|
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
did you read my post?
ever heard of causation? you might have, its just the basis of scientific experimentation...? no? awww ok then. |
Your misinterpreting the definition of causation. Show me any peer reviewed article that states what the outcome of global warming will be to the human species and life on this planet?
Do you really think you can just dumb it down to say, carbon emissions have increased at this rate in the past couple of hundred years, therefore -> conclusion.
It doesnt work that way. What you are inciting is predicative evolution to which there are too many variables to make an accurate depiction. Therefore it is no longer science, hence why the IPCC took all that heat due to the speculations they made on the peer reviewed articles made by the actual scientist doing the research.
Causation is suppose to be used to understand and describe events that are repetitive with a large amount of variables isolated and accounted for. You can't write a peer reviewed article on speculation.
WHY it happened; here are the variables involved, this is why it will happen again.
|