>>36
>>But it's well known that, even with all of their research and expensive equipment, it really is just a "best guess." There are just too many variables. If the wind picks up here it could blow in a storm, if the temperature drops here it could start to snow. The earth is a vast and wondrous place. Weather does what it wants.
>>Yet those who are promoting the global-warming theory have the audacity to tell you they can forecast changes in the global climate decades into the future.
I'm going to put forth a suggestion that maybe you had not considered yet: Macro is much easier to predict accurately than Micro.
Case in point, lot's of people could have told you quite accurately in the early 80's that in a decade personal computers would be common-place in many homes. That was evident from current trends. But nobody could have told you with any great degree of certainty that Microsoft would be the producer of the dominant operating system.
In the same vein, we can predict approximate numbers for how the newest video game systems will sell this Christmas season, but we can't predict accurately which homes will get a system. Yeah, they'll sell strongly, but at a certain depth level of analysis you have to just say, "I may not be able to predict where every snowflake will land, but I can see that there will be a blizzard."