"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 May 2008 09:53:36 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 6 May 2008 06:12:08 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
Well, that settles it, Wes. Scientists don't know anything. It's a
good
thing we don't have any of them involved in medicine, space travel,
and
things like that.
I tend to trust scientists that can set up a experiments to prove
their
hypotheses.
Wes
Then why would you believe the warming skeptics, Wes? They're
hypothesizing
one set of outcomes, and the proponents are hypothesizing another.
Neither
one has stopped the earth to set up a controlled experiment.
It seems to me that you've thrown your hat in with some "scientists" who
have no experimental data to support their conclusions.
Our skeptics are the ones showing the falsities espoused by the fear
mongers.
Then how about looking into the scientists who expose the fantasies
espoused
by the skeptics?
Who are they? All I see and hear are the fear mongers saying "They're
bought off by the oil companies!"
You could start with the ones I mentioned in a recent post. If you want
more, I'll collect some URLs for you. It's really easy to do.
As I said, I spent just a few minutes looking for rebuttals
to _State of Fear_ and had all I could read -- from real scientists who
actually know what they're talking about. Here's a small sampler:
http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environm...?pageID=1670#1
(That's one, for example.)
Then there's this:
"Peter Doran, leading author of the Nature paper Doran et al 2002, wrote
in
the New York Times stating that '... our results have been misused as
'evidence' against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel 'State
of
Fear.'"
Rants against a book of _fiction_? Why not spend your time better and
try to prove or disprove the skeptics' ideas?
It appears that books purporting to be fiction but which have extensive
endnotes supporting the science being espoused are a new breed of book:
perfect for advocating something while maintaining a thin veil of denial.
Crichton has straddled the fence on this one in a most obvious way.
And this:
"James Hansen, Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
elected
to the National Academy of Science in 1966, wrote: 'He (Michael Crichton)
doesn't seem to have the foggiest notion about the science that he writes
about.'"
And so on, and so on, until you could croak. d8-)
Hansen's one of the (40'?) drowning-in-melted-ice mongers, Ed. Try
listening to im in his interviews and you likely won't embrace the guy
for long.
I've read a few of his articles and he is probably the world's leading
expert on the subject. So if there's something that discredits his
objectivity, that would be important.
Therefore, I'm interested in which interviews you're talking about. The one
on "60 Minutes"? Or what?
Let me say this, now: I do not disbelieve all the statements made by
the climatologists and do not believe all the statements made by
skeptics. I really just want all of them to stick to the _facts_.
Fear mongers since 1996 have said there'd be many more and worse
hurricanes. 2005 was the lightest year on recent record. Top
climatologists agree that Katrina wasn't caused by GW(kumbaya).
Which has almost no relevance to the central issues. But why are you
accepting a claim from "top climatologists," in the first place? I thought
they were the ones you didn't trust. Or do you only trust them when they
say
something you find agreeable?
Perhaps that's an area where I'm miscommunicating. I suppose I'm
lumping all the idiots (media/pols/those with agendas) in with the
scientists instead of separating them, but they sometimes blend so
well...
And on and on. I wish you had more time to read skeptical books and
prove it to yourself, Ed.
And I wish you had more time to read the original sources of real science
and see for yourself how you're (likely) being spun like a top, Larry.
Ditto the first half of your sentence.
I can't comment on the science itself -- you probably can't, either -- but
I
smell a lot of opportunists, contrarians, pretenders, and think-tank
propagandists at work on the skeptic side. That's not to say this lends
credence to the mainstream science. It's just that old PR writers can
smell
a PR job at twenty paces, and these smell pretty bad to me.
And what do you call the spinners on the other side of the coin, Ed?
I don't pay much attention to them, either. The money, for the non-experts
masquerading as experts, is in cooking up a story based on the extremes.
They're not hard to spot.
The science is saying there is man-made global warming and that it will have
consequences, ranging from mild to wild. They're the ones worth paying
attention to, IMO.
--
Ed Huntress