not rely on a corporation to provide the service for you

uh.... he said "life finds a way", implying that the scientist's assumptions will be proven false, and their efforts will have been proven ineffective.

yeah, the nerves around their funny bone.

they probably set the whole thing up so they could document the attempts rather than dream them up on their own so they could develop a counter procedure policy.

i'd rather determine for myself who is worthy of a positive reputation.

and that uncertainty somehow contradicts my statement about the vast problems with current long term climate prediction methods?

you are saying NOTHING.

gravity is a singular force. climate is the culmination of all forces. your analogy is flawed.

you don't think this debate has happened 20,000 times already? no one has shown conclusively that reducing CO2 alone would do anything, and there is a counter-argument (ozone) that also hasn't been be proven false.

you shouldn't let it anger you that i'm more aware than you about the ways you miscalculate.

#3 PENCILS!

so the CO2 isn't buffering the holes in the ozone and saving us all from solar radiation anymore?

uh.... NO THEY DIDN'T. you're just not capable of answering them without contradicting yourself, and you'd rather not continue to be proven irrational and small minded.

you said we needed to be cautious to preserve the future of "the species"... i asked questions directly related to that... no suppositions, no implications. the human species has a single method of survival in the long term: procreation. or are you convinced you're developing a new method with all that lotion and kleenex?

you said "I would rather not risk the future of the species"... i asked what made you think anyone would allow you to take that risk if you wanted to... no suppositions, no implications

you're an idiot. you're welcome.

your failure to attempt to answer my questions has allowed me to learn much about you and your ability to defend the claims you have made. i don't think you'll ever learn. i agree that you do not possess the the capacity to learn going forward. my forecasting model puts that capacity beyond the event horizon... i call the trend "globalmorono idiocification"... WE ALL GONNA DIE()*^!#&)*(!&#%^

so is being cautious having more children to directly extend the future of humans ("the species"), or is being cautious not having more children because of the implied carbon footprint of each individual?

perhaps one of your super smart scientist friends can decide which people get the right to breed. perhaps it should be illegal to burn coal so the end of humanity's ability to survive directly in earth's atmosphere is delayed a few millennia. a few really great millennia, i'm sure, where we all sit around and watch plants grow and sleep next to the donkey hut.

what makes you think you have the right to risk or not risk the future of earth or any species?

(side note: "THE species"??? really? not "OUR species"? what are you?)

uggg... and MY ENTIRE POINT is that there is no reason to assume the data will continue to match the predictions. that is one of the reasons they are called "predictions". the answer is NOT no... the GUESS is no.

can you prove to me that a bacteria doesn't exist that lays dormant until average global temperature levels don't reach a certain low over a certain period, then it thrives and expels great quantities of a waste product that will serve to directly cool the planet?

solar orbits decay... of course all planets will have long term warming trends. short term, today's models are laughable at best.

i'm not talking about the factors we know and can model, i'm talking about the factors we don't know and haven't modeled.

you're certainly not claiming such factors don't exist, are you?

B.S.:

article:

uh... NO. he doesn't want to know what people charge, he wants to know what people pay. WHAT THEIR COSTS ARE.