l am all for people challenging scientific claims. You don't have to be a scientist per se but you do have to understand the scientific process in order to challenge it.
That's how science works.
Someone comes up with an idea or theory. Great.
Then they have to gather data in order to support or disprove that theory.
Then they have to experiment or model the information in order to further test that theory. The more you do that successfully, the more accurate the theory becomes. Along the way they invite others to challenge the theory using established scientific methods in order to make sure apples are being compared with apples.
The more success you have , the closer to beyond reasonable doubt you get.
One of the articles l posted was about Pilmer's claims before 2009. 15 years ago. ln the article, the author highlighted how unscientific Pilmer's claims were . lmagine how much the scientific community has learned in the past 15 years ? Billions of dollars have been spent. The best and the brightest at NASA , CSlRO, MlT , Stanford , Oxford , Princeton etc have been studying this intensely for all that time and they have all come to the same conclusion . Now with much more accuracy and knowledge than before .
And yet old mate is still rabbiting on with the same dodgy argument from 20 years ago while being on the payroll of large co2 emitters.
l think we all know is more likely to be correct on this one.
