In article , D Smith wrote:
So, your claim that I am asserting that "global warming is entirely the
result of human activity" does not follow from that single statement.

Excuse me? Look at what you wrote: "The source of that increase is human
activity."

In your first response, you said "The source of *part* of that increase
is human activity." I wanted to know what you meant by "part", and you are
completely unwilling to answer. If you said "90%", I would think that we
really don't disagree much and it's not an issue. If you said "10%", I'd
think we'd disagree a lot and it would be worth trying to figure out why
we disagree.

What part I think is due to human activity is not relevant. What's relevant is
your claim that it's *all* due to human activity. You made the assertion; now
defend it.

Now, presuming that you think the statement deals with "global
warming", I can understand your reaction, but the statement addresses
nothing more than the source of the atmospheric increase in CO2.

I can't imagine where you got the idea that I think that.

Are you willing to answer the question on that basis?

My answer to that question is irrelevant. You asserted that the increase is
due to human activity. It's up to you to demonstrate the truth of that
assertion.

When I orignally posted the sequence of questions, I asked for an
indication of which points you disagreed with, and the scientific basis
for that disagreement.

One goal was to find out which points we agree on (if any), so that we
wouldn't waste time on them - clearly define the common ground, so to
speak.

The followup to that would be to discuss the areas of disagreement, to
see if we can deterime *why* we disagree - be different interpretations of
the same data, different data, etc.

This is how scientists normally try to resolve differences.

Scientists normally are prepared to defend their assertions. I'm still waiting
for you to produce evidence in support of your claim that the increase in
atmospheric CO2 is due entirely to human activity.


Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
increases, climate warms

*** That one, right there. ***

The causes of climate change are, at best, imperfectly understood, and to
argue that a *single* factor is "the" causative agent is to leave the realm of
science and enter that of speculation.

Read over the question again. Where do you get the idea that it says
that increasing greenhouse gases are the ONLY factor involved in climate?

That's implicit in the phrasing of the claim: "if concentration of greenhouse
gases increases, climate warms" completely ignores any other factors that
might act to cause the climate to cool.

You wish to interpret the question that way.

First off, it's not a "question", it's an *assertion*.

Second, it's not a matter of how I "wish to interpret" it; to anyone with an
ordinary ability to read and comprehend written English -- and withOUT an a
priori political agenda to push -- the meaning is quite clear. If you choose
to interpret it to mean something other than what it plainly does, it's your
responsibility, not mine, to explain why.

Once again. How can I try to explain my view of any of those points,
if I do not know your position on those points, or even how much you know
about certain things, whether you take a position on them or not?

Why do you need to know *my* position in order to explain your own?

It's real simple: you asserted that increased concentrations of greenhouse
gases necessarily cause the climate to warm. Now defend that assertion.
Explain why it's true, despite the existence of any other factors.

I do not want to waste time giving lengthy explanations of things we
agree on.

You don't seem interested in spending any time giving any explanations,
lengthy or otherwise.

I want to find out where and why we disagree, to focus the discussion.

In my original response to you, I explicitly disagreed with one of your
assertions, and explicitly stated only partial agreement with another. And
you're still wondering where we disagree??

You seem to have concluded that everything is "a political agenda", and

I've certainly concluded that global warming is principally a political
agenda. The science behind it is pretty thin, and by no means settled.

this is making it extremely difficult to have any sort of a scientific
disucssion.

Your unwillingness, or inability, to defend your assertions which I have
challenged is what's impeding any sort of a scientific discussion.


For the purposes of determining the effect of "greenhouse gases", is it
not traditional to try to isolate that component of the system? Isn't that
the way science works? Isolate a component, figure out its effect, then
build it back into the composite system?

Not relevant. Again, let me remind you that the phrasing of the assertion
clearly implies the a priori assumption that there are no other relevant
factors.

For the purpose of isolating the effect of that one component, in order
to be able to quantify it, is that not appropriate?

Again, let me remind you that the phrasing of the assertion clearly implies
the a priori assumption that there are no other relevant factors -- and that
assumption is what I'm questioning. Defend it.

To try to inject at least a modicum of woodworking into this, when you
decide what joinery method to use, you need to know the type of material,
the type of joint, the type of glue (if any) and the type of fasteners (if
any) to determine the total strength. But if you want to test glue
strength and compare three different glues, you don't test glue 1 on
dovetails in oak, glue 2 on a butt joint in pine, and glue 3 on a biscuit
joint in plywood, do you?

Not relevant at all....
[major snippage]
Look. I'm interested in trying to discuss this rationally.

No, you're not. You keep erecting straw men, and misconstruing my statements
so wildly that it can only be deliberate.

No, I am not miscontruing your statements. In fact, I've accepted that
the original form of my points of debate (questions, assertions, whatever
you want to call them) could be miscontrued, I've tried to re-phrase them
and clarify them,

What you conspicuously *haven't* done is to defend any of those assertions.

and you've decided that you still want to stick to the
original miscontrued version.

I'm asking you to defend your assertions and a priori assumptions.

It's clear that you are one of the global warming True Believers. You've left
the realm of rationality long ago, and won't listen to anything that calls
your Faith into question.


Alas, I thought you might actually be interested in discussing some of
this. Thanks for convincing me otherwise.

That's pretty funny, really. If *you* were interested in discussing it, you'd
provide some foundation for your assertions. You made them. It's not up to me
to show that they're wrong, it's up to you to show that they're right.

I can't "listen to anything that calls [my] Faith into question" when
you aren't willing to say what it is that you disagree with.

I have explicitly stated what I disagree with, and asked you to defend it.

Unless you want to try to get past labelling people, there probably
isn't much more to say.

It doesn't appear that you have much relevant to contribute anyway -- just a
list of assertions, and nothing to back them up.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.