The broad science behind AGW is not rock solid.
Edit - If by "broad science behind AGW", you mean the scientific conclusion that the earth is warming, primarily because of human emissions of CO2, and that the temperature rises will continue.
You can chant that all you want but you offer no evidence that this is so. The IPCC2007 is excellent evidence that you are clueless. Don't quote Energy & Environment or McIntrye, or Lindzen, et al.
If your playing devil's advocate about evolution fine. That would mean your expecting counter arguments about evolution, and if they can overcome your objections the idea will be shown to be more valid. But playing devils advocate about evolution doesn't make sense as part of an argument for severe and continuing human caused global warming
I am indeed asking you to provide a counter argument in favor of evolution that would illustrate you understand the issues well enough to support your acceptance of evolution. Several of your comments, most notably your ignorance of the micro/macro centering of the debate tells me that you accept evolution because you realize that creationism is nonsense, but you really don't know the first thing about the science. Further, I'd guess you have no religious opposition to evolution. On climate science, it is equally clear that you have very little knowledge of the actual science, but a pretty good link to ideological opposition to the consequences of AGW, hence this is the root of your opposition to the science. Wishes are not horses.
Once again, I'm trying to educate you on the difference between science and bashing. If someone lies to me 10 times, I don't sit and say Gee, logically, this is #11, and he might be telling the truth this time, I should evaluate it on the merits of this case. I dismiss him as a liar. I apply the same logic to how people or groups of people approach science, and when I've seen some telltale crap, I know who I'm dealing with. One of the crap filters is any of a long list of nonsense objections (the CO2 temp lag being an example). When I see those raised as supposedly profound arguments I know that the person raising them is either ignorant or intentionally dishonest. I don't have much use for either.
BTW, at least some creationist groups have actually put up sites telling Christians which arguments NOT to use because they make a laughingstock of creationists. The AGW bashers are sorely in need of the same. Perhaps you could start working on such a site?
I provide you with this insightful content, LOL! Please note the bolded paragraph and spread the word to the AGW bashers, they would help themselves greatly if they took note.
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
The authority for Answers in Genesis is the infallible Word of God, the Bible (see Q&A: Bible). All theories of science are fallible, and new data often overturn previously held theories. Just as evolutionists continually revise their theories because of new data, it should not be surprising or distressing that some creationist scientific theories need to be revised at times, too.
The first article on this page sums up what creationists’ attitude should be about various ideas and theories. The other articles provide examples of arguments that should no longer be used; some arguments are definitely fallacious, while others are merely doubtful or unsubstantiated. We provide brief explanations why, and/or hyperlinks to other articles on this website with more detailed explanations. We don’t claim that this list is exhaustive—it will be updated with additions and maybe deletions as new evidence is discovered. Many of these arguments have never been promoted by AiG, and some have not been promoted by any major creationist organization (so they were not directed at anyone in particular), but are instead straw men set up by anti-creationists.
Persistently using discredited arguments is both ineffectual and, more importantly, immoral—it’s the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is “the truth” (John 14:6)! Since there is so much good evidence for creation, there is no need to use any of the “doubtful” arguments.
This page also shows why it is important for people to stay up-to-date with sound creationist literature, such as Answers magazine. To read about what is important for creationists to defend, and what should be held more “loosely”, see ‘Hanging Loose’: What should we defend?
From here:
answersingenesis.org |
