Quote:
Originally Posted by pmaust
Thanks for th reply. Can you provide some specific examples of his false arguments?
Thanks
|
Here is an interesting one:
Quote:
|
Carbon dioxide, a benign gas, is now the hyper–volatile fuel of public policy, media hype, and world politics. Climatologists, undeterred by their inability to predict even the dominant features of the earth’s climate record – the ice ages and the glacial periods – have nonetheless scored a political coup by cobbling together three selected bits of science into a cataclysmic prediction: man is on the verge of destroying life on the planet.
|
Rather than a scientific paper, this feels more like someone with an axe to grind. What are all these adjetives doing in an introduction of a scientific paper?
He suggests climatologists haven't been able to 'predict even the dominant features of the earth's climate record'.
Actually, models have been able to predict very accurately global climate. However, I suspect he is right that some of these climate changes events can't be predicted (I don't know that, but I am giving him the benifit of the doubt). But just because cataclismic events aren't predicted, doesn't mean very good predictions of trends aren't.
As for the prediction he attributes to climatologists "man is on the verge of destroying life on the planet" that is patently false. I have never heard of nor read any scientific paper stating that AGW is going to lead to the end of life on our planet.
He seeds the reader with this thought in a very clever way. The reader is lead to think: 'of course, how absurd, this guy must be right if the other guys think all life is about to end'
I do have to say, he does sound very impressive. I am disappointed that he refuses to submit his paper to any peer reviewed journals as I would love to hear the authors of the articles he cites throughout the paper respond to his submission.
