...
Have you really thought what you mean by option 2? How is that different from option 3? Are you suggesting that option 3 is that we realise that we've screwed up and decide to do nothing?
So 2 and 3 are the same - we have to undertake drastic action to try to rescue a situation which we should never have allowed to occur, and at the same time millions (possible billions) are going to die.
Originally Posted by
ilw
It seems to me that the solar theory which you seem to favour is the underdog in terms of scientific support and also supporting data wise, so my question to you is why do you favour it?
Why is it the underdog in terms of scientific support?
That's easy to explain.
Try getting a research grant based on the idea that the most powerful energy source might be warming things up - impossible.
Try getting a research grant to back up the idea that a theory with virtually no background data support - watch the offers of money come flooding in.
In terms of supporting data?
Exactly where is the supporting data that greenhouse gases are responsible?
I'm serious when I tell you that there is NO data to support it, only supposition and what-ifs.
You should look at the so-called evidence advanced by your link with an open mind. Almost without exception the arguments are aimed at shooting down the opposition, there's hardly a single piece of positive evidence for the theory that CO2 is the cause of GW.
Anyone with a scientific background should be worried about the validity of an argument presented in that way.
Bookmarks