Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacko
Again, your first statement, while very likely true  , certainly does not in any way lead to the second conclusion. Your second conclusion appears to be significantly likely to be in error based upon the vast preponderance (is that like saying really, really vast amount?  ) of scientific evidence.
There is very good reason for cautious avoidance of the manageable, negative consequences of your unscientific conclusion being wrong and the preponderance of scientific evidence being right on the subject of human-caused global warming/climate change. |
There is no evidence, let alone a vast preponderance. It is all theory based on models. Models like the one here:
USATODAY.com
Oops, what we meant was FLOODS.
