As I asked earlier: Here are three valid (IMHO) questions for you. 1) Can you show me where data supports the logic that a warmer climate is not good for the actual planet and its evolving mass? 2) Isn't that the true question that should be answered? 3) Has there been a worldwide ground temperature study to show that it is not the actual planet that might be warmer thereby warming the air that surrounds it? You know, the universe and it's components are not here just to support our comfort and existence. Just a layman providing food for thought.
I am not a scientist. Apparently, a large number of scientist do have a reason to think that a warmer climate doesn't support our ecosystem. The number of fish being killed, plant life, ice caps melting, etc.... Anyway, let's do this test. Let's put you in a biosphere where you live off of the air, land, water, and animals...and then pump in car exhaust and other pollution for 10 years and see what happens, okay?
And that's the valid reason? Didn't science contribute the great standing facts of: The earth is flat If you go to the end of the horizon you'll fall off the earth Man can not fly The Atom is the smallest thing in the universe The fastest speed you can achieve is the speed of sound The universe revolves around the earth Using leaches is a medical breakthrough Blood letting is ok for healing Bumble bees can not fly based on aerodynamics Fortunately we have continued to test these so-called unshakable theories. They tend to only reflect the understanding of the day. And yes, you're not a scientist. That test of yours leaves a bit to be desired. Of course, you know you can call yourself a scientific expert on the theory. That would make any questioning of your logic suspect as you will have a valid question before the masses with a opinionated, documentable bit of proof. You might even generate a research paper showing how you came to that conclusion. And there might even be fifty other scientists who would support your research. And to someone somewhere who knew less than you, it might come across as valid. Sound familiar?
Do you really want to compare the times that 20th century scientists have been accurate vs. the times in the middle ages the primitives were wrong? What a lousy argument... Oh, and I take it you don't want to die in a polluted biodome...
I may have been a bit hasty here. If you slowly acclimated me over a ten year period and allowed the body to make its own adjustments on its own. Hmm? But isn't the real question here over that period of time would the environment you had me inside make adjustments of its own to start to survive the evolving conditions? As I stated before, we're not the only things in the universe. You know the planet might be attempting to cut us down a bit too? Maybe the climate changes are an attempt to make the populace decide to not live close to the costal boundaries for a while. We're a rather hard headed, adaptive animal you know? Not an impossibility for a living organism you know?
No, but things will settle to the bottom of the water and the biosphere would adapt on its own. As for food, since you didn't address where that would come from for ten years, I am sure that it would adapt in some fashion.
Uhhh, you know this how? LOL... You did a science experiment for 10 years? Hee hee hee.... p.s. Food was addressed. Animals and vegetation...which are shown by scientists to be dying at a very rapid rate due to what they say is global warming.
Let's properly deal with this weak test of yours. First, immediate filtration of the water over ten years with rudimentary tools is easy to develop for a water filter. I was in the boy scouts and that will help. Vegetation and food needs? Properly cooking and cleaning the food will also deal with the balance of the issues. Lastly, for the test to be a valid one you'll need to have equivalencies in air and water volume as well as PPM (parts per million) adjustments to evidence that the environment is warming and becoming polluted. Ten years, sure no problem. This test is weak and the parameters are too broad for ten years to properly make a difference. And that is exactly the point of all this discussion. Sure you can create an ultimate toxic environment if you try hard enough. But the undauntable factor, evolution, will constantly foil your system and you'll need to make even more conditional adjustments to suit your outcome needs. And that is the point overall that is being made.