Discussion > Climate change sceptic or climate change cynic?
The trouble with looking at alternatives to the CFC hypothesis is that one must be competent to evaluate them. If I were an atmospheric chemist then I could do that; but I'm not, so I can't. Therefore I have no alternative but to accept the prevailing scientific view.
As for Booker, a similar situation holds. He argues against the prevailing scientific consensus with data at least partially obtained from his honorary professor Bridle. I have a choice; do I accept the scientific view or do I accept the views of a duo, one of whom habitually gets things wrong, and the other is a charlatan? Hmm, difficult choice.
If you call refusing to take Booker seriously a "failure to engage", then yes, I'm guilty as charged. But given a choice between a free holiday at the five-star white-asbestos-clad Hotel Booker and the Holiday Inn, which is guaranteed free of the stuff, I would expect 97% or more of readers to treat their children and grandchildren to the latter.
BitBucket
BB
Sorry to be late — other things engaging my attention right now.
The question of "engaging" depends on how you look at things. You can continue posting the same stuff without ever (apparently) being aware of what you are replying to. In my book that means you aren't engaging.
As, for example, not bothering to look at the alternative arguments surrounding CFCs and the ozone hole. Or maybe you did. How can I tell?
Or wrenching the argument about Booker and white asbestos off-track by comments like "why would he be so prolific on a subject about which nobody cares?" You haven't actually looked at the arguments, have you?
You don't engage, other than in some sort of dialogue of the deaf — of which there is more than enough going on in the modern world.