re: #1145 shortshrift

As I have said before - directly to LVQ - it is not legitimate to insist that there is no debate by illegitimising the opposition. Obviously, this is not the forum for scientific - mathematical - arguments. Cannot even input the data. LVQ insists that reallio trulio science is settled and then blasts us skeptics for referring to articles which refer to counter (reallio, trulio) science, which are taken care of by ad hominem dismissal - ( they are frauds, not qualified, from lowly institutions, not physicists, not peer-reviewed in acceptable (pro-warming) journals, funded by tobacco…)
And he invariably falls back on being “overwhelmed” by melting caps, gigatons of CO2, certain eco-catastrophe. He does not sound like a scientist as much as a gnostic. He knows that AGW is a fact.

So then prove me wrong. Get the peer reviewed journal entries and hard data that shows I’m wrong.

Do it.

If you are so certain, that should be easy.

You are not a legitimate skeptic. You are some guy typing on a blog with no specific knowledge of the subject.

If you can honestly say that I am overly alarmist, then prove it with science. I dare you.