6 ms·

> Climate Model I'll believe it when I see it. We have at least 40% larger ice sheets now than in 2012, and more than in 2006 [1]. See also [2]. These models

> Climate Model I'll believe it when I see it. We have at least 40% larger ice sheets now than in 2012, and more than in 2006 [1]. See also [2]. These models have been shown to be wildly inaccurate at empirical prediction [3], so I think we need to work harder and exercise more scientific skepticism before creating alarmist headlines in the mainstream media. [1] https://www.commentarymagazine.com/culture-civilization/popular-culture/good-news-for-polar-bears-bad-news-for-al-gore-warming/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/culture-civilization/popu... [2] http://blog.drwile.com/?p=12927 http://blog.drwile.com/?p=12927 [3] http://objectivescience.net/warming-predictions-vs-real-world-science-who-is-the-flat-earther/ http://objectivescience.net/warming-predictions-vs-real-worl... Edit - to the downvoters, please explain why I shouldn't exercise scientific skepticism relating to how the mainstream discusses climate change.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
bullfightonmars 11y ago
You are referring to the extent of sea ice[1] much of which is formed and melts on an annual or slightly longer cycle. Sea ice is incredibly sensitive to warming. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center the Maximum winter extent of sea ice is now at the lowest recorded in the satellite record. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice [2] https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
- zxcvvcxz 11y ago
  That's interesting because you're link [2] is the same source used in my link [2]. There's less ice in the arctic, more in the antarctic from what I can tell. The latter is a pretty big contradictory data point in the typical mainstream climate change narrative, particularly the one peddled by the likes of Al Gore et al. Here's what I think. People are being overly alarmist and it's driving policy. Nature goes it cycles, on the order of maybe hundreds or thousands (or more) years. It's been way colder in the past than it is now, and it's also been way warmer in the past than it is now. We should reduce CO2 emissions insofar as it affects the health of people, such as smog in China. But have we definitely teased out our effect on the temperatures from what the earth is doing on its own anyway? I'm still skeptical. Who knows, maybe there's a pattern in the earth's cosmic orbit that accounts for 99% of the warming. Or maybe it's only 1% and we're the 99% cause and Al Gore was right. But until I see this definitive proof, I have to stay skeptical.
  - danharaj 11y ago
    It's cool that you're really into being skeptical and evaluating evidence and stuff, but have you considered that you aren't putting enough thought into what "definitive proof" is? There's no a priori definition of definitive proof, only what satisfies the inquirer. Why aren't you skeptical of your standards when they fly in the face of consensus amongst thousands of professional scientists?
    - epicureanideal 11y ago
      I personally tend to think the majority of scientists are probably right when they say global warming is happening. At the same time, I think changing our own standards of proof based on what sways "the majority of experts" is dangerous. There are lots of examples of "the majority of experts" being wrong. For some examples, see the roughly every 200 year cycle that repeats (my observation while reading the book) in The History of Mathematical Thought I-III by Kline.
      - danharaj 11y ago
        Scientists perform peer review to make sure their standards are well calibrated. If you're not relying on scientists and their work, then where do your standards of proof come from? Somewhere unscientific.
        epicureanideal 11y ago
        There are plenty of cases in biology recently where results published in respectable peer-reviewed journals have not held up. As I said, generally I believe the consensus opinion of the experts, but I also think it's occasionally reasonable not to do so automatically.
        danharaj 11y ago
        I think this is the misunderstanding: I did not say to adopt the majority opinion. I said to consider the majority opinion being different as evidence that one's methodology needs to be reexamined. People who call themselves skeptics and disagree with mainstream scientific consensus hardly ever consider the issue. How are so many thousands of scientists so incompetent at evaluating their own data, but me, the armchair reviewer, knows what's up?
placeybordeaux 11y ago
Is it claims about the Artic or claims about the Anartic that you dispute?
ska 11y ago
Well, I don't know why people are down voting in particular. But exercising "scientific" skepticism would involve citing real (i.e. primary) sources, not blog posts that don't seem to be able to cite properly either. Otherwise it's just skepticism.
cromulent 11y ago
Here is a paper indicating that the models are not "wildly inaccurate". http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2310.epdf?referrer_access_token=XZXrmTkpgABuryd9BjGXg9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MS4cBFKW7nezYd1ThfKUWDpXV6TFvnekufEBQheW2OLIaL_UKN0GpZ-tQ-KzrE3rpkvUFWWIo6xaYh1S1MoOf0KUlIJwDo2yi5o3bMtsXDfWdzw3sSp1inZxqPKH_sWm_dGmKLSAoaFVXo64MHAnfx1In-c-oCOX2FSE5aX-nkmI4MQTgsVKg6nfY1425sOVxOCReQ_7gx06a1oauY199gITLTN72Xd0z8N-5JojdWcAiu87AvTSXIoRFoczhJlQU%3D http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2310.epdf?referrer_ac...
- refurb 11y ago
  Here are some papers, from climate scientists, acknowledging that models need to be re-evaluated since they've tracked poorly with climate change over the past decade.[1][2] [1]http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/463284a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/463284a.html [2]http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-forecast-for-2018-is-cloudy-with-record-heat-1.13344 http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-forecast-for-2...
codecamper 11y ago
You'll believe it when you see what, exactly? A 12 foot wave of water heading towards your door?
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  Certainly not from the insanely warm, practically snowless winter we've had in the northeast US. Everybody's perfectly happy to believe the climate scientists when they say "That's mainly due to El Nino this year." Then the next day the same scientists say "CO2 emissions are affecting the climate" and we're back to "What global warming? If I can't see something it doesn't exist."
  - bjz_ 11y ago
    Unfortunately no matter how much you say that weather != climate, it's damn hard to get past natural human tendencies. :(
kilroy123 11y ago
Honest question. If 99% of scientists and astronomers said a giant asteroid were headed to earth, and within 10 years, all life on the planet would be destroyed. Would you believe it?
- danielvf 11y ago
  Not as a certainty, no. Given that kind of time frame and a very far object, neither our measurements, nor our calculations could possibly be precise enough to know anything other than a probability of an earth impact. Unless we are talking about a big object hanging out nearby, slowly getting closer, in which case I have plenty of non-scientist acquaintances who will be pointing telescopes at it and verifying.
- whitegrape 11y ago
  For something as (relatively) easy to predict as asteroid trajectories, I would be very curious why the 1% disagree, or whether it really is 99% given that exact phrasing with no qualifications. It invites scrutiny, but also invites not being certain either way (though I would err on the side of that large a majority even if I'm not certain). I posted this quote by Bertrand Russell almost a month ago, it's worth a repost: "(1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment."
  - cromulent 11y ago
    It's a good quote, but it is based on the premise that all the experts are equally qualified and have no conflict of interest. I am not convinced that is the case, which means we all have to find our own way. Hence all the discussion, I guess :)
    - whitegrape 11y ago
      I thought of disputing the "scientists and astronomers" bit in the parent (what do botanists generally know of orbital dynamics that make them any more qualified to comment than anyone else who took a few physics courses in high school / college?), it should really be restricted to domain-relevant experts which would then make it easier to take the claim that they're all more or less equally qualified. You're right there are lots of incentives in play that don't always make finding the truth the best course of action for either an expert or a so-called expert. As a layman on the subject I don't have much to contribute on the topic and would rather study other things. Though when I see the occasional chart (as the paper you linked above has) and notice that, while not "wildly incorrect", predictions have generally been "incorrect" over the last 15 years, or when I notice a shift or new emphasis in narrative, I end up feeling justified in my suspicions on the epistemic virtues (let alone the actual claims argued for being true or false) of the relevant experts. It's like, seeing all the issues with replication and so on in Psychology, how can you not help but feel like the entire field would be better off starting from scratch with rigorous methods?
orf 11y ago
> please explain why I shouldn't exercise scientific skepticism Linking to blog posts is not "exercising scientific scepticism". It's a fucking biased blog post that's just another echo in your echo chamber. Here, let me try: Obama is a space lizard[1][2][3] Edit: To all the downvoters, please explain why I shouldn't exercise scientific scepticism relating to how the mainstream discusses the presidents reptilian status? 1. http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2013/03/man-in-black-reptilian-shape-shifter.html http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2013/03/man-in-black-reptilian-sh... 2. http://www.hiddencodes.com/obama/ http://www.hiddencodes.com/obama/ 3. http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/02/06/3199 http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/02/06/3199
- zxcvvcxz 11y ago
  > Comparing a magazine and blogs and articles from doctors to the crap you posted I'm sorry this particular topic turns off your ability to think critically and brings out snarkiness instead.
  - orf 11y ago
    > Thinking the crap you posted is any different FYI the doctor is a "young-earth creationist" who has a PHD in an unrelated subject. Here's him arguing about how evolution is rubbish[1], perhaps we should listen to him because he's a doctor don't you know? The other two sources are essentially reblogs from patently biased websites with an agenda to push, one by a neo-conservative (wow unexpected) and the other unnamed. If you'd spend a little time critically thinking about your sources rather than using them to confirm some bias of yours you'd have already discounted them as trash. 1. http://blog.drwile.com/?p=8530&cpage=1#comment-73990 http://blog.drwile.com/?p=8530&cpage=1#comment-73990
    - zxcvvcxz 11y ago
      Yes, different underlying religious and political views than mine of the author make what they're saying invalid. Gosh, I wonder what would happen if the authors of Nature papers had to reveal their political affiliations on every article they published. Can I discount someone's argument just because they support the Green party? I don't agree with creationism in any form, but that doesn't mean that someone who does is wrong when they quote Al Gore, post a picture of a graph, or try exercising critical thinking about a topic.
scott_s 11y ago
Steven Novella, a scientific skeptic (http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-arctic-sea-ice-hubbub/ http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-arctic-sea-...), summarizes it well: Arctic sea ice is undeniably decreasing over the last 36 years. The long term trend is clear. Those who want to deny this trend, however, focus on short term data because you can cherry pick any conclusion you wish. His blog post rebuts your claims.
- zxcvvcxz 11y ago
  Alright sure, the 40 year trend differs from the 10 year trend. That's a good reason to be skeptical of my original claims (seriously). Maybe you can provide more counter-argument to my skepticism of climate changes being man-made. Take a look at this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Phaneroz... Sea levels have historically gone all over the place, definitely without us driving SUVs way back when. Now this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Gla... It's pretty stable during the industrial revolution, when CO2 production really was kicked up a notch. Also, the rate of sea level rises rose at a much faster rate say 10,000 years ago than they're rising right now. What I'm trying to say is that I think these temperature trends are more macro on the order of thousands of years, and probably mostly out of our control. I think what we're seeing now with contemporary research - 10 years ago, or 40 years ago - is mostly noise.
  - pilsetnieks 11y ago
    Chart 1: take a look at the scale, it says "millions of years." The predicted sea level changes would be fine and easy to deal with if they were projected to happen in a million years, not in a few decades. Chart 2: again, the scale, it's thousands of years. A thousand years literally take up 20 pixels in that chart, so the beginning of the industrial revolution was about 5 pixels from the right. It's literally smaller than the dots used to mark the data points. Also, CO2 and greenhouse gasses released due to human activity are higher now than they have ever been in history: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Global_C... (this whole chart fits inside the last dot on your second chart.)
yk 11y ago
Clicking on two links in your sources led me to https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ which directly contradicts your statement. ( In fact we have record low sea ice this winter.)
jussij 11y ago
Because you show lots of skepticism, but there is nothing scientific about it. The science has been done and the answer is in. If you do not understand the science, that doesn't make the science wrong, it just makes you look stupid.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

bullfightonmars 11y ago

You are referring to the extent of sea ice[1] much of which is formed and melts on an annual or slightly longer cycle. Sea ice is incredibly sensitive to warming. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center the Maximum winter extent of sea ice is now at the lowest recorded in the satellite record. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice [2] https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

zxcvvcxz 11y ago
That's interesting because you're link [2] is the same source used in my link [2]. There's less ice in the arctic, more in the antarctic from what I can tell. The latter is a pretty big contradictory data point in the typical mainstream climate change narrative, particularly the one peddled by the likes of Al Gore et al. Here's what I think. People are being overly alarmist and it's driving policy. Nature goes it cycles, on the order of maybe hundreds or thousands (or more) years. It's been way colder in the past than it is now, and it's also been way warmer in the past than it is now. We should reduce CO2 emissions insofar as it affects the health of people, such as smog in China. But have we definitely teased out our effect on the temperatures from what the earth is doing on its own anyway? I'm still skeptical. Who knows, maybe there's a pattern in the earth's cosmic orbit that accounts for 99% of the warming. Or maybe it's only 1% and we're the 99% cause and Al Gore was right. But until I see this definitive proof, I have to stay skeptical.
- danharaj 11y ago
  It's cool that you're really into being skeptical and evaluating evidence and stuff, but have you considered that you aren't putting enough thought into what "definitive proof" is? There's no a priori definition of definitive proof, only what satisfies the inquirer. Why aren't you skeptical of your standards when they fly in the face of consensus amongst thousands of professional scientists?
  - epicureanideal 11y ago
    I personally tend to think the majority of scientists are probably right when they say global warming is happening. At the same time, I think changing our own standards of proof based on what sways "the majority of experts" is dangerous. There are lots of examples of "the majority of experts" being wrong. For some examples, see the roughly every 200 year cycle that repeats (my observation while reading the book) in The History of Mathematical Thought I-III by Kline.
    - danharaj 11y ago
      Scientists perform peer review to make sure their standards are well calibrated. If you're not relying on scientists and their work, then where do your standards of proof come from? Somewhere unscientific.
      - epicureanideal 11y ago
        There are plenty of cases in biology recently where results published in respectable peer-reviewed journals have not held up. As I said, generally I believe the consensus opinion of the experts, but I also think it's occasionally reasonable not to do so automatically.
        danharaj 11y ago
        I think this is the misunderstanding: I did not say to adopt the majority opinion. I said to consider the majority opinion being different as evidence that one's methodology needs to be reexamined. People who call themselves skeptics and disagree with mainstream scientific consensus hardly ever consider the issue. How are so many thousands of scientists so incompetent at evaluating their own data, but me, the armchair reviewer, knows what's up?

placeybordeaux 11y ago

Is it claims about the Artic or claims about the Anartic that you dispute?

ska 11y ago

Well, I don't know why people are down voting in particular. But exercising "scientific" skepticism would involve citing real (i.e. primary) sources, not blog posts that don't seem to be able to cite properly either. Otherwise it's just skepticism.

cromulent 11y ago

Here is a paper indicating that the models are not "wildly inaccurate". http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2310.epdf?referrer_access_token=XZXrmTkpgABuryd9BjGXg9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MS4cBFKW7nezYd1ThfKUWDpXV6TFvnekufEBQheW2OLIaL_UKN0GpZ-tQ-KzrE3rpkvUFWWIo6xaYh1S1MoOf0KUlIJwDo2yi5o3bMtsXDfWdzw3sSp1inZxqPKH_sWm_dGmKLSAoaFVXo64MHAnfx1In-c-oCOX2FSE5aX-nkmI4MQTgsVKg6nfY1425sOVxOCReQ_7gx06a1oauY199gITLTN72Xd0z8N-5JojdWcAiu87AvTSXIoRFoczhJlQU%3D http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2310.epdf?referrer_ac...

refurb 11y ago
Here are some papers, from climate scientists, acknowledging that models need to be re-evaluated since they've tracked poorly with climate change over the past decade.[1][2] [1]http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/463284a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/463284a.html [2]http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-forecast-for-2018-is-cloudy-with-record-heat-1.13344 http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-forecast-for-2...

codecamper 11y ago

You'll believe it when you see what, exactly? A 12 foot wave of water heading towards your door?

wlesieutre 11y ago
Certainly not from the insanely warm, practically snowless winter we've had in the northeast US. Everybody's perfectly happy to believe the climate scientists when they say "That's mainly due to El Nino this year." Then the next day the same scientists say "CO2 emissions are affecting the climate" and we're back to "What global warming? If I can't see something it doesn't exist."
- bjz_ 11y ago
  Unfortunately no matter how much you say that weather != climate, it's damn hard to get past natural human tendencies. :(

kilroy123 11y ago

Honest question. If 99% of scientists and astronomers said a giant asteroid were headed to earth, and within 10 years, all life on the planet would be destroyed. Would you believe it?

danielvf 11y ago
Not as a certainty, no. Given that kind of time frame and a very far object, neither our measurements, nor our calculations could possibly be precise enough to know anything other than a probability of an earth impact. Unless we are talking about a big object hanging out nearby, slowly getting closer, in which case I have plenty of non-scientist acquaintances who will be pointing telescopes at it and verifying.
whitegrape 11y ago
For something as (relatively) easy to predict as asteroid trajectories, I would be very curious why the 1% disagree, or whether it really is 99% given that exact phrasing with no qualifications. It invites scrutiny, but also invites not being certain either way (though I would err on the side of that large a majority even if I'm not certain). I posted this quote by Bertrand Russell almost a month ago, it's worth a repost: "(1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment."
- cromulent 11y ago
  It's a good quote, but it is based on the premise that all the experts are equally qualified and have no conflict of interest. I am not convinced that is the case, which means we all have to find our own way. Hence all the discussion, I guess :)
  - whitegrape 11y ago
    I thought of disputing the "scientists and astronomers" bit in the parent (what do botanists generally know of orbital dynamics that make them any more qualified to comment than anyone else who took a few physics courses in high school / college?), it should really be restricted to domain-relevant experts which would then make it easier to take the claim that they're all more or less equally qualified. You're right there are lots of incentives in play that don't always make finding the truth the best course of action for either an expert or a so-called expert. As a layman on the subject I don't have much to contribute on the topic and would rather study other things. Though when I see the occasional chart (as the paper you linked above has) and notice that, while not "wildly incorrect", predictions have generally been "incorrect" over the last 15 years, or when I notice a shift or new emphasis in narrative, I end up feeling justified in my suspicions on the epistemic virtues (let alone the actual claims argued for being true or false) of the relevant experts. It's like, seeing all the issues with replication and so on in Psychology, how can you not help but feel like the entire field would be better off starting from scratch with rigorous methods?

orf 11y ago

> please explain why I shouldn't exercise scientific skepticism Linking to blog posts is not "exercising scientific scepticism". It's a fucking biased blog post that's just another echo in your echo chamber. Here, let me try: Obama is a space lizard[1][2][3] Edit: To all the downvoters, please explain why I shouldn't exercise scientific scepticism relating to how the mainstream discusses the presidents reptilian status? 1. http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2013/03/man-in-black-reptilian-shape-shifter.html http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2013/03/man-in-black-reptilian-sh... 2. http://www.hiddencodes.com/obama/ http://www.hiddencodes.com/obama/ 3. http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/02/06/3199 http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/02/06/3199

zxcvvcxz 11y ago
> Comparing a magazine and blogs and articles from doctors to the crap you posted I'm sorry this particular topic turns off your ability to think critically and brings out snarkiness instead.
- orf 11y ago
  > Thinking the crap you posted is any different FYI the doctor is a "young-earth creationist" who has a PHD in an unrelated subject. Here's him arguing about how evolution is rubbish[1], perhaps we should listen to him because he's a doctor don't you know? The other two sources are essentially reblogs from patently biased websites with an agenda to push, one by a neo-conservative (wow unexpected) and the other unnamed. If you'd spend a little time critically thinking about your sources rather than using them to confirm some bias of yours you'd have already discounted them as trash. 1. http://blog.drwile.com/?p=8530&cpage=1#comment-73990 http://blog.drwile.com/?p=8530&cpage=1#comment-73990
  - zxcvvcxz 11y ago
    Yes, different underlying religious and political views than mine of the author make what they're saying invalid. Gosh, I wonder what would happen if the authors of Nature papers had to reveal their political affiliations on every article they published. Can I discount someone's argument just because they support the Green party? I don't agree with creationism in any form, but that doesn't mean that someone who does is wrong when they quote Al Gore, post a picture of a graph, or try exercising critical thinking about a topic.

scott_s 11y ago

Steven Novella, a scientific skeptic (http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-arctic-sea-ice-hubbub/ http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-arctic-sea-...), summarizes it well: Arctic sea ice is undeniably decreasing over the last 36 years. The long term trend is clear. Those who want to deny this trend, however, focus on short term data because you can cherry pick any conclusion you wish. His blog post rebuts your claims.

zxcvvcxz 11y ago
Alright sure, the 40 year trend differs from the 10 year trend. That's a good reason to be skeptical of my original claims (seriously). Maybe you can provide more counter-argument to my skepticism of climate changes being man-made. Take a look at this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Phaneroz... Sea levels have historically gone all over the place, definitely without us driving SUVs way back when. Now this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Gla... It's pretty stable during the industrial revolution, when CO2 production really was kicked up a notch. Also, the rate of sea level rises rose at a much faster rate say 10,000 years ago than they're rising right now. What I'm trying to say is that I think these temperature trends are more macro on the order of thousands of years, and probably mostly out of our control. I think what we're seeing now with contemporary research - 10 years ago, or 40 years ago - is mostly noise.
- pilsetnieks 11y ago
  Chart 1: take a look at the scale, it says "millions of years." The predicted sea level changes would be fine and easy to deal with if they were projected to happen in a million years, not in a few decades. Chart 2: again, the scale, it's thousands of years. A thousand years literally take up 20 pixels in that chart, so the beginning of the industrial revolution was about 5 pixels from the right. It's literally smaller than the dots used to mark the data points. Also, CO2 and greenhouse gasses released due to human activity are higher now than they have ever been in history: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Global_C... (this whole chart fits inside the last dot on your second chart.)

yk 11y ago

Clicking on two links in your sources led me to https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ which directly contradicts your statement. ( In fact we have record low sea ice this winter.)

jussij 11y ago

Because you show lots of skepticism, but there is nothing scientific about it. The science has been done and the answer is in. If you do not understand the science, that doesn't make the science wrong, it just makes you look stupid.