4merper4mer

There is a lot more known data than you may think. In the end, the lack of data is the real, conclusive and final evidence. It's stark, but it is reality.

By removing wishful thinking and surface scratching with known data the implications become obvious and irrefutable. I, like most others I'd guess, would prefer a galaxy teeming with intelligent life. Alas that is not the case.

This is a global warming thread and I don't want to get way off track but an objective viewpoint makes it clear that there is not other intelligent life out there. As such, I believe our ultimate goal should be to colonize the galaxy and potentially beyond, with as many species as possible, not just humans. Clearly we are millions of years from doing this but we should choose paths more likely to get us there. All of that is really interesting stuff and I'm sure you'll enjoy it but if you employ objectivity you'll realize that no one is out there. It doesn't cover all of the bases but a good starting point if you want to skip ahead to a spoiler alert is to look into the notion of Von Neumann probes.

That would still be this planet which is exactly what I said. There may or may not be bacterial life elsewhere but there isn't intelligent life. Some events would reset Earth's clock as you stated. Others could turn us into Venus which has no magnetosphere and a hostile environment. Venus is actually a decent candidate to have microbial life in its upper atmosphere but like the rest of the universe, no intelligent life. One event, in 5 billion years, will definitely end Earth's life. All of it.

Shirley you can't be serious.

We don't have viable alternatives at this point. Not for its complete replacement. There can be and have been limited substitutions, but not replacement. If I told you that 100 more years of fossil fuel use would enable another technology.....let's just say cold fusion for kicks....would you support that? How about 1000 years? 10? 50? We don't know how long we need but we know the sun will die in about 5 billion years so tick tock.

Humans need to use science, real objective science, in any analysis. The truth is that we don't know enough yet to be accurately predictive. We are closer than ever but how close are we really? What are the goals and do we agree on them? Is it survival of our species, survival of as many species as possible or survival of life on this specific planet even if humans die out? Our current scientific capabilities enable us to look at the past and present more clearly than the future. What we know: Climate and weather are not the same thing. Climate is determined by many things, most prominent among them the Sun, the Earth's atmosphere and the Earth's magnetosphere. Math has clearly told us, if we're willing to listen, that our planet is the only one in the universe to spawn and maintain intelligent life. The future: We can strongly predict that the sun will not last forever in a way that supports life on Earth; indeed it will one day envelope the Earth We are not sure to a fine enough degree how much CO2 is too much to maintain human life We are not sure if or when a super volcano, asteroid or other natural event could render all our arguing moot Our goals: If our goal isn't the survival of our species and as many others as possible for as long as possible then we might as well live it up here without regard for the already doomed planet. I don't have that point of view and would guess that most don't. Knowing that almost all of our technological advancement in the last century has been derived from capitalistic use of fossil fuels, why do so many want to stifle them? The universe is ours, 100% ours, if we can learn enough, quickly enough.

Ali G was pretty good too.

Finkle

Shakira?

So Madonna then?

Whistleblowers also are protected under the little known "if a commie makes up crap they should be allowed to get away with it" clause of the constitution.

Gary Oldman?

It was just some guy carrying a man purse and everyone leapt to conclusions.

So dumb.

Clearly the Federal government is not the anecdote for everything.

The woman who played Donna on Parks and Rec.. I forget her name but it is just one name like Madonna or something.

Ideally they play well enough to keep Krueger but not leave the false impression that Botts deserves more time. We can't afford another offseason from a guy who thinks Vesey/Sheary/Mittlestadt/Johanssen/Frolik are part of any solution to anything.

The real question is whether UPPS' performance before the rise of Fedex, UPS, etc. is an example of why weshoukd give me the Federal government control of everything.

It's awesome. We must communize everything,

Solution: Communize

That's Mimi Rodgers? Her looks sure improved from childhood.

Elvis?

Randi Cunneyworth?

Kristen Chennyworth