<Interesting article that supports your thesis.>
Actually the article does nothing of the sort... now IMHO this is well thought out beginning (and cruxt of) the article:
<The problem with global warming - climate change is that the issue has beome a political issue and therefore it is next to impossible for lay people to figure out who is telling the truth.
Nonetheless, I am not a believer for several reasons, not the least of which is the "consensus argument". It seems like when a crtic of global warming asks a question the answer inevitibly is "there is a consensus", as though the consensus has always been right. The problem is that there does not actually appear to be a consensus, but more importantly if you can't explain whey the critics are wrong, something is likely wrong with the theory.>
But HE doesn't HAVE a "thesis"... he hasn't presented nearly enough information or discussion to have anything other than an (il-informed, based on what he's presented) opinion based on his personal readings (which we know nothing about, other than what we can presume by his emotionality on the topic).
HIS "thesis", if you could call it that, is that anyone who believes in Global Warming (NOT MAN MADE, based on his last post... ANY idea that the globe is warming) is stupid, an idiot, or drunk or in a mind altered state AND (according to him) in a conspiracy (cool aid) to trick everyone that there IS global warming... for an unstated (by him) purpose.
So his thesis is most of the scientific community is (for some reason) in giant conspiracy and anyone who reads things like Science magazine and believes it is stupid, drunk, brain-washed... you know, take you pick.
Is that the theses you're talking about?? Or are you talking about the thesis in the article you presented?
DAK |
