You cannot say it is full of deception either. If you donât have a science background (like I do) you are likely unqualified to comment much on the scientific method or scientific evidence. And you are certainly unqualified to make blanket statements to the effect that 90% of the worldâs scientists believe in global warming.
I have ancestors who were either farmers or who lived in farm communities and some of them lived into their 70s or 80s as far back as 2 centuries ago. One of my great-grandmothers (who had been a farmer since she got married in the early 1920s) lived to be almost 104. I cannot say that she always relied on what we would call heirloom varieties (technically a crop variety that is 50 years old), but I know that until she got into her 90s (when her youngest child gave up farming in his 60s) she never ate fruit or vegetables from the grocery store. She didnât give up her cows (and thus had her own milk) until she was in her late 70s and still had laying hens into her 90s.
And if you are smart, you plant a tree to replace the log and thus use up the carbon dioxide that log produces. There are more practical ways to combat global warming that simply strangling business and industry as so many global warmongers want.
Yes I can and yes I am. I have a PhD in physics and have taught college physics courses. Based on this, would you agree that I have a science background?
I don't think you have made this clear before. But if you do have such a background I would expect you to have more respect for the scientific method than you have displayed. Scientists can explain their observations only on the basis of experimental data, not the dictates of political correctness. If hundreds, if not thousands of scientists do not believe there is any man-made global warming, what makes you so certain that such global warming is really taking place?
1. You don't have any clue what scientific method is. 2. It was you who showed absolutely no respect for scientific method nor any respect for logic repeatedly in your posts. Your overriding guidance had been the political aim of opposing the "global warmongers." 3. If you think those petitions were signed by hundreds of "scientists," then your were badly deceived by your political masters. As I showed in my earlier posts, either the petitions were signed by TV announcers, or they were not petitions about global warming. I don't think you were lying, because you don't know enough to know how to make up these lies.
Do you ever learn? In this one post, you make one incorrect statement, and two false claims of data. First of all, it is a scientific fact that a warmer globe means larger temperature fluctuations. Remember the analogy a few posts back I made using water in a stream connected to a pond? If you block the exit of the pond to raise the water level in the pond, that will also create ripples throughout the pond. Clearly, global warming does not mean uniform global warming. Your attempt to use the absence of uniform warming to deny global warming is one of the typical anti-science techniques used throughout scientific history. You are also equating your ignorance of the global temperature data with the absence of reliable data. Of course, this doesn't bother you since you have no clue what logic is. I do not believe your claim of data showing the oceans are colder today than 19th century. You show the data, or you will be called a liar.