- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
You constantly prove you are not a scientist by asking for proof. You only prove my point when you make such basic errors.
Science isn't about proof, it's about theories that fit the available evidence. You've made claims about science far out of the mainstream, and have tried to portray them as scientific.
In fact, all of the academies of science of every industrialized nation have agreed that global warming is occurring, and that CO2 is making it worse, and that humans are causing most of the CO2 increase.
Those are the agreed upon facts according to (for example, but not limited to) the American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Astronomical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society, and Engineers Australia.
You, however, claim that you're smarter than all of them, and have proof that they're wrong in their fundamental premises. You offer absolutely zero evidence of it other than your own word. What little evidence you have shown has been shown to be not from experimental scientists, but from layman-level ignorant criticism.
You are making extraordinary claims, and the burden of proof is on you to back them up, not for me to prove them wrong.
You claim to be a scientist, but can't even advance a falsifiable theory, or make a prediction.
Do you even know what the word falsifiable means? It means, for your theory to even be considered a scientific theory, there must be some condition that would prove it to be false. If it can't be proven false, it isn't scientific.
You, sir, are merely talking out of your ass and trying to make it sound scientific. You not only don't understand climate theory, you don't understand basic scientific theory.
