Trump should have added in his speech on removing the US from the Paris accords is the rest of the world "to pound salt & plant more trees, a lot more Trees!"

I sing with my music so that keeps me alert, too. I have made tracks of music (using Reaper DAW) of songs I want to learn and driving is an ideal time to learn them.
Thanks for the recommendations. I will look for those at the library.

Yes . I do mix in some good music too. But like you music can make you drowsy after a while.
Two others that I really enjoyed . Robinson Crusoe
and recently enjoyed Moby Dick . The narrator did a wonderful job with the voices particularly
Capt Ahab .

I always do that, too. I was re-reading AS and started listening at the point I had stopped reading. Every time I read it I see more revealing dialog by the characters to apply to today's looters' activities. It's remarkable.
Was listening to lots of favorite music on USB drive most of the way until late on 2nd day when I was very tired and needed to stay awake until I could find a place to sleep. AS came through for me again;^)

Last time I did a similar distance solo drive I listened to AS on cd's. It made the drive much more pleasant.

Been on the road (2000 miles solo driving Thurs-Friday) but this appears to be very good news, dino;^)

" I have worked with people from all over the world and have never had reason to judge based on race or country or origin."
Maybe it was too remote an example. I was trying to think of an example of some unlikely discovery that I wouldn't want to entertain even hypothetically because I don't like the ramifications.

I agree with everything you said about racism being stupid.

I am not sure how this drifted into racism but my experience is filled with so many counter examples that prejudice based on race or ethnicity is just strupid. I have worked with people from all over the world and have never had reason to judge based on race or country or origin.

Astronomer is sort of a dream job. It's rare people who can do it as a paid job. I also love theoretical physics, although it goes way over my head. If I actually had to dig into the math, I would struggle, and maybe I wouldn't love it anymore.

Regarding your claim that climate is difficult to model, I expect there will be new discoveries that radically change our understanding how human activities affect the environment.

"cherry picking the data to satisfy an agenda"
That's precisely what I think is happening. No one likes the answer we're getting, and someone of us are tempted to start with the desirable conclusion and look for evidence to support it.

"the AGW community"
I think I understand what you mean, but defining a field by one of its politically unpopular findings sounds as silly as calling biologists the "evolution community" or food scientists the "GMO community".

"I am somewhat loathe to engage in hypothetical discussions that are based on questionable data"
I think you're saying you don't want it taken out of context, with people remembering what you said but forgetting it was premised on something not true. It's like if someone asked me to suppose hypothetically, contrary to our current understanding, that dark-skinned people had mental capacity than light-skinned people. I'd be cautious about talking about it for obvious reasons, but my scientific mind would be interested in a finding that completely upends our understanding of the origin of humankind. It's bad if I find myself saying that I want racial equality so badly that I will reject any finding that contradicts my desired answer as being motivated by racism.

I am still a member of the scientific community and, while retired, maintain many contacts. My background is theoretical physics and astronomy and as part of my work as an astronomer I have studied planetary atmospheres. Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the other gas giants and Earth of course provide vast areas of study. I have been involved in designing computer models of atmospheric dynamics and have used one of NASA's supercomputers to run these models. The results are not particularly encouraging. Climate dynamics, and worse yet biosphere dynamics are chaotic systems. By I mean that analysis of these systems involves the use of recursive algorithms that are inherently mathematically chaotic. Such systems are extremely sensitive to even slight variations in input parameters. For example, a variation in atmospheric albedo of less than 1 percent can produce outputs that include 40 foot sea level rise or a 10 foot drop over the next 50 years. Using data from 30 and 50 years ago we ran projections for the year 2000 and got results that varied from complete polar ice cap melt to a new ice age. Obviously such results are worse than useless because they provide a tempting opportunity for cherry picking the data to satisfy an agenda. I suspect that is what is taking place in the AGW community and there are many other scientists that share my concern. As a result I am somewhat loathe to engage in hypothetical discussions that are based on questionable data especially those that have been selected to reinforce a particular perspective

The problem is that there isn't any real science to back up the man-made climate change argument. Their own models predicted catastrophic warming over the past 20 years. What did we actually see? Zero temperature increases. If the model fails to accurately predict future events (especially when its not even close), doesn't that make you question the model - not the events? They were making these same arguments in the 70's but in reverse - warning about an impending Ice Age. They're like the boy who cried wolf: they have zero credibility. Instead of claiming they are doing "science", they need to show that the models reasonably match the expected with the actual. When a hypothesis gets tested and the results don't match the expectations, a real scientist realizes that the hypothesis is invalid and reviews it. They don't try to manipulate the data to get the results they want (See East Anglia).

I hope it is ok for me, not a US citizen, to comment on US politics if I type small-
3 cheers for Trump!
Now if he does the same for the UN, he qualifies as the best world leader this century.

Abaco posted 2 days ago when it was rumor, now it has happened.
The shock/horror/dismay from the Eco-fascist moochers is up to standard.

""I don't speak hypothetical".
That's a critical-thinking warning sign.

"all of the apocalyptic prognostications of the AGW acolytes "
No, no, I said costly, not "apocalyptic", so your hypothetical scenario is different from mine.

" it provides a challenge to the scientists and engineers that must actually find solutions"
Yes. That's probably true for my hypothetical scenario (which I believe is really happening) and yours.

The pressure that the rest of the world put on the USA to stay in the Paris Accords was this era's "Sanction of the Victim" moment. I am glad that Trump would not give them such sanction.

As the Ferengi in bar said "I don't speak hypothetical". Let's assume that through some sort of cosmic revelation I was made aware that all of the apocalyptic prognostications of the AGW acolytes were actually coming to pass. Should my response be "Let the incompetent politicians deal with this."? I don't think so. They have a long history of only making things worse. While AGW provides opportunities to the political class it provides a challenge to the scientists and engineers that must actually find solutions. The politicians only stifle their efforts.

"The science of AGW is far from complete"
Right, but I'm saying hypothetically, what if there were shocking new evidence that doesn't exist now. Are you saying it's unknowable? Are you saying that the final consequences are so undesirable that, as a scientist, you'll start with a desirable conclusion and find evidence to fit it? I don't think you're saying that.

My only point is if even for a moment you think, "no that's too undesirable, let me look at it again," that's a warning sign in science.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Yes that is true they are very different sources.
An electromagnetic field (also EMF or EM field) is a physical field produced by electrically charged objects. It affects the behavior of charged objects in the vicinity of the field. The electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space and describes the electromagnetic interaction. (Description not for you but other readers)
As cosmic rays that enter our atmosphere due to the weakened shield they create a increase in clouds .they have increased by 12% since 2015 and are expected to increase 17% more this year. Solar winds have been compressing our atmosphere due to the weak shield and have altered the jet stream as well as caused a shift in the intertropical convergence zone. Sunspots and solar flaring on an active sun energize our EMF.
Solar flares occur when a positive spot and a negative spot arc to connect and then snap off.
A good view of this is available on suspicious observers daily space weather report 2-4mins on average.http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/
No doubt you've heard of the recently named aurora phenomena "Steve" it is also evidence of a weak EMF . I will edit to add after this reply is pushed.http://www.space.com/36583-new-aurora-featur...

I would encourage you to also look into Wal Thonhill's work on the Electric universe.

I get the sarcasm, but let's think of "what government could do"; it could be honest? (sar) after all, as a superior once told me before he left the company, "Your people will only be as good as you allow them to be". I knew what he meant; he was a consument sharer of knowledge, always stood back, and watched us use that knowledge to make the best product ever.

Instead of action, regulations and lies, Why couldn't government just tell the truth and maybe suggest some of the things we could do together, things entrepreneurs could work on...I guess that's way to simple a concept for non-conscious, parasitical humanoids to grasp.

the problem is that the relationship between solar activity and the Earth's magnetosphere is not well understood. Because our magnetic field plays an important roll in shielding us us from charged particles in the solar wind It is a subject of intense study as would be expected but we still have much to learn. It is even difficult to separate cause from effect so the relationship between the Earth's magnetic field and ionized particles in the Solar wind are difficult to model. As it turns out, cosmic rays and solar wind particles are two different phenomena. Cosmic rays appear to be of extragalactic origin while solar wind particles are locally generated.

You can observe, the manipulation of data to show higher temperature readings than the satellite instruments record and ground stations moved to heat islands and in the ocean sensors where the data is altered.
As a scientist I would love your opinion on the effects of the Grand Solar Minimum that the sun has entered into and our greatly weakened electromagnetic shield allowing cosmic rays to enter the atmosphere.

I keep hearing from the chuckle patch that the sky is falling because of this decision for the US to extract itself from the Paris accord. Those people, Terry McAuliffe, John Kerry, etc, are certifying that withdrawing was 100% the right thing to do. When has anything that the left or the RINOs done over the last decade been in America's best interest? Its high time that America forceably pushed the world's ravenous money gluttons off the teat of its success and restored its fiscal responsibility to its people.

If the paris accord was so helpful why was China and India except from a coal burning and mining reductions but we're not?

As a scientist I am convinced by demonstrable facts. The science of AGW is far from complete and is certainly far from being settled as some would asert. As a result I am skeptical of claims that cannot be verified by observation or experimentation. The biosphere is extraordinarily complex consisting of millions of interacting actions and responses. One way to view it is to consider it to be a fantastically complex servomechanism with billions of active elements interacting in mostly unknown ways. Such a system cannot be modeled with a static algorithm. Long term climate forecasting has proven to be singularly unproductive as predictions of 100 ft sea level rise and total melting of the polar icecaps have failed to come about. In the event that some magical process were to provide irrefutable evidence of anthropogenic climate change I would, of course, want to study it. But I don't believe in magic and am reluctant to wait for that kind of miracle.

"AGW is the collectivists dream."
I agree collectivists exploit AGW. You think AGW is wrong. Suppose for a moment that some shocking new evidence appeared that showed you you were wrong and something similar to AGW is happening and it will be costly to humans. Would you accept it, or would be inclined to ignore it since hardcore collectivism is worse than AGW?

I have learned a good lesson in the last year. I decided at that time to support Trump as previously I thought he was just another RINO.
I did not like that he was the choice vs the evil hag.
IMHO he is the best President in my soon to be 60 years. He has made good or attempted to make good on almost all his campaign promises. I think he is courageous, honest and interested in America's well being. Listening to the looters hysteria about dropping this unfair stupid agreement confirms my opinion.

TOCK! Yippee! We are out!
Trump has freed us from that sick as hell Obamanable scheme to take America down a few more pegs.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/...