Dak

ah, but, the common oppinion is that gordon brown is responsable for breaking the nhs, inheritance tax, etc etc. one thing labour (gordon brown?) definately did that definately sucked was introduce loans rather than grants, after saying that they wouldn't.

oh, and for future refferense: turning the power off during a 'bios auto-recovery' is a bad idea. bios updates/recoveries are one of those times where you just have to wait for it to finish, even if it takes all night.

if your bios is so farked that it's not sending a signal to your monitor, then you'll unlikely be able to q-flash it (tho i'm not sure, if your disk-drives are still spinning, then maybe its still looking for a bios backup? maybe putting a floppy with the q-flash thingy on it will let it fix itself, but i'd wait for advise from someone else who knows more then me on that) tbh i'd guess that your options are: take it to a shop buy a bios flashing thingy, borrow someone elses PC, and repair your bios find someone with the same make mobo as you, and engage in the risky art of hotswapping (not reccomended) buy a new bios/cmos. eitherway, it's unlikely that your mobos dead, so no need to bin it. (btw, you have my sympathies on the timing. my pc allways chose to break when essays were due in )

harsh, man. sounds like a corrupted bios. and yes, you'll have reset your bios by taking the battery out. try taking the side off of your PC and getting the motherboard model number (it'll probably be on a sticker on the board itself), and look on your screen as your bios boots (if it's still trying to boot) for a bios version number (or, try to find out what bios your mobo comes with). then, google for info. your mobo's manufacturer's website will probably have info on how to flash/repair your bios. some mobos come with a small switch and a backup bios, so you can flick the switch, power on, and your bios will be reinstalled. otherwize, you might be able to get away with downloading a copy of the bios to floppy, putting it in your pc, and booting as it sounds like the bios is looking for a copy to reinstall from. but dont try anything before researching it thoroughly. otherwize, you'll have to flash your bios, which i've never done but it doesn't sound like fun. in all honesty, my moneys on you having to do this

biologically that's true. sociologically, however, it's not. yeah, dividing people into two 'racial' groups based on melanin content, and with disreguard for actual racial divisions, is entirely arbritrary; but its still done by our societies, forsing black and white people to, sociologically, be somewhat different as groups. eg: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_43.html#overview there's 'racial' differences in arrest rate, which could feasably incoporate different 'racial' crime rates. the fact it's arbritrary and artificial makes it sad, not untrue.

don't flame people, or you'll start to accumulate warning points. having said that, if you click on 1veedo's username, then on 'view profile', then 'add to ignore list', you can filter his posts out. I have to warn you, tho, that if you start to ignore anyone who argues against your points, you'll end up getting banned. if you're not willing to engage in honest discussion with people with differring views, then this isn't the forum for you. ---------- this is what the peer-review process is good for. it forses all valid interpretations to be considered. I can guarantee you that, if what you said were valid, then some scientist would have pointed it out in a peer-reviewed paper. the only way to circumvent the above is for all climate scientists to essentially conspire to bias their reporting and not point out each others flaws. so, wether you realise it or not, you are, in fact, suggesting there's a conspiracy. to breifly repeat 1veedo: the bit you're talking about asked the question 'what caused the changes'; it therefore makes perfect sense to only actually examine the changes. you are correct in that only examining the changes whilst asking the question 'is there an overall change' would be a biased sample, but this has not been done. source? i think you'll find that the science states quite clearly that, in fact, it is.

swearing's useful. not sure why, but i'd feel i'd lost something if no words were 'naughty'... The most I can say is that it possibly plays a role similar to informal/formal ways of addressing someone in other languages... generally, if you can drop the odd swear-word into conversation with someone without raising a complaint, you're quite confortable with them; if you have to refrain from swearing whilst talking to someone, there's an air of formality about the conversation. kinda like (as i understand it) 'du' v 'Sie' in german, or calling someone 'vladmir' v 'vlad' in russian. or saying '**** yeah' v 'yeah' in english. basically, effin' an' blindin' is a way of talking to someone that also says 'hey, we're cool, no need for formality between us'. not to mention that, if someone's been rude to you and you want to reciprocate, '**** off you twat' does a pretty good job, which it wouldn't do if those words were 'ok' (it'd be equivelent to 'go away, you non-offensive pronoun'). as an aside, ever seen red dwarf? they replace swear-words with 'smegging this', 'smegging that', 'smeg off you smeg head', and stuf like 'gimboid' and 'goit'. it does kinda makes the whole 'naughty words' thing seem silly

this is illegal in the uk, pretty much for the reasons you gave. note, tho, that you can't choose wether to share a road with someone who's going to distract themselves by texting whilst driving, so legislation is genuinely the only way to protect other motorists. with smoking, tho, the argument is that you can choose wether to go to smoking or non-smoking places. alternatively, the law could have been that bars have to have non-smoking areas. so legislation was not required (i realise you pretty much said this earlyer on, just pointing out the analogy is flawed)

I think it all comes down to how it's going to get interpreted by the masses (specifically, who they blame -- who the 'they' is in situations such as above). 'white people attack black people' generally either gets interpreted as 'people attack other people' (and the attackers all happend to be one colour, and the attacked another), or '****ing racists'. 'black people attack white people' generally either gets interpreted as 'people attack other people' (and the attackers all happened to be one colour, and the attacked another), or '****ing black people'. iow, if you report white v black crime, then (remembering that the majority are white) theres a tiny minority who will think bad of white people because of it. if you report black v white crime, then you'll get a load of racists using it as a rally point. if they actually do anything (like the lynching that you mentioned), then theres a chance that the media will come under fire for 'premoting' it. not saying that this means that it shouldn't be reported; just that i doubt the majour media outlets want to risk getting taken to court for incitement to racism. tbh the blame is really jointly racists and the medias. if there were less racists that'd respond to stories like this by blaming all black people, thered be less risk in publishing the story; and if the main media weren't such cowards, they could easily do the story in a way that didn't in any way shape of form actually promote racism, and stand up to anyone who accused them of it. that'd actually be preferable, 'cos then racists wouldn't be able to harp on about non-existant media coverups and conspiracies.

the finer points make a difference. anyhoo, you missed one of my main points. the measurement on the left gives a false representation. it wasn't a rise in temperature; it was a sudden chill, coincidentally followed later by a sudden heatwave. the difference between an obviously anomolous chill and an obviously anomolous heatwave / time inbetween != a period of sudden heating. it = a period of somewhat erratic temperature, with two anomolies in close proximity. or, in other words, you are measuring the range/fluctuation over a certain time, not the general change. on the right, by comparing the lowest to the highest, you're actually doing the same btw, and by doing so it looks like you're over-reporting GW by 0.5-0.9C for the period (you're reporting 1.2C increase over 80 years, whereas 0.6C over cantRememberBut80yearsSoundsClose is actually the case). when you just look at the means: on the left, the mean looks to be very slightly decreasing over time; on the right, the mean looks to be suddenly increasing.

In the words of southpark: Just remember what the MPAA says: Horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words tbh, i dont get the point of sensoring words in any medium where you can't accidentally hear it, like computer games, as long as there are warnings so that people can choose to expose themselves to it or not. mind, i only bearly see the point of sensoring profanities on TV after the watershead. not that 'god damn it' is really a profanity

that, plus the fact that labour aren't going to switch to direct proportional representation, makes me pretty sus that labour are intentionally exploiting this. yes, but the point in a representative democracy is that a representative should only have overall control of the govournment if he has overall support from the country. if he only has partial support, then he should only have partial power. Labour represent a large minority (i.e., only 35% of the country), yet they have overall control. this, imo, is wrong. why, for example, should the 35% that voted labour get their representative to have overall control, whilst the the 32% that voted conservative have to take a back-seat role (especially as 65% in total voted someone other than labour). also, labour need only please those same 35% to get re-elected... hardly democratic.

the 'blair resigns' thread reminded me of this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/constituencies/default.stm share of vote at last general election: Labour: 35.3% Conservative: 32.3% Liberal Democrat: 22.1% Others: 10.3% so, about a third of the people who voted voted for labour. percentage-wize, there should have been a hung parliment, or a coalition: either labour-libdem, labour-conservative, or conservative-libdem. for a hung-parliment, a libdem-other coalition would have resulted in a pretty even three-way split in power between labour, cons, and libdem-other. however, the actual results by seats (i.e., in the way that matters) were: LAB 356 CON 198 LD 62 giving labour an overall majority. couple observations: libdem got ~ 2/3 as many votes as labour, whilst they only have ~1/6th the seats. conservative got pretty much the same share of votes as labour, whereas they only have a bit over 1/2 the seats. labour only got ~1/3 the votes, yet have a majority; in other words, they now have overall power in the country, whilst only having the support of a minority of the population. is this not, essentially, winning the election via simpsons paradox, due to the way that the seat-system works? and, does allowing a party to win with only the support of a minority not remove democratic accountability, and thus foil the whole point of democracy? if so, why is no-one complaining?

if your talking about the general population, then brown doesn't need to inherit blairs animosity, as he has plenty of his own. the quite common oppinion is that, as chancellor of the exchequor (not sure if you have this in the US: he's basically in charge of economic stuff, taxation, budget etc) he's introduced lots of stealth taxes, unpopular taxes like inheritance tax, widened the gap between rich and poor, done away with student grants, and all the stuff the tree said. not sure how fair those critisisms are, but they're the common ones.

http://jxj.base10.ws/magsandj/rew/2003_06/solar_thermal.html they're not really solar panels (they're solar thermal thingumyjoggas), but half-way down there's pictures of solar power generator that use mirrors.

I have a couple of issues with that. 1/ on the right, you're comparing a low taken from proxy-data to a high taken from thermometers. why? 2/ on the right, if you measure from the green trough just to the left of the pink trough that you measured from, it looks like it would report a sharper increase. 3/on the left, you measure from an anomolous trough to an anomolous peak; on the right, you measure from a non-anomolous trough to a possibly anomolous peak (taking anomolous to mean sharp deviation from the trend, not a deviation from what the trend should be). this gives a false represenation of the temperature increase on the left. the temperature difference/time is as pronounced, but not the general temperature increase. all this means is that once, a random heatwave followed a random chill quickly enough to match our increase, which we've managed without (at the least) a random chill. look at the bit on the left: there's about a 0.6C difference between the mean (for the time) and the random peak, which is the largest jump i can see in the pink. on the right, even if we assume the peak is a random one, theres a 0.8C jump from the mean for the time to the peak. 4/ overall, we're hugely above the mean. which is from 1961-1900, well in the industrial era. note that almost ALL the times before the industrial era are below the average. i.e., it kinda shows that the average from 1961-1990 was hotter than most of the last millenia.

loss of habitat = extinction is sort of a tautology, if you take habitat as 'place where you can live'. introduction of predetors (including humans), competing species, pollution, phisical distruction of local geography, etc, all count as loss of habitat if the effect is that your habitat is no longer inhabitable* by you (habitat denial, as sayo said). from that, i'd assume 'making it so that all the places they're trying to live are uninhabitable** to them' would be the number 1 cause of extinction * hmm... does that mean 'can inhabit it', or 'unhabitable'? I meant 'can inhabit it'. **this one means 'unhabitable'. sorry

thank you. see, now i know what the **** you're talking about from the same article: the greenhouse effect adds about 30C to the temperature of the globe. the greenhouse effect is all of the GHGs trapping heat. now, CO2 contributes 9-24% of this greenhouse effect, i.e. 9-24% of 30C lets go with 15%, as it's in the middle. 15% of 30C is 4.5C. so, CO2 contributes 4.5C to the greenhouse effect, and so all the CO2 contributes 4.5C to the total heat of the earth. but wait! humans have recently increased [CO2] by 35%, so CO2s contribution will surely rise by 35%: old[CO2] = 4.5C [CO2]*1.35 = 4.5C*1.35 #this is adding 35% to both sides new[CO2] = 6.07C thats a difference of 1.5C. so, surely from this the recent increase of [CO2] should have added 1.5C to our greenhouse effect, and the earth should have heated up by 1.5C. BUT, it's only heated up by 0.6C :eek: this is because the relationship between [CO2] and temperature is not liniar. neither is it simple. increasing [CO2] by 35% will not increase [CO2]s contribution to the greenhouse effect by 35%. I'm pretty sure this bit disproves your logic, you know. yes. and the last pint was 100% responsible for the change in drunkenness from the penultimate pint. similarly: the change in [CO2] is responsible for 100% of the change in [CO2]-caused-heat from the point before the extra CO2 was added. ok, look. making up figures for the sake of the example: [CO2] = 100ppm, tempFromCO2 = 10C [CO2] = 110ppm, tempFromCO2 = 12C a few things to note: 1/ in the first example, 1ppm = 0.1000C; in the second example, 1ppm = 0.1091. this is non-liniarity. 2/ the difference between the second and first example is +10ppm, +2C. now, in the second example, each ppm is responsable for 0.1091C. each 10ppm is therefore responsible for 1.091C; yet, the 10ppm increase is completely responsable for the 2C increase. if you really look at what's happening there, then: 10ppm initially = 1.000C. an additional 10ppm effects a 2C change; NOT a 1.000C change, as you might expect. furthermore, once 10ppm are added, each 10ppm is responsable for 1.091C; no longer just 1.000C. the 10ppm increase is still entirely responsible for the 2C increase, not just a 1.091C increase, despite the fact that any given 10ppm only contribute 1.091C. so, depending on which way you look at it, you can see 10ppm as contributing 1C, 2C, or 1.091C. crazy, but entirely true. this is why /\[CO2] calculations are non-trivial. 10ppm contribute 1.091C, BUT the 10ppm increase increased temperature by 2C. alternatively, any given 1.091C is caused by 10ppm, but the 2C increase was caused by 10ppm. do you see? this is why your attempt to divide the recent change in temperature across all CO2 is incorect; when talking about GW, you are talking about the 0.6C increase, and how much of that is attributable to the 24%[CO2] increase will not be the same as how much any given 0.6C of the greenhouse effect 24%[CO2] is responsable for. to use the above example, what you were doing was saying: hey, a 2C increase in temperature. and a 10ppm increase in [CO2]. now, 10ppm = 1.091C. so, a 10ppm increase must account for just 1.091C, which is roughly half of 2C. the 10ppm increase is, therefore, responsable for roughly half the 2C increase. when, clearly, it's responsable for all of it. the ippc, afaik, don't maintain a scientific journal. nor did they peer-review, per se; rather, someone published a paper expressing the opinion that the ipcc report represented consensus, which itself was peer-reviewed. afaik, no-ones rebuked that paper; hence, the statement 'the ipcc report represents consensus' is scientifically supported. which, in turn, means that the ipcc report is scientifically supported, which is somewhat unsurprising.

i think it's fair to concede that the sun is responsable for the majority of the warmth in the globe theres a total lack of scientific* evidence that the sun has changed in a way that could have caused recent temperature differences. plus, 1veedos graph clearly demonstraits that it was pirates. so no, it's not the sun. sorry. *actual scientific evidence, that's actually scientific.

'somewhere in wikipedia, go look for it' does not count as a source. which article? then you should have said '3C correlates to 20% increase in H2O', not 'causes'. different things. right. and, using your figures, it'd be 9-24% of that increase is due to an increase in CO2, whereas the rest is presumably due to an increase in H2O. you cannot compare an increase in temperature to the total levels of GHGs. compare the increase to the increase, or the total to the total; not a mish-mash whereby you try to attribute a temperature change to the total levels of GHGs. to paraphrase hagaar: it's like saying it only takes one pint to get me pissed, whilst ignoring that the one pint that gets me pissed is generally the ninth one its true, from that, that 9 pints = pissed, and so each pint (including the last) contributed 1/9th of the overall inebreation its true from that that the change of 1 pint resulted in the change from tipsy-->pissed. its not true (and this is what you're doing) that the change in alcohol, which is 1/9th of the total alcohol, contributed to 1/9th of the change from tipsy to pissed, hence the last pint was only 0.111111 responsible for the change in inebrety. it was 0.1111 responsable for the entire level of inebriation; it was wholey responsable for the change in level of inebriation from the level@8-pints to the level@9-pints. assuming it's linear. which it probably isn't (so, it's a perfect analogy to your calculation) yes. the simple explanation is that the climate is a system of interconnected subsystems that have complex and non-obvious effects on one-another. for example: CO2 traps heat, and warms the planet up. this melts ice. ice reflects heat, so the melting of ice results in another slight increase in temperature. also, increased temperature results in increased atmospheric H2O, which is itself a GHG. so, another increase follows. this effects the amount of cloud cover, which has a somewhat unpredictable (with current knowledge) effect on global warming. these effects are all antagonistic, and you have to bear in mind, when factoring in the increase from any given effect, that a temperature increase will cause even more atmospheric H2O, ice melt, and cloud change, which will again cause more temperature increases (no, not infinately), which have to be factored in aswell. now, i've explained the above in simple terms. you can somewhat start to examine the effects of each individual bit in simplish terms that give you the jist of whats going on. but to examin the whole thing, and the exact interactions, is not possible whilst still being 'simple'. sorry. not to mention that, beyond a certain point, other factors come into play. i linked a paper earlyer saying that beyond a certain temperature, oceans become a CO2 source, not a sink. id assume that beyond a point, the level of icemelt increases the ocean volume to a point where the increased ability of the ocean to act as a sink becomes relevent, and has to be factored in. in addition, changing climate will result in a changing ecosystem, with plants taking up a different amount of CO2, which also has to be taken into account, as does our rate of deforestation. I absolutely assure you, the climate will never be expressable as simply as a few additions and multiplications. from the citation: Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities also (emphasis mine): Human activities have increased the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols since the pre-industrial era. The atmospheric concentrations of key anthropogenic greenhouse gases (i.e., carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and tropospheric ozone (O3)) reached their highest recorded levels in the 1990s, primarily due to the combustion of fossil fuels, agriculture, and land-use changes http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf (pdf) and, no, the ipcc are not biased. as i pointed out, it's been scientifically proven that the ipcc represents consensus ('beyond ivory towers', which i'd point out was published in a peer-reviewed journal). can you find any articles suggesting natural causes of /\[GHG]? btw, just incase you arent aware: [blah] means 'consentration of blah', and triangle means change in. none against = consensus. so, yes, scientific.

I did my dissertation on this, and i think it's a relitively interesting idea. the basic jist is as follows: find a restrictase and methylase that are both small enough to fit through the nuclear membrane (<50kDa) so that they can get from the cytoplasm to the genome. find a methylase that methylates the sequence HCH (H = notG) at the 4 position (eg, H 4-methyl-C H). this is so that the methylation will not interfere with the eukaryotic gene silensing method (of methylating CG pairs), and because, afaict, 4-methyl-cytosine glycolase does not exist (so the BER mechanism will not reverse the methylations). Find a restrictase that recognises a sequence containing HCH, that will not restrict the sequence if the C is 4-methylated (so that it will actually work properly with the methylase), and is a 4-cutter (for reasons that will be explained later). both res and mod enzyme need to function at 36C, and be expressable by humans, and the genes need to be small enough to fit in a vector. Citrobacter feundii has the closest res/mod system i could find: size seq gene length temp Cfr9I 36.8kDa CCCGGG <1KBp 37C M.Cfr9I 4.7kDa C(4-methyl-C)CGGG <1KBp 37C dont know if they'll express in humans, and its a 6-cutter cos i couldn't find a 4-cutter with the correct qualities (tbh, i'm surprised i found this one). anyhoo, the plan is: whack the methylase gene into CD4+ cells' (or hematopoietic stem cells') genomes, and allow the cells to make methylase and the genome to become methylated either whack the res gene in later, or at the same time but make sure it'll become active after the methylase has had a chance to protect the host's genome. now, the CD4+ cells have a res/mod system (ta-da). cell division will result in hemi-methylated DNA, which will be protected from restriction and will become fully methylated as is normal for res/mod systems. any invading HIV will reverse-transcribe in the cytoplasm, and will be restricted. if any HIV inserts into the genome it'll create an unmethylated patch and the CD4+ cells genome will be restricted, essentially creating a suicide system so that the infected CD4+ cells kill themselves rather than pass the disease on. theres a slight chance (as with any res/mod system) that the invading DNA will pick up the modification before being restricted, in which case the fact that HIV is spread in RNA form will prevent it from carrying the modification about with it. so, yeah, it should be increadably hard for HIV to spread in the individual if their CD4+ cells have a res/mod system. an obvious problem is that any HIV already present will be methylated along with the host genome, so will be completely immune to the res/mod system. but it might be useful as a vaccine for those at high risk, or as a treatment to keep CD4+ count up (or, i suppose, as a way of making a population of clean CD4+ cells in advance of a 'cull' of HIV+CD4+ cells, using a suicide gene or something). that is, of course, assuming that it'd work, and whatnot. there were loads of potential pitfalls that i couldn't figure out, like wether 4-methyl-C is actually invisable to the BER system, and what exactly would happen with an invading HIV that was restricted in the genome (the pre-integration-complex would have it's DNA cut up, but the end bits of DNA, wrapped in integrase, would be intact; would this insert dijested DNA into the genome?) and so on and so forth. but, one potential huge benifit (and the reason it needs to be a 4-cutter) is that it's incredibly unlikely that HIV could evolve out all instanses of a 4-bp sequence from it's genome, so it could be the one treatment that HIV can't evolve around. So, yeah, whatcher recon? feasable?

yes, i know. but when people say GW, they don't mean the fact that the globe is warm. they mean the fact that it's getting hotter, and the amount by which it's getting hotter. irreguardless, i dont know what your initial figures actually refer to as you won't provide a source. with you now. but, again assuming the figures are correct, I'm pretty sure that 26% increase is what's responsable for 24% of GW, as opposed to 100% of the CO2 is responsible for 24% of the warming. by your logic, the 74% that is non-man-made is contributing to 74% of 24% of GW. however, this 74% was there before, and there was no GW. see what i'm saying? GW is most likely the result of an increase in atmospheric CO2. the fact that the 'extra' CO2 accounts for 24% doesn't mean that the extra CO2 only causes 24% of GW. unless the initial figures meant otherwize. a citation would help. hint, hint. no. assuming a non-linear relationship where none exists does not make you 'a bit off', it makes you completely wrong. it invalidates your entire calculation. no i'm not, as each incriment is a % of the last, i.e. smaller. this makes it finite before it equilibriates. but it does mean that it has to be taken into account, as the effect can be larger than it seems like it should. eg, if x causes 0.5y and y causes 0.5x, then what you did was this: we have 1x, which causes 0.5y, so we have 1x+0.5y. however, that 0.5y causes 0.25x, which causes 0.125y, which causes 0.0625x etc. added up, they approach, but never reach, roughly 1.5x+0.7y. this is significantly different from 'infinitely esculating' and also from 1x+0.5y this (is one of many things that) stops your '3C = 20% H2O increase, therefore 0.6C = 3/0.6*20% increase' being correct. yes, but, not 100% of the current temperature is caused by the excess CO2. the temperature that was already here is not an issue: it's the extra temperature. again, i'd appreciate a citation of the initial figures so i can figure out what you're exactly on about. certainly btw, as i'm sure you know, 'provide a citation' does not mean provide a list of random citations. extra. CO2. causes. extra. radiation. blockage. causes. extra. temperature. don't bother arguing, just give me a citation for the initial figures. this is really the crux of your problem. the climate does not behave as simply as that. go read the last link i provided to just one small and very complicated aspect of climatology. look, theres little point in going into your calculation in this great a depth. to invalidate it, it's enough to more-or-less say 'its not that simple' (not linear, for a start). i'm just trying to explain to you why it's not that simple.

ok, i think i see what you're getting at now. i'm going to assume for this post that those numbers are correct. note, tho, that this doesnt' neccesarily mean that 100% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of 9-24% of GW. GW, remember, is the recent 'increase' in temperature, not all the temperature. im pretty sure it basically means the extra CO2 is the cause of 9-24% of the extra temperature. tho, as you havent given a link, i can't check. I'm not sure what the 35/135 is all about, and it still seems paradoxical. man has caused a 35% increase in atmospheric CO2. divided 35 by 135 = man has caused a 26% increase in CO2. how do you derive a 26% anthropogenic increase in CO2 from the observation that there is a 35% anthropogenic increase in CO2? temporarily accepting 26% for the sake of discussion, note that it's just this 26% of the CO2 that's been contributing to GW. i.e., it's just the increase in CO2 that has caused an increase in temperature; the CO2 that was allready there is not causing an increase (as it will already have contributed to the temperature that was allready there), if that makes sence? just going on what you said, that is unlikely to be linear. e.g., if 3C = 20% inc [H2O], it doesn't neccesarily follow that 1.5C = 10% inc [H2O]. also, it's regressive(?), by which i mean the increase in temperature will cause extra atmospheric H2O, which will increase temperature (as its a GHG), which will raise temperature, causing more H2O, etc etc. making this: wrong. the 0.6C increase will have caused some extra H2O, which will have increased the temperature, which will increase H2O (etc). the way you are stating it would imply that the temperature increases, which then causes H2O, which then has no effect. you are assuming 3C correlates to 20%H2O, whereas you stated causes; you are also assuming a linear relationship. You do realise that this implies that 100% of the 0.6C increase in temperature was due to man? even if it's true, again remember that GW is an 'increase' in temperature caused mainly by an 'increase' in GHGs. so, saying that only 3.8% of the atmospheric H2O is caused by man means little; all it means is that the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric H2O is 3.8%, and it is this 3.8% that causes H2Os contribution to the recent increase in temperature. if your assumptions are correct (which is doubtful), if the relationships are linear (which they're not), and if youve accounted for everything (which you havent), and if you can explain the oddity whereby 35% becomes 26%, then yes, the above is correct. an alternative way of looking at it (assuming these stats are correct): 9-24% of GW is from the extra CO2 ~100% of the extra CO2 is from man. therefore, taking only CO2 into account, man is responsible for ~1*(9 to 24%) = between roughly 9 and 24% of GW by extra CO2 alone, without considering knockon effects (eg, the extra CO2 causing extra temperature causing extra H2O causing more extra temperature, etc)

Because one side is science, our best known method of discerning facts. as for 'why are [your] calculations overly simplistic': http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11089968&dopt=Citation one of the first results for 'global warming' in google scholar. look-see at the complexity: just assesing one aspect of the carbon cycle (which is just one aspect of GW) is alot more complicated than you are willing to admit that predicting the overall effects of GW is. not to mention that your calculations were paradoxical, as the conclusion rebuked the premice. which, and i'll say this again, is a pretty clear indication of invalid logic thats why GW predictions often show multiple possibilities, predicted by multiple models, and nothing is taken for granted unless all models indicate that it's probably going to happen. no. take evolution for an example again. you can render it down simply enough that someone can 'get the jist' with minimal effort; however, you cannot make accurate predictions/deductions about allele frequency changes based on 'the jist' of evolution, and some of the calculations are, by neccesity, very complex.

eco's a mod 1/5 isn't too bad