Mark Boslough hugs a tree near the epicienter of the 1908 Tunguska explosion, exactly 100 years later. From the 2008 documentery "Siberian Apocalypse".
If I stare really hard at your author photo, I can see that your heart is bleeding, too.
I see someone who is intellectually bright.
The question is whether or not he can avoid the fatal mistake of other physicists who became proud of, rather than grateful for, the talents they received at birth.
Thanks. I wasn’t aware of any physicists who had paid the ultimate price for their oversized ego! I will try hard to avoid that fate by working on my humility.
I should point out that I was born with a very limited set of talents. The gift I received at birth were great parents who instilled the love of learning, and a community that valued a public education system that got me where I am. For that I am very grateful.
Thank you, Mark, for allowing my post to be published.
I studied meteorites most of my life, so I familiar with the 1908 Tunguska explosion.
If we can each manage to stay out of the “ego cage” (the greatest challenge of all), we may actually be able to gain information from each other.
Pingback: Climategate.nl» Blog Archive » 10 klimaatfeiten treehugger naar prullenbak
That tree your’re hugging just loves the carbon dioxide you’re exhaling, just as it loves the carbon dioxide from the tailpipe of my car. CO2 is plantfood, not a pollutant.
You should brush up on Leibig’s Law. I know… you don’t accept laws of physics or biology, and you get the confused dog look when somebody says the word “nonlinear”.
Photons are also plant food, but many of the trees at Tunguska (where I went to hug the survivors on the centennial anniversary) got too many photons and burst into flames and died. I don’t expect you to believe that either, because it requires high-school-level physics to understand.
Surely there’s only so much CO2 that can be in the atmosphere before plants are unable to “eat” it and keep a balance? Also, have you ever noticed how trees along highways and roads are usually stunted or smaller than those growing away from pollution? This is due to a decrease in both the growth and reproduction of trees when there are increased levels of pollution (due to the CO2 from your tailpipe).
I’m pretty sure that if humans continuously breath a higher concentration of oxygen, it has some pretty negative impacts…
OK Puckerclust, One or two responses in and you abandon your promise not to let your ego shine through! Your response to Scarface April 27, 2011 at 3:56 pm, who made a reasonable point, is: You should brush up on Leibig’s Law. I know… you don’t accept laws of physics or biology, and you get the confused dog look when somebody says the word “nonlinear”.
That’s not a useful reply to a reasonable point to someone interested enough to respond to you.
You are confusing my ego with my humor. The only thing I abandoned in this case was my policy to delete denier spam and scientific gibberish like “CO2 is plant food” but Scarface’s comment provided a teaching moment, so I approved it.
Yeah, scientific gibberish annoyes the shit out of mee too. Specially this Co2 causes global warming nerdtalk. Do you hug on the first date and leave the rest for the second encounter?
Sorry you don’t approve of nerd talk. Heliocentrism and laws of thermodynamics and all that stuff just gets in the way when you are a true believer in zero warming.
BTW, that was a Siberian larch, not a date palm, which are not so huggable.
I agree with your comment. But we must also learn to be kind to one another. Getting out of the ego cage is the battle of life, a battle that will probably never end until death.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.