to sprout in different areas. Some get carried by wind, some are eaten and pooped out by animals, there are many ways... but whatever happens, some seeds will be more likely to grow into full plants than others, and location has a lot to do with this. If the conditions are better at higher altitudes, then those plants which got their seeds to higher altitudes will (after time) out reproduce those which did not. 3) Why don't the plants just adapt to the temperature change and stay where they are? Well, they ultimately have no choice. Plants are rooted to the ground. Therefore, the ones that can't get their seeds to new locations will eventually parish. Those that can get their seeds to new locations will start new colonies. Just recall that plants are limited in many ways. Those that have characteristics conducive to survival will survive. Those that have characteristics which used to be good, but aren't good in new environmental conditions will die. Basically, nature is going to make the choice for them. The ones that cannot adapt to the new conditions will not reproduce. The ones that can adapt will reproduce, and eventually, you'll be left with plants suited to their current environment. I'm not sure if that made any sense. Can you please summarize for me in your own words what you think I just said?

Yes. Also, we didn't need a movie or article to allow us to take gorillas seriously since we've been living alongside them for hundreds of thousands of years.

Okay. Is there an article somewhere suggesting that plants are moving to higher altitudes? I've not heard that claim, so would welcome more information.

Oh, grow up. We're not going to do your work for you, but will gladly help. Do you not even know where to begin? What class is this for? What have you been discussing? Why might your teacher be asking this? What have you done already? What do YOU think the answer might be? Oh, and look up the word "ingrate" while you're at it.

Let us be absolutely clear here. An eye witness report that someone saw a horse is FAR different than an eyewitness report that someone saw a unicorn. We have truck loads of evidence that there are things called "gorillas" that actually exist, interact with the environment, and reproduce. We have zero evidence that there is this thing called bigfoot, at least nothing which goes beyond wish thinking and soft interpretation. Therefore, claiming to see a gorilla is acceptable and claiming to see bigfoot is not. Also, my girlfried has a book that says there is this kid named Harry Potter who can do magic and fly on brooms. Just because it's in a book (hmm... come to think of it, there's also a movie!) doesn't make it a fact based in reality. This is trivial stuff. I'm not understanding why you continue trying to force a square peg through a round hole.

. http://www.cnbc.com//id/26563570 ...most of what the federal government has done is meant to ease the popping of the housing bubble, which it created in the first place, thanks to artificially low interest rates, government-supported mortgage lenders and liberal lending requirements. This past weekend's government takeover of mortage giants Fannie and Freddie was just the latest example of that. Still, many on Wall Street are skeptical that the bailout will do much to resolve the housing and credit crisis. “The best thing to do is to let housing prices reach their natural level as soon as possible, so people know what's real and what's not,” Mitchell says. That reminds me a lot of what Alan Greenspan told Charlie Rose earlier this year. We need to just let it run its course. The more we do to "soften" things, the longer and more drawn out those things will become. The ONLY way we are going to get through this is to let everything reach rock bottom, essentially hitting the reset button, and crawling forward again. The more we keep intervening, the more uncertainty there is, and the less likely people will be to pump money into the critically needed areas. If, however, they know that bottom has been reached, they'll feel more confident and we'll see things move up. Will it hurt if we do nothing? Yep. Will people be outraged if we do nothing? Yep. However, sometimes medicine that helps us most tastes the worst.