This is a much better attempt at poking holes in this theory. However, new theories pop up every day and studies must be tested, retested, and re-retested by lots of people to debunk the concensus that currently exists.
The real problem is that pesky new scientific word concensus. Interestingly it was the scientific concensus at one point that the earth was the center of the universe. Then concensus was that the earth was flat. In the 70's, concensus pointed to global cooling. Now concensus is global warming. If you really look at what concensus brings, it is dollars. It is my familly's scientific concensus that more money equals happiness. May not be true in reality, but I would love someone to fund the research.
Fortunately, Einstein did not work off of concensus.
Global cooling was never, ever anywhere near a concensus in the scientific community. Either way, for my money, study after study after study that show the effects of a warming temperature that correlate well with rising human industry is pretty convincing. Do we really think human activity has no effect at all? Global warming, as a theory, is pretty much in the books. The only real debate going on now is whether or not humans are causing it, and whether or not it's a crisis. Long after the earth was proved round, many went on believing it was flat. Your arguement goes both ways...
Human effects on global warming is nothing but conjecture. The cycles of warming and cooling have been happening long before the industrialization of the world. Before each ice age came a period of global warming. No SUV's nor factories nor overcrowding to blame in that time. Noone has come up with any way to even begin to quantify the effects of humans on climate because noone can even accurately model climate and weather, period. Concensus is the absence of leadership, or better said in science, concensus is the absence of proof.
4 comments:
This is a much better attempt at poking holes in this theory. However, new theories pop up every day and studies must be tested, retested, and re-retested by lots of people to debunk the concensus that currently exists.
The real problem is that pesky new scientific word concensus. Interestingly it was the scientific concensus at one point that the earth was the center of the universe. Then concensus was that the earth was flat. In the 70's, concensus pointed to global cooling. Now concensus is global warming. If you really look at what concensus brings, it is dollars. It is my familly's scientific concensus that more money equals happiness. May not be true in reality, but I would love someone to fund the research.
Fortunately, Einstein did not work off of concensus.
Global cooling was never, ever anywhere near a concensus in the scientific community. Either way, for my money, study after study after study that show the effects of a warming temperature that correlate well with rising human industry is pretty convincing. Do we really think human activity has no effect at all? Global warming, as a theory, is pretty much in the books. The only real debate going on now is whether or not humans are causing it, and whether or not it's a crisis. Long after the earth was proved round, many went on believing it was flat. Your arguement goes both ways...
Human effects on global warming is nothing but conjecture. The cycles of warming and cooling have been happening long before the industrialization of the world. Before each ice age came a period of global warming. No SUV's nor factories nor overcrowding to blame in that time. Noone has come up with any way to even begin to quantify the effects of humans on climate because noone can even accurately model climate and weather, period. Concensus is the absence of leadership, or better said in science, concensus is the absence of proof.
Post a Comment