Quote:
Originally Posted by Flame On
That's the disadvantage right there I think. One side: the man-made climate change and the need to address it side, seems required to have conclusive proof. Other wise it's just rushing in and ruining economies, even if there's very little proof of that. An impossible position, there are still people that believe the world is flat!
The other side of the coin seems to be satisfied with a minority of dissent from different sources and then it's; ok lets sit back and wait, steady steady.
I see your point, I just don't feel the science; as you wisely put it becuase it changes/evolves, will ever be "in" in a stable palatable report form, collated and stapled for a desk.
|
The burden of proof does rest with the CO2= global warming side. I don't see that as a bad thing. Isn't that standard practice with any scientific theory?