Quote:
Originally Posted by FLAMESBURNOIL
I never gave my scientific opionion on anything. I have said that the issue here is that there is group A that believe humans are the biggest factor in the warming of the climate we are seeing, the other group says humans arent the biggest factor. There is no concensus - just about every report from either side can be debunked - no concensus.
A modern day example of how the science community works is the Clovis Theory. This theory pertains to evidence found in north america during an archeological dig. The Clovis theory has been the concensus theory amongst most scientists - and basically states that there is a certain level one can dig before they stop finding historical artifacts. Past that level, you find nothing - even though a small miniority of sceintists decided to continue digging and continued to find artifacts - this basically debunked the theory that native north americans have been here longer than the standard 10,000 years - these scientists where shunned, rediculed and discredited - because they started to prove the majority wrong. Further to this the theory that the first north americans came over from Asia was also proven to be false, and that the first north americans actually came from Northern Europe and not by the land bridge but by crossing the Atlantic Ocean during the last ice age. There are artificats that are only found on the eastern seaboard of north america, that are also only found on the western seaboard of Europe, there is DNA evidence that shows the relationship between some native american tribes and some tribes in france
|
Sorry, but what you're talking about here is nothing like overturning the current view on global warming.
The long accepted consensus on the peopling of the Americas is that pre-historic Asians came from Siberia, down through Alaska and BC, and from there spread all through North and South America. It is further believed that these were the first humans to arrive on the continent. The belief that this migration happened is based on positive evidence, while the belief that they were the firts humans is based on a lack of evidence of any earlier humans. The Clovis theory doesn't dispute that this migration occurs, but argues that there is, in fact, evidence of small groups of humans having come from Europe prior to the arrival of Asians.
The current consensus belief that the globe is warming, and that human activities are contributing the this in a way that will cause the warming to go well beyond the historic cyclic warming with unprecidented, catastrophic results isn't based on a lack of evidence to the contrary, but on a mountain of positive evidence.
Overturning the current consensus on global warming would be like the Clovis Theory arguing that there were humans here before the Asian migration, but would be like arguing that mankind actually arose first in North America and migrated from there to Europe, Asia, and finally Africa contrary to all of the evidence to the contrary.