Pablo Balonga
Aug 9, 2017 · 1 min read

A fair and useful analysis of skepticism would be a debate between the theories of the scientists for and against main stream about climate changes, causes and consequences. A debate with a politician as difficult and useless as taking a candy from a baby.
Without letting aside warnings about emissions, it should be noted that the science is not so clear as fanatics from both sides (pro/con) believe about climate change. Neither the core is so solid nor the opposition is void of respected scientists.
Specially the consequences of the warming are uncertain. For example our civilization undertook at least 2 milleniums (1 after 1 before christian era) with average temperatures 2 to 4 degrees higher than present ones. A period in which mediterranean civilizations grew, developed and expand apparently without any flooding and other “warming plagues”.
The discussion of point 5 in the article is poor by itself , for example it is not said why should freeze/hot affect more or less people, and referenced figures are not given (just “few” and “more”).

    Pablo Balonga

    Written by

    Physics PhD, scientist & tipster. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement. Be truthful,even if the truth is inconvenient B.Russell