I have been absolutely crushed over on Craig Murray’s site in a discussion about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
Yes, that’s right, I’ve been pounded so hard with the most astute intellectualism, that I have been forced to whimper out of the discussion there. I simply became too embarrassed when I put forward what I believed was legitimate questions for examination.
Yip. On this topic, beware the hoard of ultra sharp swordsmen for they will surely cut you to ribbons.
It is very much to the credit that none of the Zorro’s engaged in ad hominen attacks, taunts or smear attempts e.g. by accusing people of a counter opinion of working for the oil industry and therefore making anything they said factually wrong.
These modern day cyber Shusaku Chiba’s, laid the facts out bare as noble professionals do and examined systematically each one in great detail. Specific references of information were displayed for all to see – should one wish to cross-check the citations .
Every point the pro-AGW’ers put across, had their reciprocal kindly embraced then examined with careful egalitarianism.
It was established with crystal clarity that
1) it is imperative to spend billions in reducing the production of CO2.
2) There exists a fair scheme for doing step 1 above, it’s so simple that there’s not even any point in mentioning it!
3) The most bewildering source of uncomprehensible power within at least 4 light years of us, i.e. the Sun, – an aspect of the debate which took centre stage in the discussion making it difficult to get a word in edgeways, was in the end found to be highlt irrelevant to climate change, sorry global warming.
4) The vast oceans covering about 2/3 of the planet and also hogged the discussion was like the Sun found to have no ability to temper any man made CO2.
4) The huge Boreal forests and remainder of the rainforests were found to have no impact either.
5) The initially touted pro-AGW scientific consensus’ quickly became non-issue too, but there was still a quantifies consensus more than offsetting the signatories to the Oregon petition.
6) The intellectual giants on Craig’s site, the majority of which were probably not scientists, nevertheless carried authoritativeness for the pro-AGW camp, but actual scientists who did sign the Oregon petition, weren’t competent enough or relatively too feeble minded to discuss the issues and have their opinions carry any weight.
7) ‘Hide the decline’ was taken out of context and actually means there was no decline, and there was no hiding of it either.
8) Computer code that is said to generate ‘hockey sticks’ when random data is fed into it, or returns ‘oops’ messages when the result isn’t to someone’s liking does not matter because hockey sticks are useful things and the game of hockey would become extinct with out them.
9) It’s anthropogenic CO2 that is the bane of Bangladeshi floods.
Guess I’ll have to re-evaluate this too:
Patrick J. Michaels discusses Climategate on CNN, Destroys TV Scientist Bill Nye
Thanks in both cases to http://informationliberation.com/