rodents predict the weather arguement invalid

We dont seriously do that. You know that, right?

i'm a foreigner how the fucc would i know

Really? Because 99% of every important scientist and scientific organization and data show that humans are causing it. I guess they're wrong. Oh wait. No they aren't.

[b][/b]

[quote]Really? Because 99% of every important scientist and scientific organization and data show that humans are causing it. I guess they're wrong. Oh wait. No they aren't.[/quote] [url=https://youtu.be/SSrjAXK5pGw]>99% arguement[/url] Humans might cause a lot of things to happen, but we don't do [u]anything[/u] like these scientists say. Besides, [url=https://youtu.be/47bNzLj5E_Q]Not like we're gonna change it anyway.[/url]

>pragerU >pragerU >pragerU NOT A -blam!-ING SOURCE. [url=http://oceanrep.geomar.de/28765/]THIS IS A SOURCE[/url] [url=http://boris.unibe.ch/63556/]THIS IS A SOURCE[/url] [url=http://science.sciencemag.org/content/292/5515/270]THIS IS A SOURCE[/url] [url=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-002-0296-y]THIS IS A SOURCE[/url] [url=http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/mindex.shtml]THIS IS A SOURCE[/url] [url=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/abs/nature09268.html]THIS IS A SOURCE[/url] WHY ARE THESE SOURCES AND PRAGER U ISNT? IS IT BECAUSE THESE AGREE WITH MY PERSONAL BELIEF AND PRAGER U DOESN'T? NO. They are credible because the scientific community holds individuals accountable for everything that they publish. The journal which publishes a paper and the authors stand to lose credibility and, further, the ability to work in the field if they are intentionally printing false information or being paid to skew results a certain way. Prager U doesn't have to answer to anyone, and their information can be as flawed as they wish, and they will not be affected. Look at the doctor who fudged the results to claim that vaccines cause autism. When it was discovered that he had altered the results, he was never allowed to conduct research again. Or maybe look at the doctors who have been paid by oil companies to say anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist... That being said, I would also like to point out that the studies I've provided are not random studies I just picked out, and that they are pertinent to this discussion. Finally, I would like to make the observation that the "well even if it has happening and we are the cause of it, we can't do anything about it" argument is inherently flawed and offers a misunderstanding about the situation that could have only been provided to you by fake media such as prager U. For just a single non-obvious example (as in, not the obvious "reduce carbon emissions" and there are many more examples that can be provided) of why this is untrue, I suggest you take a look at the last study I posted, and understand the Phytoplankton populations can very easily be regulated by humans.

[quote]>pragerU >pragerU >pragerU NOT A -blam!-ING SOURCE. [url=http://oceanrep.geomar.de/28765/]THIS IS A SOURCE[/url] [url=http://boris.unibe.ch/63556/]THIS IS A SOURCE[/url] [url=http://science.sciencemag.org/content/292/5515/270]THIS IS A SOURCE[/url] [url=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-002-0296-y]THIS IS A SOURCE[/url] [url=http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/mindex.shtml]THIS IS A SOURCE[/url] [url=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/abs/nature09268.html]THIS IS A SOURCE[/url] WHY ARE THESE SOURCES AND PRAGER U ISNT? IS IT BECAUSE THESE AGREE WITH MY PERSONAL BELIEF AND PRAGER U DOESN'T? NO. [/quote] ok woah holy shit don't throw a fuсking table at me EDIT: The rest of your post Ghost has already aregued with, don't you know that PragerU uses people who have been in there and who's word is credible? Its not reporter talking to reporter about climate change. Also, I dont give a shit about phytoplankton.

Do you not understand the concept of accountability or credibility? Something isn't credible because of who said it. Reread my post, I explained this specifically. Also, phytoplankton make up half of the biomass in the ocean, meaning they are the most influential primary producers on Earth, even for land based life. Their populations have a direct effect on all other life. Furthermore, they are photosynthetic, which means they are collectively the biggest organic carbon sink. Less phytoplankton = less carbon being taken out of the atmosphere. Less carbon being taken out of the atmosphere + more carbon being emitted by humans = excess carbon = climate change. They are entirely relevant to the subject at hand, and "not giving a shit about them" directly translates to you not knowing what the -blam!- you're talking about.

[quote]They are credible because the scientific community holds individuals accountable for everything that they publish. The journal which publishes a paper and the authors stand to lose credibility and, further, the ability to work in the field if they are intentionally printing false information or being paid to skew results a certain way.[/quote] Because peer review doesn't turn into yellow journalism. That's never happened before, after all, a bunch of scientists gathered behind closed doors and said "yeah its good" so they must be telling the absolute truth, and everyone who disagrees with the scientists must be liars. Even the scientists who leave their own labs and claim to disagree are liars! Just trust the scientists and give them your money and we promise to make an oilgarchy. [quote]Appealing to authority is logically fallacious. I didn't answer your loaded question because I knew it lead to a non-argument, which you've presented to me here. Reread my post if you don't understand the concept of accountability and how it relates to credibility.[/quote] [quote]Prager U doesn't have to answer to anyone, and their information can be as flawed as they wish, and they will not be affected.[/quote] Double standards, you rat on Prager U for not answering to anyone, but yet, you are OK when someone else does it, and they agree with you.

Prager u is a more credible source. Do you not know who the people speaking are in his videos?

It isn't. Did you not read what cellar door said earlier about real scientists saying what they do?

[quote]Prager u is a more credible source. Do you not know who the people speaking are in his videos?[/quote] Lmfao try somebody else ghost

[quote][quote]Prager u is a more credible source. Do you not know who the people speaking are in his videos?[/quote] Lmfao try somebody else ghost[/quote] You dodged the question. He has credible experts in his videos because he wants his videos to be credible.

Appealing to authority is logically fallacious. I didn't answer your loaded question because I knew it lead to a non-argument, which you've presented to me here. Reread my post if you don't understand the concept of accountability and how it relates to credibility.

[quote]Appealing to authority is logically fallacious. I didn't answer your loaded question because I knew it lead to a non-argument, which you've presented to me here. Reread my post if you don't understand the concept of accountability and how it relates to credibility.[/quote] Except obviously none of the scientists you cite are held accountable. It's a huge circle jerk of corruption which I've proven to you countless times. Least with prager u he has some diversity. Prager doesn't control his guests they say what they want his whole purpose behind prager u is to bring arguments to light that are shut out in the indoctrination camps known as school

>not held accountable >whatispeerreview.jpeg Like I said ghost, go try to troll someone else.

[quote]>not held accountable >whatispeerreview.jpeg Like I said ghost, go try to troll someone else.[/quote] Most of the shit you posted wasn't properly peer reviewed we've called you on that bullshit before. And peer reviewed doesn't mean shit anyways it doesn't add credibility if they all have the same motive. Science isn't about consensus it's about finding truth and collectivism stops that you need exchange of ideas and the scientists he's had on his videos would blow you away on this debate.

>still doesn't understand what peer review is >HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Did I not just tell you to find someone else to troll?