Even without looking it up, I can say with certainty that his arguments have been debunked. Nobody should believe that 97% of scientists are wrong, or be trapped in an echo chamber.
Probably. I would love to read the critique.
> Nobody should believe that 97% of scientists are wrong, or be trapped in an echo chamber.
Sorry, but I do not buy that argument. Scientists are, like the rest of us, subject to peer, media and economic pressure. They can make mistakes too. I hope they don't, but I can not religiously accept that science is infallible.
Authority arguments apply to science too.
If there was some real and credible alternative to the consensus and this alternative would show that the present science is wrong, it would replace it without hesitation
This could happen if the foundations of the theory are not questioned often. If they are taken as axioms, then the rest of the system follows from it.
> If there was some real and credible alternative to the consensus and this alternative would show that the present science is wrong, it would replace it without hesitation
We are talking very long term effects here, so it is nearly impossible to know in detail how a chaotic system like Earth will evolve.
He is offering a very specific prediction, although extremely difficult to verify:
1) that without human intervention long-term CO2 levels tend to zero
2) that current increases in temperature do not follow increases in CO2, rather the opposite
3) that increases in temperature (and CO2) do not mean mass extinctions, rather the opposite.
What is the standard counter-argument to these points? Are all false?
And is this what is happening with climate science?
> He is offering a very specific prediction, although extremely difficult to verify:
> What is the standard counter-argument to these points? Are all false?
Why should exists a counter argument? He is the one making this claims, he should publish papers supporting his claims.
And until now, there is none.