Hi char,

Quote:
char: "Note you assume it's a "line", rather than evaluating the evidence."


I assume that it is the presuppositions and assumptions that are brought to bear on the topic that make it a 'line'.

Quote:
char: "When one chooses to believe anything other than the anthropogenic GW hypothesis as you guys do, whether it's the now discredited denial that the warming occurs or attributing it to the sun or undersea volcanoes or cosmic rays, there seems to be something going on that is not entirely rational."


And this is precisely the point. Notice that, from the perspective of the global warming hysterics, it is 'not entirely rational' to research, suggest, or hypothesize other causes of global warming. No, it MUST be due to human activity, it must, it must, it must. And the spoon banging intensifies with every suggestion to the contrary.

Quote:
char: "Are the scientists in the articles being treated unfairly by their peers? They are publishing their results and they are being looked at. If you can accept that the minority is acting honestly, why can't you accept that the vast majority is as well?"


That's a two-way street, char. You've made it quite clear that you believe, as do Sens. Rockefeller and Snowe, that the scientists that aren't on the Al-Gore-Express are, dishonestly, in the hip pockets of 'Big Oil'.

Quote:
char: "Your biases are political, and are not based on the data, which support a warming effect from CO2, as even some of the deniers admit."


I suspect that there are biases on both sides that are political. That's not unusual since those who side with Al 'The Sky is Falling' Gore, such as Sens. Rockefeller and Snowe last year, have MADE it political.

later, bud. iowan15