If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The News & Observer (NC))   Link between pot smoking and IQ drop challenged. Whatvever dude   (newsobserver.com) divider line 175
    More: Amusing, smoking  
•       •       •

7562 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jan 2013 at 8:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



175 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-14 08:13:05 PM
Participants who said they were dependent on pot by age 18 showed a drop in IQ score

Self reporting is always reliable.
 
2013-01-14 08:13:55 PM
You can always tells who the stoners are.
 
2013-01-14 08:16:31 PM
Is it somehow controversial that smoking pot leads to decreased mental acuity?

This is news?
 
2013-01-14 08:17:34 PM
Either way potheads are just plain dumber than the rest of the population so does it matter?
 
2013-01-14 08:20:28 PM
Computer simulation?

I'm a galactic ruler in one computer simulation, a dark elf warlock in another, and a sniper with 10k kills in a third one.
 
2013-01-14 08:22:07 PM
The author of the new paper says pot might not have anything to do with the mental decline seen in the original study, and that other factors may be to blame.

Aaaannnnd , , ,  done!
 
2013-01-14 08:22:32 PM

Mr. Eugenides: Either way potheads are just plain dumber than the rest of the population so does it matter?


SRSLY?

www.brainpickings.org
 
2013-01-14 08:23:52 PM

Indubitably: NutWrench: The author of the new paper says pot might not have anything to do with the mental decline seen in the original study, and that other factors may be to blame.

Aaaannnnd , , ,  done!

To bang


perchance to screw
Aye, there's the rub
 
2013-01-14 08:26:56 PM
The supposed 'significant' IQ drop was only a couple of points anyway, wasn't it? Oh noes.
 
2013-01-14 08:27:20 PM
"You're enough of a pro to know that for you to come out with something that would run counter to what the Congress feels and what the country feels, and what we're planning to do, would make your commission just look bad as hell."

Ladies and gentlemen, Richard M. Nixon - give him a hand and don't forget to tip your waitstaff!
 
2013-01-14 08:28:41 PM
It's not that the smokers IQ drops; it's just that they don't give a shiat about the research questions.
 
2013-01-14 08:29:14 PM
This is because there is no link between cannabis and lowering IQ established by the study but there is a correlation between people who choose to smoke cannabis and lowering IQ due to all manner of interlocking social reasons. Not to say the act of smoking anything, especially substances which significantly alter cognition, does not have prolonged influence on cognitive development.

fusillade762: Self reporting is always reliable.


Self reporting is reliable to find broad correlations because respondents will report more socially acceptable responses which are still mitigated by actual behaviors or thoughts. For a respondent who smokes cannabis never, twice a year, once a month, once a week, once a day, etc., we would expect those responses to all tend to be more socially acceptable (when possible), not the most socially acceptable.
 
2013-01-14 08:29:57 PM
As someone who is soon approaching 38. I have always felt my constant use of Marijuana between 14 and 16 did affect my mental and intellectual state from then on. But I rarely dwell on it. And it hasn't stopped me partaking periodically since. So who cares really.

/ still nowhere near as broken as most of the real stoners I know.
 
2013-01-14 08:30:59 PM

Indubitably: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Indubitably: NutWrench: The author of the new paper says pot might not have anything to do with the mental decline seen in the original study, and that other factors may be to blame.

Aaaannnnd , , ,  done!

To bang

perchance to screw
Aye, there's the rub

This is funny and worth noting again: I have never equated Fark with sexual congress making like it has been farked about, and I would never seek actual sexual congress with anyone unidentified on Fark. That is all. And that's that.


Just shut up and bite the pillow.
 
2013-01-14 08:31:55 PM
Pot makes you stupid!  There is nothing to add; if you add anything to this statement of fact, you are indeed a pot smoker and very stupid so STFU.
 
2013-01-14 08:33:02 PM

Indubitably: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Indubitably: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Indubitably: NutWrench: The author of the new paper says pot might not have anything to do with the mental decline seen in the original study, and that other factors may be to blame.

Aaaannnnd , , ,  done!

To bang

perchance to screw
Aye, there's the rub

This is funny and worth noting again: I have never equated Fark with sexual congress making like it has been farked about, and I would never seek actual sexual congress with anyone unidentified on Fark. That is all. And that's that.

Just shut up and bite the pillow.

Oops, wrong answer. Prepare.


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-01-14 08:33:12 PM

cftc: Mr. Eugenides: Either way potheads are just plain dumber than the rest of the population so does it matter?

SRSLY?

[www.brainpickings.org image 646x536]


Love Carl, but he was a story teller.  Deeply versed in the language of science, but made no contributions to empirical science.  Great author of scientific history and the entertaining ability to recount historical fact.
 
2013-01-14 08:33:52 PM
Ug, my IQ is 146. I smoked pot a lot since I was 12; I am 43 now. I sometimes wish my IQ was lower so I wouldn't see things the way I do.
 
2013-01-14 08:34:26 PM

tshauk:
Love Carl, but he was a story teller.  Deeply versed in the language of science, but made no contributions to empirical science.


Bzzzt wrong

Maybe he wasn't an Einstein but he made significant contributions before his popular writing days.
 
2013-01-14 08:35:50 PM

johnphantom: Ug, my IQ is 146. I smoked pot a lot since I was 12; I am 43 now. I sometimes wish my IQ was lower so I wouldn't see things the way I do.


If you're that smart you should know that such a specific IQ number is meaningless due to a multitude of factors including culturally biased tests, tests which generally only measure one kind of IQ, inconsistency in results, and above all serious questions about what the nature of "Intelligence" is in the first place.
 
2013-01-14 08:36:00 PM

johnphantom: Ug, my IQ is 146. I smoked pot a lot since I was 12; I am 43 now. I sometimes wish my IQ was lower so I wouldn't see things the way I do.


Pull the other one!
 
2013-01-14 08:36:50 PM

tshauk: but made no contributions to empirical science


You do realize, in addition to being one of the most academically published physicists of the century that he was directly involved in the Voyager Program? His actual scientific accolades eclipse those of his pop science writing.
 
2013-01-14 08:36:57 PM

tshauk: Pot makes you stupid! There is nothing to add; if you add anything to this statement of fact, you are indeed a pot smoker and very stupid so STFU.


Monomania is a clearer hallmark of a dullard, if you ask me.
 
2013-01-14 08:37:04 PM

Indubitably: Indubitably: tshauk: Pot makes you stupid!  There is nothing to add; if you add anything to this statement of fact, you are indeed a pot smoker and very stupid so STFU.

So does alcohol, cocaine, heroin, meth, sugar, tv, video, and webs.

Next?

P.S. I forgot caffeine, nicotine, oil, plastics, and uranium...


And prescription drugs.

And chemotherapy.
 
2013-01-14 08:37:08 PM

mochunk: As someone who is soon approaching 38. I have always felt my constant use of Marijuana between 14 and 16 did affect my mental and intellectual state from then on...


tshauk: Pot makes you stupid!  There is nothing to add; if you add anything to this statement of fact, you are indeed a pot smoker and very stupid so STFU.


Surely both of you (and others) realize that a lot of stoners smoke because we're surrounded by people significantly, and often, painfully dumber than ourselves? I mean, that's kind of the point - a little recreational stupidity makes you calmer, relaxed, and more apt to be able to deal with the monkey house into which you're born.
 
2013-01-14 08:38:26 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: johnphantom: Ug, my IQ is 146. I smoked pot a lot since I was 12; I am 43 now. I sometimes wish my IQ was lower so I wouldn't see things the way I do.

If you're that smart you should know that such a specific IQ number is meaningless due to a multitude of factors including culturally biased tests, tests which generally only measure one kind of IQ, inconsistency in results, and above all serious questions about what the nature of "Intelligence" is in the first place.


I agree.
 
2013-01-14 08:39:14 PM
IQ tests are meaningless for this sort of thing. What you should do is give someone a piece of fruit, some wax paper, an empty CD case, some string, and a can of soup. Tell them to make a bong out of it.

I guarantee you, your average stoner will pass this test with flying colors.
 
2013-01-14 08:39:17 PM

Indubitably: I'm almost willing to do an IQ-off here...


Says the idiot who replies to his own posts.
 
2013-01-14 08:39:35 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: tshauk:
Love Carl, but he was a story teller.  Deeply versed in the language of science, but made no contributions to empirical science.

Bzzzt wrong

Maybe he wasn't an Einstein but he made significant contributions before his popular writing days.


And what would those contributions be?  Original empirical scientific offerings?  Show us one original Carl Sagan.
 
2013-01-14 08:40:44 PM

johnphantom: The All-Powerful Atheismo: johnphantom: Ug, my IQ is 146. I smoked pot a lot since I was 12; I am 43 now. I sometimes wish my IQ was lower so I wouldn't see things the way I do.

If you're that smart you should know that such a specific IQ number is meaningless due to a multitude of factors including culturally biased tests, tests which generally only measure one kind of IQ, inconsistency in results, and above all serious questions about what the nature of "Intelligence" is in the first place.

I agree.


I just get annoyed by the biggest-IQ-dick competitions that happen in these types of threads. And not because I'm jealous. I qualified for Mensa and test around 150 or so, not that that means anything. Also Mensa is full of the most arrogant, classist pricks I've ever seen,
 
2013-01-14 08:40:44 PM
I've certainly met my share of objectively intelligent and successful people in high school and college who smoked pot regularly. Of course there were plenty of losers too but that seemed like self-selection.
 
2013-01-14 08:40:52 PM
what a lifetime of maryjane abuse causes

img2.timeinc.net
 
2013-01-14 08:40:52 PM

Hitomi Tanaka's Paperweights: mochunk: As someone who is soon approaching 38. I have always felt my constant use of Marijuana between 14 and 16 did affect my mental and intellectual state from then on...

tshauk: Pot makes you stupid!  There is nothing to add; if you add anything to this statement of fact, you are indeed a pot smoker and very stupid so STFU.

Surely both of you (and others) realize that a lot of stoners smoke because we're surrounded by people significantly, and often, painfully dumber than ourselves? I mean, that's kind of the point - a little recreational stupidity makes you calmer, relaxed, and more apt to be able to deal with the monkey house into which you're born.


Maybe you should smoke less and spend more time getting into a better environment? ;)
 
2013-01-14 08:41:01 PM

tshauk: cftc: Mr. Eugenides: Either way potheads are just plain dumber than the rest of the population so does it matter?

SRSLY?

[www.brainpickings.org image 646x536]

Love Carl, but he was a story teller.  Deeply versed in the language of science, but made no contributions to empirical science.  Great author of scientific history and the entertaining ability to recount historical fact.


You mean besides his 600+ scientific papers?
 
2013-01-14 08:41:06 PM
It doesn't seem like they said they proved or disproved anything one way or another, but rather said to the folks who did the first study, "Oh Look you forgot to take into account these various socioeconomic factors which have been shown to correlate with results similar to what you found".

And it further seems that this new information has been looked over by peers and people are largely saying, "Oh, yeah. I see what you mean. Hmmm."

Does it mean anything? Not necessarily. Is it reason to look closer at the original study? I think so.
 
2013-01-14 08:42:30 PM

tshauk: The All-Powerful Atheismo: tshauk:
Love Carl, but he was a story teller.  Deeply versed in the language of science, but made no contributions to empirical science.

Bzzzt wrong

Maybe he wasn't an Einstein but he made significant contributions before his popular writing days.

And what would those contributions be?  Original empirical scientific offerings?  Show us one original Carl Sagan.


Uh no, you feel free to go look it up, since you're the unenlightened one. I suggest starting at wikipedia which states "He spent most of his career as a professor of astronomy at Cornell University where he directed the Laboratory for Planetary Studies. He published more than 600 scientific papers[2] and articles"
 
2013-01-14 08:44:17 PM

All_Farked_Up: tshauk: cftc: Mr. Eugenides: Either way potheads are just plain dumber than the rest of the population so does it matter?

SRSLY?

[www.brainpickings.org image 646x536]

Love Carl, but he was a story teller.  Deeply versed in the language of science, but made no contributions to empirical science.  Great author of scientific history and the entertaining ability to recount historical fact.

You mean besides his 600+ scientific papers?


I guess they weren't original enough.
 
2013-01-14 08:44:26 PM
the link tween pot smkin and laziness totally c'nfirm'd
 
2013-01-14 08:46:18 PM

All_Farked_Up: tshauk: cftc: Mr. Eugenides: Either way potheads are just plain dumber than the rest of the population so does it matter?

SRSLY?

[www.brainpickings.org image 646x536]

Love Carl, but he was a story teller.  Deeply versed in the language of science, but made no contributions to empirical science.  Great author of scientific history and the entertaining ability to recount historical fact.

You mean besides his 600+ scientific papers?


Yes; Great author, great orator, great entertainer.  I love the guy!  Name us a SINGLE original empirical Sagan offering to science.  Not one of his many and brilliantly explained exposition on other scientists.
 
2013-01-14 08:47:36 PM

tshauk: Yes; Great author, great orator, great entertainer.  I love the guy!  Name us a SINGLE original empirical Sagan offering to science.  Not one of his many and brilliantly explained exposition on other scientists.


Since you're a lazy jackass:

Scientific achievements

Sagan's contributions were central to the discovery of the high surface temperatures of the planet Venus. In the early 1960s no one knew for certain the basic conditions of that planet's surface, and Sagan listed the possibilities in a report later depicted for popularization in a Time-Life book, Planets. His own view was that Venus was dry and very hot as opposed to the balmy paradise others had imagined. He had investigated radio emissions from Venus and concluded that there was a surface temperature of 500 °C (900 °F). As a visiting scientist to NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, he contributed to the first Mariner missions to Venus, working on the design and management of the project. Mariner 2 confirmed his conclusions on the surface conditions of Venus in 1962.
Sagan was among the first to hypothesize that Saturn's moon Titan might possess oceans of liquid compounds on its surface and that Jupiter's moon Europa might possess subsurface oceans of water. This would make Europa potentially habitable.[15] Europa's subsurface ocean of water was later indirectly confirmed by the spacecraft Galileo. The mystery of Titan's reddish haze was also solved with Sagan's help. The reddish haze was revealed to be due to complex organic molecules constantly raining down onto Titan's surface.[16]
He further contributed insights regarding the atmospheres of Venus and Jupiter as well as seasonal changes on Mars. He also perceived global warming as a growing, man-made danger and likened it to the natural development of Venus into a hot, life-hostile planet through a kind of runaway greenhouse effect. Sagan and his Cornell colleague Edwin Ernest Salpeter speculated about life in Jupiter's clouds, given the planet's dense atmospheric composition rich in organic molecules. He studied the observed color variations on Mars' surface and concluded that they were not seasonal or vegetational changes as most believed but shifts in surface dust caused by windstorms.
Sagan is best known, however, for his research on the possibilities of extraterrestrial life, including experimental demonstration of the production of amino acids from basic chemicals by radiation.[17]
He is also the 1994 recipient of the Public Welfare Medal, the highest award of the National Academy of Sciences for "distinguished contributions in the application of science to the public welfare".[18] He was denied membership in the Academy, reportedly because his media activities made him unpopular with many other scientists.[19]
 
2013-01-14 08:49:33 PM
Whatever the result of all of this, I think we can all agree that pot is not a good thing for a developing mind, and should be kept away from children under 18.

Which is why I only let my kids smoke meth.
 
2013-01-14 08:50:25 PM

mochunk: As someone who is soon approaching 38. I have always felt my constant use of Marijuana between 14 and 16 did affect my mental and intellectual state from then on. But I rarely dwell on it. And it hasn't stopped me partaking periodically since. So who cares really.

/ still nowhere near as broken as most of the real stoners I know.


Probably the testosterone, not the weed. Should have cut your nuts off: you could have focused better in school.
 
2013-01-14 08:51:21 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: tshauk: Yes; Great author, great orator, great entertainer.  I love the guy!  Name us a SINGLE original empirical Sagan offering to science.  Not one of his many and brilliantly explained exposition on other scientists.

Since you're a lazy jackass:

Scientific achievements

Sagan's contributions were central to the discovery of the high surface temperatures of the planet Venus. In the early 1960s no one knew for certain the basic conditions of that planet's surface, and Sagan listed the possibilities in a report later depicted for popularization in a Time-Life book, Planets. His own view was that Venus was dry and very hot as opposed to the balmy paradise others had imagined. He had investigated radio emissions from Venus and concluded that there was a surface temperature of 500 °C (900 °F). As a visiting scientist to NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, he contributed to the first Mariner missions to Venus, working on the design and management of the project. Mariner 2 confirmed his conclusions on the surface conditions of Venus in 1962.
Sagan was among the first to hypothesize that Saturn's moon Titan might possess oceans of liquid compounds on its surface and that Jupiter's moon Europa might possess subsurface oceans of water. This would make Europa potentially habitable.[15] Europa's subsurface ocean of water was later indirectly confirmed by the spacecraft Galileo. The mystery of Titan's reddish haze was also solved with Sagan's help. The reddish haze was revealed to be due to complex organic molecules constantly raining down onto Titan's surface.[16]
He further contributed insights regarding the atmospheres of Venus and Jupiter as well as seasonal changes on Mars. He also perceived global warming as a growing, man-made danger and likened it to the natural development of Venus into a hot, life-hostile planet through a kind of runaway greenhouse effect. Sagan and his Cornell colleague Edwin Ernest Salpeter speculated about life in Jupiter's clouds, given the plane ...

PotHead....

 
2013-01-14 08:52:00 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: If you're that smart you should know that such a specific IQ number is meaningless


Not meaningless, but not a precise descriptor of all cognitive ability either. I would say, of the qualms you posed, the nature of "intelligence" is the major concern surrounding intelligence testing today. Instruments have become far less biased, do provide reliable results, and measure a variety of facets of intelligence as standard. What still emerges as bias is historical levels of affluence which afford greater or lesser amounts of mental stimulation, essential as intelligence is developmental. Singular assessments are not to be trusted as precise but are useful diagnostically, and proper training with any instrument will allow you to note issues which would question any results (especially relevant for my assessment of children). Plus, I know of a dozen instruments, and none of them measure a single facet; KBIT is the simplest for estimation and covers two scores with two subcategories each.
 
2013-01-14 08:52:48 PM

tshauk: The All-Powerful Atheismo: tshauk: Yes; Great author, great orator, great entertainer.  I love the guy!  Name us a SINGLE original empirical Sagan offering to science.  Not one of his many and brilliantly explained exposition on other scientists.

Since you're a lazy jackass:

Scientific achievements

Sagan's contributions were central to the discovery of the high surface temperatures of the planet Venus. In the early 1960s no one knew for certain the basic conditions of that planet's surface, and Sagan listed the possibilities in a report later depicted for popularization in a Time-Life book, Planets. His own view was that Venus was dry and very hot as opposed to the balmy paradise others had imagined. He had investigated radio emissions from Venus and concluded that there was a surface temperature of 500 °C (900 °F). As a visiting scientist to NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, he contributed to the first Mariner missions to Venus, working on the design and management of the project. Mariner 2 confirmed his conclusions on the surface conditions of Venus in 1962.
Sagan was among the first to hypothesize that Saturn's moon Titan might possess oceans of liquid compounds on its surface and that Jupiter's moon Europa might possess subsurface oceans of water. This would make Europa potentially habitable.[15] Europa's subsurface ocean of water was later indirectly confirmed by the spacecraft Galileo. The mystery of Titan's reddish haze was also solved with Sagan's help. The reddish haze was revealed to be due to complex organic molecules constantly raining down onto Titan's surface.[16]
He further contributed insights regarding the atmospheres of Venus and Jupiter as well as seasonal changes on Mars. He also perceived global warming as a growing, man-made danger and likened it to the natural development of Venus into a hot, life-hostile planet through a kind of runaway greenhouse effect. Sagan and his Cornell colleague Edwin Ernest Salpeter speculated about life in Jupite ...


Did you read the farking thing I posted? It lists several original contributions.

As for "contributions", can you name one scientist who designed, built, and launched an interplanetary spacecraft by themselves?
 
2013-01-14 08:53:03 PM
People who think intelligence is a singular vector haven't paid much attention to guys like Bobby Fisher.
 
2013-01-14 08:53:26 PM
Stupid people do drugs. Smart people do drugs. But only stupid people think drug use can turn one into the other. Anyone who has ever done drugs for any length of time, or worked with people in recovery, know this is not the case. Crack, heroine, meth...they might make you learn how to jack a stereo or suck a pole, but they won't make you stupid. Even long-term LSD use leaves your cognitive abilities in tact.
 
2013-01-14 08:54:56 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: tshauk: The All-Powerful Atheismo: tshauk: Yes; Great author, great orator, great entertainer.  I love the guy!  Name us a SINGLE original empirical Sagan offering to science.  Not one of his many and brilliantly explained exposition on other scientists.

Since you're a lazy jackass:

Scientific achievements

Sagan's contributions were central to the discovery of the high surface temperatures of the planet Venus. In the early 1960s no one knew for certain the basic conditions of that planet's surface, and Sagan listed the possibilities in a report later depicted for popularization in a Time-Life book, Planets. His own view was that Venus was dry and very hot as opposed to the balmy paradise others had imagined. He had investigated radio emissions from Venus and concluded that there was a surface temperature of 500 °C (900 °F). As a visiting scientist to NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, he contributed to the first Mariner missions to Venus, working on the design and management of the project. Mariner 2 confirmed his conclusions on the surface conditions of Venus in 1962.
Sagan was among the first to hypothesize that Saturn's moon Titan might possess oceans of liquid compounds on its surface and that Jupiter's moon Europa might possess subsurface oceans of water. This would make Europa potentially habitable.[15] Europa's subsurface ocean of water was later indirectly confirmed by the spacecraft Galileo. The mystery of Titan's reddish haze was also solved with Sagan's help. The reddish haze was revealed to be due to complex organic molecules constantly raining down onto Titan's surface.[16]
He further contributed insights regarding the atmospheres of Venus and Jupiter as well as seasonal changes on Mars. He also perceived global warming as a growing, man-made danger and likened it to the natural development of Venus into a hot, life-hostile planet through a kind of runaway greenhouse effect. Sagan and his Cornell colleague Edwin Ernest Salpeter speculated about life i ...


No, and neither can you.  Move along now nitwit.
 
2013-01-14 08:55:46 PM
I think one major factor is the amount. Just like someone that has a glass of wine at dinner or maybe a beer a couple of times a week is impacted differently than someone who has a bottle or a six pack every day.

I've known people that the change in intelligence over years was very noticeable who smoked pot everyday. Wake and bake, lunch and bake, bake night snack. Not the same level of intelligence after years of that.
 
2013-01-14 08:56:10 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: tshauk: The All-Powerful Atheismo: tshauk: Yes; Great author, great orator, great entertainer.  I love the guy!  Name us a SINGLE original empirical Sagan offering to science.  Not one of his many and brilliantly explained exposition on other scientists.

Since you're a lazy jackass:

Scientific achievements

Sagan's contributions were central to the discovery of the high surface temperatures of the planet Venus. In the early 1960s no one knew for certain the basic conditions of that planet's surface, and Sagan listed the possibilities in a report later depicted for popularization in a Time-Life book, Planets. His own view was that Venus was dry and very hot as opposed to the balmy paradise others had imagined. He had investigated radio emissions from Venus and concluded that there was a surface temperature of 500 °C (900 °F). As a visiting scientist to NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, he contributed to the first Mariner missions to Venus, working on the design and management of the project. Mariner 2 confirmed his conclusions on the surface conditions of Venus in 1962.
Sagan was among the first to hypothesize that Saturn's moon Titan might possess oceans of liquid compounds on its surface and that Jupiter's moon Europa might possess subsurface oceans of water. This would make Europa potentially habitable.[15] Europa's subsurface ocean of water was later indirectly confirmed by the spacecraft Galileo. The mystery of Titan's reddish haze was also solved with Sagan's help. The reddish haze was revealed to be due to complex organic molecules constantly raining down onto Titan's surface.[16]
He further contributed insights regarding the atmospheres of Venus and Jupiter as well as seasonal changes on Mars. He also perceived global warming as a growing, man-made danger and likened it to the natural development of Venus into a hot, life-hostile planet through a kind of runaway greenhouse effect. Sagan and his Cornell colleague Edwin Ernest Salpeter speculated about life i ...


republibot.com
 
Displayed 50 of 175 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report