Replies

I have my own opinions and I have done my own research on solar activity throughout our solar system, and I’ve come to the conclusion that if there’s going to be any changes made regarding the environment and regarding our recycling efforts excetera... it has to be made by the state at all levels.

For example:

Recycling must be addressed to the point that it becomes fuel and not landfill nor does it reach the stage of particulation which causes ecosytems to experience detrimental change.

We must actively seek to execute lackadaisical humans to remove those undesirable traits from the gene pool.

Vehicles of all types should be highly regulated and monitored. Footwear should be biodegradable with barefootedness as the endstate goal. Clothing should be of natural fibers only, with the exception of medical and military applications.

Hybrid Sailing vessels standardized, bicycles are also forbidden except for official duties. Home gardens and nightsoil composting addressed.

Failure to comply will result in forced labor to slow eraducation and composting the remains. Grosser violations will result in immediate eradication by sword and composting.

That is all.

//SNARK

> The science is clear. <

The aspect of this issue that concerns me is the assertion that the “science is clear” is defended with on the basis that 90% of scientists agree. (Remember: The entire world disagreed with Copernicus and Galileo.) The appeal to the number who agree is a political appeal, not a scientific appeal.

An appeal to numbers is not how science works. When one publishes a scientific paper, it should be a given that the data would be available to all who wished to examine it. In the current scenario, my response would be, “Show me the data!”

Once that data is available, others can analyze it and propose other theories that are consistent with the data. The fact that many science-types who subscribe to global warming have refused to publish their data tells me that their data, perhaps, is consistent with theories other than global warming. (Example: When told by the court to reveal his data to the defendant, the plaintiff proceeded to withdraw the case so that he didn’t have to reveal his data.)

Were you to say, “Show me the data”, the response would be “You can’t understand the data.” That is true. BUT, in all the population of the USA and/or the world, you should be able to find at least one person who CAN understand the data and CAN explain in terms that you can understand.

Until the full measure of global warming data are available, I will consider the science of global warming to be fraudulent.