There is a new comment on the post "The self-contradictions of Marc Morano". 
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2501

Author: Andrew Thomson
Comment:
Hello again scruffy Dan

I'll look to address the points you made in your last post. First off, your link claiming there is challenge to the consensus is bizarre on the face of it. Why does this continue to be a talking point? For me it illustrates a strong lack of confidence from the AGW proponents. Any science field I've worked with relishes a debate if they believe their opponents views are flawed. If there are good or bad criticisms of their work there is a clear understanding of an obligation to respond to critques. Instead, AGW proponents state all the "experts" are in agreement and there is absolutely no debate. They conduct an elaborate contortion to dismiss the argument on any and all grounds with the frequent exception of one - countering it on scientific grounds.

I think this approach works to your detriment. Its like your increased C02 is simply bad line of reasoning voiced earlier in this thread. AGW proponents have this deleterious desire to march out the most tenuous data such as the five leaved alpine sage bush grows more slowly in a 25% CO2 environment when its beyond obvious that 99.99% of plants perform better with higher CO2 levels. I mean there probably is some reason commercial greenhouses pump the stuff in. Its one thing to argue on a cost benefit analysis standpoint that improved vegetation doesn't counter climate consequences but to deny the obvious is exceedingly weak - like denying there is any scientific debate relating to global warming.

So you are interested in papers illustrating debate? Where to begin? [First off, as you request so do I prefer. You have choosen to link to a chapter of the latest IPCC report - to me this is like someone being challenged on their pro-capital punishment views and simply responding by passing the other party a bible to flip through. I had looked through the posting when you linked anon and found it to be more of a policy document rather than a scientific document (this is not to state that there isn't science behind the conclusions drawn - its to state that it is too broad an overview with the science by and large diluted out.)] This is a very complex field that is by and large in its infancy - which is why I find it so bizarre to claim there is no scientific debate. Should we start with papers on the medieval warm period that many in the AGW camp have simply willed away? The influence of clouds and if they are captured in albedo? What level of forcing is generated by CO2 in t
 he atmosphere? The list is legion.

I actually like this one so since you left things open ended I will lead off with it - carbon dioxide sequestration. I fully contend that the jury is still out on how long CO2 remains in the atmosphere - but I am confident from what I've read on the subject that the IPCC version of this subject has very large holes in it. So here are links to peer reviewed papers on the subject :

http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
(This next one is recent but unfortunately only available if you have an ACS membership - however if you're institutional its easy to get, my apologies if you can't. The paper is "The Potential Dependence of Global Warming in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide" by Robert H. Essenhigh.
http://pubs.acs.org/articlesonrequest/AOR-fAEJXMX3JgkNFmgAkdpu

And here is a bonus link, an assortment of scientists - dare I use the word - debating the subject in back and forth e-mails.
http://www.john-daly.com/dietze/cmodcalD.htm

Of course you can deny that these are peer reviewed scientific papers because the author of the first paper, Segalstad has too many S's in his name and ACS isn't a "real" scientific organization because chemistry just isn't hard science anymore. So it is your perogative to continue to deny there is any debate on the topic of global warming within the scientific community but I will continue to contend this is a losing argument to anyone who rationally looks at the subject.

See all comments on this post here:
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2501#comments

To manage your subscriptions or to block all notifications from this site, click the link below:
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?wp-subscription-manager=1&email=bob%40cosy.com&key=cf28f344812041ce432d029d7cbe9ca5