Population Growth "Alarmism" as a Deep Political Control Device

[Greg Burnham]

You are arguing something completely different than climatologists who claim mmgw is a scientific fact, i.e. you are the user of straw men.

Gary,

Obviously you are unfamiliar with the term "Straw Man Argument" and/or what it means in terms of logical fallacies. A Straw Man occurs when: PERSON "1" advances ARGUMENT "A" in a debate and PERSON "2" attempts to rebut that argument by misrepresentation of it. The most common method employed to utilize the Straw Man involves exaggerating the position of PERSON "1" in order to more easily defeat this now weaker argument. As you have aptly demonstrated, most often PERSON "2" has



no argument to advance...only fallacious rebuttals.

That's right Greg, you are rebutting by misrepresenting what AGW scientists say is their position as their way of predicting the development of GW. They don't need to overcome the chaos of the world's weather systems for a valid argument. They never say they are predicting exact scenarios about the future as you misrepresent their arguments. That is your strawman. What they can show using evidence already documented is that certain things have happened related to CO2 increases.

The key word here is the word PREDICT. I need not exaggerate their claims. My objection is to predictions of global warming/climate change beyond that which is expected due to seasonal factors, sun activity and/or El Nino and La Nina. Certainly predictions, such as, the "Himalayan Glaciers will be melted by 2035" is such an ill advised prediction.