ExtraSense

Is it just a desire to keep on an appearance of propriety? ... On the higher level, how is it possible for hoaxes like quantum computing exist? es

Yes, on the path of corruption es

It is a way to avoid some problem, but in my opinion is impossible to do. The journalist is inevitably judging his material. What is being acclaimed as objectivity is to take a middle position. The objectivity really must mean to take objective position: if one side is wrong, one is supposed to take the side that is right. es

Absolutely it is an opposite of the intent of these institutions and their original role. But as they've get perverted, they become poster boys for the dishonesty and shams. es

There are few who might do the right thing. This by no means change the fact that as a whole, those institutions have been prostituted into self-serving parasites. es

Dialectics claims, that everything turns into its opposite. Who knew this will happen to the media and academia of all things?! Academia has turned into fools and parasites, as media has turned into parasites and fools. And like it was said, if the salt loses its saltiness, what can be used to salt it anymore? Can anything be done? ES

Thanks, I have fixed the link http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/politics/10396016.htm e s

NASA O'Keefe to resign! Hopefully, the new boss will kick the NASA science team morons out, and we will smell fowers !!!!!! Mars is selebrating But, he is going to become University Pres! Pseudoscience concervation law to be confirmed... http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/politics/10396016.htm es

We could reintroduce dynosaurs, for a change e s

this particular statement was added by me es

The CO2 level has been estimated to be about 30 times that of today some 200 million years ago, and about 5 times that of today 60 million years ago .What happen to all that CO2? It was consumed by vegetation. And turned into fossil fuels, if you will. es

The keyword is "virtually" e s

You are absolutely right about it es

Since you did not read the conclusion of my post: *** The photosynthesys consumes 120 GtC/year. We add 3.3 GtC/year. It is less than 3pct of what photosynthesys currently consumes. If we were able to add 3pct of right vegetation, while keeping soils and ditrius CO2 outflow constant, it would compensate for all anthropogenic emissions. *** On other hand if we will continue deforestation, we will continue the path of accelerated global warming. es

2.1 Natural carbon fluxes GtC / year Atmosphere --> terrestrial vegetation 120 Photosynthesis Terrestrial vegetation --> atmosphere 60 Respiration Terrestrial vegetation --> soils & detritus 60 Soils & detritus --> atmosphere 60 Respiration --------------- atmosphere change = 0 Atmosphere --> surface ocean 90 Surface ocean --> atmosphere 90 --------------- atmosphere change = 0 Surface ocean --> deep ocean 90 Inorganic carbon Surface ocean --> deep ocean 10 Organic carbon Deep ocean --> surface ocean 100 Mostly inorganic --------------- atmosphere change = 0 TOTAL ATMOSPHERE CHANGE = ZERO !!!!! These fluxes are averages for 1980-1989, with anthropogenic carbon omitted. --------- 2 Anthropogenic carbon fluxes Carbon dioxide sources GtC / year Fossil fuel burning, cement production 5.5 (5.0-6.0) Changes in tropical land use 1.6 (0.6-2.6) Total anthropogenic emissions 7.1 (6.0-8.2) Partitioning among reservoirs GtC / year Storage in the atmosphere 3.3 (3.1-3.5) Oceanic uptake 2.0 (1.2-2.8) Uptake by Northern Hemisphere forest regrowth 0.5 (0.0-1.0) Additional terrestrial sinks: CO2 fer- tilization, nitrogen fertilization, climatic effects 1.3 (-0.2-2.8) TOTAL ATMOSPHERE CHANGE = 3.3 Gtc/year Now, this article has data, that can be relied upon. At least, it is the data that current pseudoscience use to talk about Global Warming. My point is, that they misunderstand the data they have and use. The photosynthesys consumes 120 GtC/year. We add 3.3 GtC/year. It is less than 3pct of what photosynthesys currently consumes. If we were able to add 3pct of right vegetation, while keeping soils and ditrius CO2 outflow constant, it would compensate for all anthropogenic emissions. es

Apparently, being a mod is dangerous to your d'agree. You do not believe that plants get their hydrocarbons from diet supplements, do you? e s

The plants are build of hydrocarbons. Where do they get the carbon for those, but from the air CO2?

Ok, we are all at it together. Not farming although, they are not food exporters, rather importers. The point is, that if we'll stop driving cars, heating houses and cooking food, the global warming will still continue on. We must dedicate an effort to keeping greens and expanding greens. es

It is not what the data appear to say. It is possible to some extent, but the decline of forestation is obvious, and its effect coincides with CO2 rise. es

You must then disagree with theory that oxigen in our atmosphere was set out by the plants. I do not know any alternative theory . es

According to data I assume to be correct, about 100pct of CO2 withdrawal from atmosphere, is due to photo synthesis: http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html es

By the way, there is no such thing. Marx've get it all wrong.

It appears, that available data show that CO2 level is rising. The nitwits claim that reason for that is industrial and car-produced poluton. Assumingly, atmospheric CO2 rise is the main cause of observed warming. But it is known, that influx of CO2 is almost precisely balanced by plant photosythesis. It is much more likely that decline in forestation is the reason of CO2 rise, not the fossil fuels. So, the right way to prevent global warming is to have more forestation and more other plants. But the proponents have anti-capitalist agenda. They want to stick it to US, that it is guilty of global warming. The reality is that the poor countries that destroy their forestation are the most likely culprits. ES

Here is an example of what goes for philosophy and is just pseudo. And it is embedded in your signature quote of Nietzsche! "The strongest knowledge (that of the total unfreedom of the human will)... " (Nietzsche, 1879). That knowlege is unfreedom, is a misunderstanding, common to Nietzsche and Marx. It is still repeated and taught more than hundred years later. And you call it "science". e s

Even if some of them are? Is not it a way to do not mend their vicked ways? es