You don't trust him, because he agrees with the view he expresses in that article?
This is easy to settle. He says the data don't exist. You apparently say the smart default is to assume that they do. So find the data, and that's the end of it. Right?
Your edit is pretty hilarious: he can't be right, because he's part of Cato and has published stuff arguing against climate change! Look, somebody at the Pacific Institute ("Research for People and the Planet") has published something saying so!
You might be right, but your argument is basically "Galileo is wrong, because he's a heretic. The Pope even said so. Is Galileo a Pope? I. Thought. Not."
This is easy to settle. He says the data don't exist. You apparently say the smart default is to assume that they do. So find the data, and that's the end of it. Right?
Your edit is pretty hilarious: he can't be right, because he's part of Cato and has published stuff arguing against climate change! Look, somebody at the Pacific Institute ("Research for People and the Planet") has published something saying so!
You might be right, but your argument is basically "Galileo is wrong, because he's a heretic. The Pope even said so. Is Galileo a Pope? I. Thought. Not."