Comments by newsreader
Page 1 of 61 | Next
Posted on July 8 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
anthropogenic |ˌanθrəpōˈjenik|
adjective
(chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity : anthropogenic emissions of sulfur dioxide.
Posted on July 4 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is a reason to pull into the intersection sometimes...
When you are waiting to make a left turn and there is NO arrow at the intersection, if the oncoming traffic is so heavy that you WILL NOT get a chance to turn before the light changes, then it is appropriate to pull out into the intersection and "make a break" for it when the light goes yellow.
I sat at an intersection waiting for a left turn through several cycles of a light. If you use the "pull out and wait for the yellow" method, at least 1 car gets to make that turn per light changing cycle. Personally, I do it all of the time now - it just makes the left turn that much quicker and easier when you do get the break in traffic or, if you don't, you are guaranteed to be able to turn when the light changes.
Posted on July 4 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ahhh, the old pincher bug.
They're a bit of an annoyance - my wife and daughter both freak out as well (like so many others on here say).
Bottom line is, they are slow. I've always just picked them up by the antenna, thrown them to the ground, and stomped 'em - never been bitten that way.
Now, I did learn that if they climb up inside your pant leg, you probably don't want to start smacking your leg. That'll just piss 'em off, since your skin is softer than their shell... [That was no fun!]
Also, got news for ya folks -- they CAN and DO break the skin...
My sister had one in her hair kind of behind her ear. She didn't know what it was and went to brush it away (a few times). Eventually she smacked the side of her head and started yelling. A few seconds later a trickle of blood ran down the side of her head.
So, if you feel something crawling - DO NOT smack it first (like you would with a mosquito) instead, find out what it is, then react appropriately!
Happy 4th!
On Long-horned beetles swarm Fairbanks, bringing painful bites
Posted on July 3 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Holy Crow! No wonder these guys are so good at making stuff up and covering for each other, they are all related!!!
Some really good info on this post...
*shakes head and slowly backs away in disbelief*
On Two Fairbanks police officers file suit against city, police chief
Posted on July 2 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
g'les --
I'll try to answer that for ya...
The study of climate change does not make one an adherent to man-made global warming. The issue of "man-made" global warming has promoted the study of climate change. There are plenty of scientists on both sides of the "man-made" global warming theory, all of which could rightly be considered as studying climate change.
So, when one says climate change has been disproved they are making a ridiculous, unfounded statement.
When one says "man-made global warming" has been disproved, then they are picking a side in a (nearly-religous) scientific debate that has MANY MANY political and social ramifications.
In my opinion, it would behoove us to disregard the radicals on BOTH sides of the "man-made global warming" debate, but rather to try to interpret ALL of the evidence emerging from both sides.
The fuss is that the threat of man-made global warming has stirred up a LOT of emphasis on studying climate change. Is it really progressing faster or are we just on some sort of cycle? If it is progressing faster, are we really the cause? If we are the cause, can we really do anything about it? All of these are goods questions, that, as far as I am concerned, have not been answered satisfactorily. So, global warming scare leads to climate change study which will lead to ?????
Personally, I lean towards the no concrete evidence for man-made global warming, others lean the other way. The danger here (as with all things not fully understood) would be to act on blind faith rather than SOUND IRREFUTABLE science.
Using man-made global warming as a scare tactic to dupe the masses into going to the left is despicable. However, completely ignoring apparent recent warming trends and other occurrences is nearly as despicable and could, ultimately, lead to some DRASTIC changes in our lives that we'd be remiss in not knowing about before they happened.
On Scientists meet 25 years later for another look at permafrost
Posted on July 2 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
getreal -
You make a good point. It really isn't quite fair is it? When I'm looking at $8K+ just to heat my home for the winter, and those other folks don't have that expense. One could easily make the case that home owners have all of the expenses of those that Dana mentioned PLUS they have heating oil expenses - so the homeowner's needs are obvious disproportionate. So I can see that argument.
However, we could argue this till the cows come home (which will be a long time, since I don't have any). Best just go with a workable (if inequitable) plan that is quickest and least painful to implement.
(I guess I should've had more kids... but that's another philosophical debate altogether)
Posted on July 2 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You used #600 on this? Wow - I'd have thought you'd save it for something actually important! *grin*
And, yes, that was her point - to be PC we should be referring to "Holiday Lights" not "Christmas Lights", but in this case, I feel no inclination to run with this one.
I love Christmas - it's a time of magic for children, with Santa Claus coming down the chimney and all. It's a time for taking joy in giving. You won't find any manger scenes in my home, but you will find stockings hanging on the mantle, usually more than one tree, and LOTS of lights -- this year will be no exception (although I may look into getting some of these LEDlights myself this year!).
All of the "traditionally Christian" holidays were stolen from the pagans anyhow - I just take comfort in that fact and celebrate accordingly ;)
On Outside company offers to donate Christmas lights to Fairbanks
Posted on July 2 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ken - didn't you get the memo?
If you say that the climate is changing, then obviously you are a global warming fanatic, and you worship Al Gore, bunnies, and trees!
-----
Lance says "It's still only a theory, and in fact already a disproven one."
How can you disprove climate change? The climate has been changing for as long as we've had a climate - sometimes warming, sometimes cooling, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, but ALWAYS in a state of change. Perhaps you've heard of the ice ages that come along every so often?
On Scientists meet 25 years later for another look at permafrost
Posted on July 2 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And the list of reasons to dislike our Mayor continues to grow and grow and grow...
On Outside company offers to donate Christmas lights to Fairbanks
Page 1 of 61 | Next
Posted on July 8 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
g'les says "Shasta's glaciers are growing which only reinforces the global warming advocates that say that glaciers are shrinking."
No, 90% of the world's glaciers are retreating and this reinforces the global warming advocates.
g'les says "Glaciers in Montana have been shrinking since 1850. Well, what did the cowboys and indians do to cause glacial retreat? Either they were leaving some heavy carbon footprints back in 1850, or somebody is exaggerating today."
This is a global phenomenon. The Industrial Revolution was a period in the late 18th and early 19th centuries (that's 1700's & 1800's). Major pollution on a global scale started in this time frame.
g'les says "The glaciers in the Sierras have shrunk by half in 100 years. I was in the Sierras in the 1960s, and there wasn't much encroachment of civilization yet."
Again, this is a global phenomenon.
g'les asks "Has a scientific representative sample ever led to a wrong conclusion?"
Sure, I suppose it has. However, statistically speaking, if we examine a scientifically valid sample the results can generally be applied to a larger picture.
As an example, the same thing is done with any drug that passes through the FDA and/or clinical trials. Some number of people are tested; say X percent has a negative reaction. As long as the sample is random, we can (and DO) assume that nearly X percent of the general population will have the same negative reaction.
This is a VALID AND ACCEPTED scientific method, not a "crap shoot".
On Mount Shasta glaciers keep growing, despite warming