I love how you made your name be mixed font....
That being said, when measured against proper objective scientific criteria, TToE meets all of them. It is not a consensus, it is science. The fact people who know REAL science make up the vast majority of scientists who understand that is not a consensus (which has no meaning in science).
AGW OTOH meets exactly zero criteria for a Scientific Theory. In fact, it meets exactly zero criteria for a Scientific HYPOTHESIS — it cannot even be stated as a proper H0.
AGW is the perfect example of science on its head. politicians decided on the desired outcome, THEN fund studies to meet that outcome. By definition, the studies’ outcome will follow the money.
There is a big difference. Do not conflate the two.
BioLogos invites the church and the world
to see the harmony between science and biblical faith
as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.
Anyone who can read a graph can see that this NOAA doc shows two temperature lines:
BLUE = Actual Temperatures
RED = ADJUSTED TEMPERATURES
The BLUE line shows there are temperature variations from year to year BUT the warmest temperatures were back in the 1930's, not in recedt decades as the PRESSTITUES and "scientists" repeat 24/7.
So where do these geniuses get the story that recent years are the warmest on record? That's easy, the "scientists" adjust recorded tempertures first DOWNWARD to account for LOWER CO2 levels and then UP to account for even higher CO2 levels.
Notice how ADJUSTED and MEASURED tempertures approximately are equal around 2000.
Only a true idiot would believe these con artists. Yes, the political rank are full of idiots. Tell the public that the sky is pink and at least 50% of them will buy that lie too.