Merlin, I can sincerely say that I have never been emotional in any response I have ever given to you, that last one to me certainly sounded emotional with all those explanation points.
And I can sincerely say that all points are lost on you. Like a pair of others here, you read what you think you're going to read - no matter what the words are. And, for the record, exclamation points are not just for showing emotion in the world of internet chats & blogs. Many of us, who were educated prior to the blogospherical revolution remember that those punctuation marks are used for emphasis and vigorous - forthright delivery. If we are to use your understanding of punctuation usage as a yardstick, I assume that things have changed. I still remember what my English Literature teacher taught me in 11th grade: "Stridency is seldom approved in speech, best to let your words convey your points; use punctuation to make them clear."
I have yet to see a skeptic do more than poke holes in scientific data which is usually changing as new data arises. With that new data, nothing has arisen to suggest that global warming isn't happening. I have seen some crazy alternative theories, like the Mars one printed earlier, but it isn't accepted by the general scientitific community. As for the 30+ you know, I have no information on your private circle, but I am sure you know that no scientific theory has ever excaped complete criticsm.
But again - you glaze over a pertinent point, you create a 'paper tiger' to destroy and completely ignore the major point being made. To "poke holes in data" is a problem in and of itself; like it or not. But then you go on to say that "nothing has arisen to suggest that global warming isn't happening" - that's the 'paper tiger', since I am not suggesting that GW isn't happening, nor have I ever. I'm sure that somewhere along the line you'll make another snide comment about my words and their meaning, but you cannot argue the point; never have I claimed that the planet's climate is not in a state of change. My point all along has been that we cannot prove why it is happening, what the catalyst for the initial change was and what it will take to stop it. We also cannot seem to make the connection between GW & GCC, therefore we insinuate, intimate and postulate... Scientists have singled out mankind because we are the most obvious change in the planet's environment, not because they can prove we are causing it.
You are correct - no scientific
theory ever escapes criticism completely; scientific
Laws do. Some theories get less than others though, and those are the ones that, despite their inability to make perfectly accurate predictions - are close, consisent and remarkable. Then there is the Standard Model of GW... As a scientist working on the hypothesis in the beginning, we apologized for the fact that our predictions were all wrong and we went back to the drawing table. We continued to refine our opinions and models until they started to make accurate predictions, but that only required little bits of influence from man, but still, the situation was a runaway model... Nowadays, when monsoon, typhoon, hurricane and tornado seasons are down (not up), large swaths of the world's northern hemishpehere grows ice pack back and the rainy season in the South hemisphere dumps pre-1950s levels of precipitation (all contrary to the predictions) - they incorporate all of those anomolies into the press released rhetoric and shout
"See - Told you GW was Manmade and Happening right now!" They'll go on to say things like,
"..arid areas are going to become even drier" or
"wet areas are going to become wetter" or
"costal erosion is going to increase" or
"...the poorest of the world are going to have it worse than the rest." PUHLEASE - that's no prediction. Any idiot can see that those "guesses" are easy to make since the most arid areas on the planet have been steadily growing for the past 2,000 years. Costal erosion is a process we've been aware of for the past 5,000 years. And finally, the poorest of the world have always had the most problems; in our "western" perception. The poorest have a harder time (by our standards) because they have fewer resources to call upon to correct their living situation. If they live on a coast, it's going to erode - if they live in a desert - it's not going to spontaneously erupt into a jungle. Rhetoric is not science, and science is not being discussed here - rhetoric is.
I am not looking to portray you, or anyone in a negative light, however, I disagree with anyone who portrays scientists (who are simply presenting their findings in global warming) as emotional, alarmist, hysterical, whatever. As for the "growing skepticsm," I don't see it, in fact, what I see is the scientific consensus firming up that industry (man) is responsible.
But your sentiment does not match your prior actions. You are emotional on the subject every time even a modicum of truth hits home. Whenever you mention "BIG OIL!" or "Hoax" or switch the subject to something silly like the Supreme Court decision - you are having an emotional response. It is the same thing that causes you to not notice the growing skepticism. You have consciously decided to respond negatively to all skepticism and criticism, probably by marginalizing its importance and rationalizing how it can never be true. All based upon your own belief that you know the facts and the facts are as you know them. Unlike you, I require that a theory (no matter how popular it is) provides evidence in support of itself - not build itself around observational evidence found laying in the middle of the floor.
I challenged another poster in this forum to create a Global Warming - Global Climate Change thread here that would only allow for original discussion and scientific data - NO Cuts and Pastes, No news articles, No emotion (except for humor). He couldn't be bothered to climb off of his self-sacrificial cross long enough to even comprehend the question. I'm used to it though - particularly with the emotionally driven supporters of a theory that they, themselves, do not understand.
