Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxWilson
Interesting link, Edi. I'm disappointed that he spends so much time arguing with a straw man: people who think carbon dioxide has zero effect on the climate. He doesn't actually spend any time (in the first third, which is where I stopped) actually defending climatology predictions in any quantitative way, and of course that's where all the real disagreements lie.
|
Riddle me this Max: How the goddamn hell are you in any way competent to dismiss Mr. Dutch if you didn't bother to read his argument in its entirety?
He uses roughly the first third to smack down the idiot brigade (yes, it does exist, I've run into its representatives several times) precisely so that they can be told to bugger off the moment they try to bleat something.
The substantive arguments are further down. Yes, they focus on CO2 mostly, but that's something that impacts all climate models. His argument is based on the known properties of atmospheric CO2 and its effects. He also tackles many of the inconsistencies in the AGW position and the arguments include the documented impact of solar input of energy per surface area vs human caused input and various other things.
The statistical analysis of sources for various scientific arguments is also revealing in many places on just how things are often portrayed in the general media.
It's long, it's sometimes boring and it's not necessarily easy to understand, but I have enough working knowledge of math, physics and chemistry to understand his numbers and enough grasp of logic to understand his arguments, where they come from and how they follow.
If that kind of detailed arguments gets nothing better than a TLDR response, the person so responding can be dismissed as being full of crap and unqualified to comment meaningfully on the subject.