3 ms·
Eh, primitive data was primitive. Note that the key part of the prediction was the rate at which CO2 would increase. As it turned out, atmospheric CO2 hasn't y
by jonhendry 16y ago
Eh, primitive data was primitive.
Note that the key part of the prediction was the rate at which CO2 would increase. As it turned out, atmospheric CO2 hasn't yet reached the point that was predicted. So it should be no surprise that the sea level effects, etc, have not occurred either.
The key principles are correct: CO2 does trap heat. Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing over the century. Do the math. Clearly, unless you're counting on a deus ex machina to save your bacon, or expecting to be raptured out beforehand, the conservative stance is to reduce CO2 emissions in order to maintain CO2 levels within the range that is best compatible with the current distribution of humans on earth.
- jonhendry 16y agoAlso, only a moron would use predictions from 40 years ago, based on 40 year old science and data, as an argument against current client science. We have vastly more data, better tools, better methods, better technology, and science has progressed since the Nixon administration. If you're going to do that, you might as well claim that the movie "Toy Story" would be impossible to create, because the Apollo program computers were unable to do 3D rendering.
- noarchy 16y agoIt reminds me a bit of creationists, in 2010, arguing over Origin of the Species as if it were the latest in biology.