>Hi Jim,
>To bad that you can't look at things objectively.
>
>>6. Why would oceans be immune from global warming? The article suggests that the oceans are warming and seems to attrubute changing core hot-spots as the cause. Why cannot global warming be adding to the oceans' heating?
>
>If you understood the properties of water, you would know that the amount of energy required to heat it vastly exceeds that which is available from the atmosphere, or this so called Global warming process.
>
>Anyway I will leave you with your head in the sand, only trying to make you aware of actually how it works.
>
I see. Your main agrument is that the scientists have to promote global warming in order to get the grants they need to survive (as is John Harvey's). Yet when I ask each of you how that happens I get no answer. If you know, you know. If you don't then say so.

I gave you my objective 'evaluation' of the article. You choose one point, where I likely am wrong, and dismiss all other points that have no relationship to the erroneous item.
Do the writer's credentials matter?... apparently not.
Does the writer's funding matter?... apparently not, though funding for the promoting scientists' work is your material argument.
Does the 8 years age of an article proclaiming scientists signing a petition decrying global warming not matter?
Do Greenland's/ Kilimanjaro's earth-bound glaciers melting at high rates mean nothing?
Is "equilibrium" really static in any given system that is itself dynamic?

My head's feeling comfortable in the sand at this rate.

cheers


SNIP