Huh. I always heard that the PUN is the lowest form of humor! Seems to me that those who feel that sarcasm is the lowest form of humor have been bitten by it, and aren't talented enough to respond! Some sarcasm can be razor sharp, brilliantly penned, and quite subtle.(Just sayin'...)
I remember, during high school and my short stint in college, that the technical textbooks (math, chemistry, physics, etc.) were written impeccably. So too were the science fiction novels that I enjoyed. When I took a job at a bookstore and attempted to delve into some of the offered fare, I found myself constantly correcting the grammar in some of the offered works! It's a sad state of affairs when the robots and androids speak better English than the human protagonists!
Ah, yes. IMO, the driving force of Yes, which impotently floundered without Howe. Many of Howe's orchestrations were taken over by keyboards when Mr. Howe wasn't present to perform them. "Mood For A Day," "The Clap," "Starship Trooper," And You And I," well, the list seems endless!
Those of you who have not shared the Yes experience owe it to yourselves to pick up "Fragile," just to see what you've been missing!
MY portfolio is still $50,000 to the good for the year, and the current unemployment level, while not technically at FULL employment, is 4.9%. Let's throw THAT in Mr. Obama's face!
But, hey--I'm guessing that Chat didn't expect, or desire, a political conversation in his blog, so I'll step away from the computer now. MY BAD!!
Well, the ability to construct a plan--an "M.O.," as it were--does not indicate sanity. Many mentally unstable people possess the ability to wreak mayhem and to think nothing of it.
It seems to me that those committing these acts are seriously ANGRY and DEPRESSED--so much so that they want to take THEMSELVES out with as many happy innocents that they can take WITH them. Kinda like a severe form of jealousy..
Well, I didn't say that that's how I do things; I was pretty surprised at the candor of my friend's remark.
Everybody's different. It makes sense to use any vetting process that works for YOU to determine your proposed mate(s)' motives...but I don't think a lot of people are all that thorough.
Seems to me that Mr. and Mrs. Trump are content with their arrangement...
Look at the heading above the graph, your second comment in a row,on the third screen, fifteenth comment down: "Global mean estimates based on LAND DATA ONLY"
If we all look at the NASA charts previously provided, we will all see the notation, "Global Mean Estimates Based On LAND DATA ONLY!!! So, THAT accounts for, lesse...30% of the globe? THIRTY PER CENT?!? Looks like this is getting shakier and shakier...
This is my point exactly. There are WAAAY to many factors, TOO MANY variables, to determine exactly what's going on.
It's also interesting that certain groups prefer to ignore evidence to the contrary of their beliefs, but continue to harangue society with their own opinion.
What happens if the world proceeds to spend BILLIONS, nay, TRILLIONS of dollars in an effort to reduce CO2 (and thus global warming, by the perception of some), but the warming CONTINUES??
Once again, all of this is part of a VERY LARGE system. It's hard to believe that this all occurred within ten or twenty years. Likewise, IF ANY of this were caused by a phenomenon such as you describe, it would take JUST AS LONG to reverse it (that is, OVER A CENTURY). That means NO internal combustion engines, NO artificial heating or cooling, NO fossil fuels, NO electricity...well, YOU get the drift! I don't see that happening. Like I said, the world seems to run in cycles. This is just another example.
If global warming is indeed a fact, we passed the point of no return DECADES ago. I happen to believe there is more at work than carbon dioxide causing heat to be trapped in the atmosphere.
Huh. That graph seems to DISPROVE your assertion. Specifically, that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere varies PERIODICALLY, as a NATURALLY OCCURRING phenomenon might.
In order to definitively state that global warming is caused by modern technology, one would have to find a way to exclude ALL OTHER FACTORS which could cause variance in the atmosphere's temperature. Good luck with that!
So, even IF global warming WERE an actual phenomenon, how would YOU propose reversing it???
THIS article maintains that the output of ALL OF THE VOLCANOES ON EARTH cannot match the levels of CO2 emitted by human technology!
What's so intriguing about this? Well, for one thing, you'll see this discussion argued back and forth, with no way to resolve the argument. What's funny, though, is both of the above articles were found....in the SAME PUBLICATION!!!
So, what does this tell us? Well, for one thing, that global warming is just a THEORY, and has not been proven. Even if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the AMOUNT of such a gas is just as important as the gas itself. Consider also that 70% of the Earth is OCEAN, and that industry must find a home on the remaining 30% of the earth. Consider, still, that the solar system is a DYNAMIC system which is CONSTANTLY changing, especially the sun (whose energy emission ebbs and flows in an eleven year cycle), and undergoes intermittent, unpredictable change.
My point? There are FAR too many variables in the earth-sun system to DEFINITIVELY prove, one way or the other, the supposed cause of global warming.
And then, EVEN IF it is found that Man is the cause of global warming, how do you propose to stop it?!? Are YOU going to give up your laptop, your stereo, or your car? Will YOU be the first to turn in your charcoal and your lawn mower?? I think not. Frankly, I don't see ANYBODY doing much besides TALKING about global warming. So, maybe the Amish were right, all along!
xquseme Blog Comments (126)
)
RE: How to write good
And...good--in accordance with the blog's title!