Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
This has never been an objective discussion on any level regarding global warming. And you are correct I am no longer open-minded on this issue. I was at one point, but no longer.
This comment illustrates your lack of understanding of what is being questioned. There can be made made "causes" without man being the "cause".
You seem to be dense on this issue.
You do not know what is or is not good enough for me.
All I really stated in my first 11/13 post was that reading the full article was interesting. I did not write about any conclusions I may have made from thearticle. You don't even know if I agree with your response. Yet you and others think I am not willing to engage in an objective discussion. All I can say is - when I am being an a$$, I admit it.
|
I would suggest the "dense" comment is yours..."There can be made
(sic) made "causes" without man being the "cause"......
The consensus is that there are anthropogenic contributions to global warming.....but you dont seem to understand the difference between contribution and causation.
Just so I understand the latest exchange:
-- you post an article that you find interesting but offer no further comment or opinion. (#96)
-- I respond with my opinion about the author (and his well-documented biases and affiliations) and an article that points out how your article was misleading. (#97)
-- you respond with a charge of ad hominem arguments as well as another criticism of Hansen(#98)
based on that:
-- I respond that I share raveneye's opinion of how you participated in this discussion (#100)
-- you respond that I dont understanding what is being questioned, then incorrectly state the consensus and what is being questioned as something about "man causes" rather than the consensus that "man contributes".....and call me dense (#101) 
.
Make sense to you?
But we agree on something.....you are no longer open-minded on the subject
