I'm sure real scientists take this into account and I think they might be a little insulted that you suggest otherwise. What interest do they have in doing 'pseudo science'? Nothing is perfect, not even science, but you do the best you can. By your measure a lot of biology would not be classed as science, but we rely on it for medicines. We don't have a spare planet to use, so why gamble on messing up this one. As I said, the pollution produced along with all the CO2 is doing damage we can plainly see.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
i can agree on the pollution....and it should be addressed....separately. pollution and climate are two separate issues, my only issue with climate change science is the overweighted ammount of responsibility they place on manmade CO2 emissions as the greatest contributor to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere... when in reality thereare a number of contributors, many of them being natural sources.
Interesting article. The scientists can test their modes on past data and this will show up where they are missing out factors. These people are not dumb.
it is an interesting article.... it's just working with flawed data. That is my one and only complaint with climate based science... they work with an incomplete set of data and then try and articulate that into fact...
As they quote there "all models are flawed, but some are useful". Science is imperfect, but improves. If not we would still be banging rocks together
@@ -244,10 +244,10 @@
en .
-0
2
+0
of