(SV*)null
interpreting the void as SamV
David there is one thing I'd like to clarify and I feel I owe you an apology over. I realised that I considered pro-Creationist works worthless, but not because of any reason other than I don't consider it a very worthwhile question to be asking. ie, for very different reasons to _Air Con_. By mentioning it I was attempting to use a contentious topic to cast your post in a bad light by association. I am sincerely sorry for that, and if Ian is reading, I'm also sorry for writing that Ian - I won't drag that unrelated topic in again.
Update 6:29pm NZST: David has accepted my apology;
Apology accepted (at least from me), Sam.
I presume this means that you still stand by your statement regarding "Air Con": It can be found dismantled and rightfully ridiculed for its contained insanity on Hot Topic?
Have you actually read "Air Con"?
To which, I have responded with an offer to review chapters of the book in detail, if he sees fit; see below:
Hi David, thanks for that.
While I have not read a physical copy of Air Con, I have seen excerpts - and those excerpts are pretty damning. As I pointed out to Ian, once multiple major flaws are uncovered in a work it really does call the whole work into question. No amount of persuasive prose can save the incorrect facts from being wrong if they are wrong.
However if you really have an open and inquiring mind, I am more than happy to participate in an open debate; but it must be tit for tat; it's not fair if you just get to say "only reading the entire book will make you understand".
The way I suggest we do it is this: you specify a chapter from Air Con (privately), and I'll read that chapter and specify a relevant essay from The Discovery of Global Warming, or a well-known authoritative source such as the IPCC AR4. Then, we both read both chapters, and then make a single post on each of our blogs with our own findings on the matters of fact contained in the chapter, check and summarise selected references, etc - and link to each other's postings. Rather than being an adversarial style of debate, we can simply write about the conclusions that we came to on the chapter and why.
One thing that I'll have to insist on though is completely avoiding matters relating to global consipiracies, socialist agendas and anti-Green hate speech; let's stick to the science.
How does that sound?