The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

[thesometimesaint]

It seems the ones standing in the way are the GW protagonists.

 

You just made a funny.

 

SEE

[pogi]

TSS you have not addressed my issue.

 

Lets take a good look at the charts.  Has the earth's temperature been changing?  Yes.  Did the industrial revolution trigger it?  Probably not.  Look at these charts, they are like clock work.  The latest trend in global warming is entirely predictable based on historical trends.  To me it looks like we are peaking out and beginning a cooling trend that would be predicted about this time.  These warming and cooling trends have been based on the earths rotational cycle (as your scientists state) and were NOT instigated by changes in C02.  If the earth's rotational cycle continues as it always has, it appears that we are in for a cooling trend, headed for another ice age.  Now look at the C02 levels, we are around 150 ppm higher than we EVER have been in history, yet our temps are around 3 degrees cooler than previous peaks which happened 125,000, 225,000 and 325,000 years ago.  How do you explain that?  

 

As I have already demonstrated, and as these charts demonstrate - historically, temperature changes are not affected by increasing or decreasing C02, but are affected much more by the rotations of the earth.  These charts show that even as C02 is increasing over an 800 year period, temperatures are decreasing for those 800 years, and continue to decrease until the earths rotation changes.  The C02 always follows the temps.  

 

I don't think that there is any doubt that C02 traps heat.  Any simple home test can demonstrate that a 2-litter bottle with C02 will warm up hotter than a bottle with regular air when placed in front of a heating lamp.  It only takes a couple of minutes for the temperature difference to manifest itself.  So, why are we about 3 degrees cooler now than in previous times in history, despite much higher C02?  It doesn't take long for C02 to absorb energy - minutes, yet we don't see any radical spikes in temperature that come even close to what we should expect with C02 levels higher than they ever have been in history.  Perhaps there is more going on than meets the eye.  We simply don't know how high atmospheric C02 levels have to get before the globes temperatures are significantly affected.  Perhaps the concentration levels are still far too low to have any significant affect.  The 2-litter bottle test is not a good predictive test because the concentration of C02 is almost 100% and earth's atmosphere is not even close to that.

 

 If these charts were the foreign exchange market charts for the US dollar, I would be selling the USD predicting a decline in value based on historical trends.  Like I said, it is like clock work.  If C02 really does increase global temperatures, than it will simply be counter-balanced by the predictable cooling trend that we expect to happen.  That should keep the earths temperature fairly nice for the next 150,000 years.  The next cooling trend should drop the earths temp almost 10 degrees cooler than now (brrrrrrr! Bring on the C02)  150,000 of cooling is a long time to figure things out before the next warming trend, if C02 levels balance out the 10 degree drop in temp. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, please no videos in response.

Edited March 24, 2015 by pogi

[ERayR]

TSS you have not addressed my issue.

 

Lets take a good look at the charts.  Has the earth's temperature been changing?  Yes.  Did the industrial revolution trigger it?  Probably not.  Look at these charts, they are like clock work.  The latest trend in global warming is entirely predictable based on historical trends.  To me it looks like we are peaking out and beginning a cooling trend that would be predicted about this time.  These warming and cooling trends have been based on the earths rotational cycle (as your scientists state) and were NOT instigated by changes in C02.  If the earth's rotational cycle continues as it always has, it appears that we are in for a cooling trend, headed for another ice age.  Now look at the C02 levels, we are around 150 ppm higher than we EVER have been in history, yet our temps are around 3 degrees cooler than previous peaks which happened 125,000, 225,000 and 325,000 years ago.  How do you explain that?  

 

As I have already demonstrated, and as these charts demonstrate - historically, temperature changes are not affected by increasing or decreasing C02, but are affected much more by the rotations of the earth.  These charts show that even as C02 is increasing over an 800 year period, temperatures are decreasing for those 800 years, and continue to decrease until the earths rotation changes.  The C02 always follows the temps.  

 

I don't think that there is any doubt that C02 traps heat.  Any simple home test can demonstrate that a 2-litter bottle with C02 will warm up hotter than a bottle with regular air when placed in front of a heating lamp.  It only takes a couple of minutes for the temperature difference to manifest itself.  So, why are we about 3 degrees cooler now than in previous times in history, despite much higher C02?  It doesn't take long for C02 to absorb energy - minutes, yet we don't see any radical spikes in temperature that come even close to what we should expect with C02 levels higher than they ever have been in history.  Perhaps there is more going on than meets the eye.  We simply don't know how high atmospheric C02 levels have to get before the globes temperatures are significantly affected.  Perhaps the concentration levels are still far too low to have any significant affect.  The 2-litter bottle test is not a good predictive test because the concentration of C02 is almost 100% and earth's atmosphere is not even close to that.

 

 If these charts were the foreign exchange market charts for the US dollar, I would be selling the USD predicting a decline in value based on historical trends.  Like I said, it is like clock work.  If C02 really does increase global temperatures, than it will simply be counter-balanced by the predictable cooling trend that we expect to happen.  That should keep the earths temperature fairly nice for the next 150,000 years.  The next cooling trend should drop the earths temp almost 10 degrees cooler than now (brrrrrrr! Bring on the C02)  150,000 of cooling is a long time to figure things out before the next warming trend, if C02 levels balance out the 10 degree drop in temp. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, please no videos in response.

 

Now you went and done it.  Brought out the charts like that.  What are you trying to do?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

1

Edited March 24, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Luddite.

Pro move by TSS. It is clear that you have lost this debate. Everyone but you, I guess.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[ERayR]

Pro move by TSS. It is clear that you have lost this debate. Everyone but you, I guess.

 

A person convinced against his will is unconvinced still.

[MormonFreeThinker]

All the more reason to be skeptical of the mantra that man is the major cause.

 

CO2 has caused Global Warming in the past, today humans are emitting a lot more CO2 than volcanoes.

CO2 climate change skeptics are never skeptical about bad arguments. 

 

Most of them are not skeptical at all. 

Edited March 24, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[MormonFreeThinker]

TSS you have not addressed my issue.

 

Lets take a good look at the charts.  Has the earth's temperature been changing?  Yes.  Did the industrial revolution trigger it?  Probably not.  

 

but 99% of the scientific papers disagree with you. The few papers that agree with you have NOT survived scientific scrutiny.  

Are you a climate researcher? Do you have something new to offer? Who do you think you are? 

 

Look at these charts, they are like clock work.  The latest trend in global warming is entirely predictable based on historical trends.  To me it looks like we are peaking out and beginning a cooling trend that would be predicted about this time.  These warming and cooling trends have been based on the earths rotational cycle (as your scientists state) and were NOT instigated by changes in C02.  If the earth's rotational cycle continues as it always has, it appears that we are in for a cooling trend, headed for another ice age. 

 

The ice age was not going to happen for thousands of years. Look at the recent history, in less than 30 years the Earth has warmed almost 1 degree, that is super fast, how do you explain that? 

 

 Now look at the C02 levels, we are around 150 ppm higher than we EVER have been in history, yet our temps are around 3 degrees cooler than previous peaks which happened 125,000, 225,000 and 325,000 years ago.  How do you explain that?  

 

You need to give me the source and the context of your second graph. Where did you get it from? 

CO2 levels have been higher before, but not in the past 600,000 years. 

 

So please give me the context, because climate change skeptics usually present the data out of context, because they usually ignore other factors. 

Is it showing surface temperatures? Regional temperatures? Global Temperatures? 

Bytheway, your own graph agrees that there is a link between CO2 levels and Temperatures. 

 

 

 

Pro move by TSS. It is clear that you have lost this debate. Everyone but you, I guess.

 

but I always win them Many cannot respond to the evidence I presented. 

 

Edited March 24, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[MormonFreeThinker]

 At least I consider data that you dismiss out of hand.

 

I won't dismiss the evidence, I am open minded. 

I will dismiss the "evidence" that is out of context or flawed. 

 

I used to believe in dinosaurs in Noah's ark, I used to take AnswerInGenesis website seriously, but I changed my mind because of the evidence. 

I used to be a CO2 caused skeptic, but now I think it is highly likely because of the evidence. 

 

Perhaps it is you that is not willing to take what I am presenting seriously? 

 

 

Now you went and done it. Brought out the charts like that. What are you trying to do?

 

He needs to tell me the context for his second graph, what temperatures? surface temperatures? A regional Temperature? Global Temperature?  

He also needs to present his source, I am very skeptical when someone doesn't present his sources. 

Edited March 24, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[pogi]

Who do you think you are? 

 

Hi, I'm Pogi 

 

The ice age was not going to happen for thousands of years. Look at the recent history, in less than 30 years the Earth has warmed almost 1 degree, that is super fast, how do you explain that? 

 

 

Ummm...no.  Why is it that global warming fanatics only talk about C02 levels and neglect solar cycles which have historically driven climate change?  You don't know what solar cycle we are in right now do you? 

 

You need to give me the source and the context of your second graph. Where did you get it from? 

 

 

Google: Temperature and C02 charts history, then search by google images.  It is all over the place, I  didn't get it from some sketchy skeptic site. 

 

but I always win them Many cannot respond to the evidence I presented. 

 

 

Ok, now that I have watched about 1 million youtube video from you two cats, it is only fair that you watch a few from me.  Sit back, relax, and observe the evidence.  This is a presentation split up into 6 or 7 series about 10 or fifteen minutes each.  Watch each one.  Prove to me that you are an open minded free-thinker.

 

 

[pogi]

 in less than 30 years the Earth has warmed almost 1 degree, that is super fast, how do you explain that? 

 

Pick a chart of your choice and you will see that it is not that fast or significant at all.  You will also see that there has been no global warming for the past 18 years.

Now study solar cycles and you will see that we are at the beginning of a solar hibernation or cooling which happens every 206 years.

 

Edited March 24, 2015 by pogi

[MormonFreeThinker]

Pick a chart of your choice and you will see that it is not that fast or significant at all.  You will also see that there has been no global warming for the past 18 years.

 

LOL that is the power of google, it is out of context. 

There has been not surface warming for the past 18 years, it is probably because the sun has shown a slight cooling trend, which  proves that Global Warming is not caused by the sun or  earths rotational cycle. Most of the Global Warming is going to the oceans, your information ignores that. 

 

It is not good to trust google more than the scientific literature, just look at how much anti-mormon stuff the internet has. 

 

 

This is a presentation split up into 6 or 7 series about 10 or fifteen minutes each. Watch each one. Prove to me that you are an open minded free-thinker.

 

Sure, I want to see them debate the climate scientists, that will be interesting. 

Edited March 25, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[ERayR]

CO2 has caused Global Warming in the past, today humans are emitting a lot more CO2 than volcanoes.

CO2 climate change skeptics are never skeptical about bad arguments. 

 

Most of them are not skeptical at all. 

 

Hey I already expressed my concern.  I'll do it again just for you.   THE SKY IS FALLING.  THE SKY IS FALLING.  Now you know I am concerned.

[pogi]

Pick a chart of your choice and you will see that it is not that fast or significant at all.  You will also see that there has been no global warming for the past 18 years.

 

 

LOL that is the power of google, it is out of context. 

 

uhum, I said pick a chart any chart - how could a chart that you pick be out of context?  You were the one who brought up the context of surface temperatures y saying that they have increased by 1 degree in 30 years, but it is out of context for me to point out that the last 18 years have shown 0 degrees increase in temperature?  That is nuts.

 

Most of the Global Warming is going to the oceans, your information ignores that. 

 

Watch the videos - the "oceans" are not warming.

Edited March 25, 2015 by pogi

[ERayR]

uhum, I said pick a chart any chart - how could a chart that you pick be out of context?  You were the one who brought up the context of surface temperatures y saying that they have increased by 1 degree in 30 years, but it is out of context for me to point out that the last 18 years have shown 0 degrees increase in temperature?  That is nuts.

 

 

Watch the videos - the "oceans" are not warming.

And this is one of the open minded ones.  Someone who is willing to change his mind. 

[MormonFreeThinker]

uhum, I said pick a chart any chart - how could a chart that you pick be out of context?  You were the one who brought up the context of surface temperatures y saying that they have increased by 1 degree in 30 years,

 

Your statement is out of context

You will also see that there has been no global warming for the past 18 years.

 

 Global Temperatures have increased almost 1 degree in less than 30 years. 

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

 

but you are confusing surface temperatures with Global temperatures. Surface temperatures are not relevant to the topic, but  it disproves your earths rotational cycle theory. 

 

 

Watch the videos - the "oceans" are not warming.

 

Are videos more reliable than the scientific literature?

I want to see them debate the climate scientists. 

 

 

And this is one of the open minded ones. Someone who is willing to change his mind.

 

I was a skeptic, I did change my mind. 

Edited March 25, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[longview]

uhum, I said pick a chart any chart - how could a chart that you pick be out of context?  You were the one who brought up the context of surface temperatures y saying that they have increased by 1 degree in 30 years, but it is out of context for me to point out that the last 18 years have shown 0 degrees increase in temperature?  That is nuts.

 

Watch the videos - the "oceans" are not warming.

Thank you Pogi for the MOST excellent video.  It is funny that TSS and MFT will throw tons of videos at people but many of them turn out either to be unrelated or very unfocused.

 

As a result of this video, I am finding some new websites that are amazing and very grounded in REAL science - - -

 

see http://www.spaceandscience.net/id4.html

 

Researchers who have predicted a long term solar minimum or ‘solar hibernation’ and/or a new climate change to a period of long lasting cold weather based upon solar activity. 

1. Dr. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov: Russian Academy of Scientists. Head of space research at the Pulkova Observatory, St. Petersburg.

Comment: RIA Novosti, August 25, 2006: “Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17^th century – when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland – could start in 2012-2015 (sic) and reach its peak in 2055-2060….He said he believed the future climate change would have very serious consequences and that authorities should start preparing for them today….”

2.  David Archibald. Summa Development Limited. (Australia).

     From his paper: Archibald, D.C., (2006), Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response, Energy and Environment, Vol.17, No.1.

     Comment from paper: “Based on a solar maxima of approximately 50 for solar cycles 24 and 25, a global temperature decline of 1.5C is predicted to 2020 equating to the experience of the Dalton Minimum.”

 3. Dr. O.G.Badalyan, and Dr.V.N. Obridko, Institute of Terrestrial Magnestism. Russia, Dr.J.Sykora. Astronomical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovak Republic.

     From their paper: Balalyan, O.G., V.N. Obridko, and J. Sykora, (2000), Brightness of the coronal green line and prediction for activity cycles 23 and 24, Solar Physics, 199: pp.421-435.

Comment from paper: “ A slow increase in (intensity of coronal green line) in the current cycle 23 permits us to forecast a low-Wolf-number (number of sunspots) cycle 24 with the maximum W~50 at 2010-2011.” (Note: a 50 sunspot level is a Dalton class minimum)

 4. Dr. B. P. Bonev,  Dr. Kaloyan M. Penev, Dr. Stefano Sello.

    From their paper: Bonev, B.P., et. al., (2004), Long term solar variability and the solar cycle in the 21^st century, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 605, pp.L81-L84.

Comment from their paper: “…we conclude that the present epoch is at the onset of an upcoming local minimum in long term solar variability.”

 5. John L. Casey, President, Space and Science Research Corporation. Orlando, Florida

    From his research report: Casey, John L. (2008), The existence of ‘relational cycles’ of solar activity on a multi-decadal to centennial scale, as significant models of climate change on earth. SSRC Research Report 1-2008 – The RC Theory, www.spaceandscience.net. Comments from the research report:

“ As a result of the theory, it can be predicted that the next solar minimum may start within the next 3-14 years, and last 2-3 solar cycles or approximately 22-33 years. …It is estimated that there will be a global temperature drop on average between 1.0 and 1.5 degrees C, if not lower, at least on the scale of the Dalton Minimum. …This forecast next solar minimum will likely be accompanied by the coldest period globally for the past 200 years and as such, has the potential to result in world wide, agricultural, social, and economic disruption.”

6. Dr. Peter Harris. Engineer, retired, Queensland, Australia.

From his analysis of glacial and interglacial cycles he concludes: “…we can say there is a probability of 94% of imminent global cooling and the beginning of the coming ice age.”

7. Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera. Researcher at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

His comments from his research released in August 2008: “…in two years or so, there will be a small ice age that lasts for 60-80 years.”

8. Dr’s. Y.T.Hong, H.B. Jiang, T.S. Liu, L.P.Zhou, J.Beer, H.D. Li, X.T.Leng, B.Hong, and X.G. Qin.

From their paper: Response of climate to solar forcing recorded in 6,000-year (isotope) O18 time-series of Chinese peat cellulose. The Holocene 10.1 (2000) pp. 1-7.

The Chinese team of researchers observed “…a striking correspondence of climate events to nearly all of the apparent solar activity changes.”

In showing O18 isotope measurements were high during the coldest periods they concluded, “If the trend after AD 1950 continues…the next maximum of the peat O18 (and therefore cold maximum) would be expected between about AD 2000 and AD 2050.”

 9. Dr. Boris Komitov, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Astronomy, and  Dr. Vladimir Kaftan: Central Research Institute of Geodesy, Moscow.

     From their paper: Komitov, B., and V. Kaftan, (2004), The sunspot activity in the last two millennia on the basis of indirect and instrumented indexes: time series models and their extrapolations for the 21^st century, paper presented at the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 223.

Comment from paper: “It follows from their extrapolations for the 21^st century that a supercenturial solar minimum will be occurring during the next few decades….It will be similar in magnitude to the Dalton minimum, but probably longer as the last one.”

 10. Dr. Theodor Landscheidt (1927- 2004), Schroeter Institiute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, Canada)

Among his comments from many years of research on solar climate forcing include: “Contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man made warming as high as 5.8(degrees)C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected.”

11. Dr. Tim Patterson: Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton Univ., Can.      

From an article in the Calgary Times: May 18, 2007. Indeed, one of the more interesting, if not alarming statements Patterson made before the Friends of Science luncheon is satellite data shows that by the year 2020 the next solar cycle is going to be solar cycle 25 – the weakest one since the Little Ice Age (that started in the 13^th century and ended around 1860) a time when people living in London, England, used to walk on a frozen Thames River and food was scarcer. Patterson: “This should be a great strategic concern in Canada because nobody is farming north of us.” In other words, Canada – the great breadbasket of the world - just might not be able to grow grains in much of the prairies.

12.Dr’s. Ken K. Schatten and W.K.Tobiska. (In other works D.Hoyt)

From their paper presented at the 34^th Solar Physics Division meeting of the American Astronomical Society, June 2003:

“The surprising result of these long range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity.”

13. Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin. Merited Scientist of Russia and Fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and researcher at the Oceanology Institute.

From recent news articles, regarding the next climate change he has said: “Astrophysics know two solar cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of irradiating solar surface….Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041,and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.”

14. Dr’s. Ian Wilson, Bob Carter, and I.A. Waite.

From their paper: Does a Spin-Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle? Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 25(2) 85-93 June 2008).

Dr. Wilson adds the following clarification:

“It supports the contention that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20-30 years. On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by ~ 1-2 C.”

15. Dr’s. Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian. Nanjing Normal University, China

From their paper in Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 95,115-121: Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years.

“… we believe global climate changes will be in a trend of falling in the following 20 years.”

 

AND this prediction from John L. Casey of SSRC - - - http://www.spaceandscience.net/index.html

 

IMPORTANT NEWS ITEM:

SSRC Press Release 4-2014 has been posted effective Thursday, November 20, 2014, at 3:00 PMEST. This release is titled:

"Historic Global Temperature Drop Predicted"

The Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) announces today an important set of climate predictions that say a significant, if not historic, drop in global temperatures will begin between 2015 and 2016!  Go to the Press Release page to read the release. 

These predictions provide a specific schedule for the coming new cold climate which is expected to have devastating consequences for the world's crops.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Thank you Pogi for the MOST excellent video.

 

Here is a debate, both sides are presented. You will only believe the videos that agree with your conclusion. 

Bytheway, Pogi believes in Death before the Fall and Evolution. 

 

Edited March 25, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[pogi]

No, Global Temperatures have increased almost 1 degree in less than 30 years. 

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

 

but you are confusing surface temperatures with Global temperatures. Surface temperatures are not relevant to the topic. 

 

Do you even know what you are talking about?

 

From your link:

"This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures."

 

If surface temps are not relevant, why are you showing me surface temp charts?  That is what global warming IS according to NASA:

 

"Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth's average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released as people burn fossil fuels.

 

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

 

Here is a chart from a source you trust that shows a leveled out global temp over the last 18 years.  Look at the red bars.  (which coincides with the bicentennial solar cycle which will bring about global cooling).

 

 

Edited March 25, 2015 by pogi

[ERayR]

Here is a debate, both sides are presented. You will only believe the videos that agree with your conclusion. 

Bytheway, Pogi believes in Death before the Fall and Evolution. 

 

 

You will only believe the videos that agree with your conclusion.

 

Bytheway, Pogi believes in Death before the Fall and Evolution. 

What does this have to do with the present discussion? 

[MormonFreeThinker]

You will only believe the videos that agree with your conclusion.

 

No, that is why I changed my mind, I used to be a skeptic. 

[pogi]

Here is a debate, both sides are presented. You will only believe the videos that agree with your conclusion. 

 

I am not interested in debates, I am interested in the numbers and charts and solar cycles that historically coincide with those charts.  I think it is you who only believes in videos that agree with your conclusions.  At least I watch your videos - you don't even give me the courtesy to watch my videos.  Not very open minded of you.  For a "free thinker" you sure like to follow the popular crowd without researching both sides. 

 

Bytheway, Pogi believes in Death before the Fall and Evolution.

 

Is that your attempt of a smear campaign? That is laughable and speaks volumes. 

Edited March 25, 2015 by pogi

[Skylla]

No insults.

 

Skylla

[MormonFreeThinker]

Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth's average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released as people burn fossil fuels.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

 

 

It is talking about the land and ocean surface temperature, not the surface air temperatures alone. 

 

 

 

Here is a chart from a source you trust that shows a leveled out global temp over the last 18 years.  Look at the red bars.  (which coincides with the bicentennial solar cycle which will bring about global cooling).

 

I agree, there was no global warming in the surface air temperatures  

 

 

 

I am not interested in debates, I am interested in the numbers and charts and solar cycles that historically coincide with those charts.

 

I agree with critic Dan Vogel when he said, "Google is a great tool, but it makes some people lazy. Gathering the data is simple; interpreting it quite another thing" 

 

 

 

 For a "free thinker" you sure like to follow the popular crowd without researching both sides. 

 

I have, but there are no significant both sides in the scientific literature. There was a significant debate 40 years ago, not anymore. 

Edited March 25, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[mfbukowski]

Is that your attempt of a smear campaign? That is laughable and speaks volumes. 

I saw that and could not believe it.

 

And this guy is supposed to be into science?  What was that about anyway??