"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

snip


Isn't it much more likely that
they've said "I don't have time for that crap. Put me down as a
believer. Besides, I'll get more funding that way. Works for me!"?

That's not my experience with high-level scientists. They tend to be
curmudgeonly and skeptical in the extreme.

Then why aren't more being heard? Because it's too political and they
want their funding, maybe?

I have no idea. Because there aren't that many who don't agree with the
skeptics, and their arguments are easily dismantled, maybe?



Singer and Michaels are top climate scientists, too, and they're
adamant skeptics.

There's two. Ten-thousand to go. d8-)

Then there were the 17k+ scientists who signed the skeptic's paper...

Were those the Doctors of Herbology, or the quantum mechanics?



They and _many_ other scientists have convinced me
that the GWk alarmists and scare mongers are just what their labels
call them. Mother Nature does what she damned well pleases, though I'd
rather we didn't spew all that crap into the environment. YMMV.

I'm glad you're convinced. Now you can leave me alone about climatology. g


Thank you. Now, would you care to weigh in on diamond nanoparticles in
layers of the Earth's crust dating from 12,000 years ago, and its relation
to the extinction of the Clovis culture? Your opinion about that should be
equally valuable.

Easily, in two words. No comment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer atmospheric scientist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels 27+ yrs climatologist

Look at the twenty and thirty page biblios in the back of Crichton's
and Lomborg's books. They, too, have done their homework.

I read Crichton's book, you may recall, at your request. I also read
several
counterarguments from real climatologists. They tore him a new asshole.

I hope you can remember who those two were or where you read that.
Politics-R-Us Hansen and who else?

Good grief. I gave you the links then. You mean that you lost them AGAIN??
g


There were two points made in that book that even I could understand and
that were obvious horse****; one because it's simple logic (the business
about the extra ice floating in south polar seas; of course, you idiot
Crichton. That's what happens when an ice sheet breaks up!) and the other
because I happened once upon a time to have studied the statistics of
diffused reflection and refraction. I won't go into that (I couldn't
remember it at this point, anyway), except to say that it raised a red
flag
when he brought up the football-field analogy to explain the thickness of
a
solid layer of CO2. That was calculated to convince the layman who doesn't
understand the math. Not that I know enough to apply it to atmospheric
warming, either. But I recognize a bull**** argument in that narrow little
instance.

The book was a novel. As science, it was a con job. Or, more likely, much
of
it was really over his head. He was an genre novelist and a physician, not
a
climatologist, any more than you are or I am. But he could write a good
page-turner, so reading it wasn't a complete waste of time.

What I liked about the book, apart from it being a good novel, was
that it got people questioning the 'The Climate is Falling" scare
tactics of the Left.

I think it fizzled. People read his book about the buckeyballs, or whatever
they were, that swarmed like mosquitos, and realized he was just telling an
extended joke.



You appear
to be like the herd here, Ed; Happy to accept what the masses do. How
much have you studied the subject? What all did you discuss with your
climatologist friend or acquaintance?

My "climatologist friend"? I don't have any. Do you mean my PhD.
meteorologist neighbor down the street, who works for NOAA? Mostly we
laughed about the idiocy of the political arguments. He's the first to
admit
that climatology is over his head. But he does have an opinion about
global
warming, as I've mentioned to you before. He agrees with you. Then he
says,
"but I really don't know, and couldn't know." Meteorology is not
climatology.

OK.


I can't wait to re-read your PhD. dissertations.

Please hold your breath. We'll get back to you, Ed.

While you wait, why not get back to your copy of _Inconvenient Truth_...

'Never saw it, and I'm unlikely ever to read it. It's of no more interest
to
me than the selective polemics written by the politicos on either side of
the issue. The idea that they could be trusted to write a complete and
unbiased account of the mainstream science is too much to believe.

or Friedman's book, _Hot, Flat, and Crowded_, eh?

I haven't read it. I'm not impressed by Thomas Friedman. I read his
columns
every week and consider it worthwhile if one out of ten is a good read.
Otherwise, I read him for style, which is interesting, because I know he's
smarter than his style reflects. That's interesting to a writer,
especially
when it's so commercially successful.

Judging by his book titles, I doubt I'd like his style or anything he
wrote. He's apparently an Ehrlich groupie. Feh!

Listen to him on a news/talk show sometime and you'll realize he's a smart
and knowledgable guy. Why he writes the way he does is an open question.


So, since you're into really heavy thinking here, what do you think about
the Clovis extinction? Any opinion on the truth about naked singularities?
d8-)

I love dem black hos but doubt one was caused by the Clovis comet.
Does this type of deep critique help you, Ed?

I think it gives me some insight into your research. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress