|
I am still very much convinced that the "experts" have fewer answers than questions. For all the "science" which "proves" global or even regional climactic changes, there are huge assumptions which are glossed over.
There are simply too few datapoints to even remotely believe they can accurately predict what the global climate was or will be. There are something less than 200 years of temperature recordings. Everything else is "predicted" through assumptions about trapped gas, fossilized plants, and based on theories of past climatologic "facts".
Even if all the data they claim to have (let's say 5 million years worth of data) is accurate (which it likely isn't) it is far from being a random sample which is necessary to create any sort of predictive or explanatory model. The earth is ~4 billion years old. We may have data from the last 5 million years. At best they can say that "if trends over the last 5 million years continue this is what we'll see..." They can not say that there haven't been abrupt (regular or irregular) changes in climate prior to the data set they have, what the causes were, or the likelihood that they will happen again. They can't say that "temperatures are warmer than they've ever been" and they certainly can't say that we aren't in some longer cycle of climate change that they haven't recognized.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
|