Um, I haven’t made any arguments. (Arguments involve data and proofs.)

> Save your Holocaust denier crap. I never said it, so it’s inadmissible against me.

Actually it is. The claim was that a Nazi “correlation” was somehow novel. Now we find that Fargus was well aware of it being used by his co-believers.

He could have complained that such references were wrong no matter who made them. Instead he suggested that they were a new feature, something that he’s now admitted was false.

Are all advocates of a deliberate approach to the global warming issue pawns of industries who can benefit from the status quo (oil, coal, auto, manufacturing, etc.)? Of course not — but many are. I’ve seen enough advocates on television who, when pressed for the companies which support their “research institute,” reveal that there are self-interested parties funding them. I have no doubt there are sincere scientists who have no self-interest involved who think global warming is a hoax.

Is this proof positive that global warming is the absolute truth and those who deny it are all imposters? Not at all — but it is a doubt creator and a reason to be skeptical.

As for Al Gore: your point is well taken. However, he was a big proponent of doing something about global warming when it wasn’t cool to do so, and his was a fairly lonely voice about the issue. Healso opposed the war from the get-go, when war opponents were routinely castigated as traitors, terrorist sympathizers, pacifists, and worse. Whether you agree or disagree with him, it’s hard to doubt his sincerity. So I would consider the ancillary benefits which he may accrue to be mostly irrelevant to the veracity of his claims.

Peter, are you serious? Those who favor the status quo are not be be trusted (because their self-interest taints their opinions), while those who advocate doing something are to be trusted (because they have nothing to gain from the policies they advocate). I’ve never found it useful to try and read someone’s mind, much less their heart. Instead, I’ve always tried to focus on the the consequences of a policy rather than the motives of the various parties.

However, since you state you are unable to understand the science, let’s look at one example of someone who is advocating anti-global warming policies and see if we can identify any potential conflicts of interest. Let’s take Al Gore as our example, since he’s been in the news a lot lately. Al proposes significant changes in policy and preaches that we should all strive to be “carbon neutral” in our private lives. Possible conflicts:

1) Al founded a company that sells carbon offsets and serves on the company’s board. He stands to make a lot of money if more people buy carbon offsets.

2) Al is a politician whose signature issue is global warming. The more the public believes “something” must be done, the greater Al’s influence and power. If the issue becomes large enough, it might even sweep Al into the White House. Even if he is never elected, he will be a power broker for years to come and will have a lot of say on how any carbon tax revenues get spent.

So, Al advocates changes in policy that stand to increase his personal wealth and his power and influence in society. That does not mean he’s not a true believer. It just means that you are wrong to suggest that only those on one side of the debate have any incentives that might shape their opinion.

> I’d like to see some peer-reviewed, evidence-backed articles about how Gore’s view is wrong.

I’d like to see some peer-reviewed, evidence based articles about how his view is RIGHT! Gore is not a scientist, and it shows. (To take just one of his particularly outrageous claims, please show me the peer-reviewed science that established that a sea level rise of 20 feet or more is in our future due to global warming.)

[Also, when I say "evidence-based," I mean based on empirical data and known physical laws, not based on computer simulations that amount to glorified curve-fitting combined with unproven positive feedback effects.]

As for my arguments turning out to be wrong, I just have to chuckle a bit at your naked presumption at how right your own arguments are, brooking no disagreement.

Fargus is too modest. He “forgets” that he’s on the side of the angels, the folks who assert that skeptics are like “Holocaust deniers”. And this time, they’re not going to wait – they’ve already decided to throw folks in jail and are just arguing over who goes first.

> Rationality abounds.

Ah yes. Fargus provides a “convincing to him” argument and when it turns out to be wrong, he trots out another, his conclusion unchanged.

The “one of the skeptics is a kook” argument is yet another example. That will be important until someone gets around to pointing out some of the believer kooks.

Science is supposed to be falsifiable. Every time his faith survives when his argument falls, he shows that the arguments don’t matter, he believes.

So should I be made to understand that any time a conservative decries Al Gore’s doomsaying, they’re really just saying “When’s goan be my turn?”

My skepticism comes from following:

a) the tendency, starting with the Luddites if not before, to anticipate far worse consequences to change than actually occur
b) there are plenty of groups who stand to benefit from the status quo, and few if any groups benefit from (for example) an increase in the gas tax — and hey, who wants to pay more taxes or drive dinky little cars instead of the V-8′s we grew up with — hence it seems reasonable to be skeptical of those who diminish the threat of global warming
c) the consequences of catastropic global warming — even if a remote possibility — seem not only horrific but also irreversable