| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:cuts no ice | |
| Posted by: | John Marshall | |
| Date/Time: | 30/06/08 15:24:00 |
| I'm confused about the relevance of the 2000 years of stable temperature. 2000 years is far too small a time frame to use in this debate. If it can be said with certainty that no 50 year period in the last several billion years has seen the rate of climate change that we are witnessing today, it would carry far more weight. Further, I am not sure that the coincidence of abnormally rapid climate change occuring (assuming it is) and the existance of man is proof of causality. We as a species have a tendency to observe unexpected occurences, and then attmept to fit a causal ( and generally human causal)explanation to them. In times gone by we would have attributed a volcanic erruption for example to human behaviour angering the gods etc. If there is scientific proof of a causal relationship between climate change and human activity, as opposed to merely coincidental, than it is not being well explained to the public, who are therefore right to be sceptical. Then taking it one stage further, if this causality was well understood, I assume that by definition we could move onto predictions of future climate activity. In that case, why are predicitions so wildly variable? Another cause of scepticism. |