Quote:
Originally Posted by mezz
There have now been four major scares in either direction within the past 100 years. Two prophesising a massive warming and two a massive cooling.
Among the few things we do know for sure about it, the climate has been changing quite dramatically since the rise of mammals. We aren't sure what causes ice ages or warmer periods (like the one we are in now) to occur but it certainly isn't us because we've only been contributing to the emission of gases into the atmosphere in any noticeable quantity within the last 150 years or so.
In any event and without getting into any GW science (which is extremely and embarrassingly flawed) an ice event is going to be 1000 times more devasting to human life on the planet than warming (which might actually be quite beneficial to us despite all the absolute B.S. that the moronic Al Gore and his fanatical supporters would like you to believe). Since we are statistically overdue for an ice age now perhaps we should be preparing for that instead (maybe figuring out how we can warm the planet if that is even possible instead of wasting cycles on a huge heap global warming lies).
|
Care to explain how climate science is "embarrassingly flawed?" Is this a conclusion you have reached on you own analysis, or do you rely on the scientific opinions of others? If it is based on your own analysis, you might want to enlighten us on your scientific training so that we might have some perspective when we evaluate your view in comparison to the view of the scientists that have spent years and years studying the subject. If it is the opinions of others upon which you rely, you might share the sources that support your conclusion about the flawed nature of climate science. Might those sources be Rick Perry or Michelle Bachman?
Frankly, your apparent need to demean those who hold an opposing view seems to demonstrate a significant lack of confidence in the ability of your opinions to survive on their own merits.
Regards,
D-Ray