I understand that once a conclusion in science has been established then it is natural to use it as a building block, especially in medical science, in order to accelerate the benefits. Unfortunately a strong element in the motivation in climate science has been money and politics, not the betterment of mankind. I am not a scientist but …
I understand that once a conclusion in science has been established then it is natural to use it as a building block, especially in medical science, in order to accelerate the benefits. Unfortunately a strong element in the motivation in climate science has been money and politics, not the betterment of mankind. I am not a scientist but I concluded 10+ years ago, after a little research, that there could not be certainty that 1 extra part per million of CO2 could be the cause of warming oceans which were some 3500 times the heat density of the atmosphere. It just didn’t stack up to my simple mind and hopefully Miskolczis 2023 paper ( https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202304/05 ) which refutes the whole IPCC thesis will go a long way towards correcting lingering misconceptions about it!
I understand that once a conclusion in science has been established then it is natural to use it as a building block, especially in medical science, in order to accelerate the benefits. Unfortunately a strong element in the motivation in climate science has been money and politics, not the betterment of mankind. I am not a scientist but I concluded 10+ years ago, after a little research, that there could not be certainty that 1 extra part per million of CO2 could be the cause of warming oceans which were some 3500 times the heat density of the atmosphere. It just didn’t stack up to my simple mind and hopefully Miskolczis 2023 paper ( https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202304/05 ) which refutes the whole IPCC thesis will go a long way towards correcting lingering misconceptions about it!