Quote:
Originally Posted by MuseChaser
Just in general....
If folks approached scientific research and data with no agendas, no focus on personal financial or other gains, nor any preconceived notions or goals other than a greater understanding of events, the conclusions being widely published would undoubtedly be quite different... not to mention much more accurate.
There ARE experts.. many of them.. who do not share the prognoses promoted by the perpetrators of this thread. Perhaps, in the interest of accuracy (of course, who wants THAT, right?), the thread should be renamed "One of Many Possible Prognoses for the Planet, According to Some Self-Professed Experts and Their Followers."
|
I was speaking to a professor of geology, a gentleman who has spent all of his adult life studying rocks. That is, he is not someone who gets his information from 5 minutes of Googling. We had a discussion covering a wide range of subjects.
He disputes anthropogenic climate change*. When talking about this I had nothing to argue. That is, I knew I did not have the expertise to argue his position. Something else I found very interesting was his style of argument; he get didn't bothered, he presented his case in a calm manner, countering all my points with a convincing counter argument where as my stupid brother presented his Googled arguments with a "No, I'm right because I've read it" and wouldn't listen to new information.
His main point was that Co2 levels
follow temperature, not the other way around.
He also is well aware of the fallibilities of himself and his peers.
*I am not saying he is right; I do not know. But it was interesting to hear from a very knowledgeable person a counter view.