Air Pollution Makes Us Immoral and Imparts Criminal Tendencies

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Especially if it has any of that old 1936 mary jane smoke in it!

I have plenty of other things to make me immoral.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

Sadly, John Larkin is a lost cause. Being gullible isn't immoral, but trying to maintain your amour-propre by denying that you have been mislead is an aspect of the sin of pride.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

They're going to need something to take the edge off. We're heading for a zombie apocalypse, a riot of immoral criminal morons.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

do

A .45 ACP?

Well, they ain't the pot smokers, I'll clue ya.

I somehow got the feeling that my remark went right over your head.

I figured the year would give it away.

snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Yes... for everyone. Even predictions a quarter of a day off are... off.

But long term stuff? We have no clue. Some say the next freeze will stay that way until the Sun starts expanding millions of years later.

I think our biggest mistake is not accepting the fact that water has been being added to this planet since its birth. That does not bode well for us land dwellers at some point. I still like ti idea of sending one ton water blocks to the moon, Alice. A lot of them.

Not true. We actually now understand how the tiny Milankovitch effect can s witch the planet between an interglacial and an ice age and back again - if the continents are in just the right place, and some anthropoid ape has ta ken to digging up loads of fossil carbon and burning it as fuel.

The process is much too complicated for the likes of Cursitor Doom and John Larkin to get their heads around, but it has now been spelled out in enoug h detail to make sense to anybody who has had a scientific education (and p aid attention during the tedious bits, which John Larkin clearly didn't).

g millions of years later.

Only people as silly as John Larkin. If we hadn't dumped a lot of CO2 in th e atmosphere we could have expected another ice age in a few tens of thousa nds of years - the current interglacial was apparently going to be a long o ne, even before we started burning lots of fossil carbon.

We've only been having ice ages for the last couple of million years, and t hey will stop happening after the continental plates have drifted on a bit (which may take a another million years or so). The sun has been steadily e xpanding for billions of years, and this will probably make the earth uninh abitable in about another billion years (unless we move it a bit further fr om the sun, which we would probably be able manage in the time available, n ot that the human species is likely to last more than about ten million yea rs as such, but whatever replaces us - or whatever we evolve into - should be up to the job).

Who doesn't accept that?

30% of the planet is still accessible to land dwellers after a couple of bi llion years worth of extra water. It may take a while before there's a sign ificant shrinkage, and if you engineer an ice age a lot of the water gets t ied up in ice sheets - worth about 120 metres of sea level rise since the l ast ice age.

A lot of them.

If we wanted to colonise the moon that might be one way of doing it. Snatch ing some of the ice that would otherwise get added to earth's ocean before it hit the earth might be a cheaper way of getting extra water for the moon colonists.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

The idea was not water for them, it was getting water OFF Earth. It would take millions of one ton blocks but that is what we should be doing. Nice, salty blocks too, not fresh water.

Conservation of energy IS a clue, as is evidence of stellar evolution (those twinkling things in the sky, we know a LOT about them).

"Some say" can introduce all manner of jokes, jests, distortions, lies... which is why we sponsor trustworthy weather monitoring technologies, and predictive efforts, and benefit from them. That technology, though, is so full of 'clue', it is unlikely a layperson can keep up with it.

As for 'longer than a week or so', that's not the only timescale. We can get lots of other timescales pinned down accurately, but even 1% accuracy on a storm position (on this planet) means 60 miles away.

Accurate, yes. Useful for umbrella-purchase decisions, not so much.

That was clearly what you had in mind, but it's a silly idea.

It would be a lot cheaper to block ice in space that to throw it back into space.

You should be aware that the earth loses hydrogen all the time

about 3kgm per minute, or 1,600 metric tons a year. Your one ton blocks of ice wouldn't really register - each one is only 11% hydrogen.

Oxygen isn't lost anything like as fast, but you aren't going to get drowned by an excess of oxygen.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

whit3rd wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Following a radar track is easy for even a less than lay person.

Watching what they predict chamge from hour to hour to math up with what actually happened is fun to watch.

Rain gets predicted, and the computer sim shows where the pressure and condition are good for tha activity predicted. The reality here though, where clouds go over heavy but no rain, and other times when there is... not as easy to predict accurately. Close, yes. Reliable even... yas. But alway accurate? Far from it.

Yep. somewhere in there.

snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Pretty much all predictions are going to be fails because everyone keeps forgetting that God will be making this place the aforementioned lake of fire that many souls will not be able to achieve escape velocity from.

I am planning on not being one of those souls.

And here I was thinking that Jesus died for our sins on this very day a couple of millennia ago.

No amount of planning is going to save him. Cursitor Doom is incorrigibly i gnorant - he could know better and he doesn't bother - and his chances of e scaping the eternal fire are consequently zero. You have to confess yours s ins before you can be absolved of them, but Cursitor Doom isn't conscious o f his defects.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Riley Angel wrote in news:-- snipped-for-privacy@supernews.com:

No. Jesus was murded by man. God then was ready to destroy the Earth and has condemned all of us... twice already.

Jesus, however, stopped God and gave us one last chance. So... unless you acknowledge and accept Jesus as your savior, you will not see the kingdom of God.

God sent us a leader. We killed him. We ALL deserve to die because man is essentially flawed. Only though Christ will anyone be able to move on to the next plane of existence. All others will be cast into the lake of fire for eternity.

Maybe you should read what I posted again. God will be making THIS planet the very lake of fire those that will not be going will be left behind on.

Died for our sins? No, he was killed... murderd... by us because of our sins. He rose again three days later and ascended into heaven. He will judge you according to your deeds.

It was not some free pass for you. You still must commit.