Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
thats a pretty sexy toaster.{sexual grunting noises}
you should take a shower with it.
thats a pretty sexy toaster.{sexual grunting noises}
yet more evidence which demonstrates conclusively that lefties cant do science, math or economics.
"Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Among the public, there are far fewer self-described Democrats (35%) and far more Republicans (23%). Overall, 52% of the public identifies as Democratic or leans Democratic, while 35% identifies as Republican or leans Republican.
Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%)."
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/
then much later, youre right back in another discussion making the same arguments as if they had not already been disproved.
opinion polls mean so much.
thats a pretty sexy toaster.
you should take a shower with it.
The High Concentration PhotoVoltaic Thermal (HCPVT) system can convert 80% of the incoming solar radiation into useful energy.No, they didn't. They said they are trying to. Big difference.
yes. opinion polls are as meaningful and important as wikipedia entries when dealing with actual science.
i am skeptical but hopeful on this assertion.The High Concentration PhotoVoltaic Thermal (HCPVT) system can convert 80% of the incoming solar radiation into useful energy.
Not my words. So, for you to say 'they didn't' doesn't really mean much to me.
Your word vs theirs.
So how would you suggest we scientifically figure out what political affiliation scientists in any given field hold?yes. opinion polls are as meaningful and important as wikipedia entries when dealing with actual science.
and yes, though i have dismissed this OPINION POLL before, here you are again, posting it AGAIN, like it's the fresh New Hotness
and yes, you still cant do math.
if you could do math you would accept that water vapour, (being 100x more abundant than Co2) has more power to control climate than Co2
further, even if they were EQUAL in distribution and concentration (which they aint) water is ~ 5x more successful, mole for mole at trapping heat.
you couldnt even find the two errors i made and later corrected (but did not edit out, cuz i aint that kind of asshole) despite their being quite obvious.
i made a THIRD citation error in this thread too.
lets see if you and bucky can spot it.
Ill wait.
Actually, I was quoting their words, so its THEIR word against YOURS. But I don't expect you to understand.The High Concentration PhotoVoltaic Thermal (HCPVT) system can convert 80% of the incoming solar radiation into useful energy.
Not my words. So, for you to say 'they didn't' doesn't really mean much to me.
Your word vs theirs.
it shouldnt matter if a scientist is conservative, liberal, communist, monarchist, christian, moslem, buddhist, atheist, or even FRENCH. if their science is valid it stands on their own.So how would you suggest we scientifically figure out what political affiliation scientists in any given field hold?
There is no geology in the atmosphere.So how long does it take to lose an atmosphere, geologically speaking? A few million years?
mars has lotsa co2 (more than 95% Co2) but co2 (as has already been established) sucks at greenhousingThere is no geology in the atmosphere.
I imagine it depends on what's the cause of loss.
The moon could never hold much atmosphere, not enough mass.
Mars is between the earth and moon in size, and had an atmosphere, but lost it.
Since we didn't observe it, we can't say for sure.
Perhaps a large impact stripped it away.
Perhaps the volcanic activity died down, reducing temperature, water vapor froze out and the other gasses dissipated.
Mars could use an injection of co2. Get that water vapor going to get it warmer.
Perhaps we need to fire microwaves into the core to fire it up again.
You're right. The Martian atmosphere is almost exclusively co2.mars has lotsa co2 (more than 95% Co2) but co2 (as has already been established) sucks at greenhousing
mars also has very little water, and very little H and O with which to make some
mars would need shittonnes of nitrogen and water, fuckloads of O2 and a big boost in heat to get it's greenhouse cycle started.
Arthur C Clarke (inventor of the communication satellite) established the hypothetical parameters back in the 70's, and the recent discovery of small amounts of water on mars doesnt change his figures at all.
mars doesnt have enough water to make a respectable lake, much less an ocean capable of regulating temps and running a hydrological cycle
Hey, I'm not the one who dragged geology into it, you did.There is no geology in the atmosphere.
I imagine it depends on what's the cause of loss.
The moon could never hold much atmosphere, not enough mass.
Mars is between the earth and moon in size, and had an atmosphere, but lost it.
Since we didn't observe it, we can't say for sure.
Perhaps a large impact stripped it away.
Perhaps the volcanic activity died down, reducing temperature, water vapor froze out and the other gasses dissipated.
Mars could use an injection of co2. Get that water vapor going to get it warmer.
Perhaps we need to fire microwaves into the core to fire it up again.
I wasn't trying to be that big of a smart ass.Hey, I'm not the one who dragged geology into it, you did.
lol@UncleBuck Grats on post number 60,000 !!
That poll was taken in 2009.
it's actually a SCIENTIFIC POLL which measures opinion.and yes, though i have dismissed this OPINION POLL before, here you are again, posting it AGAIN, like it's the fresh New Hotness