Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

THis makes no sense, so you want all 'single' women to become sluts, showing most of their body to the world?

1) A woman's choice of clothing does not determine whether or not she is a slut.

2) 40% is not "most"; by the article's standards it's shorts and a t-shirt.

No woman needs to show 40% of her body to attract a man.

The article isn't claiming that a woman needs to do anything to attract a man, it's stating that a woman who bares 40% of her skill will attract the most men, which is a perfectly believable proposition.

What happens when girls who are married wanna wear shorts.. Thats almost 40% of her body right there.

And she will probably attract a large number of men, particularly if she is in a club (which is the area in which the study was performed). Of course, the study also used assumptions of 15% per leg, so showing off both legs but nothing else would only be 30%. Shorts + T-shirt would be about 40%, and I have no problem believing that such a clothing combination is considered attractive by a large number of men.

Here it is.

It is potentially worrisome, but they aren't asking you to identify where the information comes from; only that you forward it to their office so that they can stay informed. Whether that's acceptable or not is certainly worth debating.

As a first note, your "arguments" would carry more weight if you bothered to spell correctly and made at least a passing attempt at using proper grammar.

why not global warming doesn't relay exist.

Global warming has a mountain of evidence supporting it. Feel free to present actual evidence against it and perhaps people will pay attention to you.

cant prov it by me it was warmer in April than it was in July up here in NH

You're either wrong or lying, because the mean temperature for NH in April was 43 F while that in July was 60 F. (source)

As another source, WolframAlpha gives means of 45 F and 63 F, respectively.

To be fair, you might mean maximums, since for April we have 88 F while for July we have 84 F (same Wolfram source), but that's hardly relevant when their minimums were so far apart (23 F as compared to 45 F; notice that July's low was April's mean).

All of that aside, though, a four month spread is almost completely irrelevant in the context of Global Warming, which deals with trends over decades.

To have, or not to have, unprotected sex is not enough of a reproductive choice. We need to add more reproductive choices like abortion.

I've seen you make similar comments before; you don't seem to realize that 1) protection isn't always effective and 2) rape happens.

I'd like to see how those records prove how much CO2 is produced by humans and how much is produced by the oceans and other natural sources.

So far as I can tell, it's primarily just the rapidity of the production increase; a sudden acceleration in CO2 levels which coincides with the industrial revolution. Yes, it's correlative evidence, but it's hard to get causal data on something like this.

500 million years ago the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 20 times higher than today, and we weren't around.

First, CO2 data from that long ago is purely estimate, based on proxy dating methods, which is why I focused on the ice-core data. Those numbers are still valid, but have a much larger error-envelope.

Secondly, while it is true that the Earth can handle much larger levels of CO2, and that life can survive—even flourish—under those conditions, the concern now is, again, with the rapidity with which the levels are changing. The levels hundreds of millions of years ago changed very slowly, taking tens of millions of years to reach those levels, and tens of millions of years to drop again. This provided adequate time for life to adapt to the different environment. If the current rate of increase (approximately +1.5ppm / year) continues, it would take less than 2000 years to get back up to 3000 ppm. If, instead, the current percent rate of increase (~0.4% / year), it would take less than 250 years. The potentially frightening thing, though, is that the rate of increase itself appears to be increasing (up from ~0.5 ppm/year or 0.002% / year in 1959).

Why does the site not tell us which season was the first measure of 280ppm taken, and which season was the second one of 370ppm taken? Would it make a difference if the first measure was taken in the summer and the second in the winter?

No, it really wouldn't. If you had read the article for content, rather than for attackable points, you would have noticed this graph. The seasonal variation is evident in the sawtooth nature of the graph, and is almost completely irrelevant with regard to the evident upward trend. The same data is also presented in this graph, with the data points apparently representing the yearly average (it wouldn't really matter if they were the yearly highs or lows, though)

Here you can see a more detailed example of the seasonal variation, which has a range of roughly 4 ppm over the entire year (~1%). This means that even adjusting for the most duplicitous possible represenation of the data (taking the minimum for the lower number and maximum for the higher) in such a way as to minimize the difference (shifting them both by 4 points toward each other) the numbers would only change from 280 and 370 to about 284 and 366. That's still a 29% increase. And it's far more likely that the 280 and 370 numbers represent annual averages, which means an average increase of 32%. From raw data, here, you can see that the annual maximum concentration in any given year is lower than the annual minimum three years later.

As for it being a natural cycle, the Vostok Ice Core data does show a cyclic nature over the last 400,000 years. However, the amount of climb that we've seen in the last 200 years "normally" takes upwards of 50,000 years to occur, and that natural cycle appears to peak at about 300 ppm, which is well below the 390 ppm of today.