Meanwhile, back on Reality Ranch...

Are you not implying that I should hew to the majority thought of others? Well, no, I don't and won't automatically. I think we've covered this before and it's getting tiresome, BUT I never quit. One would think an iconoclast would appreciate someone who disagrees with the majority's intellectual icons, but no, you choose to harass the heretic. Could you change your name to Renegade Inquisitor?

I think you have convinced me that you have convinced yourself that none of this is proven and that the entire global warming controversy is comprised of competing theories.

Gee, I thought so! That's been my point all along. There is no orthodoxy in true science, and thus we are both championing our theories. I have posted bibliographical references to ice core data that substantiates my position, that CO2 changes FOLLOW temperature changes, and as refutation, have seen nothing but your claims that, to paraphrase, "everybody's doing it, so you should smoke dope too." That is, you continue to sneak the appeal to authority into a discussion of scientific theories.

Ah! You refuse to note Nature and Science articles BECAUSE they are posted on a website you deem inadequate.

I deem wikipedia inadequate. I have perused much of it and a lot is propaganda.

Therefore, to be consistent with your position, deferring to you, out of respect for your position, I refuse to heed any articles cited there even though they could be reasonably accurate.

You'll have to produce something that you or I would accept.

I note that, in your prior incarnation, you wouldn't have accepted wikipedia as a source--or would you? No, couldn't be just blatant bias...

1) Refuse to accept the other fellow's data.

2) Claim he hasn't presented any data.

That was so simple. I'm sorry I didn't notice sooner.

(Seriously, this is classic. I noted it years ago...)

I painstakingly explained to you why your "evidence" from Nature and Science made a basic false assumption about climate theory. No one argues that CO2 rises can't follow warming, and therefore the entire premise on which the criticism is made is without merit. You've simply ignored it every time I've said it, as you ignore everything that doesn't fit your predefined worldview.

If it were true that CO2 could never follow warming, then CO2 levels could never decrease, and the earth could never get colder.

You never even posted a link to a scientific abstract of your theory, in fact, just a blob of crap that I had to go research myself, and as it turned out, made elementary false assumptions about climate theory.

You are making the claim that your solar activity theory is just another competing theory, but it is not, any more than a flat earth theory is a competing theory of the earth's shape, or "God did it" is a competing theory of evolution.

Those claims aren't scientific, and neither are yours. I've posted information that backs up what I have to say, you have not.

Theories in science are not all given equal weight, no matter how much hand-waving you try to do to pretend that they are.

As always, Camille's broad, sweeping style is invigorating, yet ultimately unsatisfying. Her style is overly broad and surface-level, full of grandiose declarations but dodging the pesky burdens of deep, substantial thought. I like her contrarian viewpoints, even when I don't agree with them. I just wish she could be bothered to delve below the surface every now and then.

I love this Molly Ivins article from 1991 critiquing Camille's style:

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~erich/misc/ivins_on_paglia

Kind of says it all!

1) Refuse to accept the other fellow's data.

2) Claim he hasn't presented any data.

The blob of text you posted wasn't even a link. I had to google it to even figure out where you cut and pasted it from, and I had to guess at what kind of argument you were making with it.

The references to Nature and Science merely pointed out that researchers had observed CO2 rising after a warming. That this does not falsify climate theory is something you either can't grasp, or ignore on purpose. I suspect a combination of the two, given your obviously weak grasp of the philosophy of science.

I am sure there are plenty of reasons the left can't seem to catch on in talk radio.

Maybe they just have not found their star yet, i.e., someone who is interesting, funny, smart and original.

Maybe it is because classic knee-jerk liberalism is difficult to support rationally.

But the certain reason is also the obvious reason: If you have a barnful of cows providing your milk, you don't need to buy a goat.

And it is absolutely clear that the MSM is all liberals really need. MSM journalists cling to their liberal faith so deeply that they are simply unable to provide an objective, let alone conservative, view of the news. The result is that moderates and liberals can feel quite comfy listening to Katie Couric or Nina Totenberg do the news--they have their cows so who needs a goat?

Conservatives, on the other hand, have long had to listen to the liberal MSM and simply grin and bear it. But Rush Limbaugh and a whole host of others changed that. And the internet changed it even more. Now we have a place to go after listening to Linda Worthheimer (sp?) slam Sarah Palin in a news story or Nina Totenberg performs an absolute hatchet job on Dick Cheney. Liberals, on the other hand, no doubt enjoy listening to Katie and Linda and Nina and have no need to go to alternate media.

By the way, I don't mean to focus on women--but now that Rather and Brokaw and Jennings are gone, the women of the news seem to be in charge (add Maddow and Brown) and, more and more, are unashamed about exposing their bias to their audience.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1152538

That's a scientific abstract. To read the real article, you need to pay, or visit the library. You also may need to bone up on some probability and statistics.

Here's the Times UK article about the paper:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article516033.ece

I assume that SailFree has already read this paper, and can offer some keen insights into why all the math is wrong.