mozzaok wrote on Jul 23
rd, 2009 at 11:47pm:
Go to any reputable scientific site and see all those furfies you trotted out addressed Soren.
It is, quite frankly, surprising to even see anyone use them anymore, as they have all been thoroughly put to bed as denialist drivel, long ago.
I am not 'using' them in some scheme. Man made warming is not an open and shut case and saying so is not denialist drivel. If the atmosphere is a blanket, any amount of CO2 making that blanket denser or thicker ought to show up in warming IF CO2 is so decisive. But the century of industrialisation does not show up.
It is not my heresy that the case of antropogenic warming remains unconvincing. The theory has by now reached such complexity that the originally posited direct correlation between CO2 and warming is unsustainable. What started out as warming is now 'change'. But the desire for politically motivated control and intervention burns just as brightly.
Why? Well, the inquisitorial sentiments evident in your heretic-exposing language, like 'denialist' drivel', simply confirms that the case for antropogenic global warming is socio-political dogma and group-think for most people, dogma which even the adherents can't quite master or grasp in its detail. And I don't blame you. Best to refer to the authority of sacred texts, the 'repurtable scientific sites'. But scientific sites are miriad. Reputation, like beauty, it now seems, is in the eye of the beholder. What you mean by reputable is what you agree with. At any rate, General Motors was a reputable company a year ago. Reputations change unexpectedly.
You may call it 'denialist drivel', I think of it as resisting the Spanish Inquisition, which nowadays is anything but unexpected. What a change 30 years make in the
intellectual climate!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHGOl-jfUK0Come in again (take 459).i