AGW is not TToE.
AGW is a brand new fad with little or no data to back itself up. It has a few thousand well-paid shills, many who are not even life scientists. It meets none of the criteria for a Scientific Theory. Most of its scientific detractors, which number nearly as many as practitioners, ARE Life Scientists.
The TToE has been around for 200+ years, has millions of practitioners and billions of data points. Its detractors, which represent not even 1/100 of 1 percent, are practitioners outside of the Life Sciences.
In fact, most of the the people who post on and about these threads could not define a Scientific Theory if their life depended on it.
AGW<>TToE, but I predicted this way upthread.
The TToE has been around for 200+ years, has millions of practitioners and billions of data points. Its detractors, which represent not even 1/100 of 1 percent, are practitioners outside of the Life Sciences.
In fact, most of the the people who post on and about these threads could not define a Scientific Theory if their life depended on it.
Nope, you just can’t make this stuff up folks!
All coming from someone who can lay no claim to a degree in science himself.
Still trying to figure out on what basis you continue to lecture people with degrees in science on what science is all about.