Quote:
Originally Posted by PR_Glen
the debate has zero to do with the fact there is change, that is pretty obvious, the argument is whether we had anything to do with it or not.
|
I think the debate also has to do with the rate of change and whether or not that rate of change is catastrophic or not.
The rate of change has been more or less static for the past 16+ years despite increased carbon emissions.
And all of the computer models from 10 and 20 years ago have failed in their predictions.
Why should we continue to flush our economies down the shitter based on faulty computer models and predictions that consistently fail to come true?