Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
The mantra of the scientists should always be questioned, and only when they come up with conclusive prove should we believe what they say.
|
And what is conclusive proof of global warming to you?
Obviously scientists should be questioned but that is done so with further science. The people questioning the 'scientists' are people with hardly any knowledge of the underlying science, more often than not it's people with art degrees pontificating in a magazines like the Spectator as if we're meant to take them as seriously as the people who have knowledge of geology and climate patterns.
It just ignorance to dismiss experts in a field so casually.
Quote:
|
For example, in the 1960s they were telling us we were moving into another ice age. But look at that graph. Where is the proof there? The temperatures were moving in the opposite direction!
|
It's the same thing. Global cooling, which is not ruled out by the way, can be a result of global warming. There are climate mechanisms at play which can be disrupted by increasing temperatures causing some areas to actually become colder as well as the weather becoming more unpredictable. Part of the reason 'climate change' was used instead of global warming is because it's a more accurate observable observation of the impact of global warming.
Now it's global warming. Well, as long as we can rely on those reported temperatures (and after the 'hockey stick graph' fiasco, I wouldn't put any manipulation of the figures past them), it does appear that temperatures are on the up. But there are other reasons than carbon emissions that could explain that.
Quote:
|
So I don't think we should be unquestioningly following the advice of the scientists. We should listen, but then give it the reality treatment.
|
Maybe not but I don't see who else is qualified to be giving 'advice' on these matters.