3 ms·

I guess it would make sense that the earth is in a stable equilibrium rather than an unstable one. At the same time, that stable equilibrium may be a local max

by swombat 17y ago

I guess it would make sense that the earth is in a stable equilibrium rather than an unstable one. At the same time, that stable equilibrium may be a local maximum rather than global one, so let's not push it too much. Climate meteorologists have really done a brilliant job of telling the world they have no idea what they're talking about. I'm not a global warming skeptic, in the sense that I believe we should do something about our production of polluting gases (greenhouse or others), but this seems one of the odd cases where scientists simply cannot be trusted to provide useful information.

gjm11 17y ago
"Climate meteorologists"? I think it's more accurate to say: A small number of people, most of whom are not climate scientists, have really done a brilliant job of telling the world that climate scientists have no idea what they're talking about. (The difference between your description and mine is that yours has the climate scientists doing something self-undermining and mine doesn't; so if my description is better, then one actually has to look at the science to describe which side is nearer to the truth. How inconvenient.)