Climate change skeptic/scientist reverses position

2»

Comments

  • Snakeduck
    Snakeduck Posts: 1,056
    bgivens33 wrote:
    The only thing I might add that might help is the toning down of some of the rhetoric. If you look at scientific history, I can't think of one thing humans got right in thirty years. So these talks of (not saying you in particular) that global warming is a proven fact just isn't accurate. And stances such as this, saying the evidence is incontrovertible, hurt the cause. Because people that don't have much of a scientific background don't understand exactly how science works. Muller said it much more eloquently than I can-

    "How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. "

    Global Warming is currently the best explanation (by far) to the current trends we see in climate. Science exists to provide explanations, not prove "facts". Now understand, I'm really only talking about semantics here, I'm not trying to change the actual message of global warming.


    It's exactly this type of hemming and hawing that is sold to people preventing any action from taking place. Well, we're only 99% certain of what causes it so we better do nothing until we're %100. A little too late for that approach...

Categories