On 1/24/2010 7:44 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/24/2010 7:01 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:
Ok. 
He listed nine assumptions he'd made, none accompanied by his
reasons for making the particular assumption he chose
Come now, Morris ... the man is well known for his work on using
satellite temperature data ... you are too smart to have missed that as
a basis for his research, so I'm wondering why the cutesy bit of
dissimulation?
Not intended as cutesy - my own weather satellite work (TIROS-N) was
much earlier and I'm not completely ignorant of
hardware/software/interpretation issues. Well before that time I was
convinced that assumptions were dangerous (always so in a logical
context, and sometimes lethal in a physical context). In any
peer-reviewed articles, I expect he provided the rationale for those he
made - but he did not share them with us, just as he skipped any
discussion of accuracy limitations which may or may not have been
significant (but we'll never know).
My question for you is this: If some of the numbers have been
fudged, do
you think knowing that is a sufficient basis for a conclusion that
there
is no global warming danger?
Bzzzt ... who said there is "no global warming danger"?
And my answer is that that would be sufficient basis to do whatever an
INFORMED citizen can do to make sure that we are not stampeded into
International agreements, and conclusive proof that they are NOT what
they purport to be.
Do I come across as likely to stampede? If yes, then how so - and if no,
then why are you shouting?
I took your question seriously and answered it clearly and concisely,
and here you go with ad hominem remarks about "shouting"??
"Emphasis" ... and well you know that.
And this is usenet with long-established conventions for emphasis - and
I seriously doubt you're unfamiliar with them:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tm/allcaps.htm and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_caps#Internet
However, it is understandable to take such a tack when your argument is
insufficient to address the point, so we'll leave it at that.
I did not present any argument other than for quality of information.
AAMOF, It is part of _your_ responsibility as a citizen ... along with
NOT continually denigrating those who attempt to exercise that
responsibility.
This borders on megalomania. You are neither qualified nor entitled to
dictate the responsibilities of any other free citizen. Live with it.
Are we to understand that skepticism is a healthy thing unless directed
toward your notions, in which case it becomes "denigration"?
And here I thought I was wandering in the waste land looking for an
answer, but damn if you aren't more lost than I.
I'm certainly not an expert in climatology - and I'm certainly not about
to tell anyone which information to accept and which to reject. My
ignorance doesn't need spreading - there's plenty enough already without
either of us adding to.
That would be a bit like saying that knowing someone is paranoid is a
sufficient basis for concluding that no one is out to get him...
Say what?
Asking people to refute a reporter's opinion is just another way of
saying "Lets you and him fight". No thanks.
You may be that bored, but I'm not.
Again, _nothing_ germane, whatsoever, to dispelling a necessary and
HEALTHY skepticism of an extremely important scientific endeavor.
Agreed. Sorry I don't have any new and conclusive data here and that I'm
not able to direct you to any I've found elsewhere.
Yep, and that's precisely how I summed up your last post ... thanks for
the verification, but you could have saved your breath my friend.
I could have, but thought it would be good to let you know that I didn't
particularly need you (or Al Gore) to cherry pick my sources for me.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/