You cannot be objectively critical without being tarred as an idiot. It’s the opposite of how science should be.
Science wirls with data and peer reviewed and replicated study. Why not get some of your “critical thinking” published then if you want to be taken seriously rather than giving me an emotive argument about what science is as that is not data and that is not science
People did criticise it initially and doubt it and look for other causes but the data is overwhelming to all but a few.
retro 83 I did not imply anything I said that all scientific theories have doubt and dissenters. Are you denying this is true? Are you denying that science does not find facts?
Your point [ minus the imply] is probably a fair one [ re which are more robust given longevity] but only last week it has been suggested we have particles travelling faster than light so perhaps Einstein is incorrect with relativity. There are no certainties in science it can all be disproved with data/new observation etc
I suggest that is what you do provide data and in particular i would like you to explain how the thermal forcing effect on carbon is negated* and by which process..good luck
I wish you the very best of luck in thinking about something that the worlds leading experts have not considered, accounted for and discounted but hey it is just possible some folk on a mtb forum will disprove AGW.
Perhaps next week we can find a cure for cancer ?
* I assume you accept that C02 is both rising and also a green house gas.
Before Watson an Crick we had no method for Evolution dso it was in doubt for a while
You seem to think longeivity
the effects of C02 as a greenhouse gas are well documented I assume you accpet that point
C02 is increasing – I assume you accept that burning fossil fuels releaseses stored carbon in th eform of Co2
I as
