When you're scrabbling in the dirt looking for a rat to eat, remember I warned you, even included Venezuela as an example.

Bon appetit, prole

You were talking about aluminum because you didn't comprehend the article. It was about alumina. Please try to keep up.

Well, I'm convinced. It took me two posts to have you resorting to ad hominem fallacies. Well done, my Socialism loving friend.

If slavery was competitive, the South wouldn't have lost against the North in the Civil War. And slavery would still be everywhere.

Societies have the morality they can afford. Capitalism enables societies to become wealthy, at which point they outlaw the evil of slavery.

Slavery exists where there's no competition. Capitalism makes slavery uneconomical because of competition (North vs South antebellum). Socialism eschews slavery for simple corruption in which the kakistocracy loots everything of value and the proles end up starving (see Venezuela for the most recent example)

It's pretty incredible as long as the only adjectives you type are "incredible" and "amazing".

People commenting seem to think the story is about preventing aluminum particles from ending up in the atmosphere after a satellite burns. That's wrong. As it says in the article, what's of concern is alumina, or corundum, which doesn't make a lot of sense, given that alumina doesn't react chemically very well, is extremely hard, and has a melting point of 3700 degrees F.

The only thing alumina may harm is the ozone layer, but that's iffy given that scientists detected alumina mixed with other chemicals burning in the exhaust of solid rocket boosters in the stratosphere, but no evidence it was the alumina that was eroding the ozone. It's unlikely that alumina is a problem at all.

"Alumina" not "Aluminum". There's a difference. Try reading the link next time.

Why are you so quick to judge?

Just because it makes you warm and fuzzy doesn't make it immune to skepticism. It's reasonable to question the efficacy of keeping alumina from the outer atmosphere, although there's no evidence that it's harmful. In fact, it seems unlikely that it would have any impact:

[Alumina]: "These products exhibit the properties for which alumina is well known, including low electric conductivity, resistance to chemical attack, high strength, extreme hardness (9 on the Mohs hardness scale, the highest rating being 10), and high melting point (approximately 2,050 C, or 3,700 F)."

Resistant to chemical attack, extremely hard and it takes 3700 F to melt it (a space shuttle during reentry experienced up to 3000 F). So I don't see the problem here. Whatever alumina ends up in the upper atmosphere will float around, unchanged, until it is eventually rained out.

Keeping CFCs from being released by burning sats might have a positive effect by preventing damage to the ozone layer, but CFCs aren't even mentioned in the article, nor does it seem likely that a wooden satellite would not need CFCs for maneuvering.

The first A-bomb produced fear and peace.

Scientists typically do their most creative work before the age of forty. With the average age of grant recipients being over 45, I'd expect to see a drop off in breakthroughs.

Obama is desperately searching for a legacy that doesn't include "UTTER FAILURE". World leaders can smell that on him.

What McConnell and others who voted to approve the resolution demanded was that the Developing World (which includes China) agree to "new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period" as was being expected for First World (aka USA) nations.

Obama's ridiculous deal with China allows them to keep raising their emissions until 2030, whereas we're supposed to meet our reduction targets by 2025. The accord fails the test that the Senate's resolution specified.

So, according to the article, we reduce our emissions by up to 28% by 2025, meanwhile China agrees that their emissions will stop climbing by 2030:

As part of the agreement, Mr. Obama announced that the United States would emit 26 percent to 28 percent less carbon in 2025 than it did in 2005. That is double the pace of reduction it targeted for the period from 2005 to 2020.

China’s pledge to reach peak carbon emissions by 2030, if not sooner, is even more remarkable. To reach that goal, Mr. Xi pledged that so-called clean energy sources, like solar power and windmills, would account for 20 percent of China’s total energy production by 2030.

This is a good deal?! China already pumps out 25% of the world's CO2 compared to the US's 16%.

A fair deal would have had China pledging to reduce their emissions, not continue raising them!

Probably that cardshark Obama tried his "don't call my bluff!" threat again. That would explain it.

IPCC officials admit mistake over melting Himalayan glaciers

The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded.

The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.

In a statement (pdf), the IPCC said the paragraph "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."