I haven't said that we should go out and start polluting to cool the earth (doesn't seem to need our help anyway) I was just using the article to show that the climate scientists can't seem to keep their stories straight and have to come up with contradictory ways of making their data fit what they are trying to claim. The lastest plan was showing that lowered solar flare activity may cause more cooling of the earth, now this is a plausible thing to happen as solar radiation is the biggest source of global temperature fluctuation not human influence. This is the story that will be dragged out when over the next decade their computer modeling will be incorrect, yet again, and they will need an explanation as to why. There is absolutely no way of being able to predict what the climate will be like a decade from now let alone a century from now, there are far too many variables and the human influence is a tiny, tiny part. If their computer models had been at all correct they would have been able to predict this solar reduction and accounted for it. They have also come out a while ago and "corrected" their doomsday flooding of the earth to happen 100 years later than they said, just a small error
I'm not a scientist, I have studied a fair amount of science though as I work in electronics, but common sense tells you that it was a hell of a lot warmer in the past (ie. Greenland was green when the vikings were there) and humans did just fine. And if the oceans rise a little, you know what, PEOPLE WILL MOVE. So far though, the 50 million climate refugees that were supposed to be here by 2010 haven't come out yet, in fact the costal areas have had an increase in population. Oh well don't let the facts get in the way of your religion.Here's one for you WD, I guess you're doing your part
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ts-climate
