OK, I looked closer. I see it is a self titled opinion piece so there is that. Next, I see all the links in the article go to questionable sites (not .edu or scientific organizations, etc.) except one cherry picked NOAA stat for a single event type for a single year. Last, the writer is the president of a right wing anti science lobbying group called "Spark of Freedom" funded by Exxon Mobil.
Look, I and most everyone on this list are not qualified, experienced climate scientists. However, I think when you are not an expert you should respect and believe what experts say as a group. Picking outliers and sharing opinions of obviously unqualified and biased people is reprehensible and dishonest as far as I am concerned. If you truly believe the scientific consensus around climate change is wrong you are going to have to do a lot more than share links. You will have to do science and prove it. Best. On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:27 AM Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org> wrote: > What offended you? The term “Global Warmist”? It’s an accurate description > of people who hold that climate change is causing more frequent and severe > weather, due to heating of the atmosphere. > > And your argument about “Forbes for something related to science” fails on > the classic logical fallacy “appeal to authority”. Just because Forbes > states easily verifiable public facts doesn’t make them untrustworthy. > Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather > than argued through authority by “consensus”. Science is not a consensus > enterprise. > > -mel > > > On Feb 22, 2021, at 10:16 AM, Brandon Svec via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Feb 22, 2021, at 9:56 AM, Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org> wrote: > >> > >> Sorry Global Warmists, > > > > > > Stopped taking you seriously or reading further right there. Well, that > and linking to Forbes for something related to science. > > > > Best. > >