Let's see if I can clear this up. I don't take one side or the other on this topic. Reason? They are competing THEORIES. That means that neither side can prove their point. These are EXPERTS in their respective fields and jumping in as anything but an expert is foolish.
My comments here don't support or condemn either side. I said that in post #10, but apparently people only read what they want to. It happens on this climate change debate as well, you see an article that supports what you want to believe, so you jump in with both feet. Even if it has some very obvious flaws, you still jump in and totally ignore what else is out there. It's called tunnel vision.
Just look at some of the arguments that have been presented by Bjorn in this thread against what some call climate change. He's using daily data as one of his primary arguments when that particular theory clearly addresses that as irrelevant. So, Bjorn and the climate change camp agree on that and he continues to berate the point. How smart is that?
So, for those of you who think that Bjorn makes a lot of sense, I urge you to educate yourselves. I'm not saying that the anti climate change group doesn't make some good points. I'm just saying that Bjorn has a lot of his information mixed up and misinterpreted. Yet, he is seen as the anti climate change poster child and that would be a lot like the Marine Corps using Gomer Pyle as their poster child. I think that we can all agree that they don't do that for very good reason.
__________________
"We used to laugh at Grandpa when he'd head off and go fishing. But we wouldn't be laughing that evening when he'd come back with some whore he picked up in town." ~ Jack Handy
|