Unity+

Which piece of information? The fact that Carbon Monoxide is being released or the claim that humans have a massive impact on our climate?

Finally, some sources. Okay, I took a look at the sources. I am a skeptic in scientific field and it helps me discern bias from fact. You would agree that such skepticism is required(at least I hope so). No, it was not an inability to read, but my laziness to look up the source from the pictures because I am not the one presenting the information, but it is you and it is expected that you layout all the sources of the data. Also, source to my assertion: http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf I am not denying that climate change exists. I am simply stating that the supposed evil human species is not the main cause of "global warming."

I did read the bottom right corners, and only one had a source that didn't even provide the website link to it or a pdf for where it came from. And stop using that emoticon. It makes your posts seem unprofessional. Do humans have an impact in some way to climate change and the environment? Of course, we are a species like other species that have the same affect on the environment. Are we the main issue? No, we definitely are not.

If you seriously are going to hide behind a rational explanation...

You are the one who is making your assertions, so it is expected that you give the information so it is easily found. Also, attacking some by asking if they have a disorder makes it seem like you are more insulting than intelligent.

Sorry, the pictures distracted me because of how large they were. Alright, let us analyze the information you have given from some source that you have not given. First picture: 13,905 articles peer-reviewed and 24 reject global warming. I wonder what the peer-reviewers had to say about the papers themselves. Second picture: Okay...you give a percentage but fail to give the sample size out of the whole population. Also, no source given(for some one who accuses me of not giving sources, which I did). Third picture: Again, no sample size given. I don't know what you tried to gain from presenting unreliable statistics without 1) giving a source 2) giving the sample sizes. The thing that drives me nuts is when people follow the commercial route of saying that 97% of some population do something when they only took a sample of 100 or so people. Also, noticed the small, fine print on the bottom of the homepage of that site: I am guessing that you forgot to read that small, fine print that people tend to leave on the farthest side of the scope just to get a point across that may not be factual. Also, Research began more mainstream by the 1960's, as I stated in my earlier post.

But this post suggests on the contrary. Also, I did not see much to review on the site besides clearly biased arguments. I took a look at their references as well, and all I could find is the source that supposedly gave the statistic and then just links the homepage. You can provide the sources those articles presents if you really want to claim such things using a clearly biased site.

Well, the fact that you only look to one source to apprehend your evidence just shows some lack of credibility for statistical information on your part. It would be like only looking at Rational Wikipedia for information, claiming it has all the right un-bias information, and then one would realize that going back to Wikipedia would bring a completely different explanation of the topic, whether with bias or not. And, why even participate in this topic if you just said you aren't interested in engaging in the topic? Seems counter-intuitive to your objective. And what is the relevance of Norway to this discussion? You seem to assert something without even being specific. I never suggested anything of the sort. I stated that it takes much more to make a full conclusion on a controversial area such as climate change. Continuous scientific study is required. In fact, it would take much time to make a full conclusion on the Earth's natural cycle of climate in order to make a full conclusion on Earth natural cycles. Both arguments require more time to analyze. It would be like declaring the existence of a new particle just based on 10 sets of statistical data. It required the existence of the Higgs Boson over 10 years to confirm it's existence and it is still debatable of whether there may be more Higgs Bosons than thought. You must be careful with both arguments. The theorization of the Higgs boson occurred only in 1964, which since it's confirmation in 2012-2013, this would mean it took 48 years to even declare one particle to exist because of the complexity of the particle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson While address of global warming occurred in the 1950's, more scientific analysis of it began after 1992. Since it is 2013, this means that it has only been 21 years since the hypothesis of global warming has been analyzed. It will probably take way more years to have a complete understanding of Earth's ecosystem and the effects of humans on the natural environment, though intensive study has been done on small parts of human activity, such as the destruction of habitats and its affect on animals in the wild, which is more of an obvious conclusion, but still requires more analysis. You must think of humans as a species on Earth as well when referring to the scientific changes in the ecosystem related to habitat changes. There are other animals that are invade into other species' habitat, which effects the population of that species. However, we can continue to debate the issue until a full conclusion can be announced(and let us hope it is announced without political bias because then science would be rule by politics rather than through the process of science). Declaring one side over the other fact until then would be to the contrary of scientific declaration.

It would take more than all the anti-Einsteinians that there are to slow the site down this much. Also, I think it is fixed.

One note to keep in mind is that some statistical similarities can be misleading. For example, if the amount of sun flares increase similarly to the amount of crime that happened that year, this does not mean that criminal activity is influenced by the amount of sun flares there are occurring. A full scientific study must take place.

Well, here is something that will help in solving this. Let is take the element and represent it as variable x. Now, one part of the solution would be the following. The following parameters would be the case for finding the elements left, right, up, and down of the current element. If the distance of the element from the origin 0 element is 2 elements, then the following would be the case. Either [math]2x+8n[/math] or [math]2x-8n[/math] And [math]x+1[/math] or [math]x-1[/math]. Each case will depend on whether you are on a horizontal stem of the spiral or the vertical one. I will make the solution more clear if you want. it also depends on whether the element is the corner of a spiral leg or not. I noticed there were some exceptions. I will fix that soon. NOTE: Sato inspired this solution.

Well, even climatologists admit that more information is needed in order to make a full conclusion on the matter. People like Al Gore seem to over exaggerate the information that is provided. It seems different Universities have different statistics that point to different conclusions(which really confuses everyone in the long run). I took a look at the graph provided by your source: T The last graph really threw me off. "NH Temperature response to natural and anthropogenic forcings". What? What does that mean? Does that mean they took the increase of the amount of cars and compared to the temprature increase? What data did they take to present that statistic? It just didn't provide enough information on what they specifically did to get the data. It could just be me, in which case I will take the fall.

I do not see arc driving his argument towards the goal of calming human emotion, rather arguing against a human-caused climate change. Please state which information has been "made up" before making such claims. Your argument is too vague to go off of. Though you may not be able to answer this question, but what does the source mean by "long-term"? Hundreds of years? Thousands of years? Millions of years? They give information of the conclusion, but fail to present the statistical data that shows the "link" between the two. I tried checking the source that they presented regarding the claim, but couldn't find the actual statistical data. If you could present this, that would be good. Also, there are many factors involved within Climate Change. Volcanic eruptions, the change in the environment, whether human or natural changes involved. Simply to make a claim based off of even this amount of data is hard to make a conclusion or a closed link between human activity and Earth's so-called impending doom without change of habit. I agree that over time the Earth changes due to the differences of habitat changes, again whether caused by animals or humans, but simply to put it on humans to be the all-ending cause needs more evidence. You must be careful with your sources as well. I read much of the site's information and saw bias in merely one paragraph of the page: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/ NASA argues against the source you presented, which either means NASA is wrong, or the presented source really needs to rethink its argument. Of course, you can read the article and see if I misinterpret my own sources, but that is up to your discretion.

It definitely sped up when you did this. Thanks for fixing it.

Although they both produce similar results, they have different mechanisms involved. While a lightbulb just uses the heated filament as a light source from the electricity inputted, fire flies use a chemical process to produce their light: http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/question554.htm

It takes 10 minutes to load one page for me. That is why I haven't been on much. Also, sometimes I get the 500 - server error, which really messes with my ability to use the site.

I was merely joking, but somehow this makes logical sense as a scientific study.

The people trolls...?

Someone should start the theory of trolls. It would be interesting if someone actually made a scientific hypothesis on the nature of trolls.

http://www.livescience.com/39577-insects-with-leg-gears-discovered.html Just goes to show many of man's inventions are inspired by the mechanisms of nature.

However, there is also a way to integrate the function without the implied variables. The following would occur. Where, the two partial squares would becoming a representation of the [math]\Upsilon_\mu[/math] function.

Actually, I wouldn't mind the religion section going away because I merely came here for talking about science, but that is another matter. Of course, speculation has a place of science, but what I notice is some speculations that are clearly hogwash and trollish are not put in the Trash Can where they belong(at least, when I have been here this hasn't happened much). It just gives people the idea that "Oh, I am going to think up some random idea and post it in here and since it is merely speculation, I clearly need to no evidence." I might be blind to the moderators not deleting or moving speculations to the trash when they are trollish, but I just don't see any of them heading in that direction.

Due to school work, work on this has been slow. Here is work done on indefinite integral equations of Collatz Theory: Where gamma is the variable representing the other two variables, [math]d^{x}[/math] and [math]x^{d}[/math]. This makes this an indefinite integral.

Well, I would rather start one here so I don't have to go through all the hassle of using another service. Also, the blogs are linked here.

It just seems more like the Trash Can section then a speculation section. It would be more efficient just to remove it or rename it the Trash Can because it mostly carries crackpot theories and hogwash. That is just my opinion. I can understand that there maybe some speculations that are worth talking about, but I see none of them actually benefiting anyone.