Ophiolite

Well, that is rather a valueless comparison. How does it look when we compare vertebrates in general with insects in general? If you are going to compare humans with something, then surely that something needs to be another species? At least within the context of this thread.

In acknowledging the common occurence of coral reefs (which are only one of several processes by which carbonates can form) and the less common occurence of anoxic conditions suitable for the deposition of carbon rich clays, you seem to agree with me that the rate of formation of carbonates is greater than that of source rocks.

Finally, you made some sense. This is such a brilliant summary of the value of your posts in this thread it should receive some kind of award.

I find it difficult to believe you are serious. You have packed so much warped thinking into a handful of sentences I find myself awestruck! Do you have even the remotest concept of the cost of building such walls? Have you given any thought to the environmental impact of such a global construction project? Have you considered the social consequences of such a program? As to the alleged negligence and laziness of scientists, do you actually think scientists have complete freedom to select their projects? And what are these 'short cuts' you claim they take? Finally, as another poster has asked, what exactly have you done to solve lifes problems for others?

Many churches have representations of a Jew nailed to a piece of wood. Would you consider that anti-semitic?

Hal, if your readers tell you that you don't write clearly it is either arrogant or foolish or both to ignore the observation. I make a continuous effort to write clearly. When a reader tells me something I have written is unclear I try to express it differently. If they continue to have difficulties then I check on the comprehension of others. If they understandme I tend to suspect that the fualt in this instance may not be me. I see no evidence that you follow a logical process like this. That's fine, but just accept that you will continue to be misunderstood.

It means the question doesn't really make much sense in context. Sustainable resources usually refer to resources which are being used up at a rate that is equal to or less than the rate at which they are being formed. As Greg and I have both noted, there are huge quantities of calcium carbonate. I add that we don't use very much of it. There is no reason to expect a dramatic rise in its use. The net result is that we could continue to use it for thousands of years, probably longer, before its supply might become an issue. I feel its equivalent to asking 'is nitrogen a sustainable resource'. I think carbonates are forming at an order of magnitude faster than source rocks, but thats a gut feel. Do you have some specific data to support your suggestion.

Current consumption rates appear to be a tiny fraction of the total resource and may well be less than current replacement rates, so the question may not be especially relevant.

Don't be cute. It simply confirms people's low opinion of you. Implicit in my remark is that Captain Panic's prior remarks in this thread reflect my own views up until this point. I think it likely that will continue to be the case, but I certainly do not assert it will be so. You know, a reaonable person might say at this point, "So at least two of you have found my statements ambiguous. Perhaps I do have to work harder at writing clearly. Thanks for the input." Feel free to copy and paste that into a post. Or continue to be misunderstood. It's your choice.

He sure as fuck speaks for me. Your writing style is obtuse and ambiguous. It is explicitly vague and implicitly passive-aggressive. The net result is a thoroughly unpleasant experience for the reader. I trust I make myself clear.

Curiously, as a human, I get annoyed by lies. You said in an earlier post : It is true that you have studiously avoided making any explicit statment, but the implication is that you consider that the changes occuring to wood when heated in an oxygen free atmosphere may be considered as melting. If this was not your intention then you should have been clearer in your statements. My reading comprehension skills have been assessed as significantly above the average, so I tend to suspect the communication failure - if there is one here - is largely your responsibility. You are now engaged in attempting to defend the indefensible : attempting to apply a non-standard technical term in a scientific setting. The only individuals I know who would indulge in such a practice are charlatans or fools. I welcome your identification of the third category that I am missing, since you are doubtless neither a charlatan or a fool.

Good point. I have contributed to the derailment by rising to the bait of Pincho's ludicrous ideas. That is easily dealt with. @ Pincho: it is cruel to mock the afflicted, its just that you make such a tempting target. However, for the moment and certainly in this thread, I am done with your self indulgent nonsense.

On the contrary, I know exactly what I am talking about and that is your intransigent stupidity. There is a definition of melting that is accepted by scientists globally. It is not questioned, doubted, or disputed. Why? Because it is an effective, useful, productive definition. You wish to abuse the term to describe a process that is not melting. Why? As far as i can see it is in a lame attempt to cover up for the fact that you orignally thought that wood could melt. No one would have thought less of you had you admitted as much. We are all ignorant of most things. But you needed to defend the indefensible and in the process reveal yourself as a right prat. Frigging amazing!

The Schiehallion experiment demonstrated attraction. Do you deny this? If so, on what grounds?

No. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you melting is a reversible process. You wish to apply the term melting to some processes that are not reversible. That is an incorrect application of the term. what do you find so difficult to understand about this?

Nevil Maskelyne, 1774 and Schiehallion. Aside on grammar: If English is not your native language you may wish to note that I cannot "tell you an example". I can "give you an example". If English is your native language then shame on you.

Interesting, but not in my view as radical as the press coverage implies. Most workers in the field have thought for some time that there was good evidence for life in the 3.4 to 3.5 Ga range. This 2007 review paper concludes "Taken together these data show why it is that most workers in the field of Precambrian palaeobiology are of the view that the “true consensus for life’s existence” dates from >/= 3500 Ma. "

It is precisely because I wish to avoid attributing viewpoints to you, that you might not actually hold, that I have asked you to explain what benefits could possibly be derived from using your definition of melting. Will you please provide that explanation now.

Your confidence is misplaced, your humanity questionable.

If we deconstruct your post we seem to arrive at a semantic content of zero. Your version not only reads as pseudo science (because it is), but as very poor pseudoscience at that. It doesn't even carry a hint of authenticity or plausibility. Let us take a single example. You say: Attraction between objects has been observed and demonstrated on countless occassions. The theories of gravity currently in use explain these observations and demonstrations more effectively than any other extant theories. You offer no refutation of these theories other than word salad and emotional remonstrations. If your ideas do have value then you are utterly failing to communicate that value because of your singular inability to express a single coherent thought.

Hal, would you explain again why there is any advantage in introducing a term whose meaning conflcits with the well established meaning of melting and which seems to offer no benefits whatsoever?

Something that scientists have done a rather poor job of, is explaining to the public what science is. Lawful Blade, in an elegant post, and ajb have both made clear that science is a process rather than a body of knowledge. This is not how the public sees it. To them, I believe, science is what has been discovered. They therefore confuse exposition of those discoveries in documentaries and popular science books as being science itself. If the distinction were clear and understood then quinjo would not have been confused by Hawking's request to "trust me". For me, this is where science education has to begin with emphasising process over results.

I'm concerned that they won't close it.

This appears to be incorrect. What do you think imparts the additional energy to the tsunami? How high would the wave be once it had dissipated across an entire ocean? Although 100' high, what would the wavelength be? You do realise that movies are even less reliable than chicken entrails when it comes to scientific accuracy? They are only a worry if you are unable to assess news and predictions in calm,objective, rational, scientific manner. Consider that: if you are worried by the predictions then you are not being calm, objective, rational, or scientific.

Could you confirm the chapter and paragraph you are reading this in. Also which edition. I cannot find the material in the location you specified. Also, some of your grammatical structures are difficult to interpret. For example, what do you mean by " ...how variability happens right before conception than anything else." Or, " animals really are impaired to reproduce under confinement." Did you mean "animals really are impaired in their ability to reproduce in confinement."? Thanks.