Oh so you will only accept science from the people you consider reputable. Very close-minded of you. Personally I look at the data and the arguments rather than the messangers.

BTW can you prove to me that Catholicism isn't the best religion on earth. Oh and you can only use scholars who are attached to the Vatican.

mhaze,

No, it’s not about only accepting “science from people I consider reputable.” It’s about expertise - a principle you’d demand in any other domain.

You wouldn’t take a plumber’s opinion over a structural engineer’s on bridge design. So why are you taking a petrophysicist’s blog-based argument over climatologists who publish in actual climate journals?

Credentials demonstrate whether someone actually knows what they’re talking about. In science, that means being part of a field where your work is scrutinised by other experts, your methods are transparent, and your conclusions can be tested. That’s the difference between proper research and opinion dressed up to look like it.

Your Catholicism analogy completely misses the mark. Scientific claims are not mere beliefs, they’re testable and falsifiable. If someone says “this bridge will collapse under 10 tonnes,” the answer isn’t “well, you’re just being close-minded by ignoring the butcher’s opinion.” It’s: show us your calculations - and publish them in a journal where structural engineers can assess the methodology.

That’s all I’m asking of you: evidence, not diversion. You still haven’t addressed a single point from the paper I critiqued - its lack of data, misuse of sources, or the mismatch between its subject and the journal it was published in.

If you want to argue that climate change isn’t dangerous, fine. But make that case using climate science, not sociology journals, bloggers, and hand-waving appeals to “open-mindedness.” Open-mindedness isn’t the same as letting every unsupported idea through the gate.

So, once again: if you have peer-reviewed scientific evidence that climate change is real but not dangerous, produce it. If not, maybe stop pretending that scepticism means never having to show your work.

"Scientific claims are not mere beliefs, they’re testable and falsifiable. "

Neither of which you attempted to do.