[ectopasm83]

>Checkmate skeptics.

And you're totally missing my point. GP came up with a backwarded way to prove your point so I stooped to that level and came up with the equivalent reasoning that's held on the other side since he was asking for it. Funnily, you're more adamant to address my comment than his because you're more attached to the resulting truth than the reasoning step that lead to it. Admit it, it's not a matter of science anymore, it's entirely politically motivated. I wish you good luck with your control system challenge, I'm sure it will be very nuanced.

[sethrin]

His comment was accurate, yours was misleading, seemingly deliberately. AGW is not in scientific dispute; the skeptics are merely unscientific -- politically motivated, if you will.

[ectopasm83]

I'm not a skeptic but I have standards. His comment was just as meaningless as mine, both were accurate though.

[sethrin]

This is like prevaricating about whether the Earth is flat. If your standards allow you to set aside direct observations then you are not being scientific, and if you don't like "skeptic" as a label for that then I don't mind getting creative.