The One and Only Climate Change thread...

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

In a post full of half truths and non truths, this one takes the cake. Science knows of and has proven the existance of many things that we cannot directly observe. Virtual particles are a good example, they can never be observed directly but their existance and nature is proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Actually of course, we only and always observe everything indirectly. All that our brain can percieve "directly" is the electrical impulses that travel along our nerves. Everthing that we hear, taste, smell, see or feel is by indirect observation. The world we experience is actually created within our brains, and we see feel hear touch and feel only a small part of the actual reality all around us.

Of course the world outside our heads does exist, and we can be sure of it beyond any reasonable doubt as we all are, and with good reason. But that doesn't change the fact that we can never observe it directly.

To suggest that because we can only observe some phenomenon indirectly we therefore cannot know it exists, is total nonsense.

Of course most of the rest of his post is nonsense as well, but he piles nonsense upon nonsense and if you refute all his nonsensicalities he will bring more in and if you refute every bit of nonsense he brings up until there is no bit of nonsense left to refute, he just starts again from the beginning, which by then he has forgotten.

BUT, to actually get back to the thread topic, seeing all that stuff that Paul has written, and comparing his qualification with actual scientists and their observations of actually existing global warming, who are you going to bet on?

If, in other words, on the one hand we have a climate scientist who publishes in peer reviewed journals, and tells you that humanity is currently causing global warming. On the other hand Paul Bonham, who believes in psychic woo and tells you it ain't so. Who will you bet is right?

If you believe Paul please send me an email, because I can give you a great deal on a blue bridge. A little rusty but she still runs great...

Ed, you should really pay attention if you want any kind of credit at all. Nowhere have I said that AGW "ain't so". I am actually predisposed to believe in AGW, and I've said it many times in this thread. Wake up!

However, I so far have not seen convincing evidence of the "A" part of AGW. To me, what we are observing right now could be part of a natural geological cycle. Paul Beckwith reposts weather events as if they are proof of AGW, not realizing how fickle weather events are, or if he does realize it, he tends to believe some UN person saying the floods in Pakistan are "unprecedented" when that word only has relevance for maybe a few human generations, which in geological time is a blink of an eye. You also fail to grasp this simple point. AGW may be true, but your evidence is nothing. What Vlad and others have pointed out is that Earth has undergone many such climate fluctuations in the past, and Earth was actually warmer than it is now at various times in the geological past. You ignore this in your zeal to prove man is destroying the planet, which again, may well be the case.

Now, as I've pointed out in this thread, the question then becomes, what is the civilized world willing to do based on some PERCENTAGE POSSIBILITY LESS THAN 100% that AGW is real and could destroy everything we hold dear? I seem to be the only one asking this question.


Now as to your other gibberish, which can be narrowed down to your statement "To suggest that because we can only observe some phenomenon indirectly we therefore cannot know it exists, is total nonsense.".....

What you fail to understand is that science is full of THEORY. A specific theory only holds while all observed behavior fits the theory. As soon as something happens that doesn't fit the theory, a new or modified theory is necessary.


Right now there is a THEORY of dark matter. What I explained was that Sylvia Browne has been very specific in stating that the "other side", i.e. where our souls come from and go to after this physical life, is not out in space somewhere, but right here on Earth, occupying the same space, but doing so at such a high frequency that we cannot perceive it. But we can observe it's effects, and the effects of other planetary "other sides" throughout the universe. Once again, Ed, WAKE UP! This is not refuting the theory of Dark Matter at all, rather giving a possible explanation to it.

And like all of the "indirect observations" you spewed about, this explanation also requires a degree of faith. It's a theory, nothing more. I believe in it, you don't, but all observations (NDE's, reincarnation, dark matter, psychic phenomena) so far fit Sylvia's theory, so it remains a valid theory. You would rather engage in ad hominen attacks against Sylvia than give a shred of credence to her theory. But you don't have any single piece of evidence that refutes her theory, or at least I haven't seen it yet.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Ed, you should really pay attention if you want any kind of credit at all. Nowhere have I said that AGW "ain't so". I am actually predisposed to believe in AGW, and I've said it many times in this thread. Wake up!

However, I so far have not seen convincing evidence of the "A" part of AGW. To me, what we are observing right now could be part of a natural geological cycle. Paul Beckwith reposts weather events as if they are proof of AGW, not realizing how fickle weather events are, or if he does realize it, he tends to believe some UN person saying the floods in Pakistan are "unprecedented" when that word only has relevance for maybe a few human generations, which in geological time is a blink of an eye. You also fail to grasp this simple point. AGW may be true, but your evidence is nothing. What Vlad and others have pointed out is that Earth has undergone many such climate fluctuations in the past, and Earth was actually warmer than it is now at various times in the geological past. You ignore this in your zeal to prove man is destroying the planet, which again, may well be the case.

Now, as I've pointed out in this thread, the question then becomes, what is the civilized world willing to do based on some PERCENTAGE POSSIBILITY LESS THAN 100% that AGW is real and could destroy everything we hold dear? I seem to be the only one asking this question.


Now as to your other gibberish, which can be narrowed down to your statement "To suggest that because we can only observe some phenomenon indirectly we therefore cannot know it exists, is total nonsense.".....

What you fail to understand is that science is full of THEORY. A specific theory only holds while all observed behavior fits the theory. As soon as something happens that doesn't fit the theory, a new or modified theory is necessary.


Right now there is a THEORY of dark matter. What I explained was that Sylvia Browne has been very specific in stating that the "other side", i.e. where our souls come from and go to after this physical life, is not out in space somewhere, but right here on Earth, occupying the same space, but doing so at such a high frequency that we cannot perceive it. But we can observe it's effects, and the effects of other planetary "other sides" throughout the universe. Once again, Ed, WAKE UP! This is not refuting the theory of Dark Matter at all, rather giving a possible explanation to it.

And like all of the "indirect observations" you spewed about, this explanation also requires a degree of faith. It's a theory, nothing more. I believe in it, you don't, but all observations (NDE's, reincarnation, dark matter, psychic phenomena) so far fit Sylvia's theory, so it remains a valid theory. You would rather engage in ad hominen attacks against Sylvia than give a shred of credence to her theory. But you don't have any single piece of evidence that refutes her theory, or at least I haven't seen it yet.

Dark Matter could be considered a theory(but so is gravity and evolution despite the vast amounts of evidence supporting both), watch the university lecture, A universe from nothing by professor Lawrence Krauss to get more formal knowledge about why dark matter has to exist and how we can observe it and have observed it. I don't believe Dark Matter qualifies as a theory, it is a fact.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

However, I so far have not seen convincing evidence of the "A" part of AGW.

Then Paul, as usual, is ignoring the evidence. The rational among us might like to have a look at this web page, which explains why we are sure that the current global warming is caused by human activity.

It is easy for scientists analyzing atmosperic carbon dioxide to discern it's origin. The main sources of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere in the past few million years has been traced to volcanic action. However the recent rise in carbon dioxide is sourced from organic compounds. We know this because of the relative abundances of various isotopes of carbon, and it is not in doubt. And the only way organically sourced carbon can get into our atmosphere is through burning organic compounds. Oil, coal, natural gas are all fossil fuels and there is no doubt that this is the main source of organically sourced carbon in our atmosphere. It could only come from burning fossil fuels or burning living organisms, such as trees for example. We know very well how much CO2 has come from burning living organism and how much from burning fossil fuels, because we have records. It's mostly from fossil fuels.

To me, what we are observing right now could be part of a natural geological cycle.

Whereas actual scientist know very well it isn't. Paul seem to think that these scientists are so dumb as not to have already considered this possibility. But he's wrong, they have considered it, and what's more they have measured it back for several millenia and have ruled out natural cycles for the current warming.

Now why would Paul believe in these natural cycles? The only way we know about them is because of the very scientists whose findings about current global warming he rejects! He believes science when it suits him, in other words, but not when it doesn't.

What you fail to understand is that science is full of THEORY. A specific theory only holds while all observed behavior fits the theory. As soon as something happens that doesn't fit the theory, a new or modified theory is necessary.

Right now there is a THEORY of dark matter.

And now we see that Paul hasn't the faintest idea of what a scientific theory is. Actually dark matter is not yet a theory because a theory requires us to know what the dark matter is. And we don't, so we can't produce a theory about it. Now the existance of Dark matter is pretty much a proven fact, but what exactly it is still eludes us, and scientists, unlike Paul and his dreamboat Sylvia Browne, admit to their ignorance.

There are various hypotheses about just what kind of particles make up "dark matter", but we don't yet have convincing proof of what hypothesis is correct. We do know pretty well beyond reasonable doubt that it is matter of some kind.

Now I will attempt to educate Paul about what a "Theory" is in science. A theory, in science is not a hypothesis, but a collection of organized knowledge about some aspect of reality. Scientific theories, in other words, are almost identical to "Opening theory" in chess. We may use a given theory to predict some aspect of how nature behaves.

It is particularly silly to see a chess player, presumably familiar with the idea of "opening theory" not understand the difference between theory and hypothesis. But it is, alas, about what we may expect from Mr. Bonham it seems.

Ed

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Then Paul, as usual, is ignoring the evidence. The rational among us might like to have a look at this web page, which explains why we are sure that the current global warming is caused by human activity.

It is easy for scientists analyzing atmosperic carbon dioxide to discern it's origin. The main sources of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere in the past few million years has been traced to volcanic action. However the recent rise in carbon dioxide is sourced from organic compounds. We know this because of the relative abundances of various isotopes of carbon, and it is not in doubt. And the only way organically sourced carbon can get into our atmosphere is through burning organic compounds. Oil, coal, natural gas are all fossil fuels and there is no doubt that this is the main source of organically sourced carbon in our atmosphere. It could only come from burning fossil fuels or burning living organisms, such as trees for example. We know very well how much CO2 has come from burning living organism and how much from burning fossil fuels, because we have records. It's mostly from fossil fuels.



Whereas actual scientist know very well it isn't. Paul seem to think that these scientists are so dumb as not to have already considered this possibility. But he's wrong, they have considered it, and what's more they have measured it back for several millenia and have ruled out natural cycles for the current warming.

Now why would Paul believe in these natural cycles? The only way we know about them is because of the very scientists whose findings about current global warming he rejects! He believes science when it suits him, in other words, but not when it doesn't.




And now we see that Paul hasn't the faintest idea of what a scientific theory is. Actually dark matter is not yet a theory because a theory requires us to know what the dark matter is. And we don't, so we can't produce a theory about it. Now the existance of Dark matter is pretty much a proven fact, but what exactly it is still eludes us, and scientists, unlike Paul and his dreamboat Sylvia Browne, admit to their ignorance.

There are various hypotheses about just what kind of particles make up "dark matter", but we don't yet have convincing proof of what hypothesis is correct. We do know pretty well beyond reasonable doubt that it is matter of some kind.

Now I will attempt to educate Paul about what a "Theory" is in science. A theory, in science is not a hypothesis, but a collection of organized knowledge about some aspect of reality. Scientific theories, in other words, are almost identical to "Opening theory" in chess. We may use a given theory to predict some aspect of how nature behaves.

It is particularly silly to see a chess player, presumably familiar with the idea of "opening theory" not understand the difference between theory and hypothesis. But it is, alas, about what we may expect from Mr. Bonham it seems.

Ed

I believe he was using theory as in we don't know if it exists or not, which would suit it, if the existence of Dark Matter was a theory(if he thought the existence was still under questioning hypothesis would be more reasonable), which it's not after seeing evidence given by scientists on that matter.

I don't believe he was talking about what the Dark Matter actually was? Which no one has any idea of so it couldn't possibly be a theory(but possibly a hypothesis)

Maybe Bonham isn't a particularly strong chess player? So he doesn't understand opening theory much better then scientific theory.

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena

Hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena

Theories generally incorporate tested hypotheses into themselves(think of hypothesis' like a variation in an opening, so a distinct part of the theory)

In my earlier post I was regarding the "Theory of Dark Matter" as to whether it exists or not, Paul Bonham what did you mean when you said Theory of Dark Matter because it is basically a proven fact it does exist and so would not be considered a theory.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I believe he was using theory as in we don't know if it exists or not, which would suit it, if the existence of Dark Matter was a theory(if he thought the existence was still under questioning hypothesis would be more reasonable), which it's not after seeing evidence given by scientists on that matter.

Actually I think he was using a word that has one meaning in common parlance in a context where it has another meaning. "It's only a Theory" uses the common ordinary language meaning of "theory" in a context, science, where it does not apply. It's called "equivocation" and relies upon the ignorance of the reader.

Maybe Bonham isn't a particularly strong chess player? So he doesn't understand opening theory much better then scientific theory.

I'd stay away from such speculations if I were you. Some extraordinarily strong chessplayers have had some extremely nutty ideas, you know. If strenght at chess were the criteria for what we believe in then shouldn't we all join the World Wide Church of God?

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena

Hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena

Theories generally incorporate tested hypotheses into themselves(think of hypothesis' like a variation in an opening, so a distinct part of the theory)

Those seem like pretty darned good definitions to me.

Ed

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Actually I think he was using a word that has one meaning in common parlance in a context where it has another meaning. "It's only a Theory" uses the common ordinary language meaning of "theory" in a context, science, where it does not apply. It's called "equivocation" and relies upon the ignorance of the reader.



I'd stay away from such speculations if I were you. Some extraordinarily strong chessplayers have had some extremely nutty ideas, you know. If strenght at chess were the criteria for what we believe in then shouldn't we all join the World Wide Church of God?




Those seem like pretty darned good definitions to me.

Ed

I'm not familiar with the word equivocation, but it sounds like an evasion tactic.

There was also an IM(he has played at the Olympiad) who has a book out called Checkmate Atheists or something like that.

Yeah those were from my science teacher last year(she was a terrible teacher she got them from Google) but they sounded good to me.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I like this one. They want to clean up their climate change dog. The one they have now won't hunt. The review committee doesn't approve.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1689960/

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I like this one. They want to clean up their climate change dog. The one they have now won't hunt. The review committee doesn't approve.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1689960/

If IPCC would show only science that is backed by evidence and facts(and stop making some pretty ridiculous claims), they'd stop giving ammunition to the deniers to feed their ignorance. Fixing the IPCC is a good idea.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

If IPCC would show only science that is backed by evidence and facts(and stop making some pretty ridiculous claims), they'd stop giving ammunition to the deniers to feed their ignorance. Fixing the IPCC is a good idea.

There are no deniers. Only those making claims of climate change which is not backed by solid and verifyable evidence and facts.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I'm pretty certain that the unifying force/power they are missing is not love, and that sounds like string theory(about how everything is united and such) but I'm pretty sure string theory is going to lead to a dead end, Professor Lawrence Krauss has a book out criticizing string theory. Why does everything have to be united? the universe is complicated and chaotic, no reason for unification.

What have you got against unification?

NO NO NO, the burden of proof does not fall on me, you are the one making a claim I am the one rejecting it! absence of evidence=evidence of absence,
You have to prove that there is an afterlife, I'm not making a claim myself that has to be backed up, I'm just saying proof of your claim or shut up about your delusional beliefs. You must prove or at least give proof of an afterlife.

One of the proofs shall come in due course. Eventually we all die and pass on. If you are right, there will be nothing. If Paul and Sylvia Brown are right it will be reincarnation. If I'm right based on my reading of the Bible it will be sleep for a while and then eternity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: But it ain't all buttons and charts, little albatross. You know what the first rule of flyin' is? Well I suppose you do, since you already know what I'm about to say.
River Tam: I do. But I like to hear you say it.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Love. You can know all the math in the 'Verse, but you take a boat in the air that you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as a turn in the worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down, tells ya she's hurtin' 'fore she keens. Makes her a home.
River Tam: Storm's getting worse.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: We'll pass through it soon enough.
Serenity (2005)

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

There are no deniers. Only those making claims of climate change which is not backed by solid and verifyable evidence and facts.

What I am interested in is the conflict of interest guidelines. Who will champion the cause if they can't make money at it?

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

If IPCC would show only science that is backed by evidence and facts(and stop making some pretty ridiculous claims),

Like the ridiculous claims about CO2?

they'd stop giving ammunition to the deni?ers to feed their ignorance. Fixing the IPCC is a good idea.

If they fix the IPCC the impetus for climate change legislation will end because we will all see it for the scam it is. This is just another shell game that they are playing with us.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I'm pretty certain.....

NO NO NO, you don't make the rules, kiddo. I'm not making a claim, I've said all along my beliefs require a degree of faith.

I did get mixed up in your referrals to reincarnation versus NDE. So to make it clear:

Reincarnation is fact, it has verifiable evidence from many instances of hypnosis which can be found by anyone who genuinely seeks it. And again, someone who finds this evidence and still doesn't want to believe can make claims of collusion or cheating, but such a person should then realize that the climategate scandal shows that these claims might even hold against their own figureheads.

As far as NDE is concerned, Adam, even the source you provided ( http://www.mythsdreamssymbols.com/ne...periences.html ) has this to say:

"Yet the phenomenon cannot be dismissed just because we cannot explain it. A 1982 Gallup Poll estimated that at least eight million adults in the US alone have had an NDE; the figure is now believed to be closer to thirteen million. Experiences have been reported through the centuries, from many cultures and religious traditions.

Whatever the near-death experience is, it is neither recent nor local. Something happens, and it changes peoples lives."

Now what you, Adam, seek to do is to say that yeah, it happens, but it's just a biological brain process. Even if you are correct doesn't really matter. So Ketamine can reproduce the effects of an NDE, even your own source states this is NOT evidence against an afterlife. As the source I gave says, there may be more than one way to "tune in" the place we come from.

The NDE web site I provided has hundreds of examples, many of which make claims of observing actions and events during the time the observer was physically dead. These actions and events, some of which were miles away from the scene of the death, were later confirmed. However, I did get mixed up with reincarnation and called this evidence "irrefutable". I admit this was a mistake, because none of this evidence has been independantly confirmed (at least not that I know) the way reincarnation evidence has. So I will modify what I wrote about you, Adam, and put it this way:

If you deny reincarnation is a fact, then you are not the objective logician you claim to be and cannot argue objectively for any cause, including AGW.

If you deny NDEs are a fact, pretty much ditto because you are arguing against overwhelming evidence from nearly all historical records.

If you deny there is any meaning to NDE's, and insist they are just biological process, there is not a problem, you are subscribing to an alternate theory of NDE's, and so far neither theory has been scientifically proven fact. But I should add that most of those who have provided unverified proof of the NDE ( a transcript of actions and events while dead ) are NOT writing books, are NOT claiming to be special messengers from God, and don't even LIKE the attention their experience has given them, and this argues for their evidence being valid. You should consider this.

As far as what I wrote suggesting you might be a fraud, let me amend that to say: if you refuse to believe in reincarnation without refuting the evidence against it, then you are a fraud in representing yourself as an objective logician.

Let's be perfectly clear: no one can definitively prove or disprove the existence of an afterlife. The scientific evidence of reincarnation still doesn't require an afterlife or an eternity, strictly speaking. But it is evidence of SOMETHING that transcends physical death, which is a long way towards the idea of an afterlife.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Reincarnation is fact,

Let's be perfectly clear: no one can definitively prove or disprove the existence of an afterlife.

Now Paul is arguing with himself! Har!

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

NO NO NO, you don't make the rules, kiddo. I'm not making a claim, I've said all along my beliefs require a degree of faith.

I did get mixed up in your referrals to reincarnation versus NDE. So to make it clear:

Reincarnation is fact, it has verifiable evidence from many instances of hypnosis which can be found by anyone who genuinely seeks it. And again, someone who finds this evidence and still doesn't want to believe can make claims of collusion or cheating, but such a person should then realize that the climategate scandal shows that these claims might even hold against their own figureheads.

As far as NDE is concerned, Adam, even the source you provided ( http://www.mythsdreamssymbols.com/ne...periences.html ) has this to say:

"Yet the phenomenon cannot be dismissed just because we cannot explain it. A 1982 Gallup Poll estimated that at least eight million adults in the US alone have had an NDE; the figure is now believed to be closer to thirteen million. Experiences have been reported through the centuries, from many cultures and religious traditions.

Whatever the near-death experience is, it is neither recent nor local. Something happens, and it changes peoples lives."

Now what you, Adam, seek to do is to say that yeah, it happens, but it's just a biological brain process. Even if you are correct doesn't really matter. So Ketamine can reproduce the effects of an NDE, even your own source states this is NOT evidence against an afterlife. As the source I gave says, there may be more than one way to "tune in" the place we come from.

The NDE web site I provided has hundreds of examples, many of which make claims of observing actions and events during the time the observer was physically dead. These actions and events, some of which were miles away from the scene of the death, were later confirmed. However, I did get mixed up with reincarnation and called this evidence "irrefutable". I admit this was a mistake, because none of this evidence has been independantly confirmed (at least not that I know) the way reincarnation evidence has. So I will modify what I wrote about you, Adam, and put it this way:

If you deny reincarnation is a fact, then you are not the objective logician you claim to be and cannot argue objectively for any cause, including AGW.

If you deny NDEs are a fact, pretty much ditto because you are arguing against overwhelming evidence from nearly all historical records.

If you deny there is any meaning to NDE's, and insist they are just biological process, there is not a problem, you are subscribing to an alternate theory of NDE's, and so far neither theory has been scientifically proven fact. But I should add that most of those who have provided unverified proof of the NDE ( a transcript of actions and events while dead ) are NOT writing books, are NOT claiming to be special messengers from God, and don't even LIKE the attention their experience has given them, and this argues for their evidence being valid. You should consider this.

As far as what I wrote suggesting you might be a fraud, let me amend that to say: if you refuse to believe in reincarnation without refuting the evidence against it, then you are a fraud in representing yourself as an objective logician.

Let's be perfectly clear: no one can definitively prove or disprove the existence of an afterlife. The scientific evidence of reincarnation still doesn't require an afterlife or an eternity, strictly speaking. But it is evidence of SOMETHING that transcends physical death, which is a long way towards the idea of an afterlife.

then shut up about your beliefs, I have no interest in blind faith about the garbage of any religion.

Researchers who believe in the evidence for reincarnation have been unsuccessful in getting the scientific community to consider it a serious possibility. Until that happens I will have nothing to do with your so-called 'fact'.

Yeah maybe you should read my article a bit more clearly, that was just in the general information section, scroll down to the facts section to see why it can be ignored because of modern neuroscience ("It does prove that an NDE is not proof of an afterlife").

Ian Stevenson was one of the lead reincarnation researchers and has come to the conclusion that reincarnation is a fact...but,

Critics contend that no line of research has demonstrated the existence of reincarnation and that work seeking to show that reincarnation is scientifically proved has either been ignored or considered pseudoscientific.

His methodology was criticized for providing no conclusive evidence for the existence of past lives. In a book review criticizing one of Stevenson's books, the reviewer raised the concern that many of Stevenson's examples were gathered in cultures with pre-existing belief in reincarnation.

To his detractors, he was earnest, dogged but ultimately misguided, led astray by gullibility, wishful thinking and a tendency to see science where others saw superstition(a.k.a pseudoscience).

Most of the scientific articles I've read on reincarnation claim it to be a pseudoscience nothing more. So I DO reject that reincarnation is a fact despite all your irrefutable evidence, scientists disagree so maybe you are overestimating your case quite a bit. Scientific evidence is certainly lacking when it comes to reincarnation. Reincarnation=pseudoscience and is therefore garbage...

No one can definitely prove or disprove the afterlife? Then shut up about it and we'll find out who's right when we die.