Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
Sure, you say there's no contest that CO2 is a greenhouse gas while Engineerdude (a self-proclaimed engineer) has argued extensively in the last few pages of this thread that it does not work as a greenhouse gas the way scientific literature (or scientific consensus) says it does.
|
If I understand Engineerdude's, he is not suggesting that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. He is suggesting that the magnitude of the effect is not significant enough to significantly affect climate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by modest
So, we're allowed to claim data is credible if it's presented by a PhD, but not allowed to claim data is credible if its presented by a near-unanimous majority of PhDs in the field of research.
|
This is getting a little silly. I was asking for a critique of a presentation of data give by an MIT PhD. And there is pretty good evidence that a significant minority of climatologists do not regard the CO2 problem as a crisis. I am a little disappointed that we keep referring to this mystic consensus. Last I heard, the IPCC would not even release the names of the "2500" supporting scientists for thier report(s).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by modest
As you say: there is no contest that the earth is warming up.
|
...but there IS contest about the rate, the causality and the degree to which CO2 is an actor.
----------------
Few problems are so complex that they cannot be substantially clarified by one more cup of coffee
(or a nice cabernet if it is after 5:00)
Moderator in absentia. Return anticipated. Timing somewhat vague.
