Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
Hugh's quote doesn't support your point though. It talks about refinements based upon more extensive data available now that was not available then.
|
I was talking about the apparent deception of the scientists who produced the original hockey stick graph that
initially led me to question what we were being told.
---------- Post added at 13:16 ---------- Previous post was at 13:11 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99
'Sucking it all in", "establishment view" .. really?
Let me put it this way: if you are right, the case is not proven and so we should delay until the doubters are convinced, we would arrive at the point where it is too late. Is this a prudent strategy?
Maybe we should proceed on a basis of caution and assume the case for climate change has been provisionally proven and attempt to slow down or reverse the effects. What is the worst that can happen, a cleaner planet?
|
Why so argumentative? I was simply challenging the view that carbon emissions were the cause of any global warming and whether temperatures were being adjusted to take into account legitimate matters or were being manipulated.
I don't recall saying we should not be doing anything and in fact I have welcomed any attempt to clean up the atmosphere.