There are still survivors from that era: we can know from them. We can also know from documents written at the time and from film footage at the time. Besides, whether what he did was "bad" is a moral judgment and not fact. We don't have eyewitnesses to 650,000 years ago. We don't have documents written at the time. We don't have film footage from that time.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

documents can easily be forged, people forget as they get old and are capible of being wrong.

And we do have documents from that time frame, they are written in the ice cores. If you want to turn you head and say "lalalalala" to science that is your business.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

Ice cores are not documents and you know it. Further, you can't prove that the cores are 650,000 years old any more than some intelligent design "scientist" can prove they're 6,500 years old. But, if you're stupid enough to put your trust in all this damned speculation and extrapolation, go right ahead. If you expect me to accept it as authoritative, though, you're going to have to come up with something that is absolultely flawless.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Ice cores are a physical documentation/record. You've got an equally childish understanding of evidence standards if you require written materials for everything.

You require absolutely flawless information? Sorry, but nothing's absolute.

1. [quote] ….. The [Mississippi] had one of the world's richest mussel faunas, but pollution, dredging, dams, barges, and commercial harvest have reduced documented species from 50 to 30. Two of the survivors are federally endangered, and 15 others are state listed. One of the disappearing species--the ebony shell, whose larvae attach themselves to the gills of skipjack herring in order to move upstream--used to be the dominant mussel in the Upper Mississippi. But when the dams went up, skipjacks couldn't migrate, and the population of ebony shells crashed.
At least 15 species of Mississippi fish now face extirpation. [quote]
2. Residential roofs are designed for a nominal 10 psf live load to allow for maintenance. Add in some solar panels, and you no longer have the Code required minimum. The panels create a second surface for wind to act on, essentially doubling the wind loading.
3. Every conversion and transformer generates a loss.
4. Oh so now your algae are in tanks. So it’s just a solar collector, just wet, stinky, and inefficient.

Absolutely flawless information is always required, unless the debater is man enough to admit they are wrong.

You don't require absolutely perfect, foolproof evidence of something for it to be reasonable useful data.

Oh I agee. If you did, scientific consensus would never be reached and court cases would never be resolved. In the world of internet debating, however, that requires acknowledgement that your opponent's arguments are reasonable, and posters who can admit that are rare.

650,000, 6,500...it still doesn't justify wrecking the only atmosphere we have, needlessly, when being more responsible about our environment isn't all that difficult.

I don't always need weighty tomes full of incontrovertible evidence to figure out right and wrong.

__________________
"Oh, bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

[quote=Southern Man;112798]1. [quote] ….. The [Mississippi] had one of the world's richest mussel faunas, but pollution, dredging, dams, barges, and commercial harvest have reduced documented species from 50 to 30. Two of the survivors are federally endangered, and 15 others are state listed. One of the disappearing species--the ebony shell, whose larvae attach themselves to the gills of skipjack herring in order to move upstream--used to be the dominant mussel in the Upper Mississippi. But when the dams went up, skipjacks couldn't migrate, and the population of ebony shells crashed.
At least 15 species of Mississippi fish now face extirpation. You are missing the way solar panels are set up, they take the load of the wind (depending on how many you have) off of the roof, they are not doubling the wind preasure on the roof. If you need, I can draw you a picture and scan it in. For energy conversion, the ineffecentcy of the transformer is there, whether the electricity comes from a solar panel or a nuclear plant, and even so, the energy lost is extermely minimal (less than 0.01%). Did you not know that algae lives in water? Of course they are in tanks. I'm guessing that you don't know the definition of 'efficient' and 'inefficient'. It's all about the amount of reward you get out compared to the work that you put in. As seeing as once the process is setup, no work is needed to be put in (it is self running) and you get electrisity out, that gives it extremely high efficiency.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides