Yea, she's coming around.. :D It could have been so much worse, I am just so thankful. We celebrate our 30th wedding anniversary next March and we'll both be around to celebrate. Yea, I know.. Amazing that she has put up with me for 30 years, eh? :D

And yeah, get back here so we can return to being mortal enemies :)!

hehehehehe Does make things more interesting...

Michale.....

You're cracking jokes so I know everything's ok. That's good to hear.

And yeah, get back here so we can return to being mortal enemies :)!

-David

I think the only mistake she made was trying to get to the side of the road too fast.. At the speed she was going (75mph +/-) she hit the grass going way too fast. The fact that there was a slight downward incline in the grass didn't help matters much either.

Of course, it's easy in hindsight to point that out...

You are correct though that, once the vehicle rolled, she had enough of her wits about her to get out of Dodge.. According to the trooper on scene, the flames were 10-15 feet high before Fire Units responded.

This is the second time my wife has rolled an SUV. First time, about 9 years ago, she got clipped by a big truck.

So, the lesson here is...

NO MORE SUVs FOR THE WIFE.. :D

Michale.....

Channel 4 News in Jacksonville did a follow up interview with my wife.

http://www.news4jax.com/video/25310023/index.html

She was really lucky to walk away from it.

But she's feeling a lot better. She's like one big bruise right now, but nothing broken. Just a few minor cuts.

So, I should be back to my usual PIDA (pain in da ass) self here in the next day or so. :D

Thanx again to all. Ya'all are really great.. :D

Michale.....

That is a terrifying article. I hope your wife soon recovers from the accident, and have to say from the scanty details in the article, she sounds like she kept her head in a crisis admirably well.

Our thoughts here at CW.com will be with you, and her.

-CW

~joshua

I hope it really is just minor injuries like the article said.

Prayers are with you and her and hope to see you back here soon!
-David

With respect, the only real dispute that exists among scientists is a matter of the degree of human responsibility, not whether or not there is any. Further, it is due to incompleteness of evidence, not any credible evidence to the contrary, and certainly not an equal amount of evidence to the contrary. Even the most stringent minority of doubters in the scientific community would admit as much. You said,

"There is as much scientific evidence to dispute the hypothesis than there is to support it."

Without reference to the political implication, the substance of that statement is simply false.

With respect, it IS the case..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

This issue boils down to one thing and one thing only.

"My 'priests' (scientists) are right and your 'priests' (scientists) are wrong.."

The science is in dispute.

That is the ONLY factual statement relevant to the issue of Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Climactic Disruption/Human Caused Global Warming Yet The Planet Is Cooling/Whatever/Etc/Etc/Etc...

I'll be off the grid for a while..

http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2010-10-06/hastings-woman-escapes-fiery-crash-i-95

Just didn't want to think I am abandoning ya'all for no good reason.

Michale.....

taunt all you want, but that's simply not the case.

I'm not sure I know what you're referring to when you say the "agenda of the Obama administration". Seems to me like growing the green energy business is the agenda of the Obama administration.

We both agree that it is ONLY a theory. Not scientific fact.

I think we have different ideas about what this means.

You seem to be contrasting theory with fact to question the validity of a scientific theory.

A theory in the scientific sense is an explanatory model based on facts (empirical evidence and research) designed to explain another fact.

For example, evolution is a theory that takes facts about DNA and observable evidence about species and comes up with a model for how species "evolved".

A fact in the science world is "the sky is blue". A scientific theory explains why the sky is blue based on what we know about the properties of light and the prism properties of the atmosphere.

Global warming is a scientific theory that looks at facts like observable increases in CO2, warming average temperatures, and attempts to explain and correlate these through the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is the same theory that explains why your car gets so hot on a sunny day with the windows closed.

Glass acts like CO2. It will let sunlight in, but not heat out. These are provable facts. I can cover a fish tank with a layer of CO2 and it will have a similar effect to that of glass.

Is global warming a theory? Yes. So is evolution, relativity, Newtonian physics of planetary motion, quantum theory, etc.

So I would put global warming in the same category as evolution in terms of how much belief I put in it - both are theories with a wide body of empirical evidence to support them that are widely accepted in the scientific community.

This is apolitical.

It has nothing to do w/ environmental radicals. In fact, it has nothing to do with politics. It's a scientific theory.

Where it gets political is, should we have policies in place to try and prevent it or slow it?

Spending 300 million to talk about Global Warming?

Did a quick Internet search to figure out what you're referring to and think this is in reference to Al Gore's advocacy initiative.

Don't know enough about the goals of this program to say one way or another, but its not a government initiative. It's a private initiative. I like your idea of a pilot program for solar. But at the end of the day, its Mr. Gore's program and not a government program.

Cheers
David

That was very interesting reading. Thanx for that.

Given that information, I have to alter my previous misconceptions.

Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Climactic Disruption/Human Caused Global Warming Yet The Planet Is Cooling/Whatever/Etc/Etc/Etc is a hypothesis, not a theory.

There is as much scientific evidence to dispute the hypothesis than there is to support it.

And, if you throw out that "peer-reviewed" nonsense at me, I will taunt you a second time... :D

Michale.....

the same is also true of evolution and relativity. the statement of a scientific viewpoint as hypothesis, theory or law has very little bearing on its actual likelihood of being factually accurate. stating that something is "only" a theory is a comment on the politics of the theory, not its relative accuracy.

"Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

"Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

"In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true."

http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm

Yes! We should totally consider both the arguments of the round earthers and flat earthers as equally legitimate! :)

How did you get there from here??

Now I know that many conservatives believe that going green is going to place too many costs on industry. Which is why they're disputing global warming. That is, the vast majority of the scientific world has reviewed the evidence and believes global warming is a valid theory. It's not as much of a scientific dispute as it is a political dispute.

There is as much scientific evidence that disputes the Global Warming theory than there is that supports the theory.

But, at least there is some agreement between you and I.

We both agree that it is ONLY a theory. Not scientific fact.

Me personally, I'd rather support this innovation and prepare for the future. If the automotive industry had done this, they wouldn't have needed a bailout (Ford, for example, as opposed to GM).

I'll be more inclined to support the theory if those that preach it ad nasuem would do less making money off of it and more actually combating the alleged problem.

What's better??

Spending 300 million to talk about Global Warming??

Or spending 300 million to equip 30,000 homes with complete solar power systems that not only allow them to get off the electrical grid, but actually allows them to FEED excess power TO the grid.

Those who think logically and rationally about green issues know that the latter is the better way to go.

Those who pursue the green agenda to line their own pockets with billions think the former is just peachy keen wonderful...

If you want to rip on Al Gore, I'm all for that.

Too easy... :D I never kick a man when he is on his way down and out... :D

But there's some really good business arguments for green energy. Also, it would help us rely less on the Mideast for oil so there's a good national security argument.

I completely agree.. And if THAT was the agenda behind the current Environmental radicals, then they would have no stronger an ally than I...

But it has become clear that THAT is not the agenda of Obama and the Democrats.

Michale.....

Yes! We should totally consider both the arguments of the round earthers and flat earthers as equally legitimate! :)

Now I know that many conservatives believe that going green is going to place too many costs on industry. Which is why they're disputing global warming. That is, the vast majority of the scientific world has reviewed the evidence and believes global warming is a valid theory. It's not as much of a scientific dispute as it is a political dispute.

I think this is a mistake. I think this is a great opportunity. An opportunity to develop new green technologies and to lead the world. And to market and sell these technologies around the world.

Me personally, I'd rather support this innovation and prepare for the future. If the automotive industry had done this, they wouldn't have needed a bailout (Ford, for example, as opposed to GM).

The alternative, I believe, is to fall behind the rest of the world. In some ways, we already have due to politics - but let's not fall further behind.

I guess you could see this as "liberal", but I see solid conservative and business arguments for green energy as well.

If you want to rip on Al Gore, I'm all for that. But there's some really good business arguments for green energy. Also, it would help us rely less on the Mideast for oil so there's a good national security argument.

What d'ya think?

Cheers
-David

On some issues (most notably the afore mentioned Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Climate Disruption/Whatever) you are totally correct..

If you have to constantly relabel something to try and sell it, that is not science... If you have to cherry pick your conclusions, that is not science.

However, just to clarify, science in and of itself is not 'evil'.. It is how it is used that makes that determination.

Michale.....

I was thinking more lefty evolution.

And lefty "round earth orbiting the sun" theory.

And lefty immunization.

And lefty fluoride in the drinking water. (Clearly, this is a Communist mind control plot.)

And lefty test tube babies.

And lefty stem cell research.

And the worst offender! Einstein's theory of relativity. Read about this new liberal plot: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Relativity&oldid=15341

Let's face it. Science is an evil liberal plot!

;)
-David

JAGS WIN!!!!! Beat their Division Nemesis, the Colts!! :D

59-Yard Field Goal with 4 seconds left!!

Career Longest for Josh Scobee...

3rd Longest Game Winning Field Goal in NFL history!!!

And it was a helluva game!!! :D

OK, got that out of my system.... :D

Michale.....

Ooooooooo Don't get me started!!! :D

Michale.....

That would include leftie Global Warming/Climate Change (or whatever you guys are calling it these days) scientists, correct?

Speaking of saving the planet... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZCWFBJ1nwA&list=QL&feature=BF ...what's wrong with that picture.

I thought I was freakin' out... :D

Michale.....

Deduct 100 quatloos from my account. :(

-David

Michale.....

You won the Rahm Emanuel Exit contest! Go back and read the post.

Well played, my friend!
-David

DOH!!!

I neglected to read your "Go to Goggle Click on News" message..

My Bust...

Michale.....

Congrats, Michale!

WhaaDiDoNow??? :D

I got 3 hits. And one was Chris'. It's almost non-existent in the news. Still believe in the "liberal media," Michale? :)

Yer Google must be broken... :D

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Repealing+Ineffective+and+Incomplete+Abstinence-Only+Program+Funding+Act%22&btnG=Google+Search

As I have mentioned before, the media seems to have caught on and have FINALLY become critical of Obama and the Left...

I guess they finally realized that this country is a center-right country. :D

Michale.....

Wait a second ... that may be a bit off. Look how fast they turned against their latest saviour, Elizabeth Warren. I'll give the new guy just through Sunday.

Sigh, indeed ...

Chris- Had not heard about the "Repealing Ineffective and Incomplete Abstinence-Only Program Funding Act". This is great. One of the great progressive positions that never gets taken advantage of as much as it should is that science should be a critical test and basis for legislation.

And I don't mean conservative think tank science (where you can get scientists to say just about anything for enough money). I mean rigorously tested science within the scientific community.

I know she didn't win the MIDOTW award, but I'd like to give a quick shoutout to Ohio's Mary Jo Kilpatrick for passing this piece of legislation prohibiting paid-off medical debt from affecting credit scores:

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/09/30/copy/kilroys-debt-reporting-bill-passes.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Also, this time of year might be a good time to update the MIDOTW tallies and repost. I'd like to know who they are so I can help send some funds their way (rather than give to the Democratic party, DSCC, or the like).

My favorite out-of-stater is Russ Feingold and, in-state, I really like Mary Jo Kilpatrick, Marcy Kaptur, and Lee Fisher. And Justin Coussoule who is running against Mr. Tan. We've really got some great progressives here in Ohio.

But there might be some folks I'm not thinking of who could benefit such as Frank Lautenberg and Barbara Lee. Just a thought. Seems to me like the way to send the right message: we'll support you if you'll fight!

Cheers
-David

p.s. The Reds are in the playoffs so anything is possible!

p.s.s. Here's an interesting experiment. Go to Google. Click on News at the top. Enter the phrase:

"Repealing Ineffective and Incomplete Abstinence-Only Program Funding Act"

I got 3 hits. And one was Chris'. It's almost non-existent in the news. Still believe in the "liberal media," Michale? :)

(Given it may be early so I'll keep an eye on this to see if it gets picked up. But I'd of thought this would make at least some of the major news outlets.)