http://awesomelyluvvie.com/wp-conten...Holy-Bible.jpg
Maybe Tgo's got one of these?
Printable View
http://awesomelyluvvie.com/wp-conten...Holy-Bible.jpg
Maybe Tgo's got one of these?
Actually, you are right. My Bad. Hmm..
I can't find numbers.. but I think it's around 100% of Religious leaders say that God Exists. (Religious leaders being the ones most likely to know if God exists or not, similar to scientists with climate change, no?)So there you go, leading figures in the Religious Movement have reached a Consensus.
The scientific method is the best thing we have found to understand and solve many types of problems.
Having said that, you really need to stop staying 'peer-review' over and over again in reponse to people that disagree with you. It is trivial to research and read about the large percentage of 'peer-reviewed' science that is unrepeatable, shoddy, or fraudulent. You can even find criticism of peer-reviewed science in peer-reviewed journals.
The way you post often reminds me of Scientism .
This looks good. Unfortunately, the deniers won't read it and the non-deniers won't be surprised.
http://media.bloomsbury.com/rep/f/9781408824832.jpg
Read the excerpt here.
The debate ought to be are we sure we can make as big an impact to the climate in both directions or are we just being egotistical
Can we not prove that man is not having a non negative impact on the weather patterns through our non use of non renewable energy sources? If we can not prove our non impact can we then not prove that it's untrue that man can indeed not reverse the already established effects of man made climate change on our planet through our non inaction?
Can anyone answer me these simple questions? Be sure to show your work.