The fact that even people who believe in global warming can't get their predictions lined up ("We're doomed no matter what we do!", "We can only delay the inevitable!", "We have 4 years to save the planet!", "We have 10 years to save the planet (even though I said the same thing 10 years ago)!", etc.) leads me to believe that they really aren't approaching the matter scientifically. Computer models and improperly-formed differential equations are not scientific evidence.
Go back to the drawing board, make predictions that are either true or false; if they're true more often than not, I may move into your corner. Until then, I think you're a bunch of money-grubbing con artists.
I have to laugh at the notion that human activities are nearly as important to world climate as, say, solar activity. All it would take to roast or freeze most every living thing on Earth into oblivion would be a change, a few percent either way, in the Sun's energy output.
Now, it's not a bad thing to be concerned that we might be changing climate, even in small ways. I think it's healthy to be concerned (but not to be frothing at the mouth), because over the long haul, humanity could screw things up to some degree. But when our effects are compared with the possible effect of an unexpected blip of the Sun, we're nothing.
no subject
Date: 30 Jan 2009 19:38 (UTC)Go back to the drawing board, make predictions that are either true or false; if they're true more often than not, I may move into your corner. Until then, I think you're a bunch of money-grubbing con artists.
no subject
Date: 30 Jan 2009 23:29 (UTC)no subject
Date: 3 Feb 2009 16:38 (UTC)Now, it's not a bad thing to be concerned that we might be changing climate, even in small ways. I think it's healthy to be concerned (but not to be frothing at the mouth), because over the long haul, humanity could screw things up to some degree. But when our effects are compared with the possible effect of an unexpected blip of the Sun, we're nothing.