{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/31/2017 9:11:41 PM
68
Science has proven Earth goes through warming and cooling phases. The problem with do humans drastically impact it is hard to say. It depends on whose studies you believe. There are good studies that suggest we do and there are good studies that suggest we don't. It kind of is similar to evolution vs creation debate as no side has a smoking gun. While we do have proof of evolution we still do not have the missing link. So as stated it just depends on who's science you follow as you can have an educated debate for either.
English
-
Could you please link the "good" studies that suggest we don't?
-
Simple Google search either way will provide you with all the information you need for both sides.
-
I just wanted to know where you're receiving your information and what you're considering a "good" study.
-
There are so many to choose from. I've done research for myself on the matter but it's up to you to do your own. Also your political views are going to sway you. The biggest thing is to be objective. Just because huffpost or Brietbart say something doesn't necessarily make it true. Unfortunately my time is my own, unless you are willing to pay me to do your research for you.
-
We just want to see some good studies showing us the science behind humans not significantly affecting climate change.
-
I'm glad you would like to see them. But again I'm not your secretary.
-
Bearbeitet von Flee: 1/31/2017 11:19:20 PMYou do realize that you are, to put it politely, pretty much full of shit, right? You come across as extremely poorly educated on issues of science, both by your responses in this thread as well as by bringing up that there is a balance between creationism and evolution. [url=http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta]A 2013 literature review[/url] analyzed over 4,000 published research papers on the causes of global warming. 97% of all these papers concluded that humans are causing global warming. [url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/11/climate_change_denial_why_don_t_they_publish_scientific_papers.html]A 2012 analysis[/url] of almost 14,000 scientific papers published over the course of 30 years found that only 0.1% of all these papers rejected that humans had an influence on climate change. [url=http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf]The fifth version of the United Nations Intergovernmental Climate Panel[/url] did a review of just about all recently available scientific findings and concluded, without any doubt, that "human influence on climate change is real". [url=http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf]A 2010 overview of research[/url] reviewed publication data of nearly 1,500 scientists and found that 97-98% of all regularly publishing climate researchers were clear in their findings that humans affect and influence climate change. [url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/abstract]A large poll of over 3,000 climate scientists[/url] found a near absolute consensus that climate change is influenced by human activity among those who research and specialize in climatology. [url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467616634958]A 2015 literature meta-analysis of studies[/url] that covered a staggering 25,000 recent scientific papers by 70,000 researchers found that only 4 authors disagreed with the notion of human-influenced climate change, meaning that literally 99.99% of all scientists researching climate changes in the last few years agree that humans definitely influence climate change. [url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html]Another literature review[/url] of the research done by nearly 10,000 scientists in 2012-2013 concluded that ONLY ONE SINGLE PERSON out of 10,000 researchers (or 0.01%) did not conclude that humans negatively influence climate change. Anyone who at this point claims that there is some reason to assume that human behavior is not in one way or another contributing to the climate change we are seeing today is ignorant beyond belief and completely uneducated on the issue. There is no balance. There is no equal amount of high quality research indicating that the current climate change might not be influenced by humans. It is clear and definitive. We have a negative effect on climate change.
-
If I wanted to I could post a ton of information from both sides. But I don't. You are resulting to name calling which shows me your maturity. Second I had no idea you have definitive proof on what humans evolved from. I never said once that science has yet to prove evolution. Only stated science has yet to provide the missing link. If you have that you are a rich man. But based on your age I doubt you do.
-
Let's go over this in parts. - No, you couldn't post a ton of information from both sides. I have just demonstrated to you that there is a virtually absolute consensus in the scientific and climatologist community. At best, you could find the 4 out of the 70,000 recently published scientists who disagree, or link some terrible blog by uninformed people who don't understand data or climatology. The fact that you have been asked several times by numerous people to provide any information, no matter how little, to support your point and you have been unable to do so only makes it all the more obvious you legitimately have no clue what you're talking about. - I'm not name calling. Name calling would be saying things like "idiot, jerk" or similar. Saying that you seem uneducated on issues of science and ignorant on the topic of climate change is not at all name calling, nor is it immature. It's an assessment of your level of knowledge based on the unfounded comments you've been making and the fact you have been unable to defend your position. - Please read the following on why you insisting that evolution might be false due to the outdated "missing link" notion is so wrong and, again, completely uninformed. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fossil-fallacy/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/ https://futurism.com/there-is-no-missing-link-in-evolution/ https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/09/if-evolution-is-true-where-are-the-missing-links/ http://www.science20.com/between_death_and_data/missing_link_fallacy-75791 http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/33265/ - Petty attacks on my age will get you nowhere. Don't stoop so low because you're upset I called you out on your ignorant and unfounded opinions that seep a misunderstanding of science, evolution and climatology in almost every single sentence. Denying evolution and anthropogenic climate change is at this point akin to claiming the earth is flat and vaccines cause autism. I really am not trying to put you down, but your opinions simply are not supported by science. You claim they are but after showing you decisively that only 0.0058% of all recently published scientists on the topic of climate change disagree, you still have yet to provide an actual counterargument other than "google it". The brighest minds in our world have reached a consensus on this topic. Do you really think that some anti-science blog or something holds a candle to that? Come on man. You're better than this.
-
Bearbeitet von Aussietye: 2/1/2017 6:09:58 PMActually if I wanted to I could. And I can post dated links as you did. But again it isn't my job. I'm not debating if mankind contributes to global warming. I'm simply stating an educated debate can be made for either side. Also I never claimed vaccines cause autism. Stating someone is full of shit and passive aggressively calling them an idiot is name calling. It's a tell tale sign of someone's age and or maturity. You obviously have your mind made up on the issue, which is fine. But not being able to acknowledge other studies that differ from your opinion is not very mature. I can sit here all day and post studies on how we contribute to global warming followed by studies that show otherwise. Fact is I really don't care who's side of what anyone is on. Fact remains you CAN have an educated debate for either side.
-
Bearbeitet von Flee: 2/1/2017 9:14:48 PMWhatever you say man. All I'm seeing is that I've demonstrated beyond doubt by citing numerous sources that there is a virtually absolute consensus amongst climate scientists on anthropogenic climate change. Alternatively, all you've done is say "I could make a strong and educated case for the opposite, but I just won't". I have not at all made up my mind. I am just saying that I have yet to see any sufficiently compelling evidence to the contrary of the global scientific consensus. I also still think you don't have any clue what you're talking about, seeing how you ignore most of what I say and even bring in completely uninformed opinions on topics like evolution into this discussion.
-
Lol. You beat him
-
It does sound like you have made up your mind. And no I do not want to do research for you as it's not worth my time. Not sure why you are so sensitive over the matter.
-
Why do you keep responding with the fact you don't want to give evidence instead of just giving evidence? You realise that would have been quicker, right?
-
Why is everyone to lazy to do research?
-
[quote]Why is everyone to lazy to do research?[/quote] [quote]Just do a quick Google search[/quote] Lol
-
>when you describe yourself without realising.
-
No, I'm not the one asking for it you are!
-
I'm not asking for it. I'm asking why you are taking so much of your time repeating over and over that you don't want to link sources (the long option) instead of linking a source (the quick option.) You're literally purposefully taking the difficult option.
-
Actually it's not. I would have to sift through all the information and link the most detailed ones. It's alot easier for me to type a response then do research for people. It's not my job and if people are unwilling to look up facts of both sides of a debate, they are not worth it.
-
[quote]It's alot easier for me to type a response then do research for people.[/quote] Yeah, [b][u]a[/u][/b] response. That would be easier. Typing fifty is [i]not[/i] easier than just linking a source however.
-
Actually I type pretty fast so it's no bother for me.
-
You're still completely missing the point and actually starting to piss me off.
-
No I'm not, but it seems you are. See that's the problem with most people, they are willing to take the word of one source or study instead of comparing multiple ones. Could I post one source, sure but it would not be an educated response. An educated response is providing multiple sources and studies. Fact remains I'm not debating one side or another, just stating you can have an educated debate for either.
-
[quote]No I'm not, but it seems you are. See that's the problem with most people, they are willing to take the word of one source or study instead of comparing multiple ones. Could I post one source, sure but it would not be an educated response. An educated response is providing multiple sources and studies. Fact remains I'm not debating one side or another, just stating you can have an educated debate for either.[/quote] HE POSTED 5-6 LINKS! HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE YOURSELF
