Phil’s Dad wrote: So what “shady methods” is Svensmark employing?
(and can we agree that not all scientists are advocates and not all advocates are scientists?)
I don’t have any dirt against Svensmark, so probably he is legit,
still he seems far away from a full hypothesis, even further to a full alternative theory for AGW.
Edit:Regarding the advocates vs scientists, actually all scientists are skeptics (or at least should be). Ok, not all them are convinced of AGW at the moment.
