"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 6 May 2008 10:34:35 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 6 May 2008 06:08:30 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
m...

Current data shows that warming seems to -precede- CO2 rises, making
most talk about CO2 curious, hmm?

Yeah, it's curious. I have no idea what it really means, but it's
curious.

If nothing else, doesn't it make you wonder about the validity of all
the scare mongers who are using it as a pry bar to get into our and
the govt's wallets?

No. Assuming you're correct about the point, the thing I'd like to know is
why. If there is no "why," then the next question might be "who." You seem
to be assuming "who," and then you look for facts to reinforce your
conclusion. Right?

Once upon a time, a rogue scientist found out that his funding was
going away. He looked around and found that scare tactics work well in
the gov't funding sector.

Should I get tucked in before you read this story, or is that all there is
to it? g

Our lives and world economies. Huber goes after the cost of things in
comparison to their reward, and how it affects poor countries while
doing absolutely nothing, as Kyoto would.

That's a good point, but I'd look at the science first. First Huber is a
climate scientist; now he's an economist. Maybe tomorrow he'll be an
immunologist. But he's really a mechanical engineer and a lawyer. He is a
man of many hats. I wonder how many actually fit?

You'd best never vote again, Ed. You're not a politician.
You'd best never oil a hinge again, Ed. You're not a contractor.
You'd best never change your oil again, Ed. You're not a mechanic.
You'd best give you your shop, Ed. You're not a real machinist.
You'd best never diet again, Ed. You're not a doctor.
You'd best never buy a car again, Ed. You're not a dealer.
You'd best never shoot again, Ed. You're not a cop or soldier.
Anything else? How many other hats do you wear?

But I don't write books claiming that the professional experts are wrong
about those things, Larry. I don't call them charlatans, or contradict their
conclusions. On the contrary: I often *rely* on the experts for my data,
when I can't check it out myself. And I attribute it to them when I do.



Do you really feel that being on a gov't (or leftist) payroll makes
the fear mongers apolitical?

How many real, professional climatologists are on a leftist payroll? Is
this
something you know, or something that your ideology tells you *must* be
true? Or did someone you read claim it's true?

I don't know. And I don't know exactly how much leftist and rightist
payrolls affect the outcome of reports, but I do know that far too
much money is being wasted on projects thought up by the fear mongers
without provable, repeatable, hard-science backgrounds to them.


Notice that several of the skeptics you believe in are unquestionably on a
rightist payroll. Two of them are paid staffers of the CEI, fer
chrissakes.
And they sure as hell aren't climatologists.

And how does your ideology view the CEI?

CEI is a right-wing business-advocacy organization, funded by the usual
suspects: Richard Scaife, ExxonMobil, Amoco, Pfizer, Ford Motor Co., the
tobacco companies, etc. They think that public health and the environment
are best left up to business, that global warming is a hoax and that CO2 is
good for you. You know the type. g



When you write a book or an in-depth article, don't you gather as much
info from the most talented people in the area that you can before
publishing it? As a scientist, Easterbrook has surely done that and
has (known how to and) asked the hard questions of the top people in
those fields.

How do you know he did this? Do you take it on faith? I don't take
anything
on faith.

Perhaps I shouldn't either. Nor should the unwashed masses. Hmmm...
So why is there so much GW(kumbaya) scare?

Like most non-experts, we unwashed masses go with the preponderance of
science as a default position for many things. When the experts tell me I
should take a pill and that it's serious business (like the five I take
now), I read all I can about it, and then I usually take the pill. Three or
four peer-reviewed clinical studies with no contrary data usually is enough
for me. It could all be wrong, but it probably isn't, based on my own
experience with doctors and medicine.

Regarding global warming, we have plenty of sources that show us what the
vast majority of scientific opinion is. For example, the Wikipedia article
on the subject lists 32 scientific organizations that say anthropogenic
global warming is real and none that say it isn't. Two are noncommital:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

For us unwashed laymen, that's about as good as opinion gets. To fly in the
face of that you have to be really determined to disbelieve. Such disbelief
is usually the result of political or philosophical positions, not of
science knowledge or rational thought.

What do you want to bet that he got stonewalled by the
folks hiding something, or those uncertain of their answers?

Again, is this something you know, or is it some noise going on between
your
ears?

Ears. Call it a hunch from watching the skeptics being turned down
right and left by Gore and everyone else on the fearmongering side.
What do you suppose they're afraid of?

What do you mean "turned down"? Do you mean they're dismissed? Yes, they are
dismissed. That's because they're frustrating as hell, because the real
scientists think these skeptics are doing humankind a disservice, that
they're dangerous to life on the planet. Eventually, even mild-mannered
experts get ****ed off at the pretenders and provocateurs. And that's how I
see the skeptics, too, for the most part: dissembling provocateurs.

But not always. Some are sincere. I follow what I can of their arguments,
when I'm forcing my mind open.

It appears that many of the real scientists agree that Gore went
somewhat
overboard in suggesting that the likelihood of the more disastrous
possible
effects is higher than it really is. But most say he got the science
essentially right.

Most will agree that he got _some_ small tidbit of the science right.

Not from what I've seen. Do you have some evidence of this?

Damn I wish I'd written down all the crap I've heard in vids, in
interviews or read in articles. I'd have a bundle for you. Horner's
book shows a lot of it, but you won't take the time. Your loss.
John Stossel's book _Myths..._ covers a lot, too. They'd point you to
further research and proof.

If you ever come across it, let me know.



But I'll bet that, off the record, they'd tell you what they really
thought of his piece, and it couldn't be quoted in polite company.

Again, is this fact, or noise? You know something about how I write. I
stick
to facts. I cull out the noise.

Erm, what do you suppose I meant by "I'll bet...", Ed? (/rhetorical
question)

That it's a guess. In other words, it's noise. d8-)



He has done the world, and scientists in general, a great disservice.

There are a lot of people who disagree with you sharply about that. And a
lot of those people are real climate scientists who actually know what
they're talking about.

But I don't, right? So why are you still talking to me about it?

Because you're fair and respectful, and you deserve an honest response.
Otherwise, I usually don't waste my time with the skeptics.

--
Ed Huntress