Weather Ch. Founder: The Amazing Story Behind The Global Warming Scam

Artic was hot as hell. A fossilised Turtle found at the North Pole proves the area was once warm and tropical say experts. The American team made the breakthrough after finding the remains of the Asian Turtle in Northern Canada. Scientist John Tarduno said: It must have migrated across the ice free pole.

Who would have thought the North Pole free of ice, yet the AGW loonies are using this as their Holy Grail about rising sea levels etc



Chuffer

I thought all you conspiracy scam buffs had the Georgia guide stones to solve GW.

This thread and some of the posts here belong in skunk works, especially the OP.

reply to post by atlasastro


Typical of a debunker to attempt to make himself seem all-knowledgable by 1. Deflecting attention and 2. insulting others intelligence.

Well done mate, keep up the good work

Personally, I think anybody who falls for this scam is a little low in the intelligence factor themselves. I still fail to see how anybody can overlook the fact that Earth has had major climate upheavals in the past, in times when CO2 and people's bloody 'carbon footprint' could not have been an issue because there was no such thing as a city, or industrialisation.

Originally posted by audas

You continue to REFUSE to provide any links or references to back up any claims you make - further the links references, and voluminous amounts of to the contrary of what you clam are merely dismissed as not relevant simply becuase they utterly destroy your arguments.

The idea that the Carbon Credit scheme will not solve the crisis, or that the uK may benefit financially from it or that it will make it a user pays system falling largely on the shoulders of the private citizen are all utterly true - however at no point does this provide any relevance to counteract the evidence that global warming is a reality - none. It is simply congratulating yourself on your outrageous claims which completely lack any form of substance.

Again - provide links to these mysterious sources ???

I've got 2 good places to for you to start. Please have someone read these to you:

Newsweek:

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. ...

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down.

"The Cooling World " Newsweek, April 28, 1975
(Full Story here)
www.denisdutton.com...

Then, ask them to explain how AGW fell into disrepute:

"The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2)"

Dec. 13, 2007

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity.

In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers ... are prepared by a relatively small core writing team ... . The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
• Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
• The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
• Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.

"100 Scientists' letter to the United Nations on Global Warming"

link to Full Letter:
www.middlebury.net...

That' s astart, and an example of where "consensus" fits in this debate.

I still cannot respond with particularity to your two previous posts as I remain unable to find anyone who can translate Gibberish.

Deny Ignorants

jw

Hi!! I remember a writer which in his books he wrote" ...they will stole the earth under yours foots, they will take taxes for your breath.." this guy was in counter-espionage navy , that was in 1994.
I will post this document and I'll excuses , it was allready posted in ATS, www.21stcenturysciencetech.com...
It is about :
"CO2:
The Greatest
Scientific Scandal
Of Our Time
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc."
S&F for you

reply to post by vasco

Thanks for the info. I'll get the book next time I'm at the library (my list keeps getting longer!)

jw

reply to post by vasco



Excellent article!

The summary of what the author found is the basis of this and similar threads:
"This is a strange and unusual method of operation for a scientific
report, and even stranger is the frankness of the IPCC’s
words about the delay, disclosing its lack of scientific integrity
and independence. It is exactly the same modus operandi
demonstrated in the three former IPCC reports of 1990, 1995,
and 2001: First the politics, then the science."


star for you

deny ignorance

jw


[edit on 2-2-2009 by jdub297]

reply to post by jdub297


sorry I made a miserable mistake, the books which I reading in 1994 have not the same author with Zbigniew Jaworowski. It was a romanian author which in those years everybody considered him nuts , out of rail-way, because was incredible for everyone what he wrote.

Al Gore has a new argument for why carbon dioxide is the global warming boogeyman — and it’s simply out of this world.

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday with yet another one of his infamous slide shows, Gore observed that the carbon dioxide (CO2) in Venus’ atmosphere supercharges the second-planet-from-the-sun’s greenhouse effect, resulting in surface temperatures of about 870 degrees Fahrenheit. Gore added that it’s not Venus’ proximity to the Sun that makes the planet much warmer than the Earth, because Mercury, which is even closer to the Sun, is cooler than Venus. Based on this rationale, then, Gore warned that we need to stop emitting CO2 into our own atmosphere.

Incredibly, not a Senator on the Committee questioned — much less burst into outright laughter at — Gore’s absurd point. In fact, each Senator who spoke at the hearing, including Republicans, offered little but fawning praise for Gore. It’s hard to know whether the hearing’s lovefest was simply an example of the Senate’s exaggerated sense of collegiality, appalling ignorance and gullibility about environmental science, or fear of appearing to be less green than Gore.

It is true that atmospheric CO2 warms both Venus and the Earth, but that’s about where the CO2 commonality between the two planets ends. While the Venusian atmosphere is 97 percent CO2 (970,000 parts per million), the Earth’s atmosphere is only 0.038 percent CO2 (380 parts per million). So the Venusian atmosphere’s CO2 level is more than 2,557 times greater than the Earth’s. And since the CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is increasing by only about 2 parts per million annually, our planet is hardly being Venus-ized.

Gore’s incorporation of Mercury in his argument is equally specious because Mercury doesn’t really have any greenhouse gases in its atmosphere that would capture the radiation it gets from the Sun. As a result, the daily temperature on Mercury varies from about 840 degrees Fahrenheit during the day to about -275 degrees Fahrenheit at night. Mercury’s daily temperature swing actually belies Gore’s unqualified demonization of greenhouse gases, whose heat trapping characteristics tend to stabilize climate and prevent wild temperature fluctuations.

The significance of Gore’s testimony is that the Venus scenario seems to be his new basis for claiming that CO2 drives the Earth’s climate and, hence, his call that we must stop emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. At no time did he refer to his two An Inconvenient Truth-era arguments concerning the relationship between CO2 and global temperature — that is, the Antarctic ice core record that goes back 650,000 years and the 20th century temperature/CO2 record. There’s good reason for his apparent abandonment of these arguments — presented fairly, both actually debunk global warming alarmism.

Seriously, does anyone listen to anything this moron says anymore? Didn't this idiot once claim that he invented the Internet? Cuckoo Cuckoo Cuckoo

reply to post by Chuffer

An AGW-endorsing member posted a reply along those same lines. Maybe the member IS Al Gore.

He and Al also forgot to mention that a Venus "day" lasts as long as its orbit - about 300 Earth days; so, it's essentially "roasted" on one side continuously, while most of the rest of us rotate enough to spread the heat.

Wonder what planet/star system they really are from?

I dont think Gore mentioned anything about his company, "Generation Investment Management." They like to advertise their "mission" as: "...find, fund and accelerate green business ... ."

The same companies he and AGW advocates endorse, and G.I.M. invests in, are the recipients of AGW subsidies, grants and other federal spending!

Myron Ebell, Director of Energy & Global Warming Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute observed:
“What we discover in looking at the policies that Mr. Gore advocated in his Senate testimony is that they will make him and his friends extremely wealthy at the expense of consumers, who will be stuck with skyrocketing energy prices.”

While there’s nothing wrong with profit, doing so at taxpayer expense is cynical and greedy – far from the disinterested environmental activist image that Gore presents to the world.

For more on this, see:"Does Gore Gain from Green Policies He Also Advocates?"

GlobalWarming.org
www.globalwarming.org...

Competitive Enterprise Institute: cei.org

jw

Lots of opinions here.... let's try to "present the facts" as one poster so eloquently asks. I looked at the absorption of RF energy by Carbon Dioxide, figured that we should present this study:


Atmospheric Absorption Line parameters

Then, another study by an eminent meteorologist on the topic:

Study

Yet another study:

CO2 good.....

And another study:

Study

I offer this modest research, gentle reader. I also challenge previous posters as to the "intelligence" of those that attempt to rein in the hysteria of the global warming (or global climate change) proponents. I offer scientific evidence, not simple news articles.


Enjoy.







[edit on 09/20/2008 by Amniodarone]

reply to post by Amniodarone


Your contributions are appreciated as an objective resource for aiding our consideration of the issue.

I own the Lehr compilation, "Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns,” and find their collection of written analyses and articles very helpful to my understanding on a multitude of issues. Although they cover many diverse topics, some of their selections apply across the board.

Some of the most obvious (I'd already flagged these) include the following:

“Skepticism, not advocacy, is the heart of the scientific method.” Chamberlain, 1965

“Because it is obvious that self-interest creates conflict-of-interest, rarely are human endeavors so exclusively self-policing as science is.”
Environmental Tyranny, Raphael G. Kazmann

“Clearly, the growth of scientific advocacy -be it acid rain or global warming- is a cancer on science. Such activity is science in name only.” Raphael G. Kazmann, ibid.

The Shaw article is directly apropos:
“Is Environmental Press Coverage Biased?” Jane S. Shaw

Finally, the Hansen study for the National Academy of Science included some interesting observations; especially in light of his later AGW advocacy and discrediting for blatant misrepresentations in his subsequent "studies."

(Hint: not all "Studies" are equal. Witness the fraudulent "Hockey Stick" of Mann, and the most recent inclusions in Nature of studies based on "data" from non-existent Antarctic weather stations!)

Nevertheless, Hansen and his collaborators (maybe because of his collaborators admitted that CO2 is the least important of the GHGs in our atmosphere. Moreover, they recognized that drastic measures are not necessary are not necessary to keep CO2 in check.

Business-as-usual scenarios provide a useful warning about the potential for human-made climate change. Our analysis of climate forcings suggests, as a strategy to slow global warming, an alternative scenario focused on reducing non-CO2 GHGs and black carbon (soot) aerosols. Investments in technology to improve energy efficiency and develop nonfossil energy sources are also needed to slow the growth of CO2 emissions and expand future policy options. Business-as-usual scenarios understate the potential for CO2 emission reductions from improved energy efficiency and decarbonization of fuels.

We suggest equal emphasis on an alternative, more optimistic, scenario. This scenario focuses on reducing non-CO2 GHGs and black carbon during the next 50 years. Our estimates of global climate forcings indicate that it is the non-CO2 GHGs that have caused most observed global warming.

Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario
James Hansen, et al, P.N.A.S. Jnl., August 29, 2000

Again, thanks for your contributions and interest.

Deny ignorance.

jw

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by jdub297
Finally, the Hansen study for the National Academy of Science included some interesting observations; especially in light of his later AGW advocacy and discrediting for blatant misrepresentations in his subsequent "studies."

Hansen has been an AGW 'advocate' since the 1980s. Moreover, you misread the study, as the sources of the noted non-CO2 GHGs are also mainly anthropogenic.

(Hint: not all "Studies" are equal. Witness the fraudulent "Hockey Stick" of Mann, and the most recent inclusions in Nature of studies based on "data" from non-existent Antarctic weather stations!)

lol

"My reading of the summary of the report and parts of the text is that the NAS has rendered a near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al." Roger Pielke Jr. (a slippery contrarian).

But again with the offensive claims of fraud, this time about the Steig article. They integrated satellite (short-term, but larger area) and surface temp data (longer term, but more localised) to get an idea of the time course of climate in Antarctica.

I know those sort of allegations go down well with politically motivated kooks and morons, but not really given much weight in the real-world. You could easily say you think their method is unreliable and their inferences questionable, but to claim fraud (as that is what your comment condenses to) is more a reflection on you.

METHODS SUMMARY
Weuse near-surface air temperature data from42 occupied stations and 65AWSs from the READER (Reference Antarctic Data for Environmental Research) data set1. We use passive infrared brightness measurements (TIR) of surface temperature from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer8, a satellite of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We use the RegEM algorithm9–11 to combine the data from occupied weather stations with the TIR and AWS data in separate reconstructions of the near-surface Antarctic temperature field. Split calibration/verification tests are performed by withholding preand post 1995 TIR andAWS data in separate RegEMcalculations. Calibration and verification statistics are calculated for each grid point fromthe comparison of the reconstructed time series and the original temperature time series. We show RE and correlation r values in Fig. 1. CE verification values yield results indistinguishable from RE in our study and are reported in Supplementary Information. Significance levels of the calibration/verification statistics are based on Monte Carlo simulations of red noise as the null hypothesis. In Fig. 2, the95%confidence interval is the unexplained variance, 2s, where s2 error 5s2 data(12r2 ver), s2
data is the temporal variance in the original satellite temperature data and r2 ver is the verification fractional resolved variance. Significance levels of trends are calculated using a two-tailed t-test, with the number of degrees of freedom adjusted for autocorrelation. In reporting trends for different areas, we define West Antarctica as 72u–90u S, 60u–180u W; East Antarctica as 65u–90u S, 300–180u E; and the Antarctic Peninsula as westerly longitudes north of 72u S.

Steig et al. (2009)

Nevertheless, Hansen and his collaborators (maybe because of his collaborators admitted that CO2 is the least important of the GHGs in our atmosphere. Moreover, they recognized that drastic measures are not necessary are not necessary to keep CO2 in check.

They don't say that. Indeed, if you actually bothered to read the article properly the forcing from CO2 outweighs each of the noted non-CO2 GHG forcings.

As per article: CO2 = 1.2Wm-2; CH4 = 0.7wm-2; N20 = 0.15wm-2; CFCs = 0.35wm-2; O3 = 0.3wm-2. Thus, if we remove a good chunk of those non-CO2 forcings (.7+.15+.35+.3 = 1.5wm-2), then we have a starting point and potentially some breathing space when weighed against current (1.2wm-2) and future CO2 forcing.

The implications are that reducing these other GHGs together can help reduce the impact of CO2 effects. Makes sense really. However, the study also clearly states that CO2 will become an increasing problem if its emissions are not ameliorated, and that 'keep[ing] CO2 in check' will be an issue.

Deny ignorance.

jw

Words are easy.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Melatonin, with all due respect, do you contend that the studies you referenced comprehensively includes all the pertinent variables?

I don't mean to diminish the body of work in question. I am no atmospheric specialist, but assuming many factors, and discounting others seems incongruous. Please take my meaning as it is intended, not as a challenge to the data; but instead as a commentary on the refusal of what, at least to me, seems a disconnect in the reasoning behind anthropomorphism in public policy-making.

We end always fearing ourselves. And in the end the question remains; why do we so abruptly deny the inclusion of so many factors in our considerations of fearing nature. Biomass, geological venting, degradation of bio-activity in the ocean, solar influences..., why do these not figure into the equation again? What of unknown variables? Can men actually manipulate a chaotic system in flux and expect to understand the outcome?

Our planet is already reacting to our presence. What happens when she continues to react; while we putter with the balance in play? Does that make any sense?

reply to post by Maxmars


Excellent summation MM. One can take specifics from Hansen's 2000 NAS "study" and focus on any one of the trace GHGs, but the truth is as you say, the cumulative effect of all variables on a dynamic system.

The facts of the false "Hockey Stick;" and Mann's, Hansen's and others' omission or creation of data stand on their own.

The recantaion and embarassment coming so soon after the Nature article (see the "Telegraph" story from Chuffer's post) illustrate the MSM willingness to run with the "hot" story.(pun intended)


star

jw

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by melatonin

 

Melatonin, with all due respect, do you contend that the studies you referenced comprehensively includes all the pertinent variables?

I don't mean to diminish the body of work in question.

Hi.

You don't need to. It's easier to watch someone parade the Hansen study around as containing important observations whilst completely misinterpreting and misrepresenting it, and then see it suddenly become a 'study' when its real implications become clear.

So, anyway, Firstly, I didn't reference the studies, someone else did. Secondly, if you have issues with the studies, they might be better aimed at the original poster. However, I don't see any real issues with the studies. The antarctica study is an interesting one, but is the first of its kind, so it might be better to see what future studies bring before getting too excited (apparently more related studies are on the way). The Hansen study is pretty clear about it's positioning - an optimistic look at the situation (ca. year 2000)

as a commentary on the refusal of what, at least to me, seems a disconnect in the reasoning behind anthropomorphism in public policy-making.

I don't see anthropomorphism. That's applying human characteristics to phenomena. If you mean accepting that us wee humans can affect the balance of the earth's processes, why not? Even wee-er bacteria were able to make the atmosphere oxygen rich.

And in the end the question remains; why do we so abruptly deny the inclusion of so many factors in our considerations of fearing nature. Biomass, geological venting, degradation of bio-activity in the ocean, solar influences..., why do these not figure into the equation again?

I would assume you don't really know the literature that well. For one, solar influences are certainly taken into consideration.

I don't fear nature. I love her. Indeed, one of my life's aims is getting the odd peek up her petticoat.

What of unknown variables?

Which ones?

lol

We can only make reasonable inferences based on the best evidence and understanding we have. It works in virtually all areas of society, from science to law.

Can men actually manipulate a chaotic system in flux and expect to understand the outcome?

Yeah, why not? The effect of emitting billions of tonnes of GHGs is fairly well-understood.

If you expect omniscient like insights, then religion might be your thing.

Our planet is already reacting to our presence. What happens when she continues to react; while we putter with the balance in play? Does that make any sense?

So, you are asking what would happen if we mess with some 'balance'? Like if we emit billions of tonnes of GHGs into the atmosphere? Or do you mean if we 'putter' with the 'balance' of emitting billions of tonnes into the atmosphere?

I'm not sure stopping the rapid emission of billions of tonnes of carbon which was locked out of the carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years will have some radical effect on any natural balance. It will just stop us further altering the radiative balance.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by scorps
S&F,

I agree that Al Gore may of screwed things up, but there still happens to be a issue with the enviroment and he brought lots of attention to this issue. I Think that we need to find new fuel sources before we have no more fossil fuels left. There are many things that need to change enviromentally, CO2 and Polar bears just arent them.

ANYBODY raising the alarm and ruining the Fossil Fuel party for Big Energy was going to "screw it up." It's like telling folks that smoking is bad for you.

If 30,000 scientists are going to lie about Global Warming, while we trust 2,000 Energy Industry shills -- well then, I give up. We can't really know anything, because every human being on the planet is going to sell each other out. Nobody does science because they care to know. Earth must also be flat.

I only have to notice the scramble for shipping lanes in the North Pole to understand something has changed.

I actually watched an "Inconvenient Truth" and it kind of explained away, all the BS I've heard from anti-global warming apologists.

Carbon Dioxide -- by the way, is not a pollutant. It doesn't make me sick the way all the mercury does in the Corn Syrup. It is a green house gas.

If we go to a green economy -- it actually means more jobs. It means better solar panels. If I have the means to produce energy in my back yard -- it means I'm MORE self-sufficient.

Carbon taxes are a bad idea -- I agree. But I don't see how it means government interference on ME. It means regulations and inspectors on Businesses that make pollution. Gee, will I actually miss having Asthma visit my kids? Wouldn't MORE government interference in business be good -- we just got Salmonella around the country in all our peanut products, because a company in Georgia was "self regulating." They haven't had an inspector since 2001.

Wow, there is a conspiracy out there to reduce the amount of crud that coal power plants put in the air -- and Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity are marching to the rescue and informing us of the scam.

Let me see; all the people I DON'T TRUST, and I've caught in bald faced lies are against the Global Warming Scam, and people I don't actually know to be liars, like Climatologists are telling me the opposite.

Who should I trust? Hmmmm. I'd say, that if you don't know the truth, just listen to Neal Bortz, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh -- and believe the opposite.

Originally posted by Chuffer
Al Gore has a new argument for why carbon dioxide is the global warming boogeyman — and it’s simply out of this world.

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday with yet another one of his infamous slide shows, Gore observed that the carbon dioxide (CO2) in Venus’ atmosphere supercharges the second-planet-from-the-sun’s greenhouse effect, resulting in surface temperatures of about 870 degrees Fahrenheit. Gore added that it’s not Venus’ proximity to the Sun that makes the planet much warmer than the Earth, because Mercury, which is even closer to the Sun, is cooler than Venus. Based on this rationale, then, Gore warned that we need to stop emitting CO2 into our own atmosphere.
...

Wow. You just supported the argument that it is the type of Gas around the planet that traps heat and then concluded this proved the opposite.

Points for style, none for substance.

IF ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL. You take any closed system and change it a tiny percentage -- then over time, the closed system will have drastic changes. Sure, volcanoes put out a lot of gas AND soot, and depending on the type and where it goes, it can have both a heating and cooling effect. Makes human influence look small.

But Volcanoes have been active throughout earth's history. It is the random event that factors in over time.

There are numerous historical cases where humans have altered their environments and caused ecological catastrophes -- with much more primitive tools than we have now. The Dust Bowl in Texas was caused by poor farming practices. Easter Islander's wiped themselves out destroying their environment. Italy used to be covered in forests before the Romans burnt them all up trying to get ore out of the ground for all their swords -- they even had smog problems. That's just to name a few.

Yes, methane traps more heat than carbon dioxide, but Gore was referencing it because it was a good historical INDICATOR. The level of carbon in the air is tracked by trees and ice cores, and FOLLOWS usually, the temperature level.

But Al Gore is not the issue. WE aren't going to save the future by proving Al Gore is a good person or not.

I don't expect to convince you. Because you just talked about no air on mars and mercury to trap heat. Like it proved your point or something.

Originally posted by stander
reply to post by Amniodarone

 

You must be one of those mentally subordinate folks who call any PhD alchemy "a fact."

I really don't reply to Ad hominem arguments.... that is what you were trying to do, wasn't it? I simply placed some science into the argument.... not a statement that has no basis in anything. While I suspect that you feel justified in poking fun at people for posting research and scientific articles that you don't understand... if you had actually read what I had taken the time to find... you might have seen my point. It is obvious that you didn't. I could condense it down to a simple "cliff notes" for you...but if you don't take the time to educate yourself on the subject, there is nothing that I can say or do to help you.

[edit on 09/20/2008 by Amniodarone]