The problem with this is that he doesn't address the science.
Science is never 'finished.' That much he is correct about. But there are degrees of certainty within science. So far as I'm aware, the only evidence for or against global warming at the moment is the IPCC studies. If there have been any independent, peer reviewed studies on the subject, I have not encountered them.
The IPCC studies are surprisingly weak evidence. They are based entirely on meta-analysis and
Meta-analysis is not good science. On top of that, we need to spend more time looking at the whys of global warming. Once we have conclusive evidence that it is happening and is a big deal, we need to have better evidence as to what's causing it. Spending so much time reducing carbon oxide emissions will look pretty foolish in retrospect if it turns out that carbon oxides are not a significant contributing factor. Where's the proof? It may exist, but I haven't seen it yet.
The Earth is incredibly complicated. Oversimplification never works.
EDIT -
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
where did you get your degree in climatology?
|
This is an ad hominem attack. You should know better.
I have no degree in climatology or anything else for that matter. I expect nobody to take my word as granted, which is why I try to back up my assertions wherever possible.
I do have an inquisitive nature and an internet connection. Everyone I use to form my opinions is available to everyone else. The IPCC is a political body. Have any independent scientific organizations published studies? I don't know, but if they have, they certainly weren't well advertised.
I don't claim to
know anything about global warming, and that's my point.
Nobody seems to know anything with any real certainty. It's a great political issue, but as a scientific one it just doesn't seem like very many people have looked into it at all.