Mustapha00
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what part of my first paragraph is "fallacious". I certainly agree that we do not know all that we could- or even all taht we should- before basing potential remedies on what could well be flawed science. After all, it wasn't all that long ago- the 1970s- (guess that depends on your age) that 'experts' were predicting a coming "ice age". Had we acted precipitously then in an effort to warm the planet, what might the effect be now?
We know that the Earth has been warmer than it is now, absent the very existence of humans. We have found fossils of temperate flora and fauna near the Arctic Circle, for example.
We also know that the Earth has been warmer than it is now during human history, though well before the Industrial revolution, during the Roman Warm Period and again during the Medieval Warming Period.
Your call for more study is an excellent one, and I heartily echo it. I wish that more people- on both sides of the debate- thought that way. But the alarmists have a vested interest- income redistribution and governmental control not the least among them- in pretending that there is no debate and that the science is "settled".
We know that the Earth has been warmer than it is now, absent the very existence of humans. We have found fossils of temperate flora and fauna near the Arctic Circle, for example.
We also know that the Earth has been warmer than it is now during human history, though well before the Industrial revolution, during the Roman Warm Period and again during the Medieval Warming Period.
Your call for more study is an excellent one, and I heartily echo it. I wish that more people- on both sides of the debate- thought that way. But the alarmists have a vested interest- income redistribution and governmental control not the least among them- in pretending that there is no debate and that the science is "settled".