Thanks Arnd for another provocative comment.
EXXON, as many others, deserve no regret when „charged with all kinds of misdoing with respect to climate science“. EXXON’s fault is not strongly opposing a meaningless language with regard what ‘climate’ is.Full Comment is here:
Dr. Bernaerts raises a number of issues and goes into some depth at his website, especially this page.
I am prompted by this to respond with three points.
1. Climate Alarmism Depends on Equivocation
There is something like a lawyer’s frustration in Dr. Bernaerts’ writing about climate. It is customary in a legal document for the first section to define all the terms, and then in later sections to respect those definitions in making arguments. He is right to criticize climate science for lacking such discipline.
Going further, it can be said that the anti-fossil fuel movement is built upon equivocation. That is a fallacy…
View original post 588 more words