The attempt to conflate the two is not suprising but of course is specious.
TTOE is a full Scientific Theory that meets all the criteria thereof.
AGW is at best a hypothesis that meets exactly none.
I strongly suggest WND get a scientist to post these kinds of articles. Scientists don't generally post about legal matters...
“TTOE is a full Scientific Theory that meets all the criteria thereof”
TTOE does not even qualify as a valid theory. The first step in the Scientific Method is Valid Observation.
There has never been an observation of one species evolving into another species. Not even at the microbial level. Adaptation, yes. Evolution, no. Adaptations are not evolution.
DNA research has proven that we did not evolve from Neaderthals, monkeys, nor anything else.
So, how did we get here? Beats me.
In many cases, the correct scientific answer is simply, “We don’t know, yet. But we’re working on it.”
Well said. Bravo!!
I must take issue with both these claims, dear freedom2003.
First, AGW (anthropogenic global warming) doesn't even qualify as an intelligent hypothesis. Anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the history of climate change on this planet would likely find such a proposal risible. For it simply doesn't square with the evidentiary record, available to any intelligent generalist who cares to follow the problem.
Just ask any AGW proponent to see the evidence backing up his proposal, and he will give you the results of his own purpose-built, mathematically-based climatological model as just the evidence you seek. Try that global warming alarmist/troll Michael Mann (of UPenn and "hockey stick" fame) on that question and see where it would get you. (It would probably be a lawsuit....)
Are we to believe that the legitimacy of science depends on such tactics? Does Michael Mann really expect us to believe that his consecrated model is a complete description of climate change in the natural world, that is to say in Reality? Which is to say that Reality can actually be reduced to the size of a conception of a human brain — i.e., as something further translatable into a purpose-built mathematical model.
If that is so, then all I can say is Mann's model does not address the Mediaeval Warm Period (roughly dated 800–1400 A.D.), back when Greenland was actually green. (Evidently the folks on Greenland back then were engaged in small-scale agriculture, herding and vinocultural activities. Also they were Christians, as church ruins there attest.)
I find it noteworthy that toward the end of this global warming period, Europe was horrifically savaged by the Black Plague. Estimated loss of life: 13 million souls.
Anyhoot, fairly quickly thereafter, severe cold set in globally, and persisted for centuries. In the American experience, one thinks of the first year of the Pilgrim's landing at Provincetown, MA (1620), and the enormous toll in lives it took (over a third of the population in that bitter winter). Or of the horrific experience of Valley Forge, in that terrible winter of profound misery and discontent....
But then, things started warming up again from there. A family reminiscence here that seems on-point: When my Dad was a boy, he attended boarding school at a private academy located on an island in Boston Harbor. He would tell us of how the harbor would freeze in the winter, so much so that they could bring in horse-teams to drag in fully-loaded coal barges over the ice. THAT sort of thing hasn't happened in my lifetime!
I recall that, back in the 1970s, the stories that Time and Newsweek were running were all about immanent global cooling, presaging the imminent return to the next Ice Age….
It’s to laugh.
Anyhoot, the Mediaeval Warm Period does not comport with Mann’s hockey stick. Moreover, the ideology behind global warming theory — that man is the sole culprit, thus his Industrial Revolution is entirely to blame for the catastrophe that Mann’s model purports to predict — is totally silly. Back in the Mediaeval Warm Period, there was zero industrial activity whatsoever going on involving large-scale use of hydrocarbon fuels. Beyond cooking and warming fires, there was near-zero release of hydrocarbons by man-made means into the natural environment. (And you can’t blame everything on cow flatulence.)
Finally, what really puts me off is the global-warming-alarmists’ claim that carbon dioxide emissions kill the biosphere because they introduce inadvertent, devastating effects on global climate. At least that seems to be implicit in their main argument.
Yet it seems to me that the natural world quite handily deals with the well-being of the total Biota: We humans discern that the Biota consists of two fundamental realms, the biological and the botanical. Botanical entities’ respiration consists of inhaling carbon dioxide — without which photosynthesis would be impossible [and thus no food for humans] — and exhaling oxygen.
And it’s a really good thing that the plant world does this: because human respiration consists of inhaling oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide.
What an amazing complementarity in living and breathing Nature!
All Thanks and Praise be unto the Lord!!!
Michael Mann: Does your “model” take such considerations into effect?
Or are these considerations negligible, because they do not presuppose or fit your model?
Dear freedom2003, I was about to get into my Second point, re: whether or not Darwin’s theory qualifies as accepted science. Then I realized how long I’ve gone on already.
Time for a break. But I’ll be back.
Thank for agreeing with me that AGW theory is total tripe.