It's curious, of course, that Lomborg is now calling the IPCC's report "the best science."
Alarmists are an easy punching bag, but what about that "best science"?
That's a weak point if anything, Ben. The use of the opposition's perspectives against them is a common tactic; regardless of whether Lomborg agrees with the IPCC that alone validates the remainder. Instead I have a question for you:
At what point does it stop being "1001st syndrome" and start being an overturning of the science?
You should be able to answer that yourself 
It stops being 1001st syndrome when it stops being denialists grasping at straws and starts being a cohesive and quantitative scientific argument.
1001st Syndrome is what happens when one whose conclusion is preordained sees something in a paper that they think, usually erroneously, supports it, and starts treating the study as the new sine qua non of the science. Doesn't matter the quality, and it doesn't matter whether or not it actually supports the desired conclusion. (Case it point: Jim's take on the NASA numbers!)
Let me put it simply. It starts being an overturning of the science when a solid scientific argument is put together saying "your theory was wrong or your observations are faulty".
When the AGW deniers start having a scientific leg to stand on--a minority report, perhaps--let me know.
Ben -- you've been shown precisely that over and over again.
So I ask *YOU* -- when does that happen? Because apparently none of the material inclusive to now is sufficient.
Is the evidence that carbon-dioxide is reactive rather than causative to GMT modification, in nature, sufficient?
Is the evidence that warming is occurring throughout the solar system sufficient?
Is the evidence that cloud-cover is affected by the sun's "Solar wind" output, thereby exerting influence over the GMT via well-known libidinous effect, sufficient?
Is the total lack of correlation to carbon-dioxide output increases correlative to GMT modification sufficient?
Is the fact that the GMT has yet to reach previously indicated highs, indicating that there is no abnormal behavior as-yet, itself sufficient?
*WHEN* is it enough? Off of the top of my head, I just mentioned 5 different points that directly dispute the AGW hypothesis. Each is independent of the others, and each essentially is unanswerable by 'standard AGW theory.'
So again, Ben; when is enough, enough?
*sigh*
All of that is nonquantitative rubbish which has been more than adequately answered elsewhere. http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics and http://www.realclimate.org are both good places to start.
No, none of it is sufficient, nor does any of it constitute scientific argument or even reference to scientific argument contra AGW.
See my comments on the post having to do with exaggeration. The trouble is, what are scientists to do when the public doesn't even know good argument from bad.
Took me a few days to bother coming back to this, because I knew what your response would be. Predictably, you didn't disappoint me, Ben.
I will reluctantly reiterate once again: "There are none so blind as will not see." Every piece of evidence will have some piece of evidence which is pointed to it as contraindicative.
The question then becomes, do the contraindications remain internally consistent? Do they rely on too many other questions?
Nobody's saying that global warming isn't happening, but **COME ON**, Ben! "On Earth we have all this evidence but on Mars all we have is one ice spot melting?" -- from realclimate.org
Sure. If by "One Spot" you mean essentially the entire planet:
http://www.space.com/
scienceastr...age_031208.html
That search took all of ten seconds.
If THAT is your definition of "adequately answered", Ben, then you're not a reasonable person on this subject. You're someone with an axe to grind or else you're someone who has been, for lack of a better term, brainwashed into a belief.
I can't say it's your fault; given your professional background there's a certain amount of "left-leaningness" that rubs off. It's inevitable.
I just wish you would wake the hell up and realize the idiocy of your position already.
In the discussion between IanC and BenK there was a reference to "one spot" exhibiting warming on Mars. IanC rightly noted that the study of Mars shows the planet warming in general not just "one spot" as BenK asserted.
But the "one spot" argument is used the opposite way with the Antarctic. One region of the Antartic has seen a reduction in ice mass. It is actually a rather small area of the Antartic. The rest has seen ice mass enlarging. Yet the alarmists use the "one spot" to warn the world that the Antartic is melting.
Commenting by HaloScan
