On Dec 9, 6:35 pm, Whata Fool wrote:
"Bill Habr" wrote:

"Whata Fool" wrote in message
.. .
"Bill Habr" wrote:

It doesn't matter what the other gases in the atmosphere are.

Of course it does, what are you, a confusionist?

The question was "Can water evaporate in nitrogen atmosphere?"

Then your answer should have been Yes, or No.

I didn't reply to the question, I replied to your statement,
the atmosphere of Earth is essentially a nitrogen atmosphere,
but not dry nitrogen.

And the question of the various gases is of some importance,
because the presumption of CO2 existing separate of water and
water vapor in the Earth's nitrogen atmosphere may need to be
re-examined to see why the climate change doesn't seem to
track the CO2 concentration, and why the CO2 concentration
does not reflect the amount emitted by man burning fossil fuel.

WF. You should see in this also that the water forms calthrates with
CO2. Because of this and many other reasons, a rainforest, it does not
become carbon neutral for the carbon it absorbs and releases with
decomposition, but remains the most effective absrober of CO2 and
converter to oxygen.

It cannot be denied that at least part of the measured yearly CO2
increase is from natural causes. Perhaps even that it is about 900 yrs
since the very intense warming of the medieaval warm period (which is
the normal time that CO2 begins to rise after warming period), or the
natural upswing in temperatures coming after the little ice age which
may affect the vapor equilibrium with the ocean or the greater
metabolism in unfrozen tundra.

That the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere remain the same
regardless of human input, suggests that it is indeed the natural CO2
increase and the deforestation that is responsible for almost all of
this increase. The actual quantities of human contribution are very
small. Nature converts 440 billion tons of CO2 to oxygen each year.
The ocean absorbs 300 billion tons and emits 300 billion tons in
equilibrium of vapor pressure. The overall natural CO2 in the
environment is much higher than this.

Humans contribution is about 26 billion tons (of which nearly 1/4 is
from the actual burning of the tropical jungles), and there is no
measurable change in the increase that reflects the doulbling of human
CO2 within the past 40 yrs or so.

The whole analysis of CO2 from AGW is flawed, deceitful, fraudulent
and criminal. Here is an analysis of AGW and it's academic and
political substance, from one of the very foremost scientists of the
field of ice cores and their chemical analsyis.
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

That they even get away with their shifting of the ice core years is a
total joke. People are awfully naive, but at some point very simple
direct science will demonstrate this fraud and the willingness of the
academics and accredited scientific organizations to support this
fraud regardless of actual science or fact.

Here is a spread sheet from which they derive the 'hockey stick' for
CO2 concentrations caused by humans.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2...e.combined.dat

The data is smoothed, but is also chosen from other data for it's
depiction of the curve they are looking for . There is no
justification for the ****f in year for 'mean air age'. The ice is not
permeable for this transfer to the surface of concentrations through
even 1 layer of the ice.

This false representation of CO2, is repeated by everyone. But those
that repeat this as testimony to the government should be held liable
for very serious criminal fraud.

KDeatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies.

wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 6:02 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Dec 9, 2:50 pm, "Bill Habr" wrote: "Whata Fool"
wrote in message

.. . "Bill Habr"
wrote:

It doesn't matter what the other gases in the atmosphere are.

Of course it does, what are you, a confusionist?

The question was "Can water evaporate in nitrogen atmosphere?"

[...]

...and the answer is: "Yes, and you are stupid if you even have to
ask."

The answer is that according to the theoretical perspective of AGW
which is that N2 and O2 are transparent and non-reactive to infrareds,
the answer is NO.

So according to you if the theoretical perspective of anthropogenic global warming is real
then it is impossible for the earth to be as warm as it is?


There is not enough energy in the molecular motions of these gases to
transfer the quantitiy of energy that must be absorbed as the water
molecules become independent molecules and absorb the energy of the
bond state of the liquid.

Evaporation and condensation depend on the temperature and the pressure of water vapor.
If the atmosphere were 100% water vapor, evaporation and condensation would still depend
on the temperature and the pressure of water vapor. If the atmosphere were 99.99% nitrogen
and .01%, evaporation and condensation would still depend on the temperature and the
pressure of water vapor. Heat is the transfer of energy by radiation, conduction and
convection. If the gases are well mixed then the temperture of the atmosphere will be very
close to the temperature of the individual gases. The atmosphere's pressure is a sum of
the pressures of the gases.




The linear kinetic energy of the velocities of the molecules of 1 mole
of gas is RT. Therefore this denotes the pressure the gas exerts, P =
RT. If one divides this number by the number of molecules, one gets
the 'average kinetic energy' of the moleules which is Boltzman's
constant or kT. The heat capacity of a substance is almost entirely
the kinetic energy of the linear motion and of the other motions of
the mass of the molecules, such as rotational and vibrational.

This is proved by the heat capacities of gases. Monatomic gases all
have exactly the same heat capacity of 3/2 R.
Symetrical diatoms have almost the same heat capacity of 5/2R. Non-
symmetrical diatoms all have unique heat capacity according to their
individual spin and absorption of kinetic energy. CO2 is symmetrical
and has the predictable heat capacity of 7/2 R @cv.

Facts and AGW theoretical science often do not coincide. But this is
not important in theoretical science and the domination of beliefs of
the little brats and liars of academic.

Google, 'When the **** hits the Gdamn fan', dishonest brats.


KD

wrote:

On Dec 9, 6:35 pm, Whata Fool wrote:
And the question of the various gases is of some importance,
because the presumption of CO2 existing separate of water and
water vapor in the Earth's nitrogen atmosphere may need to be
re-examined to see why the climate change doesn't seem to
track the CO2 concentration, and why the CO2 concentration
does not reflect the amount emitted by man burning fossil fuel.

WF. You should see in this also that the water forms calthrates with
CO2. Because of this and many other reasons, a rainforest, it does not
become carbon neutral for the carbon it absorbs and releases with
decomposition, but remains the most effective absrober of CO2 and
converter to oxygen.

A young forest, sure, but a mature forest begins to have
as much decay as new growth else it would be obvious that wood
would be seen to increase at the base as fallen limbs.

It cannot be denied that at least part of the measured yearly CO2
increase is from natural causes.

The increase in concentration in the air is not the big question,
do plants in the ocean combine the carbon with other minerals while
releasing oxygen. If so, there should not be an increase of carbon
in the ocean, and the PH should not change drastically.
On TV I saw the bones of a whale, and wonder just where
the calcium comes from, and how much can be available to become
limestone.

Perhaps even that it is about 900 yrs
since the very intense warming of the medieaval warm period (which is
the normal time that CO2 begins to rise after warming period), or the
natural upswing in temperatures coming after the little ice age which
may affect the vapor equilibrium with the ocean or the greater
metabolism in unfrozen tundra.

I am sorry to say I can't be as certain as you, but there seems
to be a lot of unanswered questions about the supposed downward
radiation of GHGs, on the ocean, any thermal energy input to the
top inch should increase evaporation, possibly even causing more
cooling of the water than if there was no downward radiation.

So the AGW trivializing the problem of averaging all radiation
globally appears inadequate to account for the different effects of
GHGs according to local conditions.

That the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere remain the same
regardless of human input, suggests that it is indeed the natural CO2
increase and the deforestation that is responsible for almost all of
this increase.

I think deforestation is not only overstated, but poorly
understood. In Brazil, it is apparently banned, and I don't
see how anybody can clear land for crops without a lot of
very heavy machinery, anybody can check this for themselves
by simply trying to remove the roots of a 2 inch diameter tree.

There is bootleg timber cutting, but those criminals would
have no reason to remove the roots, and if timber is dried and
made into long lasting items, the carbon is sequestered for
longer than if the forest is left undisturbed.

I see the whole premise of AGW as faulty, based more
on gossip and rumor than on facts. In fact, most of the people
that support the idea of AGW are just about the dumbest people
I have ever seen so enthused with something so trivial.
Temperatures in any locale are more dependent on wind
direction than anything else, just look at the weather maps today,
ice all over the northern plains, and 70 degree weather in the
Tennessee valley, solely because of the location of the low
pressure areas and the weather fronts.

How something like that can be included sensibly in any
energy budget is a laugh.

On Dec 10, 5:19 am, wrote:
On Dec 9, 6:02 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Dec 9, 2:50 pm, "Bill Habr" wrote: "Whata Fool" wrote in message

.. . "Bill Habr" wrote:

It doesn't matter what the other gases in the atmosphere are.

Of course it does, what are you, a confusionist?

The question was "Can water evaporate in nitrogen atmosphere?"

[...]
S
...and the answer is: "Yes, and you are stupid if you even have to
ask."

The answer is that according to the theoretical perspective of AGW
which is that N2 and O2 are transparent and non-reactive to infrareds,
the answer is NO.

*scratches head*

So...because the dominant components of the atmosphere are transparent
to a range of frequencies that water absorbs, it is impossible for
water to absorb them and thus evaporate?

Yea, I'll admit to not understanding what the hell you are talking
about.


There is not enough energy in the molecular motions of these gases to
transfer the quantitiy of energy that must be absorbed as the water
molecules become independent molecules and absorb the energy of the
bond state of the liquid.

I'd hate to interrupt the beating of the straw man, but who ever said
convection of heat by the atmosphere was the dominant means by which
water is heated?

Think of the consequences of what you just spewed. The dominant
components of the atmosphere are transparent to the wavelengths of
light that water _loves_ to absorb. What would be the consequence of
that? I'm thinking evaporation, but I'm sure you have a deeper truth
in mind.


The linear kinetic energy of the velocities of the molecules of 1 mole
of gas is RT. Therefore this denotes the pressure the gas exerts, P =
RT. If one divides this number by the number of molecules, one gets
the 'average kinetic energy' of the moleules which is Boltzman's
constant or kT. The heat capacity of a substance is almost entirely
the kinetic energy of the linear motion and of the other motions of
the mass of the molecules, such as rotational and vibrational.

Thank you for the freshman thermodynamics lecture.


This is proved by the heat capacities of gases. Monatomic gases all
have exactly the same heat capacity of 3/2 R.

This is only approximately true.

Symetrical diatoms have almost the same heat capacity of 5/2R. Non-
symmetrical diatoms all have unique heat capacity according to their
individual spin and absorption of kinetic energy. CO2 is symmetrical
and has the predictable heat capacity of 7/2 R @cv.

Again, only approximately true.


Facts and AGW theoretical science often do not coincide. But this is
not important in theoretical science and the domination of beliefs of
the little brats and liars of academic.

Wake me when you are able to demonstrate an understanding of the
material you routinely spew.


Google, 'When the **** hits the Gdamn fan', dishonest brats.

KD

Kurt Lochner wrote:
"death_rage" continued whining at:

[...]

Example follow..

A Watt is not a unit of energy [..]
Oh yes it is..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

It's somewhat disturbing that Kurt's main reference seems to
be Wikipedia.

[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28physics%29

[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law

Cheers,

Rich

'bitch' deleted and bleated at:

Kurt Lochner restored the previous bitch-slappings of:

"death_rage" continued whining at:

Kurt Lochner was laughing at the intentional ignorance exhibited by:

"death_rage" was still writhing in denials:

John M. replied to:

On Dec 22, 6:05 pm, Kurt Lochner was laughing at:

"death_rage" writhed in denials:

Blah-blah-blah..

The same force applied to heavy truck as a small car, will cause the
vehicles to absorb the same kinetic energy. The truck will be moving
faster than the lighter car,

Nope.. You suck pretty bad at physics, still..

--Why do you continue to embarrass yourself like this?

One suspects he doesn't realise it.

My how you can deduce that [..]

Yeah, just from your usual mistakes in judgment, owing to
your abject lack of any formal education in science..

Example follow..

A Watt is not a unit of energy [..]

Oh yes it is..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

"The watt (symbol: W) is the SI derived unit of power,
equal to one joule of energy per second."

the concept of 'power' also does not refer to a
quantity of energy [..]

Oh yes it does..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28physics%29

"In physics, power (symbol: P) is the rate at which work
is performed or energy is transmitted, or the amount of
energy required or expended for a given unit of time."

Even by your definition,[..]

It's not "my definition" you blundering idiot..

Boltzman Stefan equation refers to a density of energy.

You don't know enough about physics to even begin to quote
the Stefan-Boltzman equation, much less get the name correct!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law

"The Stefan-Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law,
states that the total energy radiated per unit surface
area of a black body in unit time (known variously as
the black-body irradiance, energy flux density, radiant
flux, or the emissive power), j*, is directly proportional
to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic
temperature T (also called absolute temperature)"

That's "energy radiated per unit surface area", dipwad..

the charalatans of AGW, who also do not theoretically
abide within the Law of the Conservation of Energy in
their postulation.

Nope, that would be your 'global warming denialists' who
try to ignore the thermodynamic effects of dumping waste
heat and carbon emissions into the lower atmosphere at the
rate of 70 million tons a day, with no consequences..

Now that is funny, fartated out[..]

I see that you have similar difficulties with English,
as well as general scientific principles and physics..

You're 0 for 3 here, dipwad dundee..

Well as one who claims proficiency in physics [..]

That certainly couldn't be yourself.. *LOL!*

It's somewhat disturbing that Kurt's main reference
seems to be Wikipedia.

Aww, and here I was trying to be charitable about how your
intentional ignorance might be cured by easy to read quotes
from a fairly reliable source of physics definitions..

It's not like you right-wingers can accurately quote
anything past your usual grade-school comprehensions..

Yeah, never mind that Kent Dethridge repeatedly fscked-up
his own 'scientific terms' about "energy" and "power", much
less the reference to the Stefan Boltzman equation..

And here's the first mistake Kent was trying to run away from..

"The same force applied to heavy truck as a small car,
will cause the vehicles to absorb the same kinetic
energy. The truck will be moving faster than the
lighter car"

Yeah, some 'typo' that was..

--See subject header for details..

Kurt Lochner wrote:
'bitch' deleted and bleated at:

Kurt shows his credentials in identity politics. Nice job.

It's somewhat disturbing that Kurt's main reference
seems to be Wikipedia.

Aww, and here I was trying to be charitable about how your
intentional ignorance might be cured by easy to read quotes
from a fairly reliable source of physics definitions..

The reliability of wikipedia is pretty well established nowadays,
some colleges now refuse to accept it as source material.

There are better sources for this kind of stuff anyway,
wolfram is a good place to start.

It's not like you right-wingers can accurately quote
anything past your usual grade-school comprehensions..

I've not seen an AGW believer who can accurately quote.
What do you do when the truth won't serve? Making something
up seems to be the AGW policy.

Happy Holidaze,

Rich

'bitch' deleted and bleated at:

Kurt Lochner restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:

'bitch' deleted and bleated at:

Kurt Lochner restored the previous bitch-slappings of:

"death_rage" continued whining at:

Kurt Lochner was laughing at the intentional ignorance exhibited by:

"death_rage" was still writhing in denials:

John M. replied to:

On Dec 22, 6:05 pm, Kurt Lochner was laughing at:

"death_rage" writhed in denials:

Blah-blah-blah..

The same force applied to heavy truck as a small car, will cause the
vehicles to absorb the same kinetic energy. The truck will be moving
faster than the lighter car,

Nope.. You suck pretty bad at physics, still..

--Why do you continue to embarrass yourself like this?

One suspects he doesn't realise it.

My how you can deduce that [..]

Yeah, just from your usual mistakes in judgment, owing to
your abject lack of any formal education in science..

Example follow..

A Watt is not a unit of energy [..]

Oh yes it is..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

"The watt (symbol: W) is the SI derived unit of power,
equal to one joule of energy per second."

the concept of 'power' also does not refer to a
quantity of energy [..]

Oh yes it does..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28physics%29

"In physics, power (symbol: P) is the rate at which work
is performed or energy is transmitted, or the amount of
energy required or expended for a given unit of time."

Even by your definition,[..]

It's not "my definition" you blundering idiot..

Boltzman Stefan equation refers to a density of energy.

You don't know enough about physics to even begin to quote
the Stefan-Boltzman equation, much less get the name correct!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law

"The Stefan-Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law,
states that the total energy radiated per unit surface
area of a black body in unit time (known variously as
the black-body irradiance, energy flux density, radiant
flux, or the emissive power), j*, is directly proportional
to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic
temperature T (also called absolute temperature)"

That's "energy radiated per unit surface area", dipwad..

the charalatans of AGW, who also do not theoretically
abide within the Law of the Conservation of Energy in
their postulation.

Nope, that would be your 'global warming denialists' who
try to ignore the thermodynamic effects of dumping waste
heat and carbon emissions into the lower atmosphere at the
rate of 70 million tons a day, with no consequences..

Now that is funny, fartated out[..]

I see that you have similar difficulties with English,
as well as general scientific principles and physics..

You're 0 for 3 here, dipwad dundee..

Well as one who claims proficiency in physics [..]

That certainly couldn't be yourself.. *LOL!*

It's somewhat disturbing that Kurt's main reference
seems to be Wikipedia.

Aww, and here I was trying to be charitable about how your
intentional ignorance might be cured by easy to read quotes
from a fairly reliable source of physics definitions..

The reliability of wikipedia is pretty well established nowadays,
some colleges now refuse to accept it as source material.

Henh! Well, it's not like I think of right-wingers as literate
enough for anything more than a quick wiki reference. Other than
than your reference to wolfram, I see no need to meticulously
quote higher educational sources for you right-wing denialists..

It's not like you right-wingers can accurately quote
anything past your usual grade-school comprehensions..

Yeah, never mind that Kent Dethridge repeatedly fscked-up
his own 'scientific terms' about "energy" and "power", much
less the reference to the Stefan Boltzman equation..

And here's the first mistake Kent was trying to run away from..

"The same force applied to heavy truck as a small car,
will cause the vehicles to absorb the same kinetic
energy. The truck will be moving faster than the
lighter car"

Yeah, some 'typo' that was..

I've not seen an AGW believer who can accurately qu[..]

Maybe you need to pull your head out, and smell the textbooks..

--See subject header for details..

Kurt Lochner wrote:
'bitch' deleted and bleated at:

[... dead text cut ]

Do you spammers get paid by the word or what?

The reliability of wikipedia is pretty well established nowadays,
some colleges now refuse to accept it as source material.

Henh! Well, it's not like I think of right-wingers as literate
enough for anything more than a quick wiki reference.

The reflection is on you, not some unspecified 'they'.

Other than
than your reference to wolfram, I see no need to meticulously
quote higher educational sources for you right-wing denialists..

Clearly you can't use your own words.

It's not like you right-wingers can accurately quote
anything past your usual grade-school comprehensions..

Yeah, never mind that Kent Dethridge repeatedly fscked-up
his own 'scientific terms' about "energy" and "power", much
less the reference to the Stefan Boltzman equation..

And here's the first mistake Kent was trying to run away from..

"The same force applied to heavy truck as a small car,
will cause the vehicles to absorb the same kinetic
energy. The truck will be moving faster than the
lighter car"

Yeah, some 'typo' that was..
I've not seen an AGW believer who can accurately qu[..]

Maybe you need to pull your head out, and smell the textbooks..

It did not work for that, that's clear.

Cheers,

Rich

--See subject header for details..

'bitch' deleted and bleated at:

Kurt Lochner restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:

'bitch' deleted and bleated at:

Kurt Lochner restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:

'bitch' deleted and bleated at:

Kurt Lochner restored the previous bitch-slappings of:

"death_rage" continued whining at:

Kurt Lochner was laughing at the intentional ignorance exhibited by:

"death_rage" was still writhing in denials:

John M. replied to:

On Dec 22, 6:05 pm, Kurt Lochner was laughing at:

"death_rage" writhed in denials:

Blah-blah-blah..

The same force applied to heavy truck as a small car, will cause the
vehicles to absorb the same kinetic energy. The truck will be moving
faster than the lighter car,

Nope.. You suck pretty bad at physics, still..

--Why do you continue to embarrass yourself like this?

One suspects he doesn't realise it.

My how you can deduce that [..]

Yeah, just from your usual mistakes in judgment, owing to
your abject lack of any formal education in science..

Example follow..

A Watt is not a unit of energy [..]

Oh yes it is..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

"The watt (symbol: W) is the SI derived unit of power,
equal to one joule of energy per second."

the concept of 'power' also does not refer to a
quantity of energy [..]

Oh yes it does..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28physics%29

"In physics, power (symbol: P) is the rate at which work
is performed or energy is transmitted, or the amount of
energy required or expended for a given unit of time."

Even by your definition,[..]

It's not "my definition" you blundering idiot..

Boltzman Stefan equation refers to a density of energy.

You don't know enough about physics to even begin to quote
the Stefan-Boltzman equation, much less get the name correct!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law

"The Stefan-Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law,
states that the total energy radiated per unit surface
area of a black body in unit time (known variously as
the black-body irradiance, energy flux density, radiant
flux, or the emissive power), j*, is directly proportional
to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic
temperature T (also called absolute temperature)"

That's "energy radiated per unit surface area", dipwad..

[... dead text cut ]

Evasions noted.. Example follows..

Do you spammers get paid by the word or what?

*LOL!* Your evasions speak volumes about you, bitch..

Examples follow..

the charalatans of AGW, who also do not theoretically
abide within the Law of the Conservation of Energy in
their postulation.

Nope, that would be your 'global warming denialists' who
try to ignore the thermodynamic effects of dumping waste
heat and carbon emissions into the lower atmosphere at the
rate of 70 million tons a day, with no consequences..

Now that is funny, fartated out[..]

I see that you have similar difficulties with English,
as well as general scientific principles and physics..

You're 0 for 3 here, dipwad dundee..

Well as one who claims proficiency in physics [..]

That certainly couldn't be yourself.. *LOL!*

It's somewhat disturbing that Kurt's main reference
seems to be Wikipedia.

Aww, and here I was trying to be charitable about how your
intentional ignorance might be cured by easy to read quotes
from a fairly reliable source of physics definitions..

The reliability of wikipedia is pretty well established nowadays,
some colleges now refuse to accept it as source material.

Henh! Well, it's not like I think of right-wingers as literate
enough for anything more than a quick wiki reference. Other than
than your reference to wolfram, I see no need to meticulously
quote higher educational sources for you right-wing denialists..

The reflection is on you, not some unspecified 'they'.

No "unspecified they" to it, bitch. I think of you as being
inarticulate and unlearned of science and physics. You can
pretend all you want to to the contrary, it will not change
my assessment of your pseudo-intellectual prowess.. *LOL!*

Clearly you can't use your own words.

Clearly you have a lot of cognitive difficulties accepting the
fact that I do not share your intentional ignorance of science
and physics.. To paraphrase, I can put numbers to the subject
and you obviously will not..

It's not like you right-wingers can accurately quote
anything past your usual grade-school comprehensions..

Yeah, never mind that Kent Dethridge repeatedly fscked-up
his own 'scientific terms' about "energy" and "power", much
less the reference to the Stefan Boltzman equation..

And here's the first mistake Kent was trying to run away from..

"The same force applied to heavy truck as a small car,
will cause the vehicles to absorb the same kinetic
energy. The truck will be moving faster than the
lighter car"

Yeah, some 'typo' that was..

I've not seen an AGW believer who can accurately qu[..]

Maybe you need to pull your head out, and smell the textbooks..

It did not work [..]

Okay, then you're just going to have to live with the fact
that someone else may have studied science and physics for
a great deal longer than you have..

And as a result, I don't believe anything you've said about science.
"global warming" or physics to be accurate, or even close to the
facts. Please pretend that your assumptions are unquestionable
with someone else. I'm not buying into your silly lies and
evasions, and I'm certain that you could do better if you'd
quit that pompous primate reaction of your to ideas that don't
agree with your feeble, uninformed and uneducated opinions about
global warming and science in general..

--Merry Christmas, by the way..