Over ONE Million International Readers have engaged our various digests and blogs providing insights on the "SEVEN BIG Es" - Earth, Economics, Environment, Energy, Exponentiation, Entropy, and Extinction, curated by our world renowned "Quantum Realonomist" - First Financial Insights Inc. - Dr. Peter G Kinesa
WORLD'S LEADING FINANCIAL FORECASTER
International LEADERS Calling Market Crashes Years Ahead
Second to None, Anywhere...
'Warned 2000 tech slide; predicted 2008 meltdown in 2007. Forecasted 2020 global economic collapse in 2011, AND NOW- BY 2050 - THE MOTHER OF ALL CRASHES"
Who do you believe regarding climate change? Who wins the climate debate? Science? Business? Or Politicians? Common sense tells us that scientists should present more objective findings and conclusions. Whereas the latter two groups have tarnished reputations for portraying reality in a way that is biased towards their own vested interests. Put simply - they have no credibility.
But science itself is not perfect as methods, observations and conclusions may be flawed leading to bad information and resultant decisions. So we cannot accept science at face value as well. What to do?
Our best answer to this dilemma is based on applied concepts of corroboration and logic.
Logically the polluting chemicals, heat and radioactive outputs of our human economic and social activities must have some impact on the environment in various ways. That's just a straightforward physical cause and effect linkage. Let's not forget too that the climate is a dynamic state entity - it has always been in some form of change through-out time. Clearly, these are both logical pluses supporting climate-change proponents.
There are two forms of corroboration to consider; personal experience and third party information. Most of us by now have experienced some displeasures from the possible consequences of global warming, be it heat waves, storms or extreme cold. Further evidence comes from various global media sources reflecting increased frequency and trends in temperature increases major storms, floods, wildfires, insect populations, glacial shrinkage, on and on around the world. These two types of corroboration overwhelming suggest that climate-change proponents are correct.
In summary, whether we apply logical common sense or corroborative evidence techniques, we come up with one obvious answer Add in the long history and discrediting character of climate-change deniers, then this becomes an open and shut case. Leading to remaining questions of how bad is it and what should we expect when?
Who will you believe?
Dr Peter G Kinesa
September 10, 2013
...OR THIS GUY? "Believe me David, your scientists have it all wrong..."