well if it does end in 2012, that must mean Palin runs and wins in 2012
I think she might be one of her own
In all seriousness, I am not a huge believer in doomsday theories although the Maya (Dresden Codex, etc..) are very interesting
Controlled Labs Rep
adam @ ControlledLabs.com
CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
The whole Nibiru theory, I think, does a better job of explaining the changes in climate, the increases in natural disasters, the elliptical orbit of the planets, why the earth has a tilted axis in the first place, and the drama between Pluto and Neptune.
Obama is such a **** tard if i was McCain i would of called him out. How the **** is a Commander in Chief going to disgrace US troops that did serve in WWII by saying his family was part of it and they were not.......... what a ****ing tool bag.
I wish Katie Couric would have asked Palin how many states there are.
What I find hilarious is this: Google "Fossil fuel consumption since 1900" and then Google, "Climate tracking since ~1925" (when they began oceanic measurements in earnest) and see if a correlative pattern appears. If the 'CO2 Theory' is correct, the exponentially increased consumption of fossil fuels immediately proceeding the IR should coincide with a steady increase in temperature.
(hint: It doesn't).
Its comical as well, the other climate change marker is "temperature rise within cities" with the cities being an average of over 2 degrees higher than in 1950. They seem to be missing the point that asphalt holds heat more than grass does, so merely the difference in paving from 1950-2000 would account for the temp shift.
Some of the conclusions scientists come with, and the experimentation and data used to come up with such conclusions are, in my opinion, outlandishly funny.
If you look at the histories of some fields or look into some of the newly developed fields of study, the research is kinda funny. I've been doing a bunch of research on hydrogen fuel cells for one of my classes, and it's pretty funny stuff once you factor in economics.
1) Hydrogen cannot be produced at any rate of economic feasibility without producing loads of Carbon Dioxide.
2) Hydrogen cannot be mass-produced with a high enough purity that it won't destroy the hydrogen fuel cell.
3) Any sized air leak will turn your car into the Hindenburg.
And don't get me started on ethanol. It's only purpose is making ugly chicks temporarily attractive, and so Pharm companies can make "prescription-strength" fish oil.
They've been trying to "make it happen" with hydrogen fuel cells for like 100 years now.
1) You need to put it through a transformer because powerplants produce alternating current. You need direct current or else the anodes and cathodes will flip-flop a billion times per second and nothing gets accomplished. When AC gets transfered into DC, the voltage you maintain isn't even in the same order of magnitude.I'd argue that these two aren't true of using electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, but unless we had a lot more nuclear power plants its not cost effective either (and still would burn coal or fossil fuels to create the electricity)
2) Time is money. Reaction rates are determined by concentration of BOTH reactants. In order to reduce water into H2 and O2, you will need an assload of amperage.
Electrolysis is expensive as hell for macro-scale production. Hydrocarbon Reformation is much more efficient and less expensive, but purity and wastes are an issue.
50, maybe 60, who's counting?
I say the more the merrier haha