More from Gore - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/10/2007 07:18:44 PM · #151

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
or 3) his boss Mr. Bush wouldn't let them put it in the final report.

Do you *seriously* believe that Bush reviews and reserves approval of all of the documents released by NOAA and other agencies? I don't.

haha, sorry. I meant Karl Rove.

Anyway, I did sorta forget your beef is that we are not contributing to greenhouse gasses in a significant way. I agree the NOAA statement doesn't say that. I disagree that there is anything but a overwhelming consensus that our contibution to the greehouse gasses is substantial (thought not exclusive).

here's a good article for the skeptic, since it was written by Mr. Skeptic himself, Michael Shermer.

The Flipping Point

Jason, I'm not going to parse the meaning of "substantial" ( though I WOULD parse the meaning of "significant" ). I will agree that human activity contributes "substantially" to the total amount of greenhouse gasses.
As for the link from Michael Shermer a "recovering" born-again Christian who now denies a Creator God or an Intelligent Designer but instead espouses the Theory of Evolution as the only acceptable explanation of life, well, let's just say that I am a skeptic of the Skeptic. FWIW, he "claims" that he changed his mind because of a "convergence of evidence from numerous sources", but somehow, in all the verbiage, he conveniently neglects to provide those sources so that others might, likewise, become enlightened.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/10/2007 07:23:45 PM · #152

Originally posted by RonB:

FWIW, he "claims" that he changed his mind because of a "convergence of evidence from numerous sources", but somehow, in all the verbiage, he conveniently neglects to provide those sources so that others might, likewise, become enlightened.

I thought he went on to do so...

"My attention was piqued on February 8 when 86 leading evangelical Christians--the last cohort I expected to get on the environmental bandwagon--issued the Evangelical Climate Initiative calling for "national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions" in carbon emissions.

Then I attended the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference in Monterey, Calif., where former vice president Al Gore delivered the single finest summation of the evidence for global warming I have ever heard, based on the recent documentary film about his work in this area, An Inconvenient Truth. The striking before-and-after photographs showing the disappearance of glaciers around the world shocked me out of my doubting stance.

Four books eventually brought me to the flipping point. Archaeologist Brian Fagan's The Long Summer (Basic, 2004) explicates how civilization is the gift of a temporary period of mild climate. Geographer Jared Diamond's Collapse (Penguin Group, 2005) demonstrates how natural and human-caused environmental catastrophes led to the collapse of civilizations. Journalist Elizabeth Kolbert's Field Notes from a Catastrophe (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2006) is a page-turning account of her journeys around the world with environmental scientists who are documenting species extinction and climate change unmistakably linked to human action. And biologist Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2006) reveals how he went from being a skeptical environmentalist to a believing activist as incontrovertible data linking the increase of carbon dioxide to global warming accumulated in the past decade."

01/10/2007 09:56:51 PM · #153

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by RonB:
FWIW, he "claims" that he changed his mind because of a "convergence of evidence from numerous sources", but somehow, in all the verbiage, he conveniently neglects to provide those sources so that others might, likewise, become enlightened.

I thought he went on to do so...

"My attention was piqued on February 8 when 86 leading evangelical Christians--the last cohort I expected to get on the environmental bandwagon--issued the Evangelical Climate Initiative calling for "national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions" in carbon emissions.

Then I attended the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference in Monterey, Calif., where former vice president Al Gore delivered the single finest summation of the evidence for global warming I have ever heard, based on the recent documentary film about his work in this area, An Inconvenient Truth. The striking before-and-after photographs showing the disappearance of glaciers around the world shocked me out of my doubting stance.

Four books eventually brought me to the flipping point. Archaeologist Brian Fagan's The Long Summer (Basic, 2004) explicates how civilization is the gift of a temporary period of mild climate. Geographer Jared Diamond's Collapse (Penguin Group, 2005) demonstrates how natural and human-caused environmental catastrophes led to the collapse of civilizations. Journalist Elizabeth Kolbert's Field Notes from a Catastrophe (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2006) is a page-turning account of her journeys around the world with environmental scientists who are documenting species extinction and climate change unmistakably linked to human action. And biologist Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2006) reveals how he went from being a skeptical environmentalist to a believing activist as incontrovertible data linking the increase of carbon dioxide to global warming accumulated in the past decade."

Mea culpa. What I should have said was that he didn't provide any of the convincing "converging "evidence". His abstracts are not convincing in the least. The Evangelical Climate Initiative is not a scientific research group, they merely cite older statements from the IPCC and other sources based on much older studies that did not have access to newer research findings. While I applaud their efforts in educating folks to be environmentally friendly, I don't give much weight to their re-issue of IPCC statements. As for Mr. Gore, well, he has an obvious vested interest in pushing the anthropogenic position seeing as how much of his reputation is on the line. And even though I'm inclined to agree that civilization is the gift of a mild climate, AND that human-cause environmental catastrophes have led to the c0llapse of civilizations, and even climactic changes in isolated microcosms, how does that "prove" anthropogenic global warming? Finally, we've already seen that new ice-core samples show that global warming historically LEADS increased CO2 at the beginning of a warming cycle, not the other way around.

01/10/2007 10:29:20 PM · #154

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So, you reject a "... a broad scientific consensus..." in favor of what?

Why, in favor of FACTS, as I thought I clearly stated. A broad scientific consensus doesn't equate to FACTS.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I don't see any evidence of facts, figures or "broad scientific consensus" supporting your claims. All I see is ranting about the media.

FACT: I supplied the link to the ACTUAL NOAA release, on their website. The release is a FACT.
FACT: I supplied the link to the ACTUAL article from the N.Y. Times, on their website. The article is a FACT ( though the article, itself, is not factual ).
FACT: The N.Y. Times article claims that the NOAA release implicates HUMAN activity as a factor in global warming in it heading, and in two other statements contained in the body of the article.
FACT: Those are FALSE attributions. The NOAA release never mentions HUMAN activity in relation to global warming.

Your FACTS support ONLY your assertion that the media screws up. That, I don't dispute, they do it every day.

Where are your "facts" that support your assertion that Global Warming is a myth? At the very least, I'd expect such "facts" to meet a much higher burden of proof that the "broad scientific consensus" you discount so heavily.

Your disregard for "broad scientific consensus" is the same argument used for so long by the tobacco companies to deny that smoking causes lung cancer. Do you also dispute that? Do you smoke?

01/11/2007 12:16:14 AM · #155

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So, you reject a "... a broad scientific consensus..." in favor of what?

Why, in favor of FACTS, as I thought I clearly stated. A broad scientific consensus doesn't equate to FACTS.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I don't see any evidence of facts, figures or "broad scientific consensus" supporting your claims. All I see is ranting about the media.

FACT: I supplied the link to the ACTUAL NOAA release, on their website. The release is a FACT.
FACT: I supplied the link to the ACTUAL article from the N.Y. Times, on their website. The article is a FACT ( though the article, itself, is not factual ).
FACT: The N.Y. Times article claims that the NOAA release implicates HUMAN activity as a factor in global warming in it heading, and in two other statements contained in the body of the article.
FACT: Those are FALSE attributions. The NOAA release never mentions HUMAN activity in relation to global warming.

Your FACTS support ONLY your assertion that the media screws up. That, I don't dispute, they do it every day.

Where are your "facts" that support your assertion that Global Warming is a myth? At the very least, I'd expect such "facts" to meet a much higher burden of proof that the "broad scientific consensus" you discount so heavily.

Your disregard for "broad scientific consensus" is the same argument used for so long by the tobacco companies to deny that smoking causes lung cancer. Do you also dispute that? Do you smoke?

Well, now you really have me there, Spaz. I don't have any FACTS that global warming is a myth - that's why I have said ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS that I do NOT, repeat NOT disagree that global warming IS occurring.
For example in my post of 1/7/07 in this thread at 11:34:12 p.m. I said "I don't think anyone is denying that global warming is occurring".
On 1/10/07 at 06:49:37 p.m. in this thread I posted "I am not, repeat not, arguing that global warming is not real."
And, I have said the same thing in other threads on this subject, as well.
I don't "disregard" the "broad scientific consensus", I merely withhold joining them in singing their song until they have provided me with the sheet music - so that I can see for myself what the notes are. Much has been made, in another thread, about how "science" adapts their theories ( hypothetical models that encompass all that is known ) when a new discovery proves that their model, and therefore their current "theory" no longer suffices to explain all of the known facts. If so, why have they NOT modified their theory on the causes of global warming - given that the new data show that warming PRECEDES increases in atmospheric CO2 by some 800 years on average?

No, I do not smoke. I did for a number of years, but quit when I found that there was FACTUAL data indicating that there was a direct relationship between smoking and mortality Not because the "broad scientific consensus", but because of the facts.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

01/11/2007 01:35:55 AM · #156

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So, you reject a "... a broad scientific consensus..." in favor of what?

Why, in favor of FACTS, as I thought I clearly stated. A broad scientific consensus doesn't equate to FACTS.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I don't see any evidence of facts, figures or "broad scientific consensus" supporting your claims. All I see is ranting about the media.

FACT: I supplied the link to the ACTUAL NOAA release, on their website. The release is a FACT.
FACT: I supplied the link to the ACTUAL article from the N.Y. Times, on their website. The article is a FACT ( though the article, itself, is not factual ).
FACT: The N.Y. Times article claims that the NOAA release implicates HUMAN activity as a factor in global warming in it heading, and in two other statements contained in the body of the article.
FACT: Those are FALSE attributions. The NOAA release never mentions HUMAN activity in relation to global warming.

Your FACTS support ONLY your assertion that the media screws up. That, I don't dispute, they do it every day.

Where are your "facts" that support your assertion that Global Warming is a myth? At the very least, I'd expect such "facts" to meet a much higher burden of proof that the "broad scientific consensus" you discount so heavily.

Your disregard for "broad scientific consensus" is the same argument used for so long by the tobacco companies to deny that smoking causes lung cancer. Do you also dispute that? Do you smoke?

Well, now you really have me there, Spaz. I don't have any FACTS that global warming is a myth - that's why I have said ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS that I do NOT, repeat NOT disagree that global warming IS occurring.
For example in my post of 1/7/07 in this thread at 11:34:12 p.m. I said "I don't think anyone is denying that global warming is occurring".
On 1/10/07 at 06:49:37 p.m. in this thread I posted "I am not, repeat not, arguing that global warming is not real."
And, I have said the same thing in other threads on this subject, as well.
I don't "disregard" the "broad scientific consensus", I merely withhold joining them in singing their song until they have provided me with the sheet music - so that I can see for myself what the notes are. Much has been made, in another thread, about how "science" adapts their theories ( hypothetical models that encompass all that is known ) when a new discovery proves that their model, and therefore their current "theory" no longer suffices to explain all of the known facts. If so, why have they NOT modified their theory on the causes of global warming - given that the new data show that warming PRECEDES increases in atmospheric CO2 by some 800 years on average?

No, I do not smoke. I did for a number of years, but quit when I found that there was FACTUAL data indicating that there was a direct relationship between smoking and mortality Not because the "broad scientific consensus", but because of the facts.

I find it odd that here you have a very high standard of factual proof before you will believe, yet in other threads, you profess to believe in God; a belief based on faith. I'm curious, where is the "sheet music" that informs your belief in God? Don't tell me it's the bible, that's just words on a page, just like the words in one of those media stories you so despise.

I'm not asserting that God doesn't exist, but, for you to believe in God, there must be well documented, thoroughly corroborated, physical and factual proof of His existence.

Message edited by author 2007-01-11 03:27:37.

bigalpha

Sony DSC-S60

01/11/2007 02:07:15 AM · #157

Wait, wth are we arguing about? Is it the fact that

A)global warming is taking place *or*
B)it's (mostly) human-powered global warming?

Have we established that global warming takes place regardless of our (human) influence [because it does]?

Have we established the fact that the temperature of the earth changes dramatically throughout time [because it does].

What about the fact that after a period of warming, more often than not, an ice age will occur (though, the extent of said ice age depends on numerous factors) [and it will occur]?

I'm just checking to see if we have established those basic facts; and determine what we are arguing about.

btw: I love they way you guys debate - there's no flaming. awesome.

Flash

Nikon D700

01/11/2007 07:32:20 AM · #158

Originally posted by bigalpha:

Wait, wth are we arguing about? Is it the fact that

A)global warming is taking place *or*
B)it's (mostly) human-powered global warming?

Hopefully we are discussing the actual impact humans have on Global Warming. Gore's movie suggests/claims it is significant, and even perhaps the root cause. I disagree. As has been illustrated in this thread by others more fluent than I.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/11/2007 11:22:15 AM · #159

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Spaz, there is an old saying

"If the map and the road do not agree...trust the road"

Let me paraphrase:

"If science and experience do not agree...trust experience"

That's because experience is real.

My life changed. I know it, and my friends and family know it.

What led me to faith however is that Science failed. Science failed to explain the diversity of life I saw with my own eyes. And Darwinian evolution failed to explain, if natural adaptation was geared to survival, why most higher life forms "evolved" to propagate by sexual, rather than asexual means. It should be obvious that asexual reproduction would be far more advantageous for survival under the kinds of adverse circumstances that scientists claim confronted prehistoric animals, including man. And science failed to explain why humans, the highest life form, have offspring that are the most incapable at birth and remain so far longer than any other species. What kind of survival adaptation is that? And why is cross pollination preferable to asexual reproduction in plants. Why leave preservation of the species to the vagaries of wind, or visits by bees, birds, or bats? Is it a survival benefit to depend on that over which the parent has absolutely NO control? I couldn't see it.
Why was a "broad scientific consensus" opposed to the theories of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein? Why did the "broad scientific consensus" at first promote, then condemn the use of DDT? Isn't that sufficient evidence that scientists, as a group, are as often wrong as they are right? And could they, then, be wrong about the origins of life and the origins of the universe - the two biggest mysteries confronting mankind?
A creator, an intelligent designer, made, and still makes, much more sense to me than "it all just happened by chance".

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/11/2007 12:51:52 PM · #160

Originally posted by RonB:

"If science and experience do not agree...trust experience"

Except when smoking cigarettes - then trust science, that the "nice feeling" you get is not "nice" in the long run.

The point I am making is that anecdotal evidence is not usually very reliable. The better reading of your first quote (which I like, by the way) is believe what you see rather than what people tell you to believe.

EG - Some people say that they have not noticed any change in the weather, so deny global warming. I would recommend that they read 50 years worth of global temperature monitoring and review the geological records as recorded in 500 years of ice cores - the evidence is there in the scientifically derived data, even if you have not noticed it.

PS although tangential, asexual reproduction results effectively in cloning: only one set of genes. Sexual reproduction is beneficial because it allows for the quick spread of beneficial gene combinations and the elimination of weak or defective genes following mutation. In fact, because it promotes effective gene combination, it is one of the drivers of evolution, not a reason for suspicion.

01/11/2007 12:57:49 PM · #161

Originally posted by RonB:

Spaz, there is an old saying

"If the map and the road do not agree...trust the road"

Sounds like a good way to get lost.

I trust my map, compass and GPS. Terrain can be deceiving.

Message edited by author 2007-01-11 13:03:52.

01/11/2007 01:03:38 PM · #162

Originally posted by RonB:

[
Spaz, there is an old saying

"If the map and the road do not agree...trust the road"

Let me paraphrase:

"If science and experience do not agree...trust experience"

That's because experience is real.

Experience is solely a product of events past. Does that mean the only way you believe that something is real is to experience it?

Do you need to put your hand to the stove to understand that it will burn you?

Message edited by author 2007-01-11 13:05:03.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/11/2007 01:47:22 PM · #163

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by RonB:
"If science and experience do not agree...trust experience"

Except when smoking cigarettes - then trust science, that the "nice feeling" you get is not "nice" in the long run.

I didn't trust science, as in the "broad scientific consensus" that we are talking about. I trusted the results of credible research that showed increased rates of lung cancer, etc., and mortality between smokers and non-smokers that could not be explained away by "other causes".

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/11/2007 01:54:52 PM · #164

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by RonB:
"If science and experience do not agree...trust experience"

Except when smoking cigarettes - then trust science, that the "nice feeling" you get is not "nice" in the long run.

I didn't trust science, as in the "broad scientific consensus" that we are talking about. I trusted the results of credible research that showed increased rates of lung cancer, etc., and mortality between smokers and non-smokers that could not be explained away by "other causes".

For a long period, "science" was used to demonstrate how cigarettes were safe in a relatively mainstream fashion. The author of the OP's article used "science" to demonstrate how safe secondhad smoke is. Yet it turns out, he was wrong, and the "science" he came up with was incorrect.

Scientists can be wrong. But the broad consensus *tends* to be right. Where it is wrong, it is almost always the subject of refinement or correction.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/11/2007 02:09:06 PM · #165

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RonB:

Spaz, there is an old saying

"If the map and the road do not agree...trust the road"

Sounds like a good way to get lost.

I trust my map, compass and GPS. Terrain can be deceiving.

Maps become obsolete to one degree or another the moment they leave the printer. I once followed the road shown on a map and found myself at a dead end on the top of a mountain in a blinding snowstorm.

A compass can certainly be compromised. Do a Google search on compass anomaly or magnetic anomaly to see what I mean.

GPS, while the most "factual" of the three, doesn't tell you what lies between point a and point b. You won't get lost, but you may encounter a sheer cliff in your path.

The terrain is what it is. It never lies. Rather than saying that the terrain can be deceiving, it would be more correct to say that you can misinterpret the terrain.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/11/2007 02:13:58 PM · #166

Originally posted by RonB:

And Darwinian evolution failed to explain, if natural adaptation was geared to survival, why most higher life forms "evolved" to propagate by sexual, rather than asexual means. It should be obvious that asexual reproduction would be far more advantageous for survival under the kinds of adverse circumstances that scientists claim confronted prehistoric animals, including man.

Quite the opposite -- sexual reproduction is a key component of "Darwinian evolution," in that it is by that means that different combinations of genes can be tried (half come from each parent). Children which inherit a favorable combination of characteristics should then have a better chance to survive and reproduce.

With asexual reproduction each "child" is genetically identical to the parent, except for random mutations caused by environmental factors. There is much less chance to try out new characteristics to see if they confer a survival advantage.

Asexual reproduction = cloning.

01/11/2007 02:35:26 PM · #167

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RonB:
[
Spaz, there is an old saying

"If the map and the road do not agree...trust the road"

Let me paraphrase:

"If science and experience do not agree...trust experience"

That's because experience is real.

Experience is solely a product of events past. Does that mean the only way you believe that something is real is to experience it?

Do you need to put your hand to the stove to understand that it will burn you?

Experience is not *solely* a product of events past. You have to go all the way to the 4th definition of the word to get that definition. I prefer the 1st definition: "The apprehension of an object, a thought, or an emotion through the senses or mind", and the 2nd: Active participation in events or activities, leading to the accumulation of knowledge or skill". Note the references to MIND and KNOWLEDGE. That's what I'm talking about.
No, but I need to put my hand on SOMETHING that is hot enough to experience ( know ) the sensation so that I can equate "hot" with its characteristics vis a vis how my body reacts to it ( pain ). When approaching a stove, I rely on my senses to determine whether I will get burned or not. If I a) see that the element is red instead of black, or b) put my hand NEAR enough to sense that it is hotter than the ambient room temperature, I will avoid touching it. FWIW, I have never been burned by a cold stove.

01/11/2007 02:39:03 PM · #168

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Scientists can be wrong. But the broad consensus *tends* to be right. Where it is wrong, it is almost always the subject of refinement or correction.

My point, exactly. So...I'm waiting for them to refine or correct their position that global warming is caused by increased greenhouse gases that are, in turn, caused by human activity.

bigalpha

Sony DSC-S60

01/11/2007 02:50:53 PM · #169

Well, I believe that humans are helping along the Global Warming "crisis". To what extent, it's too early to tell. We don't have enough data over a long enough period of time to say for sure either way.

If the earth is going to warm up, it will do that regardless if we want it to or not.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/11/2007 02:53:33 PM · #170

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
And Darwinian evolution failed to explain, if natural adaptation was geared to survival, why most higher life forms "evolved" to propagate by sexual, rather than asexual means. It should be obvious that asexual reproduction would be far more advantageous for survival under the kinds of adverse circumstances that scientists claim confronted prehistoric animals, including man.

Quite the opposite -- sexual reproduction is a key component of "Darwinian evolution," in that it is by that means that different combinations of genes can be tried (half come from each parent). Children which inherit a favorable combination of characteristics should then have a better chance to survive and reproduce.

With asexual reproduction each "child" is genetically identical to the parent, except for random mutations caused by environmental factors. There is much less chance to try out new characteristics to see if they confer a survival advantage.

Asexual reproduction = cloning.

So let me get this straight. Random mutations in the genetic structure of asexually reproducing life forms led ultimately to the formation of sexually reproducing homo sapiens, after several billions of years ( several millions of years following the first "life" formed in the primordial swamp).
But random mutations in the genetic structure of asexually producing life forms could NOT have led to the formation of an asexually reproducing homo sapiens, after billions of years.
Got it. Much less chance. Now, explain why it is that asexually reproducing bacteria and viruses like flu viruses evolve faster than any "higher" life forms ( though they never seem to be able to evolve into higher life forms ).

Message edited by author 2007-01-11 14:57:34.

bigalpha

Sony DSC-S60

01/11/2007 03:07:21 PM · #171

RonB -

The reason why viruses and bacteria can evolve way faster than "higher" forms of life is because of their life cycle. They have a relatively short life span; while at the same time, one bacteria can produce millions of other little bacteria guys.

It's just like the classic videos of bacteria multiplying? I believe it's an exponential growth curve.

Oh, the reason why viruses don't evolve into something "higher" is because viruses are only small pieces of RNA and are not technically "alive"

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/11/2007 03:46:54 PM · #172

I think we better get back to the issue of global warming/climate change, and return the evolutionary arguments to that thread ...

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

01/11/2007 03:57:36 PM · #173

Originally posted by RonB:

GPS, while the most "factual" of the three, doesn't tell you what lies between point a and point b. You won't get lost, but you may encounter a sheer cliff in your path.

Actually, many of them do now. Of course that requires downloading a "map" or some other thing from the computer . . .

But, I tend to agree. If a map indicates I am standing in a body of water, and I'm actually on a mountaintop, I would definitely say the terrain is correct. . .

Anyway, continue on, and thank you all for keeping it civil.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/11/2007 04:05:57 PM · #174

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by RonB:

GPS, while the most "factual" of the three, doesn't tell you what lies between point a and point b. You won't get lost, but you may encounter a sheer cliff in your path.

Actually, many of them do now. Of course that requires downloading a "map" or some other thing from the computer . . .

A radio signal emanating from a satellite owned by the US military is the "most factual" source as to your location? : )

Continental Drift Cam