Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
I don't buy this argument at all. Don't you think there's even bigger boatloads of money to be made from industry groups who want to seed uncertainty and doubt about current climate science?
Not to mention science is inherently self-correcting. That's the beauty of the scientific method and peer-review -- anyone repeating the same experiments under the same conditions should receive the same results. If the science was flawed, there are industry groups with VERY deep pockets who would be paying big bucks to discredit every study linking man-made CO2 emissions to climate change.
|
No, I think governments and international agencies spend much more and even if any industry group tried to fund "alternative" research, it will be a PR disaster regardless of what their research will find. The hysteria is way beyond the point of rational discussion.
As for clima-science, how exactly their experiments could be conducted under the same conditions? How do you recreate "state of the climate" 1000 years ago? 10 000 years ago? Climate is not static and any "scientific" models must be simplified because the reality is just too complex and variables are not fully understood.
The problem is that these simplified models simply do not have any predictive or explanatory power (which is imperative for any scientific model) so all the can do is hand pick random data from the past and draw random curves 100 years into the future. The trend is "up" so we'll keep drawing an upward curve until
something happens that will dramatically change the trend but no one has any idea if and when and how will this
something happen... Just like when mainstream economists "predict the future:" all good, all good, going strong...#%@$ now we have a recession....