You know, I specifically asked you what was a "put down." You never answered. I never mentioned any consensus, and neither did Megalodon. So what are you talking about here?
Looks like a strawman argument to me.
So basically we should just ignore logical fallacies? What are you saying here? Do you have the slightest clue what you're implying? You're implying that we should abandon thinking. Not just a real great start, Al. That doesn't work for me.
People who don't have an agenda don't accuse people of being nasty without being able to prove it, Al. I asked you to present specific criticisms. You didn't. I guess you don't have any. If you don't, then where did this claim come from?
Apples and oranges, Al. Also, what's this about the CO2 level being "much higher," without the temperature being "radically higher?" You got anything to actually cite that wasn't written by an oil company shill that shows this? Any of that, you know, evidence stuff?
Gee, I dunno, maybe it was that little thing they had then, I think they called it World War 2. You never heard of that, right? And then they had to rebuild Europe afterward, and Asia; you know, all that stuff that got bombed. And then people started realizing that there was a lot of pollution being made, and started yelling about it. I seem to recall a little something about that in the 1960s. Maybe it's just me.
Sulphates don't have a long half-life in the air, Al. You have to keep pumping them out, or they go away pretty quick. That would be some of that, you know, science and stuff.
So, basically, because we don't know everything, we don't know anything. This is the same argument the cretinists use, Al. I thought you didn't like them.
See, it's mischaracterizations of opposing arguments like this that irritates people, Al. Anybody who knows what the real argument is in this case can spot this a mile off.
If you've only got one measurement, then you question it, you look it over, you pound on the top of the box to see if the meters are maybe stuck. But when you measure that same thing five or six completely different ways and get the same answer from all of them, then it becomes a lot clearer what the facts are. And the thing is, Al, we've got those five or six different ways. And they all say the same thing. So when you concentrate on one of them, and ignore the others, what is that?
And another one. Every time you go look this up, it turns out a coupla guys said, well, maybe if things are just like this, we might be headed for an ice age. I think we oughta go check it out. And the media trumped that up into a big headline, and the guys are like, where did you get that? We never said that. We just said maybe we oughta go check it out. But now it's like, all the scientists said this. They didn't. All the newspapers did.
I thought it was all "urban heat islands," Al. Losing the thread of the argument a bit there?
Well, gee, Al, the CO2 concentration seems to be rising, and the isotopes (measured two different ways) say that's carbon that hasn't been where it can absorb C14 from the atmosphere for a long, long time. Anybody can go check out the figures for how much CO2 we're making; it's pretty simple. Economists keep track of stuff like that. So given we know we're making this amount of CO2, and given the concentration is rising that much, and given the isotope results, I guess it looks like we are making the CO2 levels rise. And given all the really obvious physics above, which you still haven't said anything about, gee, I guess that really does mean humans are causing the rise in temperature.
Did you have some point here?
Who ever said that? Gimme a source, Al. I just don't see it. I haven't heard it. I think you either have listened to someone who didn't know what they're talking about, or you're obfuscating. Which is it, Al?
Al, nobody ever said CO2 forcing is the only forcing. Again, who ever said that? You know, that evidence stuff.
What's going to happen tomorrow ain't climate, Al. It's weather. Global warming is not weather.
A link that provides answers to every point you've brought up here, and a lot more besides, is produced. Have you read the articles at that link, Al? Are you actually interested in the evidence, or are you just saying you are because it sounds good?
, a coal mining engineer, right-wing lobbyist DCI and countless other bags of free market hot air, anonymous bloggers, "here", paid Exxon shills, the Czech president (who freely admits to ignoring scientific evidence), and last but certainly not least, a construction worker.
)
