[Pretzel Logic]

Since I clearly made an error by trying to be considerate of your feelings, here are the responses I was prepared to give (albeit probably with less diplomacy than I would have originally used had you not attacked me personally):

OK, so according the this Steve guy, who seems to know what he's talking about, it's going to take longer to ruin the earth due to warming. That's sweet, but we are still on the wrong trajectory. I said all along that the precise rate of temperature rise is what is uncertain, not the fact that temperatures will rise due to an increase in CO_2 in the atmosphere.

The paper suggests that there may be .4 C of additional warming by 2100. The conclusion is that this is insignificant. Obviously, this is only one of many peer-reviewed studies, and I agree that it argues in favor of your broad case that "temperature is rising." That was, in fact, the precise reason I started you with this particular paper. There are others.

Perhaps I have not made my case clear, although I've repeatedly tried: I am NOT trying to "prove" that man-made global warming "absolutely does not and cannot exist," even though that seems to be what you want to debate me over. I actually addressed this earlier, and stated that:

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.

But somehow "I don't pretend to know," is interpreted as arrogance. And not repeating myself for the third or fourth time is viewed as "not addressing the gaps you point out," when I've ALREADY addressed them. (Maybe try reading to see if I've already replied to your query before resorting to personal attacks?)

The main thing I AM trying to prove that there is a clear misinformation campaign being run by the AGP leaders, and that they are using underhanded tactics to suppress anyone who dissents. I've stated that over and over. I believe the facts have proved it. It can be proved it in more detail if needed. Suppressing science works to NO ONE'S benefit.

I'm sure there are other unknown consequences that will pop up that will cause other problems due to our messing with the earth's chemistry (DRG mentioned the ocean's getting the shaft due to higher CO_2 concentrations). Might as well ignore that since we live on the land part of the planet. Also, there's no reason to do anything since we haven't worked out the exact issues in advance. Let's just keep pumping out CO_2 until the problems are so big we can't undo them. Seems like a foolproof plan, right?

Seriously dude, wtf? First: When did I say ANY of the things you're implying? Second: What exactly am I supposed to address here? Your fearful speculations? Live in abject terror if you want to, I'm not going to try and stop you.

I stated that "our understanding of climate is incomplete" (see below). Isn't that the EXACT SAME THING you've said? The difference seems to be in our respective hysterics levels over the fact that we lack understanding of how climate works. Based on your personal attacks, I take it that you're PISSED OFF that I don't think "lack of understanding" = "oh my God oh my God oh my God!"

My stance regarding man-made global warming likewise calls for us to embrace reality. And that reality is: our models, our understanding of how climate works, and our understanding of OUR impact on climate are all inadequate. Our understanding is not complete enough to allow us to know what's coming next.

I don't think Al Gore or the IPCC or any other scientist out there is doing this to get rich. They see a problem and care about the future. Sure they might be overestimating the problem, but it's still a global problem with unknown consequences and I agree with them that we should be doing what we can to minimize it. Now if you please, you can tell me how much of an idiot I am and exactly how I am wrong and how you are brilliant and objective and right as always. I'm looking forward that very much.

Look, if you want to understand what motives Al Gore or the IPCC would have for doing this, then you're going to have to figure those out for yourself. Clearly nothing I can say is going to influence you. The information is available in the public domain if you look for it.

I've already shown that you have been lied to by the media, by Al Gore, and by the IPCC in HUGE and significant ways. THAT should have been neutral ground -- after all, nobody is personally responsible for lies they've been told, or for the conclusions they've drawn from those lies -- but it still triggered defensiveness. Your response was to come up with new speculation that I was supposed to "address." Then to attack me personally.

Let's review a few of the lies we've uncovered, and note your responses:

1. When we learn that the 90+% "consensus" you were told is complete bunk -- "you don't care, it's still a consensus."

2. When we learn that the earth is not warming catastrophically as Al Gore and the IPCC told you -- that just "proves your point" that the earth is warming. So there! What say me? (even though I had already said.)

3. When we learn that 31,400 scientists disagree that man-made warming is a danger -- well, that doesn't matter anymore, because suddenly there are "probably" a MILLION "possible scientists" out there, so 31,400 is possibly actually a SMALL number (great, but what percentage of those theoretical "million scientists" would sign ANY petition? Don't we actually have to know what percentage would respond AT ALL in order to know whether 31,400 represents "a lot" or "a little"?)

You repeatedly miss the point I'm trying to make (which is: LOTS OF LIES FROM AGP LEADERS) and focus on the minutiae instead. You work your way around any "inconvenient truths" present in new facts by deciding that your prior facts didn't really matter, and that the new facts somehow still fully support your prior opinions.

You keep trying to draw me into a debate that I was NEVER trying to make. Then you attack me personally for not responding the way you wanted -- and for extending an olive branch!

In a nutshell, you completely ignore new facts by explaining them away with seemingly ad hoc speculations that fit your old bias. All new information is thus effectively discarded. The end result is that you just keep plodding along believing whatever the hell you believed in the first place under the old, incorrect "facts."

And then finally, you tell me that I'm actually the one with the "complete unwillingness to admit to being wrong."

Got it.

The funny thing is, I was NEVER trying to tell you that YOU were wrong. I was trying to illustrate that the things you had been TOLD were wrong. That's an important distinction. Apparently not one that mattered, though.