Quote:
Originally Posted by echinosum
I agreed with you that the greens are overstating their case, I even said shockingly. Makes me a good green doesn't it?
Instead I put the sober scientific evidence in front of you, which you just ignored. In response, you give a logically irrelevant spiel on how some people are going to make money out of it. Some people will make money out of it whatever happens.
|
It was no more irrelevant than accusing me of being duped by the oil industry.
I don't, by the way, deny global warming, after all at the start of the 1st millennium we had the Roman warm period, at the start of the 2nd millennium we had the medieval warm period, therefore it's perfectly logical that at the start of the 3rd we should have another warming period. I'm afraid that the case that it's CO2 driven is far from proven.
Frankly with the release of those e-mails that show that the top AGW scientists weren't prepared to allow anyone to check their work and indeed going out of their way to withhold the information needed for those checks, the incestuous peer review system they had instigated and the manipulation of the journals to ensure dissenting papers were not published, even to the extent of getting one of the editors sacked, shows the extent of the duplicity.
The whole thing now smells at best, of badly conducted science, or at the worst, the fraudulent perpetuation of what was originally a reasonable idea, but one that eventually couldn't be substantiated but had been talked up so far by the IPCC that they dare not drop it.
Science is about coming up with a theory, publishing it along with all the data used, and letting other people try and find faults in your work, If they can then the theory may well fall, if they can't then it stands, for now. this procedure has not been followed in this case, hence my scepticism.