- Jul 2, 2003
- 145,325
- 17,476
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
The story there holds regardless of whether the owner is going through a divorce. Don't dodge the points made.
Upvote
0
lol, looks like you need a new fact checking source. At least one with some morals. I mean how can you trust such a source?The story there holds regardless of whether the owner is going through a divorce. Don't dodge the points made.
is there any hope for earth to reverse global warming and is this gods plan? Thanks.
I'm as conservative as you get. But I recognize that climate change and ozone layer depletion are very real events, both of which are caused by humans (mostly, I think), that are leading to the destruction of our planet. If things continue unabated, I worry about the future of sustainable life on our planet.
In my judgement, the UN should pressure nations
like USA, China, and Russia, the three biggest polluters of our planet, into adopting and researching green energy technologies. I worry that doing so could be ineffective, unfortunately. Energy lobbyists have too much power over governments.
nope, try again. My peer review holds, despite the fact you have an agenda that goes against what it says.Your article is really lacking and some of what is lacking was shown.
It was posted on a Word Press site owned by one of the authors - not a peer reviewed anything. The link sources are weak at best. Mostly they are word press sites - like notalotofpeopleknowthat.com.
That isn't scientific at all.
like I said journals are just for cataloguing. And the fact that they can be in book form proves it. so sorry, I guess your just going to have to read it and debate actual facts.That is your opinion. It would not hold in any university setting when critiqued, nor any editorial board for peer-reviewed journals.
No, Journals are not just for cataloging. That statement shows ignorance of how peer review and research occurs.
It is not worth discussing it in that case.
peer review stating, that less than half of scientists agree man is responsible for climate change:
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
point is that less than half, actually believe man is responsible for climate change, that is a far cry from the majority of scientists claiming it is. Believe what you want.
Again point I'd that led than half agree? How is 48% o concensus? Get a clue.
I repeat, people think that global warming via man is a scientific thing, and it isn't, if over half of scientists have no opinion or reject it outright.Everyone knows that there is no consensus among the general public on global warming. That is why we continue to have these debates about global warming. This is also not what I am saying.
You presented the article as showing lack of consensus among scientists, which is not what it says:
You presented the article as showing lack of consensus among scientists. This is not what the article says. The article supports consensus on the existence of man-made global warming among scientists, particularly climate sciences among whom there is >95% agreement.
I repeat Again point Is that less than half agree? How is 48% a concensus? Get a clue.
peer review stating, that less than half of scientists agree man is responsible for climate change:
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
I repeat, people think that global warming via man is a scientific thing, and it isn't, if over half of scientists have no opinion or reject it outright.