Assuming that you agree with one of the poll options I'm trying to post on this thread, I have a question for the sceptics.
What would seriously convince you to alter your scepticism? You are obviously not persuaded by the current data or projections of warming, so what level of realistic scientific evidence would you need to change your position?
I'm genuinely interested. Most sceptics posting on this subject are literate, don't strike me as subscribers to creationism or other non-scientific explanations, so I'm keen to know just how much evidence would change the position of even the most ardent sceptic.
Similarly, I'd welcome comments in the reverse direction, should you wish to make them. I could be persuaded that global warming isn't happening if the vast majority of glaciers stopped retreating (and started advancing), if Arctic summer ice regained some of its size and depth year on year and if measurement of global temperatures showed stabilisation or falls year on year for an extended period.
A lot of the issues discussed over the last couple of decades are covered in this recent programme. It might be a useful way of kicking off the debate.


LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote


Bookmarks