Skip to content

comment lost? 7 27 17 WUWT

July 27, 2017

Imo, the red team could also argue the case from the standpoint of asking why the many predictions made by the blue team have failed over the decades as well as arguing science based understandings of the physics. The science involved in climate science can be endlessly debated in large part because there is much that science does not know at this time concerning the many interacting drivers which comprise climate shifts.

I would think that attacking the warmists talking points of the dangers which they claim are headed our way would be a potent tool to use against their fixed position of settled science, as if everything is known about what drives the climate of this planet. This argument would also be something that would be more readily understood by reasonably educated people, who might follow the debate. Also, bringing up topics such as SLR, more severe storms, unprecedented Arctic melting, etc would aid in exposing the argument that the warmists have tampered with the data. The use of historical data to disprove claims of unprecedented changes in natural systems would be a strong argument, and also one that even an average person could grasp.


From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: