Steerpike
VIP Member
- Dec 17, 2007
- 1,847
- 182
- 83
Then explain it to me. Where does the science fail? If I'm not thinking, educate me. Telling a political story and calling AGW a scam, tells me nothing.
It's not that hard to see. We're talking about processes that develop over a geological timescale, and for which we have a small section of data to make use of. We don't have all the variables (we don't even know what all of the variables are, or what the relative importance is of the variables we do have). We don't have a control, which is important in science.
We're making the best educated guesses we can, making and then re-making models (which so far haven't proven to be great).
I think it is self-evident to anyone who knows even a little about science in general that we can't possibly have the level of certainty, in either direction, that is claimed by those involved in the political aspect of the debate.
The last 50 years is geological time scale? We have seen, are continueing to see, accelerating warming. Warming to the point that we have had three years now during which both the Northwest and Northeast passage were open.
And those in the Royal Society and the other National Academy of Sciences seem to be pretty certain that we are the primary cause of the warming, and that the warming represents a danger to all of us.
50 years isn't a geological time scale, but to be able to evaluate what is happening and why we have to be able to put climate change in the context of geological time scales. It's not like there hasn't been rapid change in the past. I'm not saying there isn't an anthropogenic effect, I'm just saying that neither you nor anyone else can say with absolute certainty that there is.