Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese
Funny thing is Mike, I started from your position. I saw an inconvient truth and believed we were responsible. However I have seen and read many things that raise some serious doubt. The IPCC has from my reading omitted several areas. The CO2 lag is one such area. Geologically if the lag is any indicator then we are maybe looking towards glaciation. That is if the ice cores are correct. I tend to agree with Peter, used as an instigation for a new tax because "we spent too much money" (my emphasis) on the GFC.
The bottom line is just like Peter, get on with sorting out the problem via legislation or stop talking crap to us.
This is all really a matter of opinion though. You think you're right because of what you have read and I think I am right because what I have read. If I have a different opinion to the main stream I am screamed down as being wrong. If I am right and all of you are wrong we are going to be taxed for no good reason and that is what I revile most.
|
I am not screaming you down, honest
The IPCC just collated the data, sure they had guidelines on what to include but it is the best avialable and incredibly comprehensive source for govermnents to use, that is my point, regardless of what members of the public think, the government has to use the IPCC et al reports and that's just how it is I am affraid.
Public opinion will not really change the scientific evidence pool.... just the government
Mike