Originally Posted by
N2264J
What I may think about it is beside the point. I would be interested to hear from scientists familiar with the data telling us what he may be leaving out or where his logic might be flawed. If science is not peer reviewed, it's just an opinion.
OK. Google "National Academy of Science global warming" and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Both organizations have a high concentration of Nobel laureates and make the same basic claims although some details may vary:
- global climate change is happening
- mankind is causing it
- it's going to be bad
Good luck on your quest for knowledge.
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science
Peer review does not magically turn an opinion into science. A scientific proposition is one that is verifiable and falsifiable. Peer review is supposed to provide the feedback loop that does/does not verify procedures and results and does/does not falsify the hypothesis. The science may be improved by peer review, but it exists prior to, and independent of, any peer review.
I will check around the websites you recommend, with an open mind, and I will write again here what I find.
I take it from what you say here is that you won't/can't read the text of Lord Monckton's testimony to congress. It is your right to let other people do your thinking for you. Good luck on your quest for a backbone.
WW