The technique they overweighted was one which the UN's 1996 report had said was unsafe: measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years, but pine-rings are also wider when there's more carbon dioxide in the air: it's plant food. This carbon dioxide fertilisation distorts the calculations.
More CO2 in the air doesn't make plants grow faster in nature because there is plenty of CO2 for them already. What limits plant growth is temperatures, solar input( both are linked to some extent ) and micro-nutrients like potassium.
Nope not at all, being pro-GM food is being short-sighted and completly destroying soils / the environment in order to mass produce in an agricultural system that is non-renewable.
Most if not all GM-foods on the market serve only one purpose, getting rid of weeds or pests convieniently, that's all, none of the GM variety actually promise increased yeilds directly. Better agricultural practices can achieve the same results as these crops.
So in reality GM foods only help corporations make more profits, nothing else. They sell the herbicide and sell the crops that are resistant to said herbicide, not to increase yeilds.
What's the most disturbing is the proliferation of those genes in nature, especially those for used for pest control like BT Corn. BTk ( Bacillus Thuringiensis var Kurstaki ) is a known biological agent to control moths, but the problem is that it's only selective to the order lepidoptera ( moths and butterflies ) so it's been shown that having a high density of BT crops in an area can affect not only the selected pest ( the corn borer in the case of BT corn ) but also other species of butterflies ( like Monarchs ) or other butterflies that fill a vital role in the pollinisation of certain plants.
It's simple really.
In order to include God in a true scientific theory you would have to define him and give him caracteristics.
If we are able to define and measure God then by all accounts it's not God because one of his caracteristics is that he is undefinable.
That's why you can't include God in science.
But that doesn't mean you can't be a scientist and believe in God. I mean you have to believe in something and since "believing" in science is not an option if you're a scientist (science is just theories and measured facts they only exist believing in them is irrelevant). You can still believe in something even if that something is nothing ( ie. Atheism) or you can believe in God in one of it's many flavors.
Notice that dip you're talking about in your graph is still above the mean temperature in the 1800's. You know... not that looking at a graph isn't better than an actual statistical analysis.
Yes, observations made by someone quite a few hundreds of years ago and signs on distant planets are much better scientific evidence than ice samples collected here.../sarcasm off
Slashdot Mirror
More CO2 in the air doesn't make plants grow faster in nature because there is plenty of CO2 for them already. What limits plant growth is temperatures, solar input( both are linked to some extent ) and micro-nutrients like potassium.
Nope not at all, being pro-GM food is being short-sighted and completly destroying soils / the environment in order to mass produce in an agricultural system that is non-renewable.
c ation/percyschmeiser.html/
Most if not all GM-foods on the market serve only one purpose, getting rid of weeds or pests convieniently, that's all, none of the GM variety actually promise increased yeilds directly. Better agricultural practices can achieve the same results as these crops.
So in reality GM foods only help corporations make more profits, nothing else. They sell the herbicide and sell the crops that are resistant to said herbicide, not to increase yeilds.
Here's an example of their tactics : http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/genetics_modifi
What's the most disturbing is the proliferation of those genes in nature, especially those for used for pest control like BT Corn. BTk ( Bacillus Thuringiensis var Kurstaki ) is a known biological agent to control moths, but the problem is that it's only selective to the order lepidoptera ( moths and butterflies ) so it's been shown that having a high density of BT crops in an area can affect not only the selected pest ( the corn borer in the case of BT corn ) but also other species of butterflies ( like Monarchs ) or other butterflies that fill a vital role in the pollinisation of certain plants.
It's simple really. In order to include God in a true scientific theory you would have to define him and give him caracteristics. If we are able to define and measure God then by all accounts it's not God because one of his caracteristics is that he is undefinable. That's why you can't include God in science. But that doesn't mean you can't be a scientist and believe in God. I mean you have to believe in something and since "believing" in science is not an option if you're a scientist (science is just theories and measured facts they only exist believing in them is irrelevant). You can still believe in something even if that something is nothing ( ie. Atheism) or you can believe in God in one of it's many flavors.
Notice that dip you're talking about in your graph is still above the mean temperature in the 1800's. You know... not that looking at a graph isn't better than an actual statistical analysis.
Yes, observations made by someone quite a few hundreds of years ago and signs on distant planets are much better scientific evidence than ice samples collected here... /sarcasm off