villabolo: "Burns, your charts remind me of Charles Russell's chronology charts. A lot of voodoo magic but no substance."
Burns:
That's a really convincing argument. I am going to save it for later. In the meantime, please post some more glacier pictures and tell us about calving icebergs.
villabolo:
If the pictures of diminishing glaciers in the past several decades (and up to a hundred fifty years in one case), as well as the shrinking Arctic ice cap, and the melting Siberian/Alaskan/Canadian permafrost, etc ad naseum are not convincing, then nothing will convince you. Considering the efforts put out by Besty and I we might as well end this thread with light hearted sarcasm.
Burns:
Climate science, by the way, cuts across nearly every scientific discipline, from physics, to chemistry, to biology, etc. When the American Chemical Society endorses AGW, you guys post it in support of your position. But when member chemists, and physicists, and other scientists in disciplines related to climatology dissent, you guys write it off as "these guys aren't expert enough".
villabolo
As I already explained "related to climatology" is no more meaningful than the difference between brain and heart surgeons. They may be both in the field of medicine, even more so they are both surgeons but they are not qualified (unless educated in both fields) to do the work of the other. All professions such as Law are like that.
I never endorsed anything by the American Chemical Society nor would I even though they're right. They would only have an advantage over John Doe Ignoramous in ascertaining the merits of Global Warming because of the discipline (not expert knowledge) they have as scientists. Even John Doe Ignoramous can educate himself in the bare basics and have something to say (That's us by the way, John Doe Ignoramous). In spite of what non-Climatologist scientists have to say I would not bother to post them because it's an argument of authority. Even a tiny amount of climatologists, whom you lust for, are likely to be Republicans with the standard denier belief and Don Quixote complex.
Not all scientists are created equal. I can guarantee you that some individual scientists are prejudiced against the issue for the same reason you are namely that they're conservatives who tend to have an ideological bias. Fortunately they're not likely to be as many as the non-scientific denier population.
villabolo
