Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

"You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong." I have assumed no such thing. But Mr. Merrill's admission that his argument is poorly made is interesting. I would like to point out 2 things wrong with Climate Alarmists' arguments: 1) There are a very large number of Climate and Climate related scientists that do not believe in, or are skeptical of Climate Alarmists assertions. One flaw in this particular branch of science is how the "community" is dealing with "discenters". Most of those who "deny" AGW are treated with Ridicule and Scorn, have their jobs threatened, and have simply opted to leave because of the treatment they receive. http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... 2) To understand abnormal, we must first have the baseline for which the discussion can be built. In the Climate Alarmist v. Climate Denier argument, there are 3 critical pieces of information that have not been fully addressed: What is "Normal" or "Optimal" when it comes to Temperature, Carbon Dioxide, and Climate. How can we know what is "out of the ordinary" if what is "normal" is never exposed? Do we simply assume that the climate of the past 50, 100, 1000, years is "normal" and any deviation from that "normalcy" is "abnormal"? At what point do we say we have a good idea of what "normal" is? And what is "normal"? How about the period in our recent history where the Earth hit a point called "the Holocene Climate Optimum". It was between 4c and 6c warmer than our current temperatures today. Is this "normal"? Is it "optimal"? Or the Little Ice Age? Is that "normal" or "optimal"? Please define both NORMAL and OPTIMAL ... Mr. Merrill continues: "Pointing out the logical fallacies of an argument is not Ad Hominem, Blind Loyalty, or 'ignoring every argument.'" When the BULK of an argument concentrates on perceived fallacies, without benefit of using verifiable sources to argue the points made, it is. For instance, Mr. Merrill perceived an "appeal to nature" fallacy but ignore that a great many things ARE natural. Like the fluctuations of climate, for which we are having this discussion. How is an appeal to a scientific fact a logical fallacy? Mr. Merrill does the same here, in this reply. He has stopped arguing the points of contention to spend his time dealing with perceived fallacies, as explained below. Mr. Merrill: "I took three paragraphs to explain the science of the Greenhouse Effect and its associated concerns, and that they had been ignored by Con and misrepresented with concerns about wildfires and hurricanes." Ignored? Misrepresented? To your first paragraph (Atmospheric CO2), I responded with 6 of my own. I discuss everything from the positive effects of increased CO2 and Biomassing to the evidence that shows CO2 increases FOLLOW, not PRECEDE the Temperature Increases. I also discuss the lack of definition of "OPTIMAL" and question why events such as "warming", "wetting", "cooling" and "drying" are witnessed before the "industrial age" before MAN can be blamed for the anomalies. Instead of dealing with these issues, Mr. Merrill wants to "drop" this subject, "Could we perhaps call this a 'dropped point'?" Sorry, Mr. Merrill, I will not let you ignore the scientific facts that the climate is in flux, has been for millions (billions) of years, and will continue to be. Mr. Merrill continues: "Please observe the image from [4], "NASA: How Do We Know?" Showing the PPM chart." The earth is about 4.54 billion years old. 650,000 years is only approximately .0143% of the geologic timescale available. See: http://goo.gl... Mr. Merrill then misrepresents the facts in his statement, "The image from [32] 'NASA: Global Climate Change Consensus' shows the spike in 'temperature anomaly' in the last seventeen years". The chart shows a change in temperature over the past 132 years. The last 17 years are shown in the far right side of that graph, which does, clearly, show a slowing in temperatures. See: http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... Mr. Merrill continues: "... greenhouse gases." Logical Fallacy: Red Herring -- I have not taken issue with "greenhouse effect" or "greenhouse gases", I have taken issue with what the Climate Alarmists are calling "unprecedented global warming due to man's activity". Mr. Merrill: "we should also recognize that air content has very real potential to change air temperature." Which may be true AND ignores the proofs given in my previous argument that Temperature has been shown to PRECEDE increases in CO2. The fact that CO2 increases AFTER the Temperature increases is interesting and should merit further study. The science is most definitely not settled. Further, Mr. Merrill, here and in [35] below, demonstrates an inability to draw parallels, "I appreciate that Con has dropped his Appeal to Nature, but drawing parallels between religious extremism (apocolypse predictions and geocentrism) and empirical climate change is not an ideal upgrade." Finally, we note, Mr. Merrill, that you fail to deal with the other portions of my response to your arguments; the second paragraph, "Atmospheric Ozone", and the third paragraph, "Oceanic". Instead, he continues his fallacious denial, which I will now deal with: 35. "This is about the non-existent link between MMR and autism, and Con is hoping that it disproves the link between greenhouse gases and climate temperatures." Alarmism does not good science make. 36. See [35] 37. "In addition to neglecting complexity, this has nothing to do with whether climate change is anthropogenic." Mr. Merrill is ignoring the science which shows that higher concentrations of CO2 are not "bad" but "good" for the Biosphere. This goes to the NATURAL nature of Climate Change and the Earth's response to those changes. Ignoring the science to make a point is, well, a fallacy. 38, 39, 40. See [37] 41. "Con posted this to support his claim that scientists are still arguing whether CO2 levels cause high temperatures, or whether high temperatures cause high CO2 levels." Correct. Because it is hard to claim, as Climate Alarmists do, "man made CO2 is causing warming" if in fact the warming comes BEFORE the increase in CO2 levels. Thank you for conceding that point. 42, 43, 44. Mr. Merrill already conceded this point in [41]. "but is by Joannenova, a 'scientist' who never lists her accredidation and whose whose living is based off this blog." Logical Fallacy. If the information presented is correct, credentials or other factors are irrelevant. 45. "Con hopes this will disprove the idea that modern changes in air content could ever affect global temperatures." Assumption. If changes have happened, are happening and will happen, there is little we can do to change or alter those changes. Especially in the LONG TERM, as is shown, previously, by taking ALL the information, not less than 1% of the information available. 46. "Con hasn't really specified what he hopes this will prove." Logical Fallacy: Straw Man. I have said exactly what I hope to prove. The science is there to back it up. Ignoring it doesn't help your argument, dealing with it might. 47. "Con points to despite increasing CO2 levels. This is more evidence that he did not properly read my round 2: CO2 levels have nothing to do with ozone." Your attempt here is to ignore your own argument. In Round 2 you posted un-cited information that Ozone is one of the Anthropogenic causes for Global Warming. The science says this may be correct, and the science says the Ozone is on the mend, which removes this factor from the argument. 48. "but it's listed as a myth. " The only myth here is that CO2 causes warming, Mr. Merrill already conceded this point in [41]. 49. "Con meant to use this to demonstrate that arctic ice is normal" Maybe Mr. Merrill can explain what "standard deviation" means? 50. "Con is once again insisting on using polar bear populations as our primary whether forecast." Mr. Merrill is using yet another Logical Fallacy: Straw Man. Mr. Merrill is ignoring the fact that Climate Alarmists have been using things like "melting ice caps" and "disappearing polar bears" for years to make their point (also a Logical Fallacy, as pointed out, "Appeal to Emotion"). Yet, this is proven incorrect, polar bear populations are well on the increase. I will take Mr. Merrill's response here to mean he agrees with this point, and move on. 51. See [50] 52. "It's another blogger's un-peer-reviewed attempt at science, see [44]." Here Mr. Merrill ignores the actual evidence on the page cited. He uses a Logical Fallacy: Poisoned Well, because its a blog. On that page we find a reference to peer-reviewed science that states, "This suggests that this warming episode is mainly due to internal dynamics of the ocean rather than external radiative forcing.", http://goo.gl... Using Logical Fallacies in this way only hurts Mr. Merrill's arguments, not helps them. 53, 54, 55. See [37] 56. "This shows only slight ocean warming over the course of eight years - not even a decade." Mr. Merrill either didn't read the whole article, or is hoping it will "go away" as there are charts that show data from the 1950s. That is far more than 8 years. The data of the last 8 years simply shows the trend, as with the last 15-18 years of Global Temperatures, to have slowed its warming trend. This is valid information, because as above, Mr. Merrill has denied that any such thing happened, when it has been shown that it has happened. See the posted charts above. 57. Mr. Merrill is again misrepresenting the facts of the article presented. The fact is, as the opening statement suggests, "The fact is that we can"t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can"t." -- Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research.