OK, Gordon, let's start with the very obvious.

"If your concern with global warming is about a deplorable oceanic
encroachment on low-lying populated areas due to a rising sea level,
have you ever seen a discussion of why the top layers of many areas of
the earth, including many lofty mountaintops, are made up of sedimentary
rock? I'm not a geologist, but I know that sediments deposit under
water. Why, if such large areas of land now above sea level were
evidently once covered by water, presumably due to natural causes, is it
so obvious that this time a rising sea level is contributed to by human
activity?"

I am no more of a geoligist than you, but I know darned well that there 
are many sedimentary rocks (e.g., limestone, dolomite etc.) at altitudes 
exceeding 6,000 m, probably much higher. In fact, I believe marine 
fossils have been found near the top of Mt. Everest, at well over 8,000 
m. This does not mean that the earth was covered with water to a depth 
of 8,000 m at some geologic era, as you would seem to imply. If that 
were the case, where has all that water gone to? When the Indian 
subcontinent hit the Eurasian plate, it subducted and pushed the sea bed 
  up with a series of really massive earthquakes, probably way more than 
any earthquake in living memory. This is absolutely nothing to do with 
rising or falling sea levels and everything to do with rising and 
falling land. This a therefore a non-sequitur which has obviously 
nothing to do with climate change. In fact, Everest is still rising 
faster than erosion is wearing it down by, I believe, an average of ~1 
cm/year (and it's being pushed northwards about 6 cm/yesr).

My point is that, if we take your paragraph literally, you have dug 
yourself a mighty big hole into which you have fallen with a resounding 
thump. If you can make such a fundamental misinterpretation of facts, 
where does this leave you, in terms of credibility (at least in this 
instance)?

I won't hold you to task over changing the nationality of Canute from 
English, (also, later, Danish and Norwegian) to Greek 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canute_the_Great). However, there is a 
certain irony in the story (legend??? perhaps, perhaps not) as to 
whether we shall be able to control the waves, just 1,000 years later, 
any better than he could, should the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps 
melt sufficiently to cause the sea level to rise significantly. (Note 
that I use the conditional tense.)

Davy, Gordon wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> You said recently that my posting is a "diatribe ... peppered with
> errors of fact and reasoning" that you don't have time to respond to
> (this is not the first time you have blamed lack of time for not
> rebutting what I've said). You said that it is "dangerous argumentation"
> that may mislead those with "insufficient knowledge to sort out the
> wheat from the chaff." And you said of the Stern report that "the fact
> that it was commissioned by the government ... is neither here nor
> there." As I have before, I want to challenge what you say, but in
> addition this time, I believe I must challenge how you say it. 
> 
> I can't help wondering if my alleged "errors of fact and reasoning" may
> more accurately be characterized as conflicts with your opinions, and
> your alleged lack of time as a lack of effective rebuttal. Knowing your
> sentiments, I can understand that you might be irritated by my
> characterization as dangerous the attempts to suppress dissent by
> environmental activists (who claim to speak for, as has been pointed out
> repeatedly, the huge majority of climate specialists). Maybe, although
> you've never said so, you resent my referring to them as demagogues, and
> you are looking for a way to even the score.
> 
> I don't mind your characterization of my comments as a diatribe, or as
> you have in the past, rant. (I prefer the term polemic.) I think that
> people who use such pejorative terms say more about themselves (angry,
> fearful, and willing to use ridicule to bolster a weak position) than
> about their opponents' positions. Such language would be marked down in
> a college exam (no extra credit for big vocabulary), and would be thrown
> out of any court of law as leading the witness. I really don't think
> that emotional expression helps to convert forum subscribers, many of
> whom are highly intelligent, to your point of view, so it doesn't bother
> me.
> 
> But when you say that my posting, read by only some of the 130
> subscribers, is dangerous, you've gone too far. I can't just ignore it.
> You are quite intelligent, too, so I'm mystified. Did you really miss
> the point that the purpose of the original posting was to draw attention
> to the attempts by those you agree with to limit the freedom of those I
> agree with because they regard the ideas as dangerous?
> 
> How does it advance the cause of reasoned discourse, for which this
> forum is intended, to label without explanation what I have to say as
> dangerous? What course of action do you recommend to protect people from
> the danger? Discourage or prevent me from continuing to post, or
> discourage those who see themselves as under-informed from reading my
> postings?
> 
> Please explain. Can you describe the danger that you envision, were I,
> as you fear, to influence some of those forum subscribers who lack your
> knowledge and sophistication? Maybe if those I agree with were in the
> majority they would attempt to suppress activist claims of impending
> doom. There is a lamentable temptation for people of all persuasions to
> use whatever power they have to limit their opponents' opportunity to be
> heard. But regardless of what they might desire, those I agree with are
> of course in no position to do any such thing. How could a few
> unknowledgeable people whom I have misled interfere significantly with
> the activist agenda, unless they might in turn induce other simple folk
> to question authority, to suspect that the emperor is naked, or to
> change the metaphor, to look for the man behind the curtain? That's not
> suppression or deception (or to use Todd's word, totalitarianism),
> that's exposure. 
> 
> I suppose I should take your comments as a backhanded compliment that
> you say my posting isn't all "chaff," but has some "wheat" and a "good
> background," and that you believe it to be so persuasive - albeit
> misleading - to others. But I think that you owe me, and all those
> insufficiently knowledgeable subscribers, an apology - even if you did
> in making your slur inadvertently demonstrate my point. 
> 
> As you, I have posted often. I have a number of times had to ask
> forgiveness for comments that I came to realize were inappropriate. For
> you I think that this is such an occasion.
> 
> Now for some other things you said. For as many times as you have
> summarily dismissed as self-serving those studies that have been funded
> by organizations that make you suspicious, it's remarkable that without
> explanation you are unconcerned about who commissioned the Stern report
> and the influences they may have exerted. 
> 
> I have said before that those who challenge the paradigm are less likely
> to engage in propaganda because they know they will be challenged. But
> if reports are at risk of being slanted by those who pay for them, why
> should the risk of slanting in a report you approve of be any less? You
> demand that reports be impartial, but I wonder - is it possible that the
> demagogues have appealed to your pride and indoctrinated you enough for
> you to have lost your own impartiality?
> 
> You have an engaging writing style, and often you present relevant
> information and employ rigor in your thinking and expression, but
> sometimes you seem to get carried away by your emotions. We both want to
> influence others, or we wouldn't bother to post, but do you harbor a
> sense of noblesse oblige that makes you feel that without your warnings
> subscribers will arrive at wrong conclusions and you'll be to blame? If
> you don't have time to read and critique something, why do you feel the
> need to say anything about it at all?
> 
> Whatever your reason, please don't keep summarily dismissing reports you
> don't like just because you don't like who paid for them, and using your
> lack of time as an excuse for disparaging but not discussing content.
> Many forum subscribers see claims they disagree with without posting to
> say so and explain why. Most subscribers are employed full time and have
> many responsibilities, but I don't recall anyone besides you stating
> disagreement and then claiming lack of time as a reason for not
> explaining why.  
> 
> I wouldn't characterize your practice when you do these things as
> dangerous. I do see it as lazy and irresponsible behavior - a cheap shot
> you hope will make it look as if you know more about something than you
> do. Whether that's your intent or not, it just makes you look
> opinionated, and diminishes rather than enhances the impression you
> make. 
> 
> Brian, please understand that I am not angry at you. Although some
> might, I do not interpret your comments as saying that I deliberately
> mislead gullible subscribers (i.e., that I post propaganda). Nor do I
> intend to retaliate - by trying to make you angry or by demeaning your
> character. You know that I have said many complimentary things about you
> in my postings over the years, and I haven't changed my opinion. 
> 
> I do regard your statement as a lapse of civility, and I believe you
> should be called publicly to account for how you express yourself in a
> public forum such as this. I hope you can find the time to do so.
> 
> Gordon Davy
> Baltimore
>