Of more interest to you ELP might be:

http://www.dailytech.com/Global+Warming+on+Mars++and+Jupiter+Pluto+Neptune/article6544.htm

Global warming was detected on Jupiter last year, and the warming is apparently behind the formation of a second red spot. Global warming on Neptune’s moon Triton has also been noted, with severe atmospheric changes as a result. And even tiny Pluto has experienced moderate warming in recent years, with temperatures rising a full 3.5 degrees.

The common denominator in all these cases, the Earth included, is of course the Sun

I’m always prepared to change my view if the evidence is laid before me. 🙂

Yes we could, especially if it’s Venezuela and Chavez!

And if its Brazil?

Yes! Let’s be honest, what could they do if we did block the sale other than whine about it, which is what a lot of European governments do if we don’t let them have their way. They are going to whine no matter what we do anyway. If they don’t cry over this, they’ll find something else to complain about. Personally, I hope they do it for one reason and one reason only. To screw with Chavez.

Well… for a start it would only reinforce the notion around the world that the US is out of control, and that they will bully and extort until they get what they want. That will lead to a hardening of attitudes against them… across Europe, Russia and Asia.

You can guarantee the Indians will think twice about buying US equipment if they see a former (as recent as 2 years ago) ally in Iraq getting treated like sh_t. It would no doubt lead to an awful lot of countries considering their JSF participation and purchasing.

Also, the Italians are members of the UN security council until the end of 2008.

With the exception of the su-34, what plane can really replace the F-111 ?

Most arguments of the anti E/F-18 crowd hardly worth the interest of being posted on a forum.
But from the mouth of former high rank officials, it’s amazing.

The strike eagle would be an alternative worth considering.

Funny that I have to be abused for years by an alarmist crowd that says man made C02 is contributing significantly to global warming and that if we were to lower that it would be a big help… where as the TV show that has real scientists on it shows another completely different theory which is:

Those are just some of the things. Of course you are allowed your opinion. But striking out one science theory just because you don’t like it, is bad science practice. What is happening today is similar to the Spanish Inquisition. Heretics will be demonized at every turn. Anyone that doesn’t believe man made CO2 contributes significantly to global warming is a heretic and needs to be silenced. That, not believing man made CO2 contributes significantly to global warming, is the same as being a Holocaust denier. Not really the scientific way is it?

HA HA HA

I seen the TV show, and wasn’t too impressed with it. I doubt just how much knowledge the ‘experts’ had on the subject as they used some quite basic terms incorrectly.

A TV show can be made to portray whatever the maker wants it to protray.

Besides, from stuff I’ve subsequently seen, the information that the ‘experts’ on the show based their opinion on has already been proven to be incorrect – several times.

I would imagine you are better at computers that I am, it wouldn’t take much. Just because you are experienced with simulation doesn’t mean you can accurately predict global warming. Like they say in the computer field, junk in, junk out. Like I said before it depends on the variables.

To assume a steady state for the Earth is insane.

You’ve totally got the context of what I’m saying wrong.

You said earlier that since weathermen/women cannot predict a weeks weather with simulation, how can they predict 10 years ahead.

When meteorologist are educated for years in college and even after years of experience meteorologists cannot predict the weather two weeks away accurately. Yet Al Gore is such a genius he can predict catastrophic global warming decades away.

In the weather simulation, your dealing with transient effects (things like a low pressure area over there, and a storm front over here, but with the 10 year analysis, all that can simply be neglected – making the simulation algorithms soooo much easier.

Its not based on pure steady state for eternity – thats stupid. But as far as the computer knows, its steady state. Proper term for it would be quasi-steady state.

Prodrive are one of the worlds top motorsports engineering consultants – I don’t see how they can possibly have R&D problems!

Al Gore is a shameless fear monger, that is promoting hysteria to grandstand himself for political and financial gain. That is putting it politely.

Who gives a sh_t about what Al Gore says?

Its the thousands of peer-reviewed papers on the subject that have me worried!

False. Anyone can make a prediction, its accuracy that counts. There are too many variables and too many unknowns and we are to new to the science to have anyway of accurately predicting global warming and cooling.

Your “steady-state” theory is obviously a fraud. Anyone can look at the history of the universe and the laws of nature and see that change is part of natural things on our time scale and location. You were steady state theory is at odds with the laws of nature.

Aye… sure what would I know, I only work on computational simulation every day. :rolleyes:

Its easier to predict (simulate/model) events over a longer time scale when local fluctuations can be averaged.

BTW: I don’t mean steady state as in from the begining and end of time!