Exactly. Now you're starting to get it.
No, I'm sorry, I don't. If your goal is to obfuscate the issue and throw shade on the truth, you're only fooling yourself.
Exactly. Now you're starting to get it.
No, I'm sorry, I don't. If your goal is to obfuscate the issue and throw shade on the truth, you're only fooling yourself.
Being able to prove your assertion shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand but if it is then that says a lot about you.
Many conservatives seem to grant early-stage embryos a moral standing that is higher than that of adults suffering from debilitating diseases potentially curable through stem cells
And?
. What are the chances that 95% of the scientists are troglodytic knuckleheads that ignore data accumulated from the scientific method?
We can't prove gravity. We can't prove evolution. The consensus involves agreement on the available science.
We're getting pretty close to truth simply not existing at all. What a fucked up viewpoint.
Seems to me that you simply have a fact-repelling barrier. If you don't believe the science, climatologist experts, or the charts which show a CO2/Temperature correlation, exactly what proof are you looking for?
How many fossils do you need to see?
the missing ones......
Because the facts are on your side?
Your graph covers a period of just shy of 140 years.
You just did what the OP complained about.
Prove what? Recreate what?
Seems to me that that would be the span of time to examine when looking at man-made carbon emissions.
Examining the relevant data is what science does. I'm sure I'd make a crappy scientist, but at least I'd be following the scientific method. While you're wearing a beanie with a propeller and spinning around in circles.
Would it really make a difference to you Bible boys?
moot, since you'll never find one.......
Seems to me that that would be the span of time to examine when looking at man-made carbon emissions.
New fossils are being found all the time so uh...yeah...it doesn't matter to you Jesus freaks.