If his argument is without merit and you are so well read on the subject, it should be very easy to argue against his viewpoint without resorting to ad hominems. Your arguments would also come across much better to those that are likely to be affected by them; those willing to think about any given issue. I've never seen a single person respond positively to an argument containing insults or ridicule, regardless of the validity of the argument made.
Moreover, since you are asserting that AGW is happening, you should provide references to articles supporting your view. Since the view is so wildly prevalent amongst scientists, this should be extremely easy. It would take maybe 1 hour to build a convincing argument, with links to the relevant supporting information (Google Scholar is a good place to start), that any person would struggle to argue against, rather than the hours you've spent arguing with RoadRat.
My view is that AGW is more than likely true, the consequences are overplayed (not necessarily by science) and the whole issue is made irrelevant by the fundamental problem of overpopulation and diminishing resources. Further, I think Government policy on these issues is laughable and probably counterproductive, both in terms of convincing the public and the actual effect on the environment.
Dave
|
|