Unity+

You haven't addressed my other source. Also, so you are admitting that you making an assumption about the minority that do disagree.

For what reason was there a minority of climate scientists who disagreed? And here is an excerpt from Skeptical Science: Now, I don't know if anyone feels the same way, this is quite a broad estimate that should be clarified. Do you think they have a chart that shows the comparisons or the data that shows that the amount is as they state? EDIT: I have a source that has a completely different view on the issue: http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/carbon-dioxide-sources

For me to answer the question, what conclusions are you specifically talking about? If already presented, link the post.

From the evidence that has been presented, I would say climate change does have human influences, to much of the degree that it has been stated I am skeptical to a point on the issue. EDIT: To be honest, this is sounding like Christian jabbing. Christian: "So, are you a Christian?" Person: "Well, I am a Protestant." Christian: "SO YOUR A SATANIST!! ARRHHRHRHRHARHHAHR" Person: "Wha..."

And how far back were these posts? Don't you ever consider that my views on the subject could change?

That actually is what I am telling iNow. Whether I see a primary gap is not of relevance to my point. You keep assuming that I am denying the existence of climate change.

I already see more down votes than up votes. Is there a reason why you wouldn't take interest in the idea?

You keep evading my point here, and it is getting on my nerves. Whether I am convinced is irrelevant. I take things based on their evidence and the counter-evidence. When we become blinded by something in science, it is no longer science. Yes, and I bet there are articles that exist on both sides of the debate. Quantity of articles does not quite to certainty of the conclusions.

Putting words into other people's mouths is a bad strategy, and should be left to politics. Someone else brought it up, but credibility on authority is not the best way to go about an argument. Are their statements accurate? Well, let the evidence speak for itself.

I understand the issue, but if it is incredible then instead of simply just stating its a fallacy, provide a reason why. Since fallacies have definitions, use the parts of the claim to back up the argument that it is fallacious. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/ I think Forbes is a credible enough source. At least it's not Fox News.

How is it nonsensical? Can you explain why? I don't see the relevancy of this statement. Or instead of automatically making such assumption, ask him the question. Nothing wrong with asking questions. It also doesn't help the debate when you fuel their rhetoric. Remaining professional is the biggest strategy when calling out their inaccuracies Well, if you could consider scientists being paid to get their work out there, then there may be no difference between the two.

And why is this? How is he twisting the definition? I think he gave negative reputation points for misrepresenting his actual intentions.

My point still stands.

This is an absolute assumption of his statement, and a misinterpretation. Again, I don't think he is making light of the death toll. He is saying that the allegation that a increase in 2 degrees has lead to these deaths is questionable and, therefore, seemingly not worthy of having grounds. I would assume that if a bridge fell on a group of people and the blame was put on ghosts or the government, we would all either laugh or get angry. I think the 9/11 conspiracies come to mind. It seems the the spin is coming from the accusation that Cobra's response was death itself of these people. EDIT: This is getting slightly off topic. I was merely pointing out that such assumptions and the statement presented were not relevant to the discussion at hand and don't have any basis.

That's not making death a comedic act, that's questioning the validity of the statement that was presented. I think if the question were answered, the argument presented before would have more meaning to it. EDIT: Thank you for editing your statement. It makes things much easier to respond to. He wasn't saying "LOL" to the death itself. He was saying "LOL" to the allegation that these conditions caused death. This is coming from a misunderstanding of the statements being read.

I think it may fall into that category. I don't think they resorted to making death a comedic act.

I don't really think it helps the debate when people resort to petty comments. It's human nature to get angry when people seem to turn a blind eye to the evidence. However, I would agree putting skeptics and deniers in the same category is a misleading argument. I would agree to a certain extent. Yes, the first is true. However, sometimes the most seemingly obvious pieces of logic actually may have more to describe. I am seeing a bias of where the sources come from, on both sides.

The app idea goes off the lines of what a user Strange had described: Basically, the ideas there are two sections: The Official Mathematical section and the Unofficial mathematical section. In the Official Mathematical section, people can create whiteboard nodes, modify them, and have discussions about is commonly accepted in the mathematical community IF THEY ARE A CERTAIN RANK. In the Unofficial Mathematics section, users who are lower ranks can create their own whiteboard nodes, modify them, and discuss them related to mathematical concepts that they have in mind and discuss them. Here is how the Whiteboard node system works: When users create whiteboard nodes, they will have the title of the concept(their concept maybe) and users can create whiteboard nodes that connect to the original one. Along with creating concepts, there will be a tag system that connects the concept to a previous concept that allows that concept to exist. For example, if a person defines a set of axioms for their concept, those tags will link to the axioms being discussed. After a while, if users find a connection between to whiteboard nodes that connects the two concepts, those two concepts will be voted on to see if they truly connect. If the votes reach a certain level, those two concepts are joined together. The same can happen in the Official Mathematical section, but with a bit more scrutiny. Also, things that are in the Unofficial Mathematical section can become a part of the Official section if a certain process is undertaken(still developing this process). Here are some screenshots I have so far of its design: The actual white board stuff isn't set up, but the user stuff is. So, is anyone interested in this?

I never said anything to say my point of view on the subject besides keeping healthy skepticism. In fact, I said in an earlier post "Though we know the denialists are guilty of the same thing." I am a promoter of healthy skepticism. That's why I sometimes go to the Speculation section and help the users do the calculations to see if they are actually going some where with their ideas. I would hope that some of them learn from the process of carrying out their ideas and applying the scientific method correctly. You aren't understanding my point either. If 97% of doctors tell me I have cancer, I would be curious as to why only 97% of them caught something that seemed to obvious while the others did not.

There is a disagreement between these two statements. And what I meant with providing more sources is provide both sides of the argument rather than focusing on one side of it. Provide evidence of the other side of the story. Also, here is something that might be interesting to note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy And I regress, there is also the possibility of such scandals(if true) occurring on the other side of the debate. Now, I find that a good source that looks at both sides of the argument is this one: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/climate-skeptic2.htm This source appoaches BOTH sides of the debate instead of leaving a sense of brutal authority over those who may be skeptic about the issue. EDIT: With answered questions raise more and even more difficult questions to answer. You can argue that the other percentage of climate scientists have skepticism due to political factors, but assuming that would be a fallacy.

Depends what you mean by "skepticism." If you are referring to denial ism, then that's a whole different topic left to the conspiracy theory buffs. Skepticism, but non-rejection, of research in scientific fields is healthy. Having rejection for such skepticism can lead to unnecessary, and unintentional, biases known as "Confirmation bias." Though the denialists are obviously guilty of this, so can we be. The Fallacy of composition can also be provided by the skeptical side of things. Does the rise of CO2 levels automatically a sign of a global catastrophe? Or is it something that naturally occurs as a part of the Earth's cycle? These kinds of questions can and should be asked about the particular issue. Simply rejecting these questions as valid makes the one rejecting these questions more guilty than those who completely deny the existence of climate change. I could list all fallacies that could arise from both sides of the debate. Holding scrutiny of one side with more/less skepticism can lead to biases when both should be approached from equal amounts of skepticism. And I think both you and me are guilty of this. Do I agree with one side or the other? Since I am not a leading expert in the field, I cannot make an expert opinion about the particular topic, however that does not mean I cannot approach the topic with equal amounts of skepticism that I hold to everything else, for if authority was the main argument then I think science would be completely filled with forms of bias. EDIT: And political agendas come in when one side becomes more scrutinized than the other. When the skepticism of one side of the debate not only looked down upon, but also becomes an enemy of political correctness. EDIT2: I also noticed that much of the evidence you link is from the SkepticalScience website. Though we can present this as valid evidence, I think there should be a diversity of the evidence's sources in order to provide a sense of unbias. Considering what the intentions of the site are, I think there can be discussion upon the credibility of the site. I also notice that the articles that challenge the merits of skepticism are not of scientific standing, even when there are arguments that can be made that do have upstanding credibility and evidence, whether they are in huge magnitudes can be left up to debate. I want to point out an interview with the one who is primary of the site: I think he takes the approach that could be considered biased in itself. I think we could debate his biases and how they could be impeding on the objective nature of his articles. I think this article could also bring some upon the skeptical side of things: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/john-cook-of-un-skepticalscience-admits-climate-change-denier-is-inaccurate-will-he-stop-name-calling/ The article explains the nature in which John Cook approaches skeptics, which can be seen as unprofessional.

The problem I face when approaching this issue is the amount of politics involved in this issue. When politics infects science, science becomes a construct of political propaganda more than an objective base point from which the problem can be approached. When it comes to climate change and the amount of scientific research done, it seems more and more propagated by political agendas rather than by pursuing the problem as "let us see if this has merit as a true problem" rather than "we have a conclusion, let's find evidence in support of it." I see this happening on both sides of the debate, and it makes me irk at much of the political tensions that arise from the debate. Instead of approaching skepticism in the light of curiosity, it is met with hostility. The same thing goes to the other side of the debate. It frustrates me how we have lowered our standards about the line between politics and science. This has been seen throughout history, where NAZI ideals infected the ideas of scientific endeavor. Is this similar to how the NAZI's portrayed science? Not completely. However, I think political biases can resort to biases in the research itself. This was definitely shown in how French nationalism lead to a misdirection in the persuit of discovery.

I experienced this feeling when I was in highschool. My geometry teacher told us that there was no pattern for pi and if there were to be a pattern for pi and we found it there would be a lot of money involved. Being curious about this, I decided to go through each number in Pi. Thinking I found a pattern, I presented it to him and became embarrassed because it was just me thinking I had found one when I didn't. Ever since then, I have been interested in Mathematics and realized my ignorance of it. In fact, my love for the subject comes from the mystery involved.

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/physics-hendo-hoverboard/ Have we fulfilled the Back to the Future dream of hoverboards? Or is this simply another ploy?