Kulebron

Quite the opposite, in that climate change thread those who stayed were mostly calm on both sides. It were the newcomers who'd come with moralistic judgements, feeling righteous and superior (and I don't mean any side here in partucilar, I saw an opposite situation in another place). There are also those who stay all the time in political forums and make poisonous statement on the margin of rules. I don't think these both qualify as "another opinion", it's another way of debating, a damaging one. You want more people who contribute and add facts or systemize them, to keep forum alive, rather than thick-skinned debaters and trolls.

Now you can recreate N1 rocket crash.

I want rails and trains, to build a hype train. [edit] Seriously speaking: FAR and probably DRC integrated, but there is an immense amount of real-life features that the team still can add to increase the interest drammatically. That's what they were doing. Under-the-hood changes are not so impressive to public.

What? Does it mean that putting a more expensive payload will score you more points?

I don't understand the reason for reducing points for MechJeb. It's qute a complex mission, and disproving mechjeb means favoring those who have much free time.

I'm not inventing this. I made interviews with specialists and politicians in North Europe (Denmark and Iceland). They do have problem with exess consumption, but 90% of time they discuss CO2. And these are not AGW fanatics, just normal people. They say like: "we reduce traffic, and CO2 emission." "We promoted renewable energy and reduced CO2 emission." Sometimes they'd discuss the waste processing problems, or that garbage is thrown out illegally, but the consumption was never mentioned at all. I heard there are some proponents of managed economic recession, but these are outsiders in politics. I see that those countries mostly solved the issue of garbage in cities, and some of garbage is processed, but the problem just has been pushed behind the door. There's very limited and no so viable tech for plastic recycling: the quality of this plastic is low, and recycling is limited to 2 times, AFAIK. What do you do with it next? Rubber or plastic casing of cables, AFAIK, have no 2nd use. Dismantling thrown out items requires a lot of labour. Some countries found a nice way to get rid of garbage: it's shipped to East Asia. Container operators only like this, because it allows to load the ships both ways. Now they deliver electronics from China, and garbage on the way back. This is far more big problem, and it's a matter of fact, but I don't see Al Gore speaking of East Asians living among wastes. And this is not just their own business -- then, why care of CO2 emitted by the others? -- it means those developed countries are not sustainable as they seem. Garbage sorting is also not an improvement: it's just redistribution of costs on everyone. An improvement would be sorts of plastic that are safe to be burned, and really cheap degradable packaging. Then, there'll be no problem with dismantling or reuse of stuff. This issue is quite big, is a fact, and I think this is the highest priority. Instead, I see a chemical plant in Iceland that captures CO2 from the atmosphere, absorbs it in don't remember what, and buries under the ground. I'd rather invest into better materials studies.

Please, have some rest if you have troubles connecting 2 sentences. I'm not going to chew things for you.

Naming me a fool is a bad argument. If you make statements like this, you do not or pretend to not understand what science is. Every scientific theory must give a verifiable and falsifiable prediction, which must be confirmed by further observations. If they have data, they should predict an average temperature (either as scalar or as a function) for 5-10 years period some years ahead. I'll appreciate if you post such predictions from like year 2000 when there was already abundance of CPUs and internet everywhere.

Point 1: causation is still to be proved. If there is, please, send me a link to materials that prove the causation, not discuss the issues around this. Point 2: the top priority in ecological problems is wastes, not AGW.

Sure they do. Some of these researches were financed by UN IPCC.

It's the one who insists on some measures who must prove his claims of causation. Again, I don't get it: why polluted ocean with tons of platstic is not a problem, and CO2 is? How come AGW fanatics are not ok with planes and want you to save bears, but are ok at buying stuff like plastic bottles? Some guys decide they want to bike rather than take a bus, and they buy a plastic bottle of water. What's more damaging? A bus emitting some CO2, or another plastic bottle that will be shipped to East Asia in a container and dumped into the Pacific?

No, I'd love to see them myself. ...of co2 permissions futures traders at stock market.

Vc faz tudo correitamente, eu nunca tive dificuldades com essa manobra. Eu aguardo ate a nave principal chegar o periapsis (ponto de encontro) e olho onde tá a posição da outra nave ao próximo encontro. E quemando em prograde ou retrograde eu ajusto o periodo e a posição dela: se eu baixo a minha órbita, voi virar mais rápido, e a posição da outra nave vai ser mais detrais. Se vou mais pra cima, voi demorar, e a outra nave será mais diante. Assim ajusto a posição dela no encontro. Tambem, para reduzir a velocidade do encontro eu faço um truque assim: se eu vou encontrar a nave na proxima orbita, quemo assim que o encontro seria em uma metade de distancia angular. Assim vou encontra-la em 2 orbitas e com velocidade relativa menor. Em 1/4 de órbita antes do encontro eu o reajusto: tento de queimar com RCS (translation) um pouco para ver em qual direição a distancia se reduz mais. Pode ser que o periapsis é mais alto ou baixo, o pode ficar um pouco de inclinação relativa. Boa sorte!

Why look at 2050 and wait? We can just raise the documents from 1990s and check their predictions for today.

When you're applying emotions to a rational question, it's harmful. This leads you to oversimplifying the questions and counterarguments. Nobody argues that climate got warmer over last 300 years. Nobody argues that burning fossil fuels is a temporary solution and non-renewable. Questions that sceptics make are too subtle and scientific for wide public to even understand. Question 1: can climatologist predict anything so that their knowledge and theories be scientific? Any proof? What are climatologists' proven measurable forecasts? Question 2: proof of correlation and causation of warming in any model tests? We do see the warming, which coincides with human industrial age. But what was Middle age warm period caused by then? Let's leave apart the whole question of research and review methodology and paid research. Instead of answers, I see attempts to oversimplify things like yours, or "do you want Amsterdam to submerge?!" and narrowing the field: "look it's warming last 200 years!" "don't you acknowledge our hockey stick?" while the true questions are hidden, like why medieval climate was so warm.

Not so wild. I decided you meant 1) ion 2) n 3) ? (rn) 4) at 5) ca and tried to assemble them into a word. Hm, if something beyond planets reversed, it may be Plutonium, Pt > Tp ?

I have an easy test for alarmist climatologists: make a falsifiable forecast and let it be confirmed. Scientific process is: observe nature => make a theory if current theories don't explain the observations => check if theory is confirmed with more observations, or make a forecast and verify it. If a theory is so far correct, it will be confirmed. I'd like to see a comparison of alarms of 1990s/00s and current situation. So far, I've been at a press conference of a climate-change climatologist, and all he could predict was "weather changes will be greater in magnitude". He denied global warming, because in many areas, in the last decade, climate was cooling (my area data). But the "bigger magnitude" is too vague to test, essentially a Russel's teapot: you can claim any big storm or any temperature extremity as a confirmation of this theory. (On Earth, there are thousands of microclimates, and if you watch carefully all of them, eventually you'll find extremities here and there.) So, untill I see a confirmed forecast, like "average temperature at point X will be Y", for a reasonable number of points, I consider antropogenic climate change climatology a pseudoscience, like string theory or torsion fields.

beyond the planets reversed may mean before the planents. Sun? or he means ions (solar wind) reverses beyound planets in heliopause.

carnation or catenation?

Excatly Cretaceous. Then, continents were far from current position, and stimulated oceanic heat exchange. Just compare: Calgary, Winnipeg and Novosibirsk are about at the same latitudes (51, 49, and 55) as London. We here and in Canada have 5 months of subzero temperatures and yearly average ~0. London has yearly average ~11 degrees and very mild climate. That's what heat exchange does, not greenhouse. Arctic is perfectly insulated from warm oceans by landmasses. Antarctica is insulated by the cold circular current which interrupts any streams from going south. (Before Antarctica detached from South America, it did not exist, and currents from lower latitudes circulated freely.) If you could move continents, even nowadays you could make Earth polar areas like Norway or Sweden, without ice caps. Carbon dioxide has little to do with this.

Sorry to continue a political discussion, but...I agree that Roscosmos won't be doing anything useful, and the government is a mess. But changing the leader... Well, Russians are often blamed for wanting a strong leared to solve everything for them. I see the same ideas from westerners who live in functional democracies. Many foreigners, out of sincere sympathy, wish us get a new nice tsar. Unfortunately, wonders never happen. I can give an example of Obama Cool Aid the Americans have drunk, and then noting that not so much changed. Leaders can contribute to social development and trigger processes, good and bad, but a leader can't turn a whole society upside down. I deal with mayor office and see that where citizens are active, things are under control and gradually improve, whereas if there are only passive dwellers, everything only deteriorates. Same thing on the nation scale. Building a sane society and functional bureacracy takes a lot of time, and even if a better leader comes tomorrow, the results will be long to wait. You can trigger processes, and Putin did his best to destroy civil activity, but importing a new president, government or even democratic procedures like during Perestroika won't work. That time, few cared of them. You have to learn to use them and develop them on the way. Back on topic: the problem with Roscosmos and the current government is that, unaccountable to the people, they imitate work and fake goals and activity. If you change the president, he may change people for those responsible and honest (which is very unlikely), but then you either have to overhaul the entire government and the agency, or have some intertia and habbits to creep back.

What time are you talking about? No ice on poles was in Pangaea time when energy was transferred with water currents much better than now. It works only in Pacific now, but is closed in the north, and in south is closed by a strong circular current. Imagine having Gulfstreams all over north and south polar areas, with cilmate in polar circles like in Britain. That's what it was before continents came to current positions. Also, equatorial seas were not as nice as in Carribean, but rather cold as Pacific. That was not CO2, but heat exchange. And this is far off the data scales in the 1st page.

Fool and scare them.

In-stadium spectators are not a concern for many olympic sports. Attendance of water jumping is ridiculously low, and sports like canoeing and rowing probably gather even less spectators, and are impossible to watch from a grandstand: canals are just too long. I think if we walk through different sports, orienteering would make a good candidate, and mountain bike orienteering is even better: you need all: stamina, force at times (to ride uphill), and brain. Unfortunately their true versions, in forests, are mostly invisible for local spectators. You can calculate gaps as in ski with separate start in classic version. In score race, you have no clue of each player's performance. Although, recent advancement of smpartphones with 3G and NFC makes it possible to track players in real time. Besides, unlike handgliding, MTB orienteering (which is more fun than foot orienteering) is open to any casual sportsman who has an MTB.

Ok, will check both Publisher and FrameMaker. Thanks!