ghstofmaxwll

What is??? CO2? Im talking about measuring the amount of greenhouse compounds and the amount of heat that is being trapped due to them i.e. the greenhouse barrier. OK just show me data for an increase of atmospheric CO2, thats the first I've heard of it. For what reasons? Do NASA back you up that anthropogenic global warming is a fact from this model(or any other)? I think you will find that they dont. They employ real climatologists.

Once you've lost the arguments you have to pick at me yeah? Maybe I should have used the word barrier. No! His so called conclusion is not scientific. It is an assertion based on indirect correlation. Climate has many complex interacting variables so picking on CO2 being increased is an assumption. And we cannot directly measure the blanket of greenhouse gases surrounding the earth. For your information Dick for brains, even the most complex models on supercomputers cannot come any way near to irreproachable accuracy and in fact usually fall well off course pretty soon. Ask the treasury or the MET office about their billion £s systems! I ask you people again to come up with a scientific conclusion based on the findings, and ditch the assertions.

Yes I meant year....He said year, yeah? Student brains are usually preserved by alcohol, but the side effects are obviously more instant.

No! The initial premise was clearly that someone can hold their breath for a year without suffocation and the inability to prove it cant be done. It didnt imply freezing was a part of the premise. Make your initial premise that their breath holding can involve means of preservation other than the normal preservation of life coming from the intake of oxygen (if indeed your belief is that frozen bodies are not in fact dead) then, otherwise your argument is not logical but a mere trick question.

But only certain lower organs in other species have been frozen for a short time and recovered. Human brains definitely are not included.

Does it make no difference to you that you have moved the goal posts duing your propositions? Your opening argument was that you cant prove you can hold your breath for a year( holding your breathe requires you to be alive, yes?)....So why did you move the parameters for the logical outcome to include dead people? By the way, people who are being so called "cryonically frozen" after death are being defrauded...There is no known chemical solution that can prevent tissue being damaged from freezing, hence a frost bitten limb will be wholly irrecoverable. Besides who is going to keep those freezers going if alcor have squandered your money a century earlier?

That is true, but it all comes down to the probability of a god planting evidence, and the probability of control freaks in pointy hats making up a load of nonsense and calling it the 10000 revised biblical truth. Basically it comes down to logic and reasoning versus being fooled by human nature.

I'm lazy you see. I just saw you saying it was wrong(assuming you meant evolution does not fit). Some of these posts here have heavyweight references and links, so not very conducive for the casual asshole( like me) to digest.

Sorry, was you not one of the people arguing evolution is flawed? I jumped in late in the argument.

This "know" you speak of is in fact not knowledge but biblical assertion. We know nothing of the sort in regard to evolution being wrong whereas we know plenty about it being correct. If you look in the dictionary you will find the word "know" is the quality of seeing the underlying factuality. not the quality of being told something is true by a higher authority. I think you know full well that science isnt about forcing belief on anyone, but allowing students to experiment and find out through records that a finding(such as evolution) stands up.

It doesnt matter! What matters primarily is the context of your graph i.e. what goes before and after your selective snapshot of 30years out of the earths 4+ billion years of greenhouse activity. Where since the planetesimal stage, concentrations of greenhouse compounds(molecules with two or more unlike atoms) have surely reached bigger spikes while they have in fact decreased. I am aware that complexity and number of variables in the best climate models we can come up with need super computers . But you implied that modeling of any sort can only be performed on a computer, which someone that has ever gone through mathematical modeling education would not do.

Why was Fred banned?

You see, the key word here is "interpret". You cant interpret something to an extent of removing doubt. Anything that needs interpretation also need extreme caution when stating a conclusion. real scientists know this. No scientist will ever say the following: "We have interpreted that so and so is fact from our data".

If you had any scientific training instead of copy and pasting out of context trends, you would know that we can model with paper and pen.

....No! just to be cautious so as to find the real mechanism for Greenlands vicious circle. Not just make data fit like a glove into the popular culture of the time.

No! A scientific conclusion would be something a long the lines of: The historical data of (?) year climate trends are consistent with a large increase in atmospheric compounds(green house gases). From this we can indirectly conclude that its possible increased industrial atmospheric compounds( in particular CO2) are the cause of an upward trend, but until we have the ability to measure the direct input of manmade compounds against the output of an increased greenhouse layer and also taking into account the time delay of such a system - We conclude that although this is compelling, we must be extremely cautious in jumping to conclusions of fact in any way.

You see, there are magnitudes of certainty between "cobblers" and "fact". The big bang would have about a 20% magnitude of certainty, relativity 90%. Global warming by humans hasn't even got as long a history of study as those, so you wouldn't even be able to estimate a 20% surety from the indirect data of climate history. Some of the good models with photon scatter could push the probability up a bit though I guess.

Maybe its anthropogenic global season flip, mate.

It doesn't matter how many sources you looneys present it matters what they contain i.e. conclusive data, that rules out natural fluctuation is responsible for a spike in global temperature. Conclusive direct data(not anecdotal) will get me off my soap box over the corruption of scientific process and caution by fad assertions.

I was giving my opinion to the opening question, not a response to any moron here. Jesus Christ ! More blanket assertions of fact for a thing that certainly is not fact(opinion is very much divided among scientists on this matter). Dont you guys ever stay true to scientific accuracy in presentation of figures? No, Richard! You know what you are talking about before claiming facts! Have you studied planetary Physics in between reading media sensationalism?

When just about every layman (who has never studied natural planetary greenhouse effects and climate changes) farts out the latest fad. ....You see! unscientific and evidencless assertions! Exactly! The opposite to unscientific would be to make no claims at all on the basis of an inconclusive peak in global climate temperature, that we have no way of telling from a natural fluctuation.

The insistence that climate change is due to man is scientifically ignorant. Primarily its ignorant to natural peaks and troughs present in complex(multi variable) systems such as the earths climate. Yes there is compelling data that could be consistent with man-made compounds contributing significantly to the earths greenhouse effect. But It is wholly unscientific to claim any certainty what-so-ever, and any scientist who asserts "we are changing our climate" is not a scientist but a political tool.

Dentistry always reminds me of bob fish.

Nice to see ya to see ya nice.

Hi Im new.