By analysing ice cores taken from places like Antarctica and Greenland, from which the relative abundances of atmospheric gasses and ratios of oxygen isotopes can be used to reconstruct the climate in the past, as these things vary with average global temperature. There are features that vary between summer and winter, allowing scientists to count back through the years.o really? how/where/when did they verify what happened 100,000 years ago?
This has been an interesting debate for the most part (I must see An Inconvenient Truth), and Nomadologist’s devil’s-advocate argumentation makes for a nice intellectual counter-balance. I am not so keen, however, on sophistry based on (presumed) greater scientifical knowledge (‘since you don’t know the difference between “centripetal force” and “cetrifugal force”, your opinion is negligible’, etc.); the quote above is an acute example of such debating technique, I think. In this context (and many others), it’s fair to say that ‘scientific’ means something quite different (indeed, it’s one of the most loosely defined words there is). (I would define it something like this: scientific = ‘using a stringent and transparent methodology agreed upon by most, preferably all, practitioners [scientists] within a specific discipline.)unfortunately, science isn't about "safe assumptions", it's about observable facts and reproducible lab results
Yeah, a few hundred thousand square miles of solar panels, job's a good 'un.Hmm, having read that report the last line was interesting, Howard claiming that it was impossible to run the country's power on solar energy! That sounds like bullshit to me, as altho it might be extremely expensive and difficult to set up, surely you could just cover the outback in massive solar panels?