"paulj does your argument work both ways ie find a proagw argument that is wrong and you can immediately dismiss all others?"
sort of generic. I am not dismissing all arguments from the anti agw debate, just the ones put forward from this source. Trying to link the increase of polar bear numbers to agw debate is just ridiculous, given the hunting restrictions applied in the same time frame.
the only proof this makes is that the person making these claims is clueless or deliberately deceptive. for me it is tainted and nothing more than internet polution.
i apply the same criteria to the proagw debaters and dismiss those sources as well.
one of the biggest problems in this debate is the amount of spin and crap that floods the debate from both sides.
its very hard to be well informed without going to the source as its to hard sifting through the 90% of garbage that is spruiked to find the 10% of relevant info (from both sides).
posting the '10 killer questions' as if they were some sort of holy grail that agw doesnt exist is just evidence of how the suceptible are taken in by the 90% of garbage
