BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The Global Warming Fraud
RenaissanceMan
post Jun 04, 2012, 05:23 PM
Post #1


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Jun 04, 2012
Member No.: 34301



Dr. Ivar Giaever, winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics, resigned in disgust from the American Physical Society on September 13, 2011 over its policy of characterizing anthropogenic global warming as “incontrovertible.” Discussions of an infinite number of universes are ongoing, with rooms full of straight faces, but the pros and cons of AGW simply cannot be tolerated, Giaever correctly observed.

On October 6, 2010, UC Santa Barbara Physics Professor Emeritus, Harold Lewis, resigned from the American Physical Society in protest of the Global Warming Fraud. His letter reads in part:

“For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

“It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

“So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it.”

—End of quote by Professor Lewis—

Now for some more fraudulent claims which were intended to frighten and mislead under the guise of science:

Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.”- Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

“[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michael Oppenheimer, published in “Dead Heat,” St. Martin’s Press, 1990.

“By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” - Life magazine, January 1970.

“If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in “Earth Day,” 1970. (Remember before we were warned about global warming, we were told that the Earth was facing an ice age.)

“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” – Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

“In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” – Paul Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970

British environmental expert James Lovelock now admits he was an “alarmist” regarding global warming — and says Al Gore was too.
Lovelock previously worked for NASA and became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism. In 2007 Time magazine named Lovelock one of its “Heroes of the Environment,” and he won the Geological Society of London’s Wollaston Medal in 2006 for his writings on the Gaia theory.
That year he wrote an article in a British newspaper asserting that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” (Independent.co.uk, 16 January 2006)
MSNBC reported: “He pointed to Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and Tim Flannery’s ‘The Weather Makers’ as other examples of ‘alarmist’ forecasts of the future.”
“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.” – Climate scientist Stephen Schneider, interview with Discover magazine, October, 1989

Have a look at the schedule of environmental hypocrites, paid for by taxpayers the world over.

Google "environmental conferences" and gaze upon the daily destinations of thousands of these hypocrites, who preach to you that Mother Gaia is near death, and only your cessation of all fossil fuel consumption can save Her. Meanwhile they party hearty on YOUR dime. Take Al Gore, please.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Jun 04, 2012, 05:54 PM
Post #2


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



So, if you were to be informed that the odds were 1 in 100 that an airplane you are about to board is going to crash while you are in it, would you get on it? Because the odds that global warming is happening are much greater than that; well, according to science, which, you don't take seriously (deducing from your posts content-correct me if I'm wrong, please!):

"(PhysOrg.com) -- The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth’s climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago — and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well — such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT’s Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important “to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science,” he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. “In that sense, our work is unique,” he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. This can be compared to a median projected increase in the 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees. The difference is caused by several factors rather than any single big change. Among these are improved economic modeling and newer economic data showing less chance of low emissions than had been projected in the earlier scenarios. Other changes include accounting for the past masking of underlying warming by the cooling induced by 20th century volcanoes, and for emissions of soot, which can add to the warming effect. In addition, measurements of deep ocean temperature rises, which enable estimates of how fast heat and carbon dioxide are removed from the atmosphere and transferred to the ocean depths, imply lower transfer rates than previously estimated. "


http://phys.org/news161953575.html
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RenaissanceMan
post Jun 05, 2012, 01:48 AM
Post #3


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Jun 04, 2012
Member No.: 34301



QUOTE(code buttons @ Jun 04, 2012, 06:54 PM) *

So, if you were to be informed that the odds were 1 in 100 that an airplane you are about to board is going to crash while you are in it, would you get on it? Because the odds that global warming is happening are much greater than that; well, according to science, which, you don't take seriously (deducing from your posts content-correct me if I'm wrong, please!):


Spare me your "science." I have provided citations from esteemed "scientists" who lied through their teeth.
All of these esteemed "scientists" fly and drive around the world with all the hypocrisy and reckless abandon that their supercharged egos can possibly display.

We have Prince Charles, Duke of Wales or someplace similar, flying in his private jet to Copenhagen, to lecture the world's Little People on the ills of ... wasting precious fossil fuel. He flew separately from the British Prime Minister. And when they arrived, they were greeted by record cold.

I think you call this "science."

I take truth seriously. What you call "science" is all too often the musings of greedy, dishonest people with axes to grind.

Have you any idea of the ORIGIN of global warming? Any idea at all? No, you do not.

It originated at the 1975 Endangered Atmosphere Conference, organized by anthropologist Margaret Mead. Here are the first two paragraphs from a paper written by Marjorie Mazel Hecht:

“Global Warming” is, and always was, a policy for genocidal
reduction of the world’s population. The preposterous claim
that human-produced carbon dioxide will broil the Earth, melt
the ice caps, and destroy human life, came out of a 1975 conference
in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, organized
by the influential anthropologist Margaret Mead, president of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS), in 1974.
Mead—whose 1928 book on the sex life of South Pacific
Islanders was later found to be a fraud—recruited like-minded
anti-population hoaxsters to the cause: Sow enough fear of
man-caused climate change to force global cutbacks in industrial
activity and halt Third World development. Mead’s leading
recruits at the 1975 conference were climate-scare artist
Stephen Schneider, population-freak biologist George Woodwell,
and the current AAAS president John Holdren—all
three of them disciples of malthusian fanatic Paul Ehrlich, author
of The Population Bomb. Guided by luminaries like
these, conference discussion focussed on the absurd choice of
either feeding people or “saving the environment.”



Your many friends pretend that anthropogenic global warming is "fact, fact, fact."
You nave reduced their certainty to one chance in a hundred?? From certainty to 1%.
Is there no possibility - none whatsoever - that humanity's 3.4% contribution to global carbon dioxide output is insignificant? After all, the Keeling Curve shows a 1.2 PART PER MILLION ANNUAL increase in carbon dioxide over the past fifty or so years. This is on a base of some 22,000 PARTS PER MILLION ambient greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Do the math for everyone on 1.2 PPM divided by 22,000 PPM, and tell us how dire and dangerous this miniscule fraction is. Then multiply 1.2 by .036 and recalculate and restate your dire warnings based on that.

Maybe in the future, I too will be able to post a URL. Such a responsibility, that.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Jun 05, 2012, 05:51 PM
Post #4


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



Why would you use so much hostility in your language while you are trying to justify your cause? And what exactly is your cause? Are you making a case against science for the benefit of the existence of an almighty God? If that's the case, then put the anger aside and just try to make a better case of your angle in the forum. And stop quoting so many statistics in your posts... That's called the 'SCIENTIFIC METHOD'
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RenaissanceMan
post Jun 06, 2012, 05:33 AM
Post #5


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Jun 04, 2012
Member No.: 34301



QUOTE(code buttons @ Jun 05, 2012, 06:51 PM) *

Why would you use so much hostility in your language while you are trying to justify your cause? And what exactly is your cause? Are you making a case against science for the benefit of the existence of an almighty God? If that's the case, then put the anger aside and just try to make a better case of your angle in the forum. And stop quoting so many statistics in your posts... That's called the 'SCIENTIFIC METHOD'


This will be my last response to you.
Leftists can speak with as much hostility, as much condescension, as much arrogance and contemptuousness as they desire. But when anybody gets fed up with leftist arrogance and lies, and refutes such arrogance and lies, well, please cut back on your attitude, will you?

My "cause" is refuting lies, hypocrisy, and greed expressed by the Global Warming Fraudsters.
Two eminent physicists, one of them a Nobel Laureate, stated their positions. You conveniently skirted them, ignored what THEY had to say, and invoked "an almighty God." Your words, not mine.

Do pay attention in the future, won't you? Don't tell ANYONE what to post and what not to post, and in particular, don't pretend that you know something about this "SCIENTIFIC METHOD" when that is simply your ploy and Al Gore's to express your condescension and arrogance.

I hope this forum has an IGNORE option, because you will be the first person I used it on, in about thirty seconds.

ciao
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
P JayS
post Jun 07, 2012, 02:00 PM
Post #6


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 588
Joined: Apr 04, 2012
Member No.: 34146



Perhaps global warming could more apt be considered climate change.

Is there any scientific evidence to prove that the earth's orbit has marginally slowed down?

This would mean that the earth would warm up more when closer to the sun because it would taske longer to pass by. Likewise when the earth was farther away from the sun then enhanced cold would occur.

Since the earth was slowing down then the void of space would squeeze the matter a little bit harder and make the matter of the earth heat up from its center outward. This would cause the melting of polar icecaps from underneath as the water warmed up a little.

What do you think?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RenaissanceMan
post Jun 08, 2012, 12:44 PM
Post #7


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Jun 04, 2012
Member No.: 34301



QUOTE(P JayS @ Jun 07, 2012, 03:00 PM) *

Perhaps global warming could more apt be considered climate change.


Those who have been preaching the doom and gloom of "climate change" have lied through their teeth.

http://theglobalwarmingfraud.wordpress.com

QUOTE
Is there any scientific evidence to prove that the earth's orbit has marginally slowed down?


An orbit is the precise figure describing the path of a body. An orbit (figure) does not have a speed, and hence cannot "slow down" any more than a circle or an ellipse can "slow down."

The earth's rotations, both on its axis and about the sun, can slow down however.

Speaking of rotation, did you know that the earth doesn't simply spin? Like a top, it precesses. That is to say, the axis of the earth wobbles. Adding to the complexity, the wobble wobbles in sinusoidal fashion. I would imagine that all these different motions make it very difficult to program telescopes to hold their views on distant stars precisely still.

QUOTE


This would mean that the earth would warm up more when closer to the sun because it would taske longer to pass by. Likewise when the earth was farther away from the sun then enhanced cold would occur.


The earth doesn't "pass by" the sun. It just keeps rollin' along, sort of like Old Man River. Certainly the distance is not precisely constant, but sunspots are a far more critical variable than distance.

QUOTE
Since the earth was slowing down then the void of space would squeeze the matter a little bit harder and make the matter of the earth heat up from its center outward. This would cause the melting of polar icecaps from underneath as the water warmed up a little.

What do you think?


The void of space doesn't squeeze anything. Nor is the earth very compressible, with a core made of molten iron, and oceans. The only thing compressing earth is itself, by gravitational attraction.

If the Antarctic ice cap were heated to 100 degrees F, it would take at least a thousand years to melt.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
P JayS
post Jun 09, 2012, 05:27 AM
Post #8


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 588
Joined: Apr 04, 2012
Member No.: 34146



If you throw a basebase with no spin it goes slower than thrown with spin. Spin makes the distance thrown shorten in time.

You admit that the rotation of the earth can slow down but fail to see that the speed of the earth can marginally slow down as well. The earth travels about 18 miles per second. The slowing of the spin of the earth makes the orbit time longer.

The sun is not in the center of the orbit so there is time for the earth to be closer and time for the earth to be farther away. A slower orbit due to the earth's rotation slowing may cause more heat and more cold respectively.

Space is made up of energy and energy not at the same time. The void which is 0 surrounds every piece of the smallest matter. This is how the void squeezes the earth as a ball. It is all the micro matter that is squeezed that makes up the entire ball.

Space is the void and energy at the same time. If you have a strand of energy and then take it away you have two opposite states in logic namely zero and one. Take and return the energy fast enough in time and both states will be present at the same time. Now with the void constant in time when invisible energy is slowed down from c^2 speed then visible matter is produced in the friction grip of the void.

The visible matter now has to travel fast enough to stay cool in the void. The void heats the matter up from the inside to the outside. This is why the center of the earth is still hot after being present in cold space for such a long time.



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RenaissanceMan
post Jun 09, 2012, 01:06 PM
Post #9


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Jun 04, 2012
Member No.: 34301



QUOTE(P JayS @ Jun 09, 2012, 06:27 AM) *

If you throw a basebase (sic) with no spin it goes slower than thrown with spin. Spin makes the distance thrown shorten in time.


Perpendicular vectors are independent. Didn't you know that? A cannon shell dropped at the same time another shell is fired will hit the ground at the same time, neglecting friction and terrain factors.
A distance does NOT "shorten in time." A distance is a unit of length, not time.

QUOTE
You admit that the rotation of the earth can slow down but fail to see that the speed of the earth can marginally slow down as well. The earth travels about 18 miles per second. The slowing of the spin of the earth makes the orbit time longer.


That would change the length of our day, wouldn't it? Have we heard about this recently? Everybody reset your clocks! P JayS will give you the correct time.

QUOTE
The sun is not in the center of the orbit so there is time for the earth to be closer and time for the earth to be farther away. A slower orbit due to the earth's rotation slowing may cause more heat and more cold respectively.


So not only has the length of earth's day changed, but the length of one year as well.

QUOTE
Space is made up of energy and energy not at the same time. The void which is 0 surrounds every piece of the smallest matter. This is how the void squeezes the earth as a ball. It is all the micro matter that is squeezed that makes up the entire ball.


The void squeezes the earth as a ball. Stop it. You're scarin' people. Obama is squeezing everyone more than enough.

QUOTE
Space is the void and energy at the same time. If you have a strand of energy and then take it away you have two opposite states in logic namely zero and one. Take and return the energy fast enough in time and both states will be present at the same time. Now with the void constant in time when invisible energy is slowed down from c^2 speed then visible matter is produced in the friction grip of the void.


The friction grip of the void. Your science is so creative. Is Elvis staying at your place?
Have the two of you been up to the Mother Ship?

QUOTE
The visible matter now has to travel fast enough to stay cool in the void. The void heats the matter up from the inside to the outside. This is why the center of the earth is still hot after being present in cold space for such a long time.


Maybe you can get some of this void to heat water up to steam, then we can run generators and produce electricity and make lots o money! I think you're on to something, P Jay.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
P JayS
post Jun 11, 2012, 02:06 PM
Post #10


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 588
Joined: Apr 04, 2012
Member No.: 34146



If you have something small that is fixed in its place by force then a force applied to the small point will have a minimal response but generate a transfer of energy to the surface.

For example an earthquake does not move the water very much next to the quake deep inside the ocean but instead transfers the energy to the surface where a rogue wave may be 30 ft high and travel many miles.

A small change in orbit time from 18.0 to 17.96 may cause a huge difference at the output.

You say that a shell dropped hits the earth at the same time as one fired but you neither have the vision or the complete sense of timing to tell that. I would say that there is a marginal difference in time that is to small to detect with human methods.

The void has a friction grip on the smallest of existence like an atom in the center of the earth. As the atom heats up the heat radiates to material surrounding the atom in the center. Enough heat will bring magma to the surface of the earth.

Should the orbit marginally slow then volcanic eruptions and earthquakes occur as the little atom continues to heat up and the ground melts under other heavy loads of earth or water.

I do believe that you are beginning to learn something.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RenaissanceMan
post Jun 15, 2012, 10:43 AM
Post #11


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Jun 04, 2012
Member No.: 34301



QUOTE(P JayS @ Jun 11, 2012, 03:06 PM) *

If you have something small that is fixed in its place by force then a force applied to the small point will have a minimal response but generate a transfer of energy to the surface.


"The small point." Who would have thought of applying force to "the small point." Brilliant, PJays.


QUOTE

A small change in orbit time from 18.0 to 17.96 may cause a huge difference at the output.


"Orbit time." As you say, our year has shortened considerably, n'est-ce pas? Please provide a link substantiating the shortened year. Should be easy for you, "Teacher."

QUOTE
You say that a shell dropped hits the earth at the same time as one fired but you neither have the vision or the complete sense of timing to tell that. I would say that there is a marginal difference in time that is to (sic) small to detect with human methods.


Try inhuman methods, PJays. And take an elementary physics class. Study vector analysis.

QUOTE
The void has a friction grip on the smallest of existence like an atom in the center of the earth. As the atom heats up the heat radiates to material surrounding the atom in the center. Enough heat will bring magma to the surface of the earth.


Science at its best. Truly enlightening. From the Central Atom, to magma.

QUOTE
Should the orbit marginally slow then volcanic eruptions and earthquakes occur as the little atom continues to heat up and the ground melts under other heavy loads of earth or water.

I do believe that you are beginning to learn something.


My brain is about to explode under your tutelage.
Since you are so knowledgeable about atoms, please give me a few sentences on atomic structure.
I can hardly wait.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Jun 15, 2012, 08:52 PM
Post #12


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



InquisitionMan, did you enjoy picking on the special-ed kids when you were in highschool?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tone
post Jun 18, 2012, 09:14 AM
Post #13


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 423
Joined: Mar 03, 2006
From: Chicago
Member No.: 4916



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq3WlRxfWC0
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
P JayS
post Jun 21, 2012, 10:20 AM
Post #14


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 588
Joined: Apr 04, 2012
Member No.: 34146



The atom is established in the x, y and z axis plus the zero dimension of space all within the dimension time.

At first from cn = 1/10^(n+1) there is a 2D photon or micro bn. The photon is a specific circumference in space and time that has three equal and smaller circumferences along the diameter within the main circumference. The three smaller points along the diameter all laying on the Euclidean plane are z to the left, k in the middle and P to the right. An individual micro bn is hot in the void.

As the micro bn slows down from c^2 speed in the void to c speed then the friction is enough to turn one of the points in rotation and the spark ignites the micro bn into an atom with the circumference now forming a sphere along with the z, k and P points. The atom is on fire.

The z sphere is dark energy and the k sphere is dark matter and the P sphere is time. These three spheres each grow to fill the large sphere of the atom and z = k = P. Mass forms in the center of the spheres. First hydrogen then oxygen.

The heat causes condensation to make up on the outside of the large sphere which cannot escape into space. The water forms on the surface of the central atom of the earth until other matter is formed underneath the water and on top of the sphere of the atom. The water is turned into vapor as the atom continues to marginally slow from c speed.

The vapor which forms the outermost surface is contained within the time of the simple line. The simple line is the circumscribed cube around the atomic sphere that started from the micro bn of an invisible point. All points of micro bn are the same size.

The compressed atomic sphere in the void can slip within the circumference of other invisible micro bn. They cause rotation of the atomic sphere in a common direction. This serves to propell the atom in rotation and cool the atom in the void. As the central atom cools the flame goes out but the heat remains.

P.j.S
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tone
post Jun 26, 2012, 04:17 PM
Post #15


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 423
Joined: Mar 03, 2006
From: Chicago
Member No.: 4916



You have no idea how political ponzi scheming & retarded this topic is. There are no words for the idiocy of this. Practically every real climatologist knows its fake and that there were warmer periods hundreds & thousands of years ago when grapes grew in england and that all the planets change at the same time with it being solar system-wide and that CO2 release is caused by warming of the oceans, not the other way around.

The Rothschild faction originating this Ponzi scheme does not give a damn about the health of the Planet. This is so asinine face in palm that topics like this are even discussed.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AleeBaBa
post Dec 24, 2016, 02:06 AM
Post #16


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Nov 16, 2016
Member No.: 38431



"The small point." Who would have thought of applying force to "the small point." Brilliant, PJays.


gclub
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Holmes2499
post Feb 04, 2017, 01:56 AM
Post #17


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Jan 25, 2017
Member No.: 38508




It is a conclusion that can be difficult. Not everyone is going to solve the problem. But private interests worried about the next 10 years will not solve the problem.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2017 - 03:29 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright © BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles