"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 15:41:18 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 09:51:25 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



How many hours do you suppose the world's top climate scientists have
put into critiquing their technology?

I wouldn't know, and neither would you.

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.

Neither of these generalities has been my experience. There are a few
curmedgeons, skeptics and cynics but most of those I've known were
open-minded and highly ethical.

Curmudgeonly means crusty and short-tempered. Skeptical means inclined
toward doubt until something is proven. Neither one relates in any way
toward open- or closed-mindedness, ethical or unethical, Don. It just
means
they don't suffer fools well and they don't believe something just because
someone tells them it's true.

I've known a number of them, having
worked in a world-class research lab the latter 25 years of my career.
These people did not need to compromise integrity to find funding and
they were strongly disinclined to do so.
Management might push for
that but top scientists are quite able to resist such pressure.

I agree, and I've known several of them personally. The type Larry is
talking about sounds like the bottom layer, not top scientists.

Ed, I follow the skeptics because they've uncovered the dirty laundry
of the GWk scientists. The incomplete and skewed models (I dare you to
find anyone say that he climate models are complete and totally
trustworthy. If you can find one to say that, have them track it back
through our history as a test. Betcha they can't do it.) are only one
part of the vast scam they're trying to pawn off on us.

Meteorologists will be the first to agree, since they can't even use
the models to tell us whether or not it's going to rain next Friday
with any certainty. Every year, the climatologists add more and more
parameters to the models in an attempt to tweak 'em, to make them more
reliable. And they're getting better, but they're still not there.
Alarmists use the worst case scenarios. The IPCC has reduced their
warming figures every single time they've updated their climate
reports as a result, showing that the alarmists were wrong from the
start.

CO2 is 0.038 percent of the atmosphere. Could the alarmists possibly
be overlooking other facets (that miniscule other 99.962%) of Mother
Nature which are in effect? Another anomaly is the timing of the
warming. Ice studies show that warming and CO2 rise happened at
different times, with CO2 showing up AFTER warming. Little tidbits
like this fascinated me. For more info, read _The Politically
Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism_. For a wider
range of good news, Read Bailey's _Earth Report 2000_. Their notes
and biblios can be a good follow-up.

Larry, what makes you think you know the implications of any of that?
Because someone told you so? Or have you run the numbers yourself? Or what?

As I said, neither you nor I is going to understand what all of the numbers
mean. I'm a little surprised that you think you can reach conclusions from
reading popularized accounts of some very complex science.

--
Ed Huntress