Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov
Sorry but what standards are those? I hear Graham Booth is being criticised for making a claim without evidence by someone who is making the counter claim without evidence.
|
OK. I didn't know who Graham Booth was/is. If neither side of the dispute has evidence it is surely a non-event?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov
A proper scientist goes by evidence and not who is saying it and it is exactly this point where it turns from science into politics.
|
I think we should all go by evidence rather than who says it. More than once here I have suggested that people read the IPCC report rather than what is written about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov
The main issue is the claim global warming is caused by manmade CO2 emissions, not the temperature of the surface at any given time. I have seen the data and I'm still to be remotely convinced there is any real evidence.
|
Specifically
What in the data fails to convince you? Be specific if you can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov
I also don't trust that IPCC computer model, in fact in all probability that was a deliberate scam.
|
Not all the data in the IPCC report uses computer modeling. If all the data presented depended on a single computer model and nothing else you'd have a good point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov
You see if there was sufficient evidence they would not need to scam it and I'm talking about incorrect mathematics used in the statistical processing of the data so that it skews results, indeed doing the opposite to what is correct from a statistical point of view.
|
If I remember correctly, there was a study cited in this forum disputing the mathematical basis which was debunked. Maybe there are others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov
Remember also the greenhouse effect due to manmade CO2 is only 0.12% of the total greenhouse effect. Now how does that lead to catastrophe and a thermal runaway condition, bearing in mind CO2 has varied widely over the planet's history? How can these scientists be so sure?
|
Perhaps it's about equilibrium. There are natural CO2 sources and sinks. As long as they remain in balance atmospheric CO2 would remain a constant. That CO2 concentration has been increasing and at an increasing rate suggests that equilibrium is not being maintained.
I can't claim to know why that is. My first degree is in electrical engineering, an applied science. It, in no way, equips me to be authorative on climate science, another applied science. At best it might help me to look at numerical data and have some understanding of what it means.
But not how to apply it.