but WHY did it collapse? was it distribution? poor messaging? slow communication?
A lot of those reason have been solved.
Sometimes people see where a technology is going, and jump to the point, forgetting the need for infrastructure to support it. Once the technology infrastructure is in place, those things become marketable.
In short, you need to eat your meat before you can have you pudding.
Near as I can tell:
The product you link to is a extracorporeal cytokine adsorber.
With this product in the
"A good person will do good; a bad person may do good if the carrot (heaven), or stick (hell), is strong enough to deter them from acting bad"
no. A bad person will say that God wants them to do whatever bad they are doing.
It becomes an excuse.
Yes, public property should be devoid of all religious symbols.
I don't care if you have a manger and the words Christmas on you property.
To put it in a public space is to force a religion onto all the people.
We have Freedom of religion for a reason.
The military FORCING people to be christian and pray is a BAD thing.
There has been a big push to get more religion(Christianity) into the military.
The Mid-East used to be pretty free and open, then religious group started infecting the government, and withing a decade religion was forced onto all the people, and te countries generally stopped producing anything and became ces pools.
Remember, ISIS is claiming the are religiously oppressed because they can't make other people bent to their religion.
Religion alows the ignorant to think what they do is for God, therefore it's OK.
"As a mystic I have _knowledge_ by definition, aka experience."
false. Completly and utterly false. Are you simple?
"Athiest[sic] telling other people what they can and cannot know is the height of ignorance and arrogance. "
which is why we ask for proof.
"They are literally like the blind man telling those who can see color that they are delusional."
so now you are saying you have special vision no one else has? Hoe convenient.
You are simple.
atheism is not a religion.
The rest of your post is 3rd grade tripe.
Every religious conflict with science I have aver read about is due to people being ignorant of their own theology, and/or the history of their holy book.
Example: Bible literalists.
"Quickly grab a sock."
True, but getting those details doesn't change the fact that the horse is still running.
False. Climate change is climate change, global warming id global warming. Anyone who says they are the same, or that it has been changed, is either a liar, or ignorant.
Probably ignorant.
anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
That's what anthropomorphic climate change (ACC) is.
How about you actual look at the science? please.
1. False. AGW has a set of tests and facts. Deniers refuse to accept them. These are tested and testable facts.
2. True about most thing, but frustrating when one side has fcts and the other side totlea argument in NU-UH! However this is irrelevant it happens in many field byu people who aren't the actual scienctist. No bearing on science.
3. False, again.
here:
anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth. Testable? Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes.
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes.
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes.
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes.
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes.
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those fact to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
That's what anthropomorphic climate change (ACC) is: the impact of AGW on the climate.
No, you do not need a control to draw conclusions.
What control do we use for the conclusion we have about gravity?
What mystical crap?
anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through.
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated.
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle.
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those fact to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
That's what anthropomorphic climate change (ACC) is.
How about you actual look at the science?
It's called the 'Mpemba effect '. You might want to look it up.
It doesn't apply here, but it's a real thing.
The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.
