On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 08:56:58 -0500, josephus wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:09:32 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:


"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message


snip Mr. Dekker's claim that he is utterly ignorant of recent events,
much less science.

That's what your spin-masters they teach you to do in denial-school ?
Accuse others of what you commit yourself ?


I believe your claims that you're utterly and completely ignorant, Mr.
Dekker. I feel sorry for you. That was... pathetic.

Even more sadly for you, appeal to ignorance is still a fallacy. ;-D

idiot. where is your theory, where is your data. adhomin attacks are
not either data , evidece or theory.

I realize you're new here, but there are proponents and skeptics.
Proponents are supposed to, well, propose, a specific theory, then those
that have questions about the theory (skeptics) ask them to explain the
aspects that they think don't fit.

At this point in the process, proponents have proposed a theory that says
anthropogenic CO2 will raise surface temperatures enough to cause severe
problems in the future.

Unfortunately for the theory, but fortunately for humanity, the theory
predicts only 0.6K of warming per century from CO2 at the present rate.

Proponents contend that some unknown but dangerous amount of additional
warming will hypothetically come from postulated positive feedbacks which
cannot as yet be found (measured) in the climate system. They seem
unusually sure of this. The most common reason is that they believe
climate models, but don't understand them.

Skeptics (I, at least) ask to see the data and mechanisms showing the
existence and operation of these assumed positive feedbacks. As
proponents, it is up to them to show evidence (measured, not modeled)
that supports their hypothesis. It's not up to us to provide support for
their hypothesis, or any other.

The present situation is that proponents insist that the data supporting
their positive feedback theory is out there somewhere, but none of them
are willing or able to explain it specifically.

If proponents can't explain specifically and defend what they propose,
there is no proposition of which to be skeptical. It loses by default,
regardless of the blundering, bluster and bluff accompanying it.

That's why I'm encouraging those who want to be proponents to explain
specifically what they are proposing. Rob and perhaps TomP are, I
believe, trying to make an honest effort.

Most of the rest of the proponents are simply ignorant trolls, full of
themselves and little else.