Quote:
Originally Posted by bgilbert
Sorry about the science but it all I've got
|
I think Barry your comment should more correctly read 'sorry about the science I choose to believe & selectively interpret to support my thoughts on climate science but, it all I've got'
So interesting that much of what those 'so called climate scientists' were predicting 20 years ago is actually becoming lived reality..
But, hey.. you read selectively all you like.. believe what you want...
Me, I'll continue reading widely, looking at the whole of the picture of a very complex set of circumstances that influence the environment & it's ability to sustain life as we currently know it on this planet. Together with the evidence that is in front of my own eyes, I'm pretty comfortable that we are influencing that enviroment & not in a positive way.. to do nothing would simply be mind bogglingly stupid..
Especially since, Fossil Fuel company research from the late 70's is emerging to show that they too were once concerned with the impact their industry was potentially going to have on the environment but, was quickly buried when they figured out the potential impact on their bottom line.. Was their science flawed too?
You bag computer modelling yet, the very things you quote also rely on computer modelling.. very complex computer models supported by historical data.. so, what is it? Some computer modelling is more reliable than others? How do you define which is reliable and which is not? I'm curious...
In the endgame; let's just imagine that climate science is not real... so, we clean up our environment, achieve a cleaner atmosphere.. improve peoples health as a result of said cleaner environment, improve agriculture & a plethora of other benefits that would simply arise from not polluting... what's not to like?