In other words, don't listen to Al Gore, listen to Nancy Reagan instead!

http://blogs.forbes.com/sciencebiz/2010/...l-warming/

(03-01-2010 10:44 AM)Yahweh Wrote:  In other words, don't listen to Al Gore, listen to Nancy Reagan instead!

http://blogs.forbes.com/sciencebiz/2010/...l-warming/

I don't know if I should or knowing that there are so many dumb people in this country.

Btw, when did Dr. Torch move to South Dakota?

I was going to say that maybe they meant astronomical, not astrological, as a lot of people get them confused. But they got thermology wrong too, and astronomical pretty much covers cosmological too.

(03-01-2010 01:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I was going to say that maybe they meant astronomical, not astrological, as a lot of people get them confused. But they got thermology wrong too, and astronomical pretty much covers cosmological too.

I was thinking the same. And the word "therm" just sounded good to them. Still embarrassing for them, though.

There are probably enough examples of government bonehead errors and over-legislation silliness to fill a library of books. Although I'm assuming this overall point sure wasn't the Forbes columnist's intention.

(03-01-2010 01:55 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(03-01-2010 01:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I was going to say that maybe they meant astronomical, not astrological, as a lot of people get them confused. But they got thermology wrong too, and astronomical pretty much covers cosmological too.

I was thinking the same. And the word "therm" just sounded good to them. Still embarrassing for them, though.

There are probably enough examples of government bonehead errors and over-legislation silliness to fill a library of books. Although I'm assuming this overall point sure wasn't the Forbes columnist's intention.

I'm right with you guys.

It was a stupid mistake, but there is no need to go off the deep end like that blogger did with something that, in reality, is probably little more then an embarrassing grammatical error.

(03-01-2010 02:12 PM)moe24 Wrote:  

(03-01-2010 01:55 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(03-01-2010 01:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I was going to say that maybe they meant astronomical, not astrological, as a lot of people get them confused. But they got thermology wrong too, and astronomical pretty much covers cosmological too.

I was thinking the same. And the word "therm" just sounded good to them. Still embarrassing for them, though.

There are probably enough examples of government bonehead errors and over-legislation silliness to fill a library of books. Although I'm assuming this overall point sure wasn't the Forbes columnist's intention.

I'm right with you guys.

It was a stupid mistake, but there is no need to go off the deep end like that blogger did with something that, in reality, is probably little more then an embarrassing grammatical error.

Yes, point out the silly grammatical errors, and ignore the big, flaming logical ones in their flawed theories.

Not really a grammatical error. But I'm sure I've seen worse.

I read a stat this weekend, How many are stars are in the universe?......10 BILLION TRILLION....... I was shocked at that number. That is 1.5 trillion stars for every man, woman and child on earth.

(03-01-2010 04:33 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  I read a stat this weekend, How many are stars are in the universe?......10 BILLION TRILLION....... I was shocked at that number. That is 1.5 trillion stars for every man, woman and child on earth.

What if we live in a closed universe, and we're really seeing the same stars, as their light exits one side and enters another?

(03-01-2010 04:37 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-01-2010 04:33 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  I read a stat this weekend, How many are stars are in the universe?......10 BILLION TRILLION....... I was shocked at that number. That is 1.5 trillion stars for every man, woman and child on earth.

What if we live in a closed universe, and we're really seeing the same stars, as their light exits one side and enters another?

Whoa dude, you just blew my mind. (takes another hit from the bong.)

(03-01-2010 02:12 PM)moe24 Wrote:  

(03-01-2010 01:55 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(03-01-2010 01:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I was going to say that maybe they meant astronomical, not astrological, as a lot of people get them confused. But they got thermology wrong too, and astronomical pretty much covers cosmological too.

I was thinking the same. And the word "therm" just sounded good to them. Still embarrassing for them, though.

There are probably enough examples of government bonehead errors and over-legislation silliness to fill a library of books. Although I'm assuming this overall point sure wasn't the Forbes columnist's intention.

I'm right with you guys.

It was a stupid mistake, but there is no need to go off the deep end like that blogger did with something that, in reality, is probably little more then an embarrassing grammatical error.

I'm going to have to disagree. The bill sounded like it was written by Don King. Just a bunch of high syllable words thrown together in what I guess they thought were coherent sentences. To me it screams of politicians not bothering doing proper research, proofreading or asking professional opinions on the matter (shocker, I know). They seem to have their minds made up without the aid of science or any research.

If you want to teach alternative scientific theories or not mention it at all in classrooms is fine by me. That should be the state's right whether one agrees or disagrees with their decision. But at least do a little homework before writing the laws.

(03-01-2010 05:27 PM)plaidtiger Wrote:  I'm going to have to disagree. The bill sounded like it was written by Don King. Just a bunch of high syllable words thrown together in what I guess they thought were coherent sentences. To me it screams of politicians not bothering doing proper research, proofreading or asking professional opinions on the matter (shocker, I know). They seem to have their minds made up without the aid of science or any research.

If you want to teach alternative scientific theories or not mention it at all in classrooms is fine by me. That should be the state's right whether one agrees or disagrees with their decision. But at least do a little homework before writing the laws.

I can appreciate that.

(03-01-2010 04:39 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-01-2010 04:37 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-01-2010 04:33 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  I read a stat this weekend, How many are stars are in the universe?......10 BILLION TRILLION....... I was shocked at that number. That is 1.5 trillion stars for every man, woman and child on earth.

What if we live in a closed universe, and we're really seeing the same stars, as their light exits one side and enters another?

Whoa dude, you just blew my mind. (takes another hit from the bong.)

(03-01-2010 04:39 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-01-2010 04:37 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-01-2010 04:33 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  I read a stat this weekend, How many are stars are in the universe?......10 BILLION TRILLION....... I was shocked at that number. That is 1.5 trillion stars for every man, woman and child on earth.

What if we live in a closed universe, and we're really seeing the same stars, as their light exits one side and enters another?

Whoa dude, you just blew my mind. (takes another hit from the bong.)

That sounds like something that could be the LOST Series Finale.

(03-01-2010 05:27 PM)plaidtiger Wrote:  To me it screams of politicians not bothering doing proper research, proofreading or asking professional opinions on the matter (shocker, I know).

Honestly that could be said of just about every bill introduced.

(03-01-2010 04:37 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-01-2010 04:33 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  I read a stat this weekend, How many are stars are in the universe?......10 BILLION TRILLION....... I was shocked at that number. That is 1.5 trillion stars for every man, woman and child on earth.

What if we live in a closed universe, and we're really seeing the same stars, as their light exits one side and enters another?

I would think that the galaxies on opposite sides of the sky would look strikingly similar then. Could be, but unlikely.

Either way, pretty mind-boggling numbers.

(03-01-2010 04:37 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-01-2010 04:33 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  I read a stat this weekend, How many are stars are in the universe?......10 BILLION TRILLION....... I was shocked at that number. That is 1.5 trillion stars for every man, woman and child on earth.

What if we live in a closed universe, and we're really seeing the same stars, as their light exits one side and enters another?

It's not as if that number comes from a bean counter sitting and counting all of the little points of light in the sky.

(03-02-2010 05:48 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-01-2010 04:37 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-01-2010 04:33 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  I read a stat this weekend, How many are stars are in the universe?......10 BILLION TRILLION....... I was shocked at that number. That is 1.5 trillion stars for every man, woman and child on earth.

What if we live in a closed universe, and we're really seeing the same stars, as their light exits one side and enters another?

It's not as if that number comes from a bean counter sitting and counting all of the little points of light in the sky.

Yea, Carl Sagan isn't around anymore to count them.

(03-02-2010 06:03 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-02-2010 05:48 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-01-2010 04:37 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-01-2010 04:33 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  I read a stat this weekend, How many are stars are in the universe?......10 BILLION TRILLION....... I was shocked at that number. That is 1.5 trillion stars for every man, woman and child on earth.

What if we live in a closed universe, and we're really seeing the same stars, as their light exits one side and enters another?

It's not as if that number comes from a bean counter sitting and counting all of the little points of light in the sky.

Yea, Carl Sagan isn't around anymore to count them.

No worries, there are still lots of cosmetologists where he came from...

(03-02-2010 06:09 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-02-2010 06:03 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-02-2010 05:48 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-01-2010 04:37 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-01-2010 04:33 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  I read a stat this weekend, How many are stars are in the universe?......10 BILLION TRILLION....... I was shocked at that number. That is 1.5 trillion stars for every man, woman and child on earth.

What if we live in a closed universe, and we're really seeing the same stars, as their light exits one side and enters another?

It's not as if that number comes from a bean counter sitting and counting all of the little points of light in the sky.

Yea, Carl Sagan isn't around anymore to count them.

No worries, there are still lots of cosmetologists where he came from...

But they cut hair, ....not count stars.