Jupiter's Great Red Spot Is Shrinking 270
cjstaples noted a CNN story proclaiming that
Jupiter's signature red spot is shrinking. Over a 10 year study, the giant storm lost just over half a kilometer per day for a total loss of about 15%. Scientists know about shrinkage, right?
meme tag stole my post (Score:4, Funny)
Here I was ready to make some crack about how global warming is causing jupiter's red spot to shrink and this shows that the sun is having some other effect, and there it is in the tags:
"globalwarming manbearpig globalshrinking...."
totally burst my bubble, stole my thunder... I might actually have to do some work.
Re:meme tag stole my post (Score:5, Funny)
Here I was ready to make some crack
I knew it!
Even drug dealers read Slashdot!
Re:meme tag stole my post (Score:4, Insightful)
You're forgetting that politicians like Al Gore have a financial interest in making you feel guilty enough to pay his company carbon credits. You know, the company he started right before he released his film. The company he used to pay himself through carbon credits when he got called out for having an enormous house.
Making people feel guilty tricks them into sacrificing things to the government such as money, rights, and common sense. With the media playing along with Al Gore and shunning any detractors, the system is able to keep the public stupid and gullible while they pay more money and give the government more power.
Re:meme tag stole my post (Score:5, Insightful)
'Natural' doesn't equate to "OK". If mean sea levels are rising, and continue to rise to the point that a significant fraction of the human population is put at risk and a significant fraction of international economy is put at risk, it's still a problem. Whether the FSM causes it or human-derived CO2 is the main driver, it's still a problem.
Your assertion that "overall level of societal wealth, comfort and knowledge tends to move upwards over time" is true, so far, for very short values of 'time'. It's good to look ahead and see if there are issues that might cause you to rethink your assumptions and subsequently your behavior. In the end, the ecosystem of Earth will deal with anything either mankind or the universe throws at it. Your progeny just might feel more generous towards us if we took a longer view of things.
QOTD: "If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error." -- John Kenneth Galbraith
Re:meme tag stole my post (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not a problem for the dolphins. In fact, a great majority of the species on this planet would not notice, not care, or would benefit from us humans greatly shrinking our numbers.
Re:meme tag stole my post (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also worth remembering that some of the most populated parts of the Earth are also very close to sealevel. It wouldn't take much of a rise to displace very, very large numbers of people --- like, billions, and they're not just going to sit there and drown.
If this ever happens, you're going to have an extremely large number of intelligent, highly motivated people looking, in order, for (a) somewhere to live and (b) someone to blame.
The simple technical problems involved with climate change will be nothing compared to the political problems.
Re:meme tag stole my post (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also worth remembering that some of the most populated parts of the Earth are also very close to sealevel.
But the reason for this is, populations tend to settle where there is water, usually for transportation.
So if the water level changes, they don't just sit there and starve or whatever.
they move to where the water is
This really isn't a big deal. It's worked this way for a long long time. They are there now because the water is there, not the other way around. People follow the water, water does not follow the people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> So if the water level changes, they don't just sit there and starve or whatever.
Nope. They turn their city into a tourist attraction like Venice or a charity case like New Orleans. Seriously, when you see ships going by ABOVE the horizon level shouldn't that be a hint that you might not be in the safest place? Change happens, when your city decides to sink into the swamp perhaps you should move instead of asking the rest of your fellow citizens to spend Sagan's trying to build ever higher levees.
Yes
Re:meme tag stole my post (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem in your logic is that people won't be looking for somewhere else to live. The people will be whining to the government to create a way for them to live beneath sea level at the expense of all the people who don't live near the ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
If this ever happens, you're going to have an extremely large number of intelligent, highly motivated people looking, in order, for (a) somewhere to live and (b) someone to blame. The simple technical problems involved with climate change will be nothing compared to the political problems.
Those people are of statistical insignificance compared to the number of stupid, highly motivated people who will be looking, in order, for (a) something to eat and (b) somewhere to live.
Death = more evolution. It's like "earth hour" (Score:3, Informative)
Both of these problems will kill people. Which is what makes evolution work.
So isn't this a good thing ? It improves humanity in the "natural" way. Natural is, like, always good man !
(and for a serious reply : the entirety of Holland has an average height of MINUS 2 meters, so there will be exactly 0 things happening, you also pass by on the fact that all of the following 3 problems will become critical long before any noticeable sea level rise occurs : oil (and energy) shortage, water shortage, food shorta
Re:meme tag stole my post (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes human activity unnatural? Considering that adaptivity is a natural human trait, I would really like to know what about human society is unnatural.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
'Natural' doesn't equate to "OK".
I reject this on principle! Natural = better! Tons of infomercials for herbal supplements have implicitly told me so! Just look at ginseng, herbal tea, cyanide, tobacco, botulin, the plague, male pattern baldness, and dying of old age at 30. All good reasons why natural equates to better!
Re:meme tag stole my post (Score:5, Insightful)
> From a purely evolutionary perspective, it really does equate to "OK."
Evolution is a mindless process, it has no perspective. Nor does it have a purpose, needs, wants, hopes and dreams. Most importantly, it doesn't have a goal. Saying 'from a evolutionary perspective' is about as insightful as saying 'from gravity's perspective' or 'from a cake's perspective'.
> Organisms die. Others survive. Get over it.
I wont stop you from laying down and starving to death, but personally, I'd rather live. Sure, organisms die, but I don't want to be one of those particular organisms for at least another few decades. Why should we accept death by drowning when we can do something to change it?
> It's only bad if you really think humans are a special part of the universe, rather than what they really are: just one little tiny product of an infinitely random spectacle.
Humans may not be special, but neither is the rest of the universe, so why SHOULDN'T we try to change the universe? We may be 'tiny products of an infinitely random spectacle' (is the universe infinitely random? I hope not!) but few things on our planet can resist us, so hell yes, lets use our power to change this rock to a better place for us. Fuck the natural changes in the climate, they are, after all, 'just one little tiny product of an infinitely random spectacle'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF? It's bad if you are a human. Good/bad are words that have context: human context.
We need to distinguish here between "bad for me" (which seas rising and humans being wiped out in droves probably is for a human) and "bad for life on this planet". Nature doesn't really care about you, me, the precious endangered tree frogs in the Amazon. Nature just is. All that shit about saving endangered species is just a pathological overextension of the empathy/altruism that we've evolved to allow us to live successfully in large groups.
Re:meme tag stole my post (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe one day the global warming alarmists and hoaxsters will realize that change is a *natural* thing in this universe whether caused by inanimate or animate forces
How about this, lets all declare global warming a myth and then go and convert to clean energy anyway, because maybe, just maybe, we could stop polluting our streams, rivers and lakes.
Even if global warming is a complete and total fabrication, polluting our land and water IS NOT.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been saying this to people for a long time.
I don't care if people don't believe in anthropogenic global warming... if our houses can be powered with windmills instead of power plants burning bunker C (which stinks), then lets do it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:meme tag stole my post (Score:4, Insightful)
1. While you are correct that cutting down on polluting the environment we live in is a good thing, accepting the AGW theory has immediate consequences in what we do. There is no free lunch. If we go all out to reduce CO2 emmissions that means we have fewer resources to expend reducing other things. And if we go cap and trade we put huge parts of teh economy under government control and the history of government is that short of a revolution it rarely releases power once acquired. So stopping cap and trade is, right now, the most important issue.
One flaw in your logic. The government already owns and runs the economy, it always has. It is usually lax about control, but make no mistake, corporations have always been grants from the people via the government. Corporations have no rights.
2. A through debunking of AGW would discredit the radical (mostly Marxist 'watermelons') enviromentalist 'green' movement, this could open up a once in a lifetime opportunity for sensible heads to prevail on steps that would actually help the environment instead of helping promote government control. Personally I'd favor an emergency program of building nuke plants to get the entire electrical grid off of fossil fuels. The only politically viable path to something like that is to reduce the current enviro lobby to impotence.
They never will, becuase the corporations only want profit at any cost to their surroundings. Most companies have to be forced to do things properly.
3. AGW has had a very corrosive effect on science. Rooting that out is a worthwhile goal.
Science can sort it's own problems out. That's why scientists have set methods to work through.
Re:meme tag stole my post (Score:5, Funny)
Must you turn something going on on an entirely different planet into a political rant?
Global warming may or may not be affected by humans (I find it hard to believe that it isn't to at least some degree), but that has nothing at all to do with this story.
Personally, I think the Red Spot is shrinking because illegal immigrants are taking jobs from the Americans that would normally be maintaining it.
Re:meme tag stole my post (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Jupiter confirms it: Red Storm Linux is dying! (Score:3, Funny)
Another crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Red Storm Linux community today when Jupiter...
#$%! economy (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I read a story about the current solar minimum just today, and how that has reduced the solar wind pressure. Perhaps that's the cause of the red spot on Jupiter.
Of course, that story's comments had similar "the economy is shrinking the sun" stupidity, and that's what made me think of it just now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe one day the global warming alarmists and hoaxsters will realize that change is a *natural* thing in this universe whether caused by inanimate or animate forces.
Disease is natural.
Starvation is natural.
Death is natural.
Nature sucks.
We've got the big brains, so we can make it suck less.
There's apologists... and then there's you.... (Score:2)
There's "apologists", sure, but then on the extreme other end of that spectrum... there's you.
You'd have us believe that all change is good, and all (specific) change is unavoidable? That's bullshit, spoken by someone who's too cowardly to take responsibility for stupid choices that cause BAD changes to occur.
While apologists may be too quick to adopt responsibility for things and flagellate themselves and their kin, you're too quick to distance yourself and your kin from any responsibility. Nice "fair an
Re:meme tag stole my post (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a difference between climate change alarmism and acceptance of anthropomorphic climate change. Due to the shoddy nature of science reporting, and the credulous attidude of many, the two have been confused.
Anthropomorphic climate change is the idea that humans, and more specifically, human industrial output, is having a measurable and significant effect on the climate of the earth. This argument is not so far away from the argument that industry has an effect on the environment, which is obviously true. The difference here is that anthropomorphic climate change states that the effects of human industry are now on a global scale. It's important to note at this point that climate scientists have the evidence to prove these claims.
Proponents of the idea of anthropomorphic climate change usually advocate measures to halt or reduce the effect of humans on the environment. There are adverse effects to climate change, as well as some beneficial ones, but ultimately they argue that we as a society should practice good husbandry and not risk causing adverse effects for ourselves or for others. A swift change in global or regional climates is ultimately in no ones best interests, and of least interest of all to our environment.
Climate change alarmism is different. Global warming alarmists typically take the most spectacular, alarming, devastating and ultimately least likely potential outcomes of climate change and loudly proclaim their inevitability. Usually, they advocate personal efforts by individuals. (but not by industry, ho hum) [orionmagazine.org]. It's easy to dismiss many of their claims.
But dismissing alarmism is often extrapolated out to dismissing anthropomorphic climate change as a whole. You really shouldn't do this. The effects of climate change may not be worthy of a hollywood spectacle, but they will be real and probably permanent. If a few million of hectares of scrubland are turned to desert, or forests turn to grassland, or if your summers are too wet or too hot, of if a few species become extinct, or if your children will never be able to build a snowman, then it is true that you will not have lost a lot objectively. But you will have lost something. And needlessly.
You mentioned in your post that "Species thrive and decline." This is true, but species can and have been declined or destroyed not by natural causes but by the effect of human industry. Consider whales. Fished to the point of, and in effect probably to, extinction not by any natural cause, but by the will of human societies and industry. I think it's safe to say that no one wanted this to happen, but it did anyway and we cannot ever undo this. The greater tragedy is that is need never have happened.
It's the same with climate change. A few degrees may not sound like a lot to most people, but it is a big change. The earth will pull through, but it will be a slightly different place. But Things and places will be lost to us forever. And they will be lost not because we as a society did nothing, but because we refused to stop doing things which we could easily have done without. That doesn't sound like a lot of progress to me.
+1, Unintentionally hilarious (Score:4, Informative)
The word you were looking for is "anthropogenic".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Otherwise you could justify any action by saying that human generated change on average is positive (and probably destroy the premise in the process).
In Jupiter's Defense (Score:5, Funny)
Scientists know about shrinkage, right?
Let me just point out that it's very cold in space. Even with the sun nearby, I think we'd all experience at least a little bit of shrinkage if we were in Jupiter's position and it's not fair for the other planets to laugh at him.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
... it's not fair for the other planets to laugh at him.
I don't think the other planets are listening to you as I'm pretty sure I can hear Pluto laughing from here; something about "serves you right!".
Re:In Jupiter's Defense (Score:5, Funny)
Let me just point out that it's very cold in space. Even with the sun nearby, I think we'd all experience at least a little bit of shrinkage if we were in Jupiter's position and it's not fair for the other planets to laugh at him.
Venus: That's what every man says. The truth is, you're just upset that Saturn has over 200 satellites to your... uhh... 63. Plus, you've completely lost control of your weight these past few millenia and have horrible acne. Seriously, clean up your atmosphere and do something about those red splotches and maybe you'll have a chance with some of the inner planets.
Re: (Score:2)
Man, I still recall when I was a kid and Jupiter and Saturn only had about 10 moons each. Also, Pluto was a planet. And the only pictures of Uranus and Neptune were blurry blobs with more lens flare than detail and Pluto was just a little dot.
And despite all that I was _still_ obsessed with astronomy! :-)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wow grandpa, did you know Galileo personally?
Pluto a planet?!? That was like what the people that thought the earth was flat thought, right?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In Jupiter's Defense (Score:5, Funny)
Let me just point out that it's very cold in space. Even with the sun nearby, I think we'd all experience at least a little bit of shrinkage if we were in Jupiter's position and it's not fair for the other planets to laugh at him.
Well we sure have no room to laugh. Jupiter's spot, shrinkage and all, is still several times bigger than our entire planet.
Saturn probably has the right for a chuckle or two, though, and Neptune might join in. Uranus as usual will just try to avoid attention since it always ends up with it being made fun of.
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell is shrinkage and what does it have to do with being cold? Is this another one of those North American things?
Yes they do know about shrinkage (Score:2)
It may start to grow again or it my shrink even further all we really know is one day it will probably disappear only to be replaced by another
Red spot shrinking? (Score:5, Funny)
Perfect time to send some spam to Jupiter.
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, make the message personal, and send spammers to Jupiter.
Weather's clearing up (Score:4, Insightful)
Somewhere on Jupiter...
"Welp, reckon that storm front's finally breakin' up, Edgar."
"Ayup. Haven't seen a storm like that since the hundred-fifty-year* one back up near the poles."
"Yup, yup, that one had the cattle all rustled up somethin' fierce."
"Reckon y'don't see storms like that any more."
For some reason, this entire story strikes me as just realizing that Jupiter has weather systems. They just might be longer than Earth ones.
*: Jupiter years.
The birth of europa? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You could have just, I dunno, made one.
**spoiler!!!**
I wonder if Clarke chose that year because a craft leaving Earth in 2010 would arrive at Jupiter in 2012 and thus the Leonov would witness the birth of a new sun just as the world is ending!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
2010: The Space Oxy??
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
EXCEPT EUROPA.
Attempt no landings there.
Use them together.
Use them in peace.
There, fixed it for ya!
Re: (Score:2)
moviegeeks
Pfft. I read the whole book series. He made four books, only two of which were made into movies.
It's just shy (Score:3, Interesting)
How about color? (Score:5, Funny)
It's not getting blacker by chance is it?
Re:How about color? (Score:5, Funny)
OMG its full of ponies!
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, fuck anyone who disagrees, that was funny...
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget, the red spot lost its color before a black spot started appearing inside it.
When it's done.. (Score:4, Funny)
..we need to make sure we stay away from Europa
Re: (Score:2)
It's the only way to be sure.
Time for a bailout (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
2010 (Score:4, Funny)
We should see if we can get the Russians to take US scientists along on a ship next year to investigate.
Aw, Jupiter is finally out of puberty! (Score:2, Funny)
Bob? (Score:2)
Where is Smiling Bob when you need him?
Monolith (Score:2, Funny)
Not to be a troll, but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I remember the same thing from gradeschool... Over 20 years ago.
Don't worry (Score:2, Funny)
The Solar System's Timer (Score:2)
Maybe the Red Spot is a timer, and when it finally disappears something really interesting will happen, like:
- God (in his Flying Spaghetti Monster incarnation) will appear and prove Its existence once and for all
- Jupiter will emit a cosmic alarm announcing that our solar system is finally finished
- Jupiter will ignite and become a small star
- Mankind will achieve true enlightenment (as every nuclear weapon on the planet goes off simiultaneously)
Any other ideas?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the Red Spot is a timer, and when it finally disappears something really interesting will happen, like:
It will go "BING!" and we'll know it's ready to be eaten.
And it will taste like chicken.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the Red Spot is a timer, and when it finally disappears something really interesting will happen, like:
Its a giant meatball, sinking into the sauce!
Re: (Score:2)
- God (in his Flying Spaghetti Monster incarnation) will appear and prove Its existence once and for all
Y'know, that's a tricky one. Given Clarke's third law [wikipedia.org], I don't see any way that Yaweh or FSM or Zeus or whatever can prove anything other that the fact that He (She/It/Them/Whatever) is a sufficiently advanced alien. I'm certainly not qualified to judge the difference, and I don't believe anyone who claims that they are.
- Mankind will achieve true enlightenment (as every nuclear weapon on the planet goes off simiultaneously)
Oh, well, in that case, I suppose it will no longer matter whether the "proof" is valid or not. Never mind. :)
This brings an interesting, off-topic thought... (Score:2)
Someone commented on global warming and other things and I wonder about that. Some say global warming is caused by man and his emissions. Other say it's due to natural causes and likely has a lot to do with changes in solar activity.
This is a potentially testable argument. We have, after all, various probes in the solar system and at least two roaming around on a neighbor planet. Can't we make some determinations based on data outside of our atmosphere how changes in the sun's state affects other bodies
That would be a great idea, if... (Score:2)
...you had a couple thousand years to gather data. One of the biggest issues is that we're trying to extrapolate a very high order polynomial with poorly defined points which are close together.
And we're trying to do it with many factors contributing. The problem is that everyone wants the answer now, or at the latest in time for Fall sweeps. You just don't get that kind of historic data in such a short period.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be so quick to say that. After all, we can detect all sorts of things such as the presence of water on distant planets and such. I am sure that various observations related to various changes and observations might be used to form some theories.
While it is undoubtedly true that if we had absolutely perfect direct data we could form a more precise determination, but noting other evidence could certainly assist in pointing the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't we make some determinations based on data outside of our atmosphere how changes in the sun's state affects other bodies in the solar system?
What makes you think people haven't done just that? And guess what? So far... the answer is 'no', solar variability hasn't resulted in any noticeable changes on the other planets in the solar system (certainly not over the past 50 years, when global warming has accelerated the most).
Now, before you start about Mars, Mars *isn't experiencing warming*. It's exper
Re: (Score:2)
Mars has a might lighter atmosphere and Jupiter has an extremely heavy atmosphere. It is precisely the interaction between the atmosphere and the sun's energy that creates what we call "weather." Venus experiences lots of interesting weather due not only to its atmospheric content, but also due to the energy from the sun. Mars, on the other hand, is significantly less dense and while there should be some measurable effects, the measurements may not be as dramatic. Jupiter, however, has an extremely dens
Re: (Score:2)
Gas giants don't have volcanoes, asshole. (Assholes can, however, have gas giants and/or volcanoes.)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you SURE there is no solid or molten core at the center? The fact that the atmosphere is very dense does nothing to indicate what their core is made of. If you have any evidence or other data to offer to the contrary, I would be happy to read it. But the presumption that a gas giant is highly compressed and cohesive gas only seems... weird.
Thinly veiled ad ... (Score:2)
Must be global warming... (Score:2)
Surely the Jupiterians are burning too much fossil fuels.
...and (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
Another venus is coming! (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone remember Immanuel Velikovsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision
Could this be just the preliminaries for another Venus ejection event?
Re:Global warming at fault?! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a fricking storm. It's subject to entropy like everything else. Eventually, it will go away.
It's the scale that's messing with your head. That storm is about the same diameter as the entire Earth. It only seems permanent because it's so big that change happens slowly.
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought and read that the big red spot was about three Earth's wide. Jupiter is freaking huge compared to Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, I misread. It's the eye, the darker spot in the middle, that's the diameter of earth. Heh.
Re:Global warming at fault?! (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's fair to point out to everyone that even on an untouched planet, major changes can happen. It's the nature of planets.
I'm not saying humans aren't causing changes on earth, because, well, they ARE. But this just goes to show that even if we don't do anything to influence change, it still happens.
Change isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just something that happens. Sometimes it happens and it's bad for our type of life and that sucks.
Every now and again, I get this feeling that the masses don't understand that planets evolve, even on their own. If humans never came to be, the earth would still be changing on it's own.
Re:Global warming at fault?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. And, so?
If humans are accelerating the change in equilibrium conditions on Earth, that is against our own interests, as we are adapted to current conditions. We should, in that case, be interested in how to stop doing that.
On the other hand, if the equilibrum conditions on Earth are changing naturally, then allowing that to happen unchecked is against our interests, as we are adapted to current conditions. We should, in that case, be interested in how to slow those naturally-occuring changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Every now and again, I get this feeling that the masses don't understand that planets evolve, even on their own.
You mean like storms and stuff??? WOW! Like, I totally didn't know that!
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, we see how the liberal agenda is spreading like cancer in this country. Biology wasn't enough for you so now you go after planetary science. I supposed the next thing you will start spouting is how Jupiter is descended from monkeys. You could not be more wrong, sir or madam!
The tru7h is that Jupiter was intelligently designed by associates of Slartibartfast. Unfortunately, the shrinkage of the red spot in
Re:Global warming at fault?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Storms are created by temperatures differences, which are in turn created by sunlight warming different areas at different rates. So yes, the same kinds of things will happen on Jupiter, if nothing else based on the temperature difference from the day to the night side. The real question is, why has the Red Spot been so stable for so long?
Think about it; surface features shouldn't effect warming rates since all solar radiation is absorbed long before it gets to the surface. Pockets of atmosphere will absorb heat at different rates, but those pockets aren't stationary. That leaves complex, self-correcting fluid dynamics or massive surface features that significantly change the wind patterns hundreds or thousands of miles up or something we just don't understand yet. All of which are pretty interesting.
Re:Global warming at fault?! (Score:5, Interesting)
You are overlooking one important energy source: Jupiter itself. Because of ongoing differentiation, Jupiter produces about twice as much energy as it receives from the Sun. Given this and the fact that this source is coming from below rather than above, it is likely the more important contribution to the dynamics of the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Done, and done. [freakingnews.com] :-)
Re:Let's celebrate! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it is reasonable to look to other planets for comparison when events happen on a planetary scale.
However, looking at a gas giant is a bit of a stretch. There are basically no points of congruence between a supermassive ball of gaseous, liquid, and metallic hydrogen, and a tiny ball of rock with a thin scrim of water on the top.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
eez. I realize that we get a lot of overheated (excuse the pun) rhetoric from proponents of AGW, but do you skeptics really have to take your rhetorical bandwagon so far in the opposite direction?
Calm down. It's a joke.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Isn't it enough just not to believe?
No, we must also mock. Mock heartily. That's what we do in this country.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have to go back and read the sentence you quoted.
Re: (Score:2)
Or that the Rogaine is failing.
Re: (Score:2)