Storker pretty much hit the nail on the head.
But....@Murky Waters, I'll give you an alternative, I'll train you how to read scientific papers. I take freshmen biology students with no science background and train them to do this all the time. Yes, there is a lot of jargon, etc. in the reports, and it takes time, but if my freshmen can do this, so can you. Let's start here. I'm posting links for two papers, one is a review that summarizes a bunch of existing studies (by Parmesan). The other is an empirical study. Take a look at these and then shoot me questions. I'll start explaining any terms and methods that don't make sense.
Regards,
Ryan
https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitst...212/bg-10-161-2013.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y
http://www.rosemonteis.us/files/references/049004.pdf
Thank-you. That's very nice. I will decline. I do not think that you understand the mind-set of people like me, deniers to a certain degree. As skeptics naturally, if we read something that promotes something, we cannot help but wonder if there is another side to the issue, if we are being lied to or manipulated, told only part of the picture that leaves out details that would otherwise not be supportive of the premise being proposed. These are not unheard of concepts, so instead, our curiosity directs us to the minority voices, the dissenters, those who are mocked and ridiculed, the unpopular opinions with nothing to lose. The majority opinions have all the power and support that they could ever want, including proponents like you, and there is way too much political and emotional capital already invested in this for objectivity to be expected.
So I remain happily Agnostic, but quite aware that when something has so much loud noise all around it, that there is often something weak in$ide.
Last edited: