Well, all I can neither confirm nor deny is that Cormac keeps his office with the scientists at the Santa Fe Institute.
Don’t mean to derail, but it's never really acknowledged as to the cause of the apocalypse in that book. Or am I missing it?
I think it's there, in flash(har har!)back. Says something about explosions in the distance, awaking to no power, and he immediately starts filling the tub with water (being our crafty hero.)
Oh I know, and that was my thought too, but the wife swears it's a natural catastrophe not nuclure; such as the coming of the next ice age (tsunamis, volcanic explosions, the polar caps melting, that sort of thing,). But I do like how it’s never really explicitly explained.
I kind of have the same opinion on the whole "saving the earth" thing as I do with the whole voting thing. I don't care for either one not because dislike the notion, but because I don't feel like I can make a difference. Sure, I'd separate recyclable products if I remember. Or throw a can of coke into a recycling bin rather than trash can if convienient. But overall, I don't go out of my way to be environmentally friendly. But if for some bizzare reason I actually land in a position of major power where my decisions can affect the future of Earth(or rather my future descendents' livelihood on it), I'd definitely do my best to help in the matter.
It doesn't say. But with the totality of the destruction, I guessed it was a meteorite. (I actually read it this weekend.)
Did you like it? I am a big fan of the author. I will reread that section tonight. I thought there were a series of concussions, leading me to really believe it was a nuclear assault.
Riiiiiight. I think that's pretty obvious. Strangely the post count starts to pick up after Trader Jorge is banned and he 1. is strongly 'conservative' 2. has a superiority complex 3. exaggerates other's statements and rationalizes how he's the 'better man' because his arguments are drowned in 'fact'. It's so pathetic how many people supposedly have 'lives' yet the second they are booted from a very generous site (freedom of speech-wise) for being complete a-holes their little egos can't handle the mental groin kick and they resort to circumventing the ban by starting another account. The connection people have with this site and the people they've had arguments/hard feelings with comes out eventually...it's always a dead give away.
That makes sense too; a meteorite would explain the sun being blocked out and the continual rain of ash.
Well, B-Bob has already indicated that he is a trained physicist and has routine interactions with climate scientists. What exactly are your credentials for determining the validity of the very complicated science of climate change research?
Did you actually expect MojoMan to come back in this thread after B-Bob tried to discuss global warming intelligently? The only thing I sort of expect is him to come back and say something like "I had stuff to do IRL, I don't have time for this!", not really anything meaningful.
I have the time. I am interested in engaging in intelligent, civil conversations covering a wide range of topics with knowledgeable people who bring diverse perspectives and divergent views of the world. What I am not interested in at all is engaging in sniping with snide, smack-talking juveniles that are intolerant of perspectives that fall outside of the narrow, politically correct parameters that they have adopted as their answers to the popular topics of the day. I am also not interested in interacting with posters who regard certain controversial topics as resolved to the point where they dismissively suggest that new members search the archives so they can learn what the truth is about that topic. Apparently the archives section of the clutchfans message board is regarded by some as the repository of final truth on the global warming issue. Really now. In any case, I posted the following message on page one of this thread. I know it communicates a message that contradicts the politically correct stance on AGW. But there is nothing scientifically related in the post below that anyone here has refuted. So until something in it is, I will stand with the post below:
You do know that overreliance on adjectives and adverbs is a sign of a yearning to be regarded as intelligent, rather than intelligence itself? The best writing is always the simplest. I don't know if this is jorge or just a jorge-cat. Whatever. I don't think you're going to find too many more foils, but then basso still does so what the hell do i know.
No reason to be snarky, he may not be the best writer in the world, but he does use complete sentences, is (at least in one post, repeated twice) trying to address the substance, and is not directly attacking other posters. He may be of the same mindset of t_j, but at least he isn't completely acting a fool.
Glad to hear it. And since you obviously missed it the first time, I will repeat the question: what level of scientific expertise do you have? You are taking a position on this issue that differs with a majority of scientists actively working on climate science, so surely you know something that they do not.
