Deuce Dropper wrote:instead of focusing on the minutia of naysayers, why don't you give the same credence to the mountains and mountains of positive evidence.
these tactics of willful ignorance are the domain of the conspiracy morons, do not be so simple as to apply their flawed methods.
or perhaps you don't think all the shit we are pumping into the environment (in liquid, solid and gaseous forms) is a big issue. the fact that there is nary a metropolis with clean air, nary a river with drinkable water and a garbage collection the size of Texas floating in the South Pacific must not be a big deal to you. I guess it means nothing that we will be able to navigate the Arctic in the next decade, Bangladesh will lose a high percentage of its fresh water as salt water creeps into the delta due to rising tides etc...etc...etc...
keep highlighting the one or two areas that may be up for questioning, ignore the thousands upon thousands of areas where they nailed it. keep it a semantic argument, keep on truckin!!!
oh to be willfully ignorant!
Oh, and they pretty much debunk all the CO2 nonsense....
But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
I'm not sure at what point the Republican party became one of anti science, it's kind of embarrassing to watch and must be tough on politicians like Gringrich(SP?) and Romney have to now appear to be stupider than they actually are, by dropping a chapter in a book and doing a change of track with regards climate change.