I just wrote you with a concern- indicating a real flaw in the thinking of the AGW denialist perspective. Now, instead of discussing that, you want me to do what? Comment on your cut-and paste list of, as you say, 'prominent scientists'? Comment on the Oceans?
Could a list of 'prominent scientists' be wrong, sure. Absolutely. Happens every time there is a major shift in theory. Is this what you want to discuss? Could there be mechanisms that could explain why the ocean is not warming, or lags significantly behind the atmosphere, or even cools as the atmosphere warms? Sure, absolutely. I can rattle off a few mechanisms.
But here is what I won't do. I won't do your homework for you. IE, it seems like to me you want to just pull 'issue' after 'issue', and ask me or other 'amateur' AGW proponent to answer you, instead of you going to the literature (not 'skeptics' blogs) and answering the questions first for yourself.
What I also won't do is play 'whackamole' with you- where I answer your point or point out a problem only to have you switch tangents in the debate. Like you just did.
Please, by all means, lets begin by seeing how you address what I see as fundamental flaws in your reasoning, as detailed in my last post.
Current Events » in reply to re: Riddle me this (and this is also for TB)
Woha. What do you want to discuss?
The whole thread (128 posts)
- just the link in text form
- Such high-pitched emotions
- Hansen's latest paper
- re: just the link in text form
- "SourceWatch.org"? Sounds very reputable.
- It's "A Convienient Lie"
- re: It's not just the blogs
- As TB so helpfully pointed out...
- re: Why shouldn’t I believe these scientist?
- re: Why shouldn't I believe these scientist?
- re: Still, there are quite a number of "wait a minute" things out there in the science, work done by real and responsible scientists, and these need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis, not by si…
- I have never claimed that science was a democracy...
- Okay, let's skip to the politics
- It is a political issue
- re: Which facts
- A good place to start
- re: Already seen it
- re: Already seen it
- "What proof is there that CO2 is causing the earth to warm?"
- re: That's not true
- LOL I encourage everyone to look at the link- It really makes my point
- Ummm, ooookaayy... just one thing before I reply
- re: That's not true
- Break it down.
- re: Break it down.
- never mind (n/t)
- re: Break it down.
- We're talking parts per million
- "THe effects on temperature are negligible at best. "- That is nonsense, the science says otherwise...
- No we are not talking parts per million. And anyway, how would you know SteveS' objection till he has voiced it.
- CO2 levels are around 380 ppm (parts per MILLION)
- More used to seeing it as a percent. (n/t)
- CO2 levels are around 380 ppm (parts per MILLION)
- re: Break it down.
- "What proof is there that CO2 is causing the earth to warm?"
- A good place to start
- I have never claimed that science was a democracy...
- re: Still, there are quite a number of "wait a minute" things out there in the science, work done by real and responsible scientists, and these need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis, not by si…
- re: Why shouldn't I believe these scientist?
- Most of those organizations don't put the question to a vote by their members.
- re: Why shouldn’t I believe these scientist?
- That won't work.
- re: It's not just the blogs
- As TB so helpfully pointed out...
- re: It's "A Convienient Lie"
- Global warming.
- "for some reason believe that the issue of Global Warming is a political one"
- re: It's not just the blogs
