Quote:
Originally Posted by Julie
Well it should.....that is my point.
I think it unfair that you can take available data from 1500 years ago to prove a cycle, but not take into consideration extreme changes in atmospheric conditions that would not reflect in data for future years to come.
That's like saying....well, we have to wait another 1,500 years to prove it, but we may not be able to prove it then, because we may be living in a water world.  |
Fairness is irrelevant. What is relevant is the scientific method.
And in 1500 years we may be living in a dry, cold, sub-arctic world. That "maybe" is just as likely as yours.
-dale