Vixere
Captain Uni
parelaxis
Passable Writer
rush99999
Nightwing95
I would have to agree that the notion of climate science being "settled" is outlandish, especially in the context of human impacts and effects. It is no secret that during the 1970s that the top scientists of the time on the matter worried enough about global cooling, not global warming, to consider programs and projects that would have had the goal of attempting to alter the Earth's atmosphere. By the 1990s, there was general panic among this same circle that the "green house effect" would warm the planet so much that in the early 2000s the polar icecaps would have melted largely or completely and that massive floods, storms and sea level rises would cause untold damage; this train of thought persisted for a while and morphed into the "global warming" argument. Today, they incarnate this concept as climate change, which is nothing less than a catchall term that can be thrown around without care or concern to argue the point. By this I mean I am certain you have all heard the people screaming that this past hurricane season was somehow unnatural and obviously a consequence of human invention and advancement.
The most rational thing to do is to be extremely skeptical and distrustful of the climate change argument and not just because it has previously demonstrated a willingness to forge its numbers and use hysteria to attempt to provoke a response, but because to claim they can successfully predict it at this rate is a laughable statement. They have repeatedly been wrong, knowingly target the wrong issues - Why are they focusing upon the United States and not growing industrial nations such as India or China? - and have openly lied and been caught before. No less, many of these studies haven't the peer review they claim to, in that most are all self confirming among their circle but are not demonstrated in larger circles or projects; the data just is not there to call it a closed case, especially with human influences.
What I can submit, beyond question, is that human beings do affect the climate, but it is questionable just how significant their influence is. From my perspective, I find it a bit arrogant to perceive that man is somehow a larger player than all of nature or is that tipping point rumored to be greater than all of the world's history. I believe there is much left wanting and that instead of punishing industries that are known for pollution, such as coal, that industries such as nuclear, hydroelectrical, geothermal, wind turbine, solar and so on receive incentives.
The most rational thing to do is to be extremely skeptical and distrustful of the climate change argument and not just because it has previously demonstrated a willingness to forge its numbers and use hysteria to attempt to provoke a response, but because to claim they can successfully predict it at this rate is a laughable statement. They have repeatedly been wrong, knowingly target the wrong issues - Why are they focusing upon the United States and not growing industrial nations such as India or China? - and have openly lied and been caught before. No less, many of these studies haven't the peer review they claim to, in that most are all self confirming among their circle but are not demonstrated in larger circles or projects; the data just is not there to call it a closed case, especially with human influences.
What I can submit, beyond question, is that human beings do affect the climate, but it is questionable just how significant their influence is. From my perspective, I find it a bit arrogant to perceive that man is somehow a larger player than all of nature or is that tipping point rumored to be greater than all of the world's history. I believe there is much left wanting and that instead of punishing industries that are known for pollution, such as coal, that industries such as nuclear, hydroelectrical, geothermal, wind turbine, solar and so on receive incentives.