gclayjr wrote: ↑
Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:03 am
am very grateful for my university education, where I studied environmental science, because it taught me to question and examine everything, irrespective of the perceived wisdom or the acknowledged concensus.
Do you have as many doubts about "man made" Global warming as you do about a spherical earth?
Do you reject the conclusions of the faked data from the University of East Angiia, as readily as you expect those of us who have looked people in the eyes, who have become good friends and personally know people (me with the nephew of Auguste Piccard, and Silver with his friend the Astronaut in his ward) who are being smeared here in order to promote a completely false narrative of liars and conspiracy in NASA and among explorers and scientists, which is the only way to even make a ridiculous case for a flat earth?
So let me get this straight Environmental Science... Solid science by honorable scientists with no agenda, NASA a lying corrupt organization... Right
From what I have studied and observed, I do not fully concur with the current explanation for climate change.
Anyone who studies all of the data, including historical data, closely will, in my view, conclude that the climate has changed over the past few decades. However, the reasons for that change are not fully known, except that we know that a changing climate is the norm.
Atmospheric CO2 levels clearly could play a part, though it is quite an inefficient greenhouse gas. Methane, for example, is much more potent in this regard. The explosion in livestock farming should be of greater concern to us than petrol powered vehicles, in my view. Oil reserves are diminishing, but the demand for meat and dairy products is increasing significantly; especially as China develops a taste for protein.
I have not smeared anyone. All I said was that we put too much faith in others.
Knowing someone who knows someone who claims to know something, does not constitute reasonable evidence, let alone proof. If you think it does, be my guest. Personally I think it qualifies as what the scriptures would call "every wind of doctrine".
NASA have clearly, by their own admission, been involved in a certain degree of deception. Their website now carries a disclaimer that the images of the earth they have produced are just that... images; not photographs. They didn't do that in the past and have been obliged to do it now because the cat was let out of the bag by one of their own. This doesn't mean that all NASA operatives are deceptive, and I certainly wouldn't tar them all with the same brush. But clearly some elements within the organization were a little economical with the truth when they had the opportunity to be otherwise.
This doesn't mean they are faking everything or even nearly everything, but it does bring into question their reliability.
George, you really should read what I have said, instead of what you think I have said.
Repeating myself is rather tedious.