Quote:
|
Originally Posted by g hall
Quote:
|
Anyway, this GW thing is not just one scientist who doesn't refute the human influence - it is nearly 1000 peer reviewed papers by scientists concuring.
|
Science is not about concurring and peer review it is about studying the evidence and formulating a theory which the evidence may support and then finding more evidence to support the theory.
As far as GW goes there are many peer reviewed papers and theories against man made GW.
There are even theories that the increase in CO2 follws the increase in temperature
links http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V2/N12/C1.jsp
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...s/V2/N8/C3.jsp
all peer reviewed |
Both links lead to the same article.
A website with ten scientific and legal advisors.
I'm not sure who reviewed the article. But it just seems to be a non-scientific response. Sure, references are cited and selected bits used.
I have also seen the graphs posted that purportedly show a lag between temperature rise and atmosperic levels of CO2. As I posted elsewhere, one can just as easily show the reverse.
I can't claim to know what the human influence, if any, is on global warming. But I wouldn't discount it.