U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds

And science does not, apparently.

Did the dinosaurs cause an ice age then?

Treating science as a religion is not.

I think all of the cancers involved were genetically passed in latent genes. But the plants only worked on the cancer and cancerous cells, before the research could be completed fully.

This kind of research was put to a complete stop because they couldn't recreate the conditions to cultivate the plant needed to continue research.

Complete nonsequitur, as always.

Classic fone!

That's a shame. Would have been interesting to continuing growing a plant like that. That could have been research money well spent.

Too bad you wouldn't be able to trust the results since all those medical researchers are just working for the money.

You claim what journalists who quote scientists who came up with an explanation to explain their results among their peers as truth that you must defend without doing any critical thinking on your own.
How does not equate into a religious belief?

Money well spent if it cured cancerous cells. Rather than leading to more debates and fear mongering.

I was talking about scientific consensus. Look, actual work has been done by experts by the scientific model, the same model that is used in every other study.

So stop backpedaling into other arguments when you're shot down, as that wasn't what the tangent was about.

As far as your accusations there, you're the one jumping on the bandwagon, nice job falling for big oil's propaganda.

I get it. Something like cancer research is more understandable to you. However, what is and isn't true doesn't revolve around what you're able to understand.

Journalist what? When did I make such a claim?

If I don't understand something I question it until I do. Otherwise I rarely take it on faith alone. Especially when there is a lot of controversy from both sides.

This may sound like I'm trolling, but I'm genuinely curious. If climate scientists had data that showed that current climate change was just part of the earth's natural cycle and there was no cause for alarm, would most of them still receive funding?

So you're a climate scientist then?

All you've done is call it a hoax and scam. You can drop the pretense of impartiality. I'm willing to bet you haven't read any of the report I linked.

It's hard to tell, one would need a comprehensive list of climate scientists, their donors/grants and inquire as to the reason the money was funded, as it's not all government money.

There's also more to climate science than AGW, but you know, who cares about that?

I don't want to go into a helixical thing here with you, it's getting boring, lol.

Yes? From the oil, logging and gas industries that'd pay a mint for data saying they have nothing to do with the Earth goofing? Or from universities that'd want to be the groundbreakers on this reversal of current trends.

You keep implying people here are sheep to this "science faith". Not even once has crossed your mind that some might actually have reviewed these researches and formed their own opinions about it based on their scientific knowledge? There might even be someone with a degree in natural science, isn't that so incredible!

A lot of pharmaceutical companies actually push for the delay of curative research, because treatment is a better money maker.

Regardless of what the malady is.

Seriously, go on to one of those home doctor sites, and look up a common malady or symptom. Look at how much of them intersect with minor medical problems, and major.

You're going to want to get treated for something major before even considering the minor. Because you read about it on the internet.

More than half the time, the "fear mongering" you see, comes from your own misinterpretation of facts and hypotheses. Or lack of understanding of how something works.

For example: One could say that religion is a scam, because of a predominant exposure to evidence that says it is, and by ignoring evidence to the contrary, simply because they've already considered the first exposure to be true, and will do everything in their power to discredit anything stating otherwise.

When it comes to Anthropogenic Global Warming, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence from multiple credible sources, which also link to documents and researches that state otherwise.

To some degree, global warming was going to happen, and ultimately shift the magnetic poles over a vast amount of time. The evidence being presented to us, is about the human impact we're having on global climate change, is that we've irrefutably sped up the process, and can thus claim human induced global climate change.

In order to do so, we have to use the best tools at our disposal to create a study using hypothesis and collected data to explain the current theory behind it.

There hasn't been a whole lot of evidence presented that we haven't polluted the earth to the point of being negligible in producing additional or excess green house gases for our immediate sustainability.

If you had a piece of evidence that effectively disproved the entire theory, you would probably end up with the Nobel. However, it would take an extraordinary revelation to upend something so well-established.

3rd time, Carbon credits are the scam.

Have you read any links I posted?

See how this works both ways?

Why should I listen to your parroting of what others have to say versus critical thinking of the issue?

Not directed at you, but when did I ever say I was for big oil?

In the beginning few pages I said I'm against real pollution. IE. pipeline bursts and fracking.

Now who's being selective?

I'm sure there is more to it, but it only makes sense that they receive more funding due to there being a potential crisis. I'm not going to say it's all a scam to score more cash for researchers, but there's no denying that it promotes bias. Encouraging impartiality in scientific fields is difficult when there's more money on the line for a particular result.

That's what I'm waiting for. Some thinking on the issue that I can't just Google and find it somewhere else word for word.

Yeah and then you would ask for a source to such bold statements. Like you don't know that wouldn't be the rebuttal..

I am not, but there is a middle group between being a climate scientist and relying on journalist for your scientific information. I don't even read scientific news articles unless they're written by the scientist themselves.

Better? I've read every link in this thread. If you think what you're spouting constitutes critical thinking, I've got some bad news for you son.

I've provided links to source information. You've ignored it because you don't *** care. Just admit that and move on.

You can't cite independent thoughts. Just the place(s) that made you think differently.