Hi,
>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.

If you understand how these researcher's funding is gained you would understand why, they have to go with the current political trend to get the funding, obtaining funding for research that isn't the favour of the month is nearly impossible, it is a matter of existence, and being human beings they will nearly ALWAYS take the easiest path.

>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.

Not when the data contained in it is correct.

>Does the writer's funding matter?... apparently not, though funding for the promoting scientists' work is your material argument.

Not when the data contained in it is correct.

>Does the 8 years age of an article proclaiming scientists signing a petition decrying global warming not matter?

In your last post you were saying the article was undated and therefore invalid, please get your facts straight.

>Do Greenland's/ Kilimanjaro's earth-bound glaciers melting at high rates mean nothing?

No, they have done this many times in the past.

>Is "equilibrium" really static in any given system that is itself dynamic?

This is the point that you totally do not understand, any dynamic system is always trying to obtain equilibrium. Given that the Sun's output varies by over 70%, and the fact that we have just gone thru a solar max, this has the greatest effect on our planet energy wise.



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