Looks like we've got a debate doing after all. Dave Burton has challenged me with a series of questions. It's in the comments section after Dave Dewitt's "The Changing Carolina Coast: Managing The Threat Of Rising Water," at http://wunc.org/post/changing-carolina-coast-managing-threat-rising-water#stream/0
As these things go it's gotten confused and convoluted in a hurry. That's another tactic, Gish Gallop, tons of distracting questions that offer nothing, so far a learning is concerned, more like playing catch the ball with a dog, but using a bucket full of balls.
Though I'll admit Dave was kind enough to come up with 5 "straight forward" questions. In this retelling I've been able to add a little more information.
As these things go it's gotten confused and convoluted in a hurry. That's another tactic, Gish Gallop, tons of distracting questions that offer nothing, so far a learning is concerned, more like playing catch the ball with a dog, but using a bucket full of balls.
Though I'll admit Dave was kind enough to come up with 5 "straight forward" questions. In this retelling I've been able to add a little more information.
____________________________________________
Nobody has identified any inaccuracies in what I've written,
{“AnOilMan” certainly pointed out a bunch in his discussion with you, http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/11/23/research-confirms-exxonmobil-koch-funded-climate-denial-echo-chamber-polluted-mainstream-media#comment-2381652596 among other places in that thread.}
either here or on my web site. {Perhaps that has more to do with your lack of introspection and inability to admit being wrong and learning from said mistake.} But do feel free to try, Pete. Please be specific. I suggest that you start with my list of five things which are surprising to many climate alarmists:
1. Do you dispute the fact that the new NC Sea Level Rise Report abandons the 2010 Report's erroneous claim that sea-level rise has accelerated due to global warming?
2. Do you doubt that the Obama Administration's Dr. Steven Koonin has acknowledged that sea-level is rising no faster now (at ~400 ppmv CO2 & 1.8 ppmv CH4) than it was 70 years ago (at ~310 ppmv CO2 & 1.1 ppmv CH4)?
3. Do you dispute the fact that incremental increases in atmospheric CO2 levels have a diminishing effect on temperatures?
4. Do you doubt that Scientific American called anthropogenic CO2 "The Precious Air Fertilizer," because it is so dramatically helpful for agriculture?
5. Do you question the fact that most of the apparent rise in sea-level at Duck, NC is because the land near the southern Chesapeake is sinking, rather than because the sea is rising?
Can you answer "yes" to any of those questions, Pete, or do you acknowledge that I am correct about all five?
_____________________________________________
Please note, how NC-20 Dave’s response has devolved this into a lawyerly word game. Tossing down carefully crafted misdirections cloaked in questions, and demanding only a simple Yes/No answer. No details please. That’s how political games work. But, that is not how any of us learn anything, nor how science works.
These global warming dialogues, exchanges, debates (whatever you want to call them) should be about constructive learning experiences so I’ll try to make some lemonade out of the lemons NC-20 Dave dropped at my feet.
