First, Einstein was right. Then he was wrong. Then he was right due to a loose wire. Now he may have been wrong due to an oscillator. Many of us would just throw up our hands and say everything is relative with Einstein, but scientists at OPERA say that a second equipment problem may have led to a too conservative reading of the 730-kilometer journey of the neutrinos reported by the European Organization for Nuclear Research or CERN.
The oscillator is used to provide time stamps to synchronize the GPS systems which measure the travel time. The scientists believe that the oscillator problem may have canceled out the cable problem . . . and that the little neutrinos did move faster than the speed of light — beyond the cosmic speed barrier of 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second). That would contradict Einstein’s theory. So I guess we have to treat Einstein like a big dummy again . . . absent another loose cable or spilled coffee cup.
I am just waiting for a finding that neutrinos are sentient with a wicked sense of humor . . . and hovering around 299,791 kilometers per second just to mess with us.
Source: CBC
Brandon Lee didnt know it was coming. He got sucker punched.
Average man with gun would not have much of chance. I have seen special forces guys take a gun away from a man. They make it look pretty easy. Now if the guy is 20′ away he would have to be a good shot but might have a little better chance.
Gene riddle me this. What is the solution to stop Climate Change/Global Warming and why.
Bron
yeah, how much of that GW is man made and how much isnt? PH of ocean changes because people piss in it, how much of PH change is due to that?
Taking Fears of Acid Oceans With a Grain of Salt
Another recent study, by scientists from the U.K., Hawaii and Massachusetts, concluded that “marine and freshwater assemblages have always experienced variable pH conditions,” and that “in many freshwater lakes, pH changes that are orders of magnitude greater than those projected for the 22nd-century oceans can occur over periods of hours.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550304577138561444464028.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
Still showing that you can’t tell the difference between AGW (a human driven impact on the the environment) and climate change (a naturally occurring process that is exacerbated by AGW), Bdaman.
Scientist now believe “Climate change will shake the Earth”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/26/why-climate-change-shake-earth
Who is the USGS ? What do they do ?
Are earthquakes really on the Increase as the article at the guardian suggest do to climate change.
Lets ask the experts for factual actual data.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php
Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation is spreading errors
The former chancellor is an avowed climate sceptic – and the ‘facts’ he repeats are demonstrably inaccurate
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/21/lord-lawson-global-warming-errors
Excerpt:
Lord Lawson of Blaby has enjoyed a massive boost to his public profile over the past couple of years following the launch of his Global Warming Policy Foundation in November 2009.
Many parts of the media now feel obliged to include the views of Lawson and other representatives of the foundation in reports about climate change issues in order to “balance” the statements made by mainstream researchers and policymakers.
Given that the foundation’s accounts suggest it only has about 80 members, it has been gaining an impressive amount of publicity in the media, particularly in the Telegraph, Mail and Express, newspapers that have adopted climate change scepticism as an editorial line.
But Lord Lawson is still not happy, as he pointed out in an op-ed in last week’s Sunday Times. Not only did he complain that he and other representatives of the foundation were not getting the media coverage they deserve, but he also revealed that he has threatened the BBC Trust with legal action because it suggested that the broadcaster had allowed him to “make statements that are not supported by the facts”.
As the foundation is a registered charity, and Lawson is therefore a trustee, he has to comply with the Charity Commission’s guidance on campaigning and political activity, which states:
“A charity can campaign using emotive or controversial material, where this is lawful and justifiable in the context of the campaign. Such material must be factually accurate and have a legitimate evidence base.”
However, there are multiple examples of Lord Lawson making statements, including in BBC interviews and parliamentary debates, which are not consistent with the most up-to-date evidence and research.
“did you bring a pointed stick to a gunfight?
It depends on how the pointed stick is used. Bruce Lee with pointed stick or an average man with a gun? I’d take Bruce Lee.
The average man wouldnt have a chance.”
Ask Brandon Lee (or any martial artist) about that.
*************
So you’ve pointed to more evidence of unstable weather, a consequence of AGW, as evidence of its non-existence?
I didn’t know you could still buy Rice Crispies with LSD.
Bdaman:
yeah, how much of that GW is man made and how much isnt? PH of ocean changes because people piss in it, how much of PH change is due to that?
Lets take away the sun and then see how much man made activity contributes to climate change. Come on Bdaman, how much is it?
Bron he’s just sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong even though he’s smarter than a 5th grader which ain’t saying much.
Scientist believe Artic to be ice free by 2012.
Here’s some more factual and not belief. Compare daily sea Ice with your own eye’s. 1995 vs 2012. We now have the greatest increase since 1995 but this is because Global Warming actually makes the world colder as it melts all the ice. The problem is what makes the water refreeze? You guessed it, Climate Change.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=02&fd=24&fy=1995&sm=02&sd=24&sy=2012
Bdaman:
did you bring a pointed stick to a gunfight?
It depends on how the pointed stick is used. Bruce Lee with pointed stick or an average man with a gun? I’d take Bruce Lee.
The average man wouldnt have a chance.
Proving what exactly, Bdaman?
Other than you apparently can’t tell the difference between AGW (a human driven impact on the the environment) and climate change (a naturally occurring process that is exacerbated by AGW).
Scientist now believe the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 was caused by climate change even though we were below 350ppm the so called safe zone.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/26/why-climate-change-shake-earth
Don’t hate me because you brought a pointed stick to a gun fight, Bdaman.
Hate the pointed stick.
We can put you in a room and you can tell us you believe your smarter than 99% of all fifth graders but that doesn’t make it true.
Gene H thats the bogus 97 percent of climate scientist believe bullshit. Go pass that on to somebody that doesn’t know any better.
Lets look at the facts and not beliefs. No statistical warming in 15 years and the oceans have stopped rising.
You’re winning?
Really.
“In 2010, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a survey of 1,372 climate researchers, finding that 97 to 98 percent of those publishing in the field said they believe humans are causing global warming. That’s the same majority that existed in a similar 2009 survey. Dissenters do exist, the PNAS study found, but “the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced … are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.” Either way, the ranks of dissenters don’t appear to be swelling. (When contacted by the Washington Post, the Perry campaign responded with links to news stories that, reporter Glenn Kessler concluded, were “anecdotal in nature.”)
Still, it’s worth adding one overlooked point to all this fact-checking. It’s not just that Perry’s wrong. In many ways, the field of climate science is moving in precisely the opposite direction that he’s suggesting. Recall that back in 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change put out a report synthesizing the scientific work on global warming. While the report sounded quite certain on a number of topics—noting, for one, that it was “very likely” that most of the observed temperature increases since mid-century were due to man-made greenhouse gases—there were still plenty of vague spots in the report, especially with regards to sea-level rise.
Yet rather than poke further holes, much of the climate science that’s been published since 2007 appears to have strengthened the consensus, not weakened it. Another synthesis report published last May by Britain’s Met Office, looking at more than 100 peer-reviewed post-IPCC studies, found that the case for human influence has been bolstered: “We can say with a very high significance level that the effects we see in the climate cannot be attributed to any other forcings.”
Relatedly, at last year’s annual American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting, UC Santa Barbara’s William Freudenberg gave a presentation in which he revealed that “new scientific findings [since the IPCC] are found to be more than twenty times as likely to indicate that global climate disruption is ‘worse than previously expected,’ rather than ‘not as bad as previously expected.’”(Credit for the links goes to Climate Progress’s Joe Romm.)
Granted, it’s always possible that what’s going on here is that, as Perry has charged, “there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.” Though that theory’s looking weaker by the day, too: The National Science Foundation, for instance, just wrapped up its inquiry into Penn State climatologist Michael Mann, one of the central figures in the Climategate flap. Fox News had earlier trumpeted the NSF inquiry as the “final say” on Mann’s research. And what did the NSF conclude? “Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed.””
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/despite-rick-perry-consensus-on-climate-change-keeps-strengthening/2011/08/23/gIQAMT3UZJ_blog.html
You keep using that word. Winning. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, Bdaman.
So far the deniers haven’t had any.
Lets see Gene H, no statistical warming since 1997 and the oceans have stopped rising. I’d say we are doing pretty good so far even though we are at 400ppm.
and regardless we are winning even though we don’t understand the scientific process.
Gene H thats because it’s for the greater good.