Based on what? What we need is some information, different perspectives, so we can form qualified opinions.
Or, its dismissal is. Which one poses the greater risk? -1940's. A matter of months, likely, before the first codified link between cigarette smoking and cancer was definitively established. And from at least the '20's on, a nation went gonzo on a newish fad, smoking. And died for it. My point? Modernity is replete with examples of a big "whoops, guess it did have some meat to it" after the fact. Given that the consequences of global warming may be disastrous, and permanent, on an order never conceived by humankind (making the 1920's insouciance over cigarette smoking and its supposed neutral (even positive) effect on ill health look like child's play), I don't believe any of us have the right to dump on our children's playground.
Actually, he's probably right. A recent history lesson: • 1971 — NASA scientists predict "new ice age coming" — wrong • 1975 — Famous Newsweek feature story predicting imminent global cooling — wrong. • 1982 — hysteria in the media over the pending Jupiter Effect — wrong • 2000 — the now infamous Y2K — hardly a hiccup • 2007 — Global warming — time will tell. As I've said before, I would trust these "climate scientists" and their computer models a lot more if they could get next week's weather correct!
If you believe regular people like you and I have the ability to CHANGE the weather system, then how could you dismiss the fact the government has changed/ does change the weather system? (not that you have) like i said google HAARP. if anyone is controlling the weather it is the elites, not you and i. THEY are the ones effecting the weather. i didn't know clouds formed that way? in grids.. is this the greenhouse effect you people speak of? yeah you can kinda see it here!