themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Point one CO2 toxic? yes or no?
Irrelevant to its effect on climate
Point 2 Are CO2 levels near the higher or lower end of concentrations over geologic time? higher or lower?
In regards to having a direct effect on human health, irrelevant. To its effect on climate, I'm not the expert, but we live in a different ecosystem now then 100 million years ago (or any other timeframe that you might want to cite as having different CO2 levels) - so a single data point of how much was the concentration of CO2 was back then is not all that important by itself.
Point 3 there is very little correlation between the estimates of CO2 and of the earth’s temperature over the past 550 million years? yes or no?
I honestly don't know. Is correlation the only thing that the climatoligests are using to base their conclusions on?
Point 4 Was there a LIA and MWP?
Appears to have been. So what?
Point 5 Do you agree with Madison "no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.”
That is why we have peer review. Scientists are more sensitive to unpercieved bias than probably any other group of professions on Earth. The entire 'scientific method' is based on trying to find even more and more ways in which bias might slip in and methods to prevent it from occurring or corrupting the process. Scientists are not only acutely aware about it but actively work to mitigate it. Lawyers and politicians, from what I've seen, seem to work to exploit a bias if it benifits their argument or position.
Point 6 The combination of a slightly warmer earth and more CO2 will greatly increase the production of food, wood, fiber, and other products by green plants, so the increase will be good for the planet, and will easily outweigh any negative effects.
Agree or disagree
Point 7 The frightening warnings that alarmists offer about the effects of doubling CO2 are based on computer models that assume that the direct warming effect of CO2 is multiplied by a large “feedback factor” from CO2-induced changes in water vapor and clouds, which supposedly contribute much more to the greenhouse warming of the earth than CO2. But there is observational evidence that the feedback factor is small and may even be negative. The models are not in good agreement with observations—even if they appear to fit the temperature rise over the last 150 years very well. True or False
No idea if what you what you wrote is factual or not.
My point is, why should I take anything in the article seriously when it is clear that is full of misleading arguments, contains no references to any scientific papers to support is positions and is trying to appeal to the lay person in clearly a misleading fashion.
I can make-up tons of 'valid' arguments that seem to make sense on the surface to 'disprove' a wide range of accepted scientific knowledge - e.g. Scientists claim we are traveling at 155 miles/sec around the Milky Way. If I go in my car and drive even at 45 miles/hour with the windows down, the force of the wind is huge. If scientists are correct we would be experience wind forces thousands of times more powerful than the worst hurricanes ever recorded, all the time. Clearly these so-called scientists are wrong.
Why is my argument invalid? Is it obvious, especially to the lay person? If the scientific response was provided, do you think it would be hard to provide another 'logical' and 'obvious' reason they were wrong?
If he published some real research, did the hard work, show the supporting evidence to back his claims, then I would take the time to see if there was anything to what he is claiming.
The problem with most of the stuff that I've seen you referenced (and I try to read nearly all of it), is it falls into the same type of approach as the creationists use - that is an appeal to the public and politicians without anyone really doing the hard work of real science to back it up. The fact that nearly all of it contains such elemental logical fallicies does not inspire me to accept what they are saying at face value.
The point of doing the work through the rigours of science is exactly the point Madison was making that you quoted above. They don't follow that approach and are taking the lazy way out. They might be right, but they have to show the rigor and integrity that working scientists need to do for me to pay any attention to them.