- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I painstakingly explained to you why your "evidence" from Nature and Science made a basic false assumption about climate theory. No one argues that CO2 rises can't follow warming, and therefore the entire premise on which the criticism is made is without merit. You've simply ignored it every time I've said it, as you ignore everything that doesn't fit your predefined worldview.
If it were true that CO2 could never follow warming, then CO2 levels could never decrease, and the earth could never get colder.
You never even posted a link to a scientific abstract of your theory, in fact, just a blob of crap that I had to go research myself, and as it turned out, made elementary false assumptions about climate theory.
You are making the claim that your solar activity theory is just another competing theory, but it is not, any more than a flat earth theory is a competing theory of the earth's shape, or "God did it" is a competing theory of evolution.
Those claims aren't scientific, and neither are yours. I've posted information that backs up what I have to say, you have not.
Theories in science are not all given equal weight, no matter how much hand-waving you try to do to pretend that they are.
