[Pretzel Logic]

This leads me to assume that you can solve the climate question single-handedly. Please spend the needed hours and get back to us.

Please start lining up government sponsors. A starting grant of $50 million should suffice, although I am certainly open to increased funding.

Seriously, though, (at least I think that last statement was a joke, maybe you think it's a reasonable request) you still haven't refuted my claim that 90+% of scientists believe global warming in man-made and it's starting to irritate me that you continue to throw that out as a falsehood. If there are tens of thousands of scientists who disagree that climate change is man-made, that tells me close to nothing about the percentage of scientists who hold that view. Until you have the total number of scientists, you can't really refute my claim about 90+% holding the view that global warming is largely man-made. What's the total number? I'll go with 10 million as a rough guess, based on the criteria for the petition. Are there 1 million who dissent? Maybe, but I doubt it.

While you may feel I haven't refuted the claim (I disagree), neither have you proved it. Although I'm not sure what the "formal proceedings" are for this debate, I'm not certain why the burden of proof to refute your unproven claim falls on me? Don't you first have to prove the claim before I can refute it? Where's the judge when you need him?

Also, I don't care if the number is 90% or 97% or 75%, the point is that it's a strong majority who are concerned because they trust the experts (climate scientists) who largely agree on this issue.

Okay, so it doesn't matter if you prove your claim and/or I refute it?

Even based on the survey you cited to prove your point that there is a consensus among meteorologists that global warming isn't man-made, the data showed there is a consensus that global warming IS man-made. Care to address that?

Originally, I believed your argument was something along the lines of "Well, 90+% of scientists agree man-made warming is a real problem." I was attempting to refute that, and I believe I did.

Now the argument seems to be whether warming is or is not man-made? Did I misunderstand the original argument? Entirely possible that I did.

I was not attempting to debate whether or not man has an impact on global temperatures. I don't pretend to know, because I don't believe that either the science or the data strongly supports those types of conclusions yet. I believe certain data may hint at it circumstantially (and certain data seems to refute it), but either way, circumstantial evidence is quite different from the proverbial "smoking gun."

I feel you are arguing that there's a smoking gun. Am I reading incorrectly? If you are arguing for the "smoking gun" link to warming and atmospheric CO2, what (besides a "group think" assumption that it MUST BE SO) has convinced you of that? I'm certainly open to the possibility of new data having arrived in the days since I conducted the bulk of my research.

However, it's worth noting that the latest data, in the form of the aforementioned cloud study, has actually proven my prior hypothesis (that atmospheric CO2 was being OVER-weighted by many scientists and models), which is what sparked me to post about it in the first place -- and the cloud study does have to be understood as new evidence and new data that represents at least a partial paradigm shift away from the old models. Have you factored that new data into your current stance? Or are you taking the view that "it doesn't matter."

As I said, I'm certainly open to hearing what you have in terms of conclusive evidence that isn't open to multiple interpretations of the data.