On May 3, 10:50*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2008 09:21:19 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:







"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 03 May 2008 07:53:26 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, Wes
quickly quoth:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As far as I can tell, and common sense indicates, GW is a fact. What is
uncertain is what it means to all of us.
Now that is truly "unsettled" and unsettling.

Right. I don't know whether to head for the hills, or to build a boat
dock
in my back yard and wait for the flood. d8-)

Has anyone that doesn't have a dog in this fight ever looked at who would
be
the winners and who the loosers if Algores vision is correct?

Algore says FORTY FEET of oceanic rise. I say "FY, Algore!"

I think what he said was something that had been reported by climatologists,
that the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet and Greenland, together, hold enough
ice to cause a 40-foot rise in sea levels. If he said that was going to
happen, I'd like to know where. I believe the original said it would take
hundreds of years to melt that ice, assuming you had global warming
sufficient to do so. It was a measure of how much land ice there is, not a
prediction, IIRC.

Since I refuse to watch the folly called "An Inconvenient Truth", I
can't give you a direct quote. Horner says that Algore says 20' in the
movie, other sites show other figures. Perhaps it was Hansen who said
40'. I get confused with all those vacillating figures from the many
alarmists who can't get it straight themselves. The only trend which
has been steady over time is the decline in the amount of the danger
they're screaming about. From 7.0 degrees C down to 0.7C rise in 3
steps so far, I believe.

Another quote from Algore is "I believe it is appropriate to have an
over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous [global
warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to
what the solutions are." *So, it's OK to lie so you can set up the
suckers for buying into your carbon credit scam?

One more Algorism: "Scientist have an independent obligation to
respect and present the truth as they see it." *

"...as they see it"?!

The IPCC, also GW-mongers, say 18" max.
Others say zero to some centimeters.
If all the floating ice melts, there will be no change at all.
If all the land-based ice mass melts, there may be some rise, but we
don't know how much will be retained in the atmosphere as clouds.

"We" certainly don't know, do "we"? Do you know anyone who *does* know? Do
you know anyone who has a single clue?

I don't know any climate scientists personally, but I have read (and
continue reading) their books. *Freeman Dyson, not a dummy, is very
skeptical over the climate models. He says they're fairly good at

I'd choose fusion over fission, but nuke is still head and shoulders
above the hideously noxious burning of coal, which has already output
more isotopes and GW gases into the atmosphere than all the combined
nuke bombs + Chernobyl since nuke research began.

(Ed, have your MBAs and PHDs work on that "fusion" thing, won't you?)

Most of the money I ever made in the shop I co-owned was from working on
that fusion thing. We built 2000 complex, ridiculously over-engineered
electrical connectors for the Tokamak reactor at Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory, back in 1974. It didn't help generate any electricity, but it
did help us finance one of the first CNC lathes in central New Jersey. g

Well, keep on it, eh?

--
Those who flee temptation generally leave a forwarding address.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Lane Olinghouse- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LOL...you refuse to view the movie but continue to comment on it?

What creditibility you had just disappeared.

TMT

goombaya

Looks a bit toasty to me...

http://www.wzbg.com/Bahamaspics/photos/photo_13.html

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On May 3, 10:14 am, " wrote:

On May 3, 8:27 am, Too_Many_Tools




I take it you have no children.

If so your lineage dies with you.

If not you are condemning them to live a far worse world than you live
in.

TMT

Minus 10 Points. Ad Hominen argument. No facts presented.

Dan


So you do not care if your children live in a world made worse by your
existence.

Thought so.

Selfish heartless *******.

TMT


Gee,

You think you are making it better?

T, my man, in you go with Cliffie and Birdbrain!

On Sun, 4 May 2008 01:01:44 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


And who would that be, Wes?

Unclear

Well, as I said to Larry, one group that *is* making money is the contrarian
book writers. Who ever heard of Bjørn Lomborg before he decided it was all a
hoax? g

The true question is: Does your hypothesis automatically make him
wrong? Please read his book and give us your opinion, Ed.

--
Those who flee temptation generally leave a forwarding address.
-- Lane Olinghouse

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 May 2008 01:01:44 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


And who would that be, Wes?

Unclear

Well, as I said to Larry, one group that *is* making money is the
contrarian
book writers. Who ever heard of Bjørn Lomborg before he decided it was all
a
hoax? g

The true question is: Does your hypothesis automatically make him
wrong? Please read his book and give us your opinion, Ed.

I read his first book on the subject years ago. For a political "scientist"
whose specialty is collective-action theory, he's a good writer. As a
scientist, he has no background whatsoever. NONE. ZERO. NADA.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 4 May 2008 09:06:50 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

The true question is: Does your hypothesis automatically make him
wrong? Please read his book and give us your opinion, Ed.

I read his first book on the subject years ago. For a political "scientist"
whose specialty is collective-action theory, he's a good writer. As a
scientist, he has no background whatsoever. NONE. ZERO. NADA.

So, unless you're a climate scientist, you can't have an informed
opinion, you can't grouse about imperfect scientific studies (many of
which are not peered) or methods, and you don't know what you're
talking about? Most of these so-called climate scientists scare the
crap out of me because they're both political and ranters.

What's your opinion on Easterbrook, Bailey, etc?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Bailey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels

Peter Huber: Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, columnist for
Forbes, MIT-trained engineer and instructor, Harvard law grad, law
clerk for both Ginsberg and O'Connor.

Are their backgrounds and sciences too flaky for you?

Ed, do you believe that climate models are functionally accurate?

--
I am Dyslexic of Borg. Prepare to have your arse laminated.
--Troy P, usenet

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 May 2008 13:41:18 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..

Another quote from Algore is "I believe it is appropriate to have an
over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous [global
warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to
what the solutions are." So, it's OK to lie so you can set up the
suckers for buying into your carbon credit scam?

What makes you think he's talking about lying? It sounds like the
statement
says you have to get peoples' attention by focusing on the danger, more
than
you might otherwise do in discussions about the subject. It doesn't say
*misrepresent*, it says *over-represent*.

I'm curious, Larry. Is the idea that he's suggesting lying your own idea,
or
something you read somewhere?

It's everyone's idea, Ed. He's a politician. But, yes, I was wary
about his ecological statements all the way back in '96. Once I read
what he had said and written, I knew it was lies, half truths, and
deceptions. Do you note the fact that he is now selling carbon
credits? His little movie and book were good sales material, weren't
they? Do you believe his statements, despite that the gullible Brits,
worse eco nuts than us, required nine separate sections of his book
and movie to have discalimers put on them before allowing them to be
shown in their schools? Do you doubt that he cherry-picked his 900
out of 9000 articles which "proved concensus" of the particular
theories he was trying to push?

I don't think Al Gore knows enough about climate change to fill a shoebox.
He gets his information from climate scientists, most of whom seem to favor
his conclusions. But I have no interest in Gore's opinions on the matter for
the same reason I have no interest in Gunner's opinions about the life
expectancy of Mexicans.


Do you trust the climate models, Ed? Don't you doubt them a bit,
given that it's hard enough even to forecast weather for a full week
in advance?

I have some knowledge of statistics and modeling, but climate models are so
far over my head that I wouldn't hazard a guess. We know that models are
widely misused. Which ones are misused is a matter of opinion -- among
people who really understand climate models. I don't, and I don't know
anyone who does.


One more Algorism: "Scientist have an independent obligation to
respect and present the truth as they see it."

"...as they see it"?!

Yeah, as they see it. That's as opposed to, say, the current
administration's scientists, who present the truth as their neocon bosses
see it.

While there may be some neocon scientists, the rest of the skeptics
are apolitical/global in origin. Bjorn Lomborg is from Denmark, etc.
As Crichton warned, it's dangerous to politicize science.

Crichton, who is not a scientist, vulgarizes science and technology for a
living. That's what I did for most of my career as well, in my own little
way. I could tell you a lot about how that's done, what it's all about, why
it often misses the mark, and so on. But I won't bore you with it. You can
read my book about it if I ever write it. d8-)


Here's a thought from somebody who's been in the publishing business for a
large part of his working life, and who has written chapters of several
technical books: If you want to sell books, be a contrarian.

Have you read any of the skeptics' books? Are they all just neocons or
contrarians to you? Are you giving them a fair shot, or just hanging
in with the liberals who automatically label as "junk science"
anything which comes into disagreement with their ideas, as flaky as
they are?

I think I gave Lomborg a fair shot. He's very convincing. That is, he can
convince people who know nothing about climate science. I know nothing about
climate science. Do you?



On a subject like global warming you have two choices: The obvious one is
to
go with the overwhelming majority of the science and write a book that
says
we're in for man-made global warming. Unfortunately, you'll have about a
thousand other books to compete with that say the same thing. Nobody will
notice your book unless you already are famous.

Or, write a contrarian book. People who don't like the idea of global
warming will scoop it off the shelves; you'll become famous enough that
non-experts will actually remember your name; and you'll make one hell of
a
lot more money.

I'd rather have an author, especially a science author, write the
truth. Wouldn't you? Read Lomborg, Huber, Michaels, Horner, and
Bailey, then tell me that you still believe in Global
Warming(kumbaya). I'll bet that you won't.

Lomborg is a political scientist with no background in physical science of
any kind.

I don't know which Huber you're talking about.

I don't know who Michaels is.

Horner is a litigation attorney in Washington and a lawyer for the
right-wing Competitive Enterprise Institute. Besides dabbling in the
environment (he generally opposes it g), he speaks on rail deregulation
and unfunded pension liability. No science background whatsoever.

Bailey, like Horner, is paid by the CEI. He's a television producer and
writer with a background in philosophy and economics. No science background
whatsoever. For what little it's worth, Bailey recently said that he
believes Al Gore got the science mostly right -- as if Bailey would actually
know.

Why do you believe these pretenders, cranks, and dabblers, Larry? Have you
ever read what real climatologists have to say about it?


Lowell Ponte (_The Cooling_, 1976) had the right idea but he just jumped
the
gun. If he published that book today he'd be the darling of the warming
skeptics. He didn't know any more than climatologists know today --
actually, a lot less. But he could cherry-pick some facts with the best of
them and feed the paranoid mindset who just wants to believe they're being
lied to by all but a tiny minority of the world's climate experts.

How are we paranoid if we disbelieve the unfounded rants? Besides,
science was founded on skepticism. It's an integral part of it.

Firstly, I doubt if either of us would know what claims of climatologists
are founded or not. You're certainly not going to find out by reading the
pretenders and dabblers you've listed above. Secondly, a healthy skepticism
is a good thing. But it can easily become unhealthy. One can be skeptical
without throwing his hat in with the anti-warming fringe.



At your request, I read Crichton's _State of Fear_, which was a fun read
in
the typical Crichton techno-style. But it wasn't very convincing. I went
looking for some rebuttals and found them all over the place. The first
one
I found gave me an idea of what Crichton was doing: he claimed that there
were large increases in floating ice chunks and bergs around Antartica.
The
rebuttal (by a climate scientist) said, essentially, "duh...yeah, that's
what happens when floating ice sheets are breaking up -- the chunks float
around until they melt." This was backed up by some satellite photos
showing
that the floating sheet had shrunk during the period Crichton was talking
about.

I don't recall him saying that, and I don't see it in his Author's
Message at the end. I belive it was someone else saying it. He's savvy
enough to have grasped that summer ice melting concept.

The "someone else" was one of his fictional characters, the one who was
obviously Crichton's surrogate. He said it as I represented it. The story
about CO2 percentages and the football field was the same kind of nonsense,
calculated to appeal to the logic of the climate ignoramuses among us --
which is to say, almost all of his audience.



So it's easy to be misled. No one here, I'm sure, has the knowledge to
evaluate the basic claims, nor to compare things that Crichton et al. said
versus those said by, say, Al Gore.

I certainly don't. And I don't know anyone who does. But there's no
shortage
of people who claim they have strong reasons to believe one way or the
other. I wouldn't even attempt to judge them, but I'm really curious about
one thing: What lies behind their inclination to believe one way or the
other? I'm particularly curious about the mindset and the mental processes
of the people who believe the contrarians. That's why I like talking to
you.
d8-)

I'm really surprised that you're not with me on this one, Ed.

I'm not with you, but I'm still interested in how you think. You've really
aligned yourself with the tiny minority, and most of them have no science
background. Yet, you're deeply skeptical of the real scientists, who, except
for a miniscule percentage, line up on the other side of the equation.

For some reason you've decided that mainstream science is wrong, and the
dabblers are right. I still find that very curious.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.net...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
gy.net...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

What makes you think he's talking about lying? It sounds like the
statement
says you have to get peoples' attention by focusing on the danger,
more
than
you might otherwise do in discussions about the subject. It doesn't
say
*misrepresent*, it says *over-represent*.

So instead of "lying" substitute "exaggerating". Not much difference
AFAIC.

It doesn't say "exaggerating," either. All is says is that the story
about
danger is "over-represented." But compared to what? One writer says that
Gore meant that getting attention requires a heavy emphasis on the
danger
side of the issue. It doesn't say that one should lie about it. It
doesn't
say that one should exaggerate the level of the danger.

That sounds reasonable in context, doesn't it?

Apparently you see a difference in meaning between "over-represented"
and
"exaggerated".

To me, saying the danger is greater than it is, is exaggerating. Saying
that
it's dangerous first and last, and talking relatively little about
solutions
in between, would be "over representing."

In other words, it means what you want it to mean.

This is a test, Doug, to see if you have any common sense. Here's Al Gore in
an interview that's going to be committed to print, and you think he means
"we have to wake people up, so we lie about the facts." Is that what you
think he intended?

Here are the common meanings of those terms. Webster's Unabridged
Dictionary's first (non-obsolete) definition for "exaggerate": to enlarge
beyond bounds or the truth. Here's the definition for "overrepresent": to
give excessive representation to.

So, excessive representation means "lying" to you? Or does it mean giving
excessive emphasis? To exaggerate often means to enlarge beyond the truth;
to overrepresent generally means harping on something to excess, overstating
its importance, perhaps, but not lying about it. And an experienced
politician giving an interview is not likely to tell the audience that he
lies to get peoples' attention.

Right? Or do you just think that everyone but you is a fool?

No, Ed, I just think Al Gore is. And you.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Join the UseNet Improvement Project: killfile Google Groups.
http://www.improve-usenet.org

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Download Nfilter at http://www.milmac.com/np-120.exe

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, as I said to Larry, one group that *is* making money is the contrarian
book writers. Who ever heard of Bjørn Lomborg before he decided it was all a
hoax? g

Well, no kidding. Maybe reading contrary arguments, by the glow of the
fireplace taking the chill off the room, appeals to people that would like
to hear more than just one side of a story.

Wes

Doug Miller wrote:

So instead of "lying" substitute "exaggerating". Not much difference AFAIC.

The difference is whose side youre on. :-)
...lew...

Ed Huntress wrote:

It doesn't say "exaggerating," either. All is says is that the story about
danger is "over-represented." But compared to what? One writer says that
Gore meant that getting attention requires a heavy emphasis on the danger
side of the issue. It doesn't say that one should lie about it. It doesn't
say that one should exaggerate the level of the danger.

Ed Huntress


Ed, How am I to interpert " heavy emphasis " if not exaggeration?
...lew...

Lew Hartswick wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:

It doesn't say "exaggerating," either. All is says is that the story
about danger is "over-represented." But compared to what? One writer
says that Gore meant that getting attention requires a heavy
emphasis on the danger side of the issue. It doesn't say that one
should lie about it. It doesn't say that one should exaggerate the
level of the danger.

Ed Huntress


Ed, How am I to interpert " heavy emphasis " if not exaggeration?

Advocacy, and there isn't anything dishonest about that.


--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 May 2008 09:06:50 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..

The true question is: Does your hypothesis automatically make him
wrong? Please read his book and give us your opinion, Ed.

I read his first book on the subject years ago. For a political
"scientist"
whose specialty is collective-action theory, he's a good writer. As a
scientist, he has no background whatsoever. NONE. ZERO. NADA.

So, unless you're a climate scientist, you can't have an informed
opinion, you can't grouse about imperfect scientific studies (many of
which are not peered) or methods, and you don't know what you're
talking about?

Probably not an opinion that justifies the adjective "informed." What the
non-specialist lacks is the years of immersion that provides the essential
perspective, knowledge of the caveats and limitations of knowledge and so
on, that allow one to recognize what is right and wrong about the evidence
presented -- which is always partial, always incomplete.

Do you want my opinion on China trade? I spent six months immersed in it up
to my neck. I wrote three 5,000-word articles on it that were well-received,
the first of which was hand-carried to a certain ranch in Crawford, Texas by
a Texas state legislator. Alan Tonelson, a trade specialist and author of
_The Race to the Bottom_, a frequent guest on Lou Dobbs, wrote to me that it
was one of the best articles on China trade that he ever read.

But do you know what was wrong with it? I now have about five more years of
immersion and perspective. I know what was wrong with my articles. They
weren't factually wrong, but they lacked the kind of relative emphasis that
can only come from years of academic study. If I wrote them today, you hadly
would recognize their lineage.

That's the limitation of not being a well-trained specialist in such
complex, arcane fields. It's the trap one gets into by being self-taught. If
you don't have the academic background you're never challenged to question
your conclusions; you lack essential pieces of historical information;
you're never forced to argue the opposite of what you think is true, so you
can see the weaknesses in your position.

And that's what your dabblers are victims of. They're smart, they know how
to research and study...but they draw their conclusions without the deep
perspective that the academically trained climatologists. Almost as a matter
of course, they get off-track with their data. That assumes they start out
being balanced and honest. But that's a question mark with several of them,
as well.

Most of these so-called climate scientists scare the
crap out of me because they're both political and ranters.

I find that curious because what I see is that most of them are so bland
that hardly any layman can stand to read them. But the anti-warming book
writers know how to write hot; they have a popular audience because they
know how to do a good rant. And many of them, as my list in another message
makes clear, are highly political.


What's your opinion on Easterbrook, Bailey, etc?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook

I don't know of Easterbrook. I see that he's a retired geologist who
apparently has made his fame as a warming-skeptic editorialist. A geologist
commenting on climatology is like a dentist performing heart surgery.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Bailey

I covered Bailey in another message. He has no background in the subject at
all, and he's paid by the CEI to write rants. He apparently is an effective
propagandist but there's no evidence he knows what he's talking about.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels

Aha. *That* Michaels. He's a contrarian. There's one. g


Peter Huber: Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, columnist for
Forbes, MIT-trained engineer and instructor, Harvard law grad, law
clerk for both Ginsberg and O'Connor.

Are their backgrounds and sciences too flaky for you?

A mechanical engineer and a lawyer. When did you get so warm and fuzzy about
lawyers?


Ed, do you believe that climate models are functionally accurate?

I don't know. I haven't tried to pick them apart. I doubt if I could if I
tried. Can you?

--
Ed Huntress

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
y.net...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
igy.net...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

What makes you think he's talking about lying? It sounds like the
statement
says you have to get peoples' attention by focusing on the danger,
more
than
you might otherwise do in discussions about the subject. It doesn't
say
*misrepresent*, it says *over-represent*.

So instead of "lying" substitute "exaggerating". Not much difference
AFAIC.

It doesn't say "exaggerating," either. All is says is that the story
about
danger is "over-represented." But compared to what? One writer says
that
Gore meant that getting attention requires a heavy emphasis on the
danger
side of the issue. It doesn't say that one should lie about it. It
doesn't
say that one should exaggerate the level of the danger.

That sounds reasonable in context, doesn't it?

Apparently you see a difference in meaning between "over-represented"
and
"exaggerated".

To me, saying the danger is greater than it is, is exaggerating. Saying
that
it's dangerous first and last, and talking relatively little about
solutions
in between, would be "over representing."

In other words, it means what you want it to mean.

This is a test, Doug, to see if you have any common sense. Here's Al Gore
in
an interview that's going to be committed to print, and you think he means
"we have to wake people up, so we lie about the facts." Is that what you
think he intended?

Here are the common meanings of those terms. Webster's Unabridged
Dictionary's first (non-obsolete) definition for "exaggerate": to enlarge
beyond bounds or the truth. Here's the definition for "overrepresent": to
give excessive representation to.

So, excessive representation means "lying" to you? Or does it mean giving
excessive emphasis? To exaggerate often means to enlarge beyond the truth;
to overrepresent generally means harping on something to excess,
overstating
its importance, perhaps, but not lying about it. And an experienced
politician giving an interview is not likely to tell the audience that he
lies to get peoples' attention.

Right? Or do you just think that everyone but you is a fool?

No, Ed, I just think Al Gore is. And you.

You make up the meaning of words, ignore what the dictionary says, and then
accuse *me* of making up the meanings.

The truth doesn't matter to guys like you, Doug. You know what you want to
believe, and a little thing like getting the meaning of words wrong isn't
going to change your mind, right?

--
Ed Huntress

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
m...
Doug Miller wrote:

So instead of "lying" substitute "exaggerating". Not much difference
AFAIC.

The difference is whose side youre on. :-)
...lew...

The difference is whether or not you have a dictionary -- or if you actually
read it. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:

It doesn't say "exaggerating," either. All is says is that the story
about danger is "over-represented." But compared to what? One writer says
that Gore meant that getting attention requires a heavy emphasis on the
danger side of the issue. It doesn't say that one should lie about it. It
doesn't say that one should exaggerate the level of the danger.

Ed Huntress

Ed, How am I to interpert " heavy emphasis " if not exaggeration?
...lew...

Check the thread for the definitions I provided from Webster's Unabridged,
Lew. That would be a good start in "interpreting" it.

Or if that doesn't work for you, you can just make it up to suit your
convenience, like Doug.

--
Ed Huntress

On May 4, 2:41*am, Too_Many_Tools Minus 10 Points. *Ad Hominen
argument. *No facts presented.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

So you do not care if your children live in a world made worse by your
existence.

Thought so.

Selfish heartless *******.

TMT

Minus another 10 points! Same reasons!

Dan

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, as I said to Larry, one group that *is* making money is the
contrarian
book writers. Who ever heard of Bjørn Lomborg before he decided it was all
a
hoax? g

Well, no kidding. Maybe reading contrary arguments, by the glow of the
fireplace taking the chill off the room, appeals to people that would like
to hear more than just one side of a story.

It seems to appeal to quite a few of them. It's a pretty lucrative segment
of the book business these days.

I wonder how many actually read the first side?

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 03 May 2008 13:36:53 -0500, nick hull
wrote:
snip
All over they found one sign after another that the climate was
changing and changing very quickly. You would have to be blind not to see
it. Sea ice which should have been abundant when they were there was almost
nonexistent. Natives told them that the climate was turning hot in the
summer like they have never seen before. Yeah, the signs are there for
anyone with a bit of objectivity to see.

The data is clear that ALASKA is warming, less clear about the globe.
The pacific is cooling and it is bigger than alaska.
snip
------------
What is not clear is why the politicians and "beautiful people"
are so concerned about "global warming" which may [or may not] be
due to human activity [correlation is *NOT* causality] but seem
to pay no attention to the socio-economic havoc their "trade" and
monitary/financial policies, which are most definitely under
*THEIR* control, are causing world-wide, from the hops shortages
in the first-world, to the actual food shortages and riots in the
less developed countries.

Even less clear is how these groups obtained their power to run
things, and why the majority of people allow them to continue to
issue and enforce edicts, fiats, ukases, etc. despite their
demonstrated incompetence, arrogance, and venality.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

Ed Huntress wrote:

[much snippage]

I have some knowledge of statistics and modeling, but climate models are so
far over my head that I wouldn't hazard a guess. We know that models are
widely misused. Which ones are misused is a matter of opinion -- among
people who really understand climate models. I don't, and I don't know
anyone who does.

[much snippage]

Firstly, I doubt if either of us would know what claims of climatologists
are founded or not. You're certainly not going to find out by reading the
pretenders and dabblers you've listed above. Secondly, a healthy skepticism
is a good thing. But it can easily become unhealthy. One can be skeptical
without throwing his hat in with the anti-warming fringe.

[much snippage]

I lurk on rec.crafts.metalworking and rarely post, mostly because
I do not have anything constructive to add to the various metalworking
and non-metalworking threads.

With regards to the topic of global warming, I came to the conclusion
that I knew very little about it. Trying to educate myself on the
topic is difficult because most of the papers are only available in
journals that require expensive subscriptions. Access to a university
grade library is pretty much required to obtain access to most of the
climate science papers. Even if I have access to the papers, they
are difficult to read and understand without a fairly extensive
knowledge of what is going on.

What to do?

Eventually I ran across a couple of web sites that actively discuss
the various climatology papers. The web site:

http://www.realclimate.org/

is very much in the pro AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) and contains
posts by main stream climatology scientists.

Another site is:

http://www.climateaudit.org

which tends to perform in depth analysis of climatology papers. This
site does not have a specific opinion on AGW either pro or con, but it
does have strongly negative opinions about some of the climatology
papers it reviews.

Of the two sites, I find myself reading the 2nd site more regularly,
even though much of the discussion takes place over my head. From
reading the second site, it has become quite clear to me that some
of the scientists in the field of climate science are doing extremely
careful work and that others are sloppy. What is bothersome to me
is that the peer review process seems not to be identify and reject
papers with sloppy analysis in them.

If you have the time, you might want to give the two sites above
some time.

-Wayne

On May 4, 2:53*pm, "Wayne C. Gramlich" wrote:
...
* *http://www.realclimate.org/
* *http://www.climateaudit.org
...
-Wayne

Thanks.
I followed the research until the suppression of dissent caused
authors to proclaim themselves believers even while publishing data
that showed historical variations larger than current observations.

On Sun, 4 May 2008 10:15:26 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

I don't think Al Gore knows enough about climate change to fill a shoebox.
He gets his information from climate scientists, most of whom seem to favor
his conclusions. But I have no interest in Gore's opinions on the matter for
the same reason I have no interest in Gunner's opinions about the life
expectancy of Mexicans.

Gore's researcher cherrypicked the data, a 10% sample from what was
out there, and every one supposedly agreed with the other. That ain't
good science, IMNSHO, because so many other of those reports disagree
with those same findings six ways from Sunday.


Do you trust the climate models, Ed? Don't you doubt them a bit,
given that it's hard enough even to forecast weather for a full week
in advance?

I have some knowledge of statistics and modeling, but climate models are so
far over my head that I wouldn't hazard a guess. We know that models are
widely misused. Which ones are misused is a matter of opinion -- among
people who really understand climate models. I don't, and I don't know
anyone who does.

Nor do I, but many of us could tell if a particular model worked if we
asked for a test. Some of the scientists (many of them skeptics whom
I've mentioned) asked those climate-modeling scientists to do some
tests to prove their models worked well. Others complained of GIGO,
not agreeing with the input parameter values. The models don't quite
work due to far too many unknowns. If they can't prove their stuff to
their _own_ people (other scientists), why should -we- believe them?
17,000+ scientists signed the disclaimer about global warming(kumbaya)
being unproven. Granted, some of those names (a few, not many, not
most) were proven to be fakes, but the vast majority were valid.


Crichton, who is not a scientist, vulgarizes science and technology for a
living. That's what I did for most of my career as well, in my own little
way. I could tell you a lot about how that's done, what it's all about, why
it often misses the mark, and so on. But I won't bore you with it. You can
read my book about it if I ever write it. d8-)

Sure. g Yes, Crichton's novel was fiction, but it was written in a
way which piqued my curiosity. The further I delved into gw(kumbaya),
the worse it got. The more I looked, the more bull**** I dug up. At
this point, I can't see how anyone could possibly believe a thing that
the GW(kumbaya) scare mongers say, starting with Rachel Carson's
totally hosed tome, moving on through the bogus hockey stick graph,
and not _even_ ending with Algore's crap.


I think I gave Lomborg a fair shot. He's very convincing. That is, he can
convince people who know nothing about climate science. I know nothing about
climate science. Do you?

A wee skosh.


I'd rather have an author, especially a science author, write the
truth. Wouldn't you? Read Lomborg, Huber, Michaels, Horner, and
Bailey, then tell me that you still believe in Global
Warming(kumbaya). I'll bet that you won't.

Lomborg is a political scientist with no background in physical science of
any kind.

I don't know which Huber you're talking about.

I don't know who Michaels is.

See links here and in other posts recently.


Horner is a litigation attorney in Washington and a lawyer for the
right-wing Competitive Enterprise Institute. Besides dabbling in the
environment (he generally opposes it g), he speaks on rail deregulation
and unfunded pension liability. No science background whatsoever.

Horner did years of research, too. I bet we'd all come up with the
same conclusions if we had that time and money to spend, finding out
what's really going on with the Earth's climate.

You say "right-wing", but what about all the money going to the scare
mongers from the leftists? The _scare_ of Global Warming(kumbaya) is
nothing more than a way to scam money out of the people and the gov't.
You're very logical, Ed. Why can't you see that?


Bailey, like Horner, is paid by the CEI. He's a television producer and
writer with a background in philosophy and economics. No science background
whatsoever. For what little it's worth, Bailey recently said that he
believes Al Gore got the science mostly right -- as if Bailey would actually
know.

How about Gore's stranded/drowning polar bear shot? It was real CGI
effects!


Why do you believe these pretenders, cranks, and dabblers, Larry? Have you
ever read what real climatologists have to say about it?

I've seen video of one (I don't recall his name sigh) who hemmed and
hawed about his program when asked to give definitive answers. If I
run across it, I'll send the URL.

Patrick Michaels, _is_ a climatologist. Is that good enough for you?
http://www.cato.org/people/patrick-michaels/ I have his book
_Meltdown_ but haven't yet gotten to it. I've also listened to short
talks by Dr. S. Fred Singer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
and see the Headline Earth series on www.accuweather.com for his
couple of minutes there in June of last year. Also, Joe *******i of
Accuweather is not a fan of GW(kumbaya). Dr. William Gray, a hurricane
expert and meteorologist is a skeptic. How many more do you need, Ed?

Follow the money. It's all going to people willing to state that we're
all gonna die soon, from anthropomorphic global warming(kumbaya)

Question: Why won't Gore, et al (no pun intended) show up in a debate
with the skeptics? Because their models aren't putting out
repeatable, valid data? Because their proof is about as solid as
jello?


How are we paranoid if we disbelieve the unfounded rants? Besides,
science was founded on skepticism. It's an integral part of it.

Firstly, I doubt if either of us would know what claims of climatologists
are founded or not. You're certainly not going to find out by reading the
pretenders and dabblers you've listed above. Secondly, a healthy skepticism
is a good thing. But it can easily become unhealthy. One can be skeptical
without throwing his hat in with the anti-warming fringe.

The people you call "pretenders and dabblers" were all consulting with
the scientists in question or their output. Now you call it
"anti-warming fringe"? I call it "being skeptical about the degree of
warming, the dangers resulting from said warming, and the thousands of
lies on the subject which are being touted as facts."


I don't recall him saying that, and I don't see it in his Author's
Message at the end. I belive it was someone else saying it. He's savvy
enough to have grasped that summer ice melting concept.

The "someone else" was one of his fictional characters, the one who was
obviously Crichton's surrogate. He said it as I represented it. The story
about CO2 percentages and the football field was the same kind of nonsense,
calculated to appeal to the logic of the climate ignoramuses among us --
which is to say, almost all of his audience.

So now you're quoting fictional characters? Yeah, I cringed at a
couple things Kenner (wasn't it?) said. But that's mild compared to
the trash the gw scare mongers are putting out, supposedly as "hard
science."


I'm really surprised that you're not with me on this one, Ed.

I'm not with you, but I'm still interested in how you think. You've really
aligned yourself with the tiny minority, and most of them have no science
background. Yet, you're deeply skeptical of the real scientists, who, except
for a miniscule percentage, line up on the other side of the equation.

See above for the scienceless scientists I mentioned, Ed.


For some reason you've decided that mainstream science is wrong, and the
dabblers are right. I still find that very curious.

No, mainstream science isn't wrong. It's the crap coming out of the
scare mongrels which puts me off.

So, Ed, how do you feel about the horrible dangers of lead, asbestos,
CFCs, and silicone? Cow farts?

--
I am Dyslexic of Borg. Prepare to have your arse laminated.
--Troy P, usenet

On Sun, 4 May 2008 12:47:48 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, as I said to Larry, one group that *is* making money is the
contrarian
book writers. Who ever heard of Bjørn Lomborg before he decided it was all
a
hoax? g

Well, no kidding. Maybe reading contrary arguments, by the glow of the
fireplace taking the chill off the room, appeals to people that would like
to hear more than just one side of a story.

It seems to appeal to quite a few of them. It's a pretty lucrative segment
of the book business these days.

I wonder how many actually read the first side?

The "first side" (environmentalist loony version) has been crammed
down our throats in newspapers, magazines, books, and TeeVee -daily-
for thirty years now, Ed. How could one have NOT?

--
I am Dyslexic of Borg. Prepare to have your arse laminated.
--Troy P, usenet

On Sun, 04 May 2008 11:53:03 -0700, "Wayne C. Gramlich"
wrote:

Of the two sites, I find myself reading the 2nd site more regularly,
even though much of the discussion takes place over my head. From
reading the second site, it has become quite clear to me that some
of the scientists in the field of climate science are doing extremely
careful work and that others are sloppy. What is bothersome to me
is that the peer review process seems not to be identify and reject
papers with sloppy analysis in them.


When grants come from pushing the GW agenda, actually something of an
industry now days...even the sloppyist paper that advances the agenda,
wont be looked at very hard.

There is Tremendious money to be made pushing the GW agenda, nothing
at all to be made in the other direction.

Which one do you think hungry boffins will gravitate towards?

Gunner

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

F. George McDuffee wrote:

snip
------------
What is not clear is why the politicians and "beautiful people"
are so concerned about "global warming" which may [or may not] be
due to human activity [correlation is *NOT* causality] but seem
to pay no attention to the socio-economic havoc their "trade" and
monitary/financial policies, which are most definitely under
*THEIR* control, are causing world-wide, from the hops shortages
in the first-world, to the actual food shortages and riots in the
less developed countries.

Even less clear is how these groups obtained their power to run
things, and why the majority of people allow them to continue to
issue and enforce edicts, fiats, ukases, etc. despite their
demonstrated incompetence, arrogance, and venality.


Nice rant, George!

The only thing left out is - why they call themselves "leaders" when
they so closly follow every public opinion poll.



Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I take it you have no children.

Well, I don't. Thanks for bringing that up. My wife and I spent 30+ large
back in the early 90's trying to have them. In vitro, fertility drugs,
copulation by the numbers, yada. All on our coin.

If so your lineage dies with you.

In my case, yes. Don't cheer, my brother and sisters are doing a fine job
of keeping the trunk of the tree branching.

If not you are condemning them to live a far worse world than you live
in.

Actually the activists that want to use global warming to kill economic
growth are at the ones trying hard to condem them to a far worser life.

My brother has his child in a private school where his wife teaches. They
have the joy of paying via property taxes for the public school system that
will they will not use to avoid having their child indoctrinated by some NEA
union leftist teacher.

The current leftist liberal is a nothing more than a group think dictatorial
interest group. I believe in freedom.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wayne C. Gramlich" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

[much snippage]

I have some knowledge of statistics and modeling, but climate models are
so far over my head that I wouldn't hazard a guess. We know that models
are widely misused. Which ones are misused is a matter of opinion --
among people who really understand climate models. I don't, and I don't
know anyone who does.

[much snippage]

Firstly, I doubt if either of us would know what claims of climatologists
are founded or not. You're certainly not going to find out by reading the
pretenders and dabblers you've listed above. Secondly, a healthy
skepticism is a good thing. But it can easily become unhealthy. One can
be skeptical without throwing his hat in with the anti-warming fringe.

[much snippage]

I lurk on rec.crafts.metalworking and rarely post, mostly because
I do not have anything constructive to add to the various metalworking
and non-metalworking threads.

With regards to the topic of global warming, I came to the conclusion
that I knew very little about it. Trying to educate myself on the
topic is difficult because most of the papers are only available in
journals that require expensive subscriptions. Access to a university
grade library is pretty much required to obtain access to most of the
climate science papers. Even if I have access to the papers, they
are difficult to read and understand without a fairly extensive
knowledge of what is going on.

What to do?

Eventually I ran across a couple of web sites that actively discuss
the various climatology papers. The web site:

http://www.realclimate.org/

is very much in the pro AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) and contains
posts by main stream climatology scientists.

Another site is:

http://www.climateaudit.org

which tends to perform in depth analysis of climatology papers. This
site does not have a specific opinion on AGW either pro or con, but it
does have strongly negative opinions about some of the climatology
papers it reviews.

Of the two sites, I find myself reading the 2nd site more regularly,
even though much of the discussion takes place over my head. From
reading the second site, it has become quite clear to me that some
of the scientists in the field of climate science are doing extremely
careful work and that others are sloppy. What is bothersome to me
is that the peer review process seems not to be identify and reject
papers with sloppy analysis in them.

If you have the time, you might want to give the two sites above
some time.

-Wayne

Those are pretty impressive sites, Wayne. Hats off to you for making such an
effort -- and it's clear that a serious effort is required, even with the
aid of that kind of information.

I'll try to absorb some of it but my feeling is that I won't be able to
devote the time required. I have some other research projects going on that
are consuming me. Fortunately for the world, it doesn't matter much what I
think about it. g

Anyone who wants to get serious about understanding it, though, ought to
take a look at those sites you point to.

--
Ed Huntress

Larry Jaques wrote:

Also, Joe *******i of
Accuweather is not a fan of GW(kumbaya).

WOW! Is he still there? He was an undergrad in meteorology and
was on WPSX as one of the "weather weenes" back when I was
in State College. I didn't like his presentation as well as
two of the others, Paul Knight and some other I can't come up
with his name.
It's amazing how a name will pop up and bring back memories.
...lew...

F. George McDuffee wrote:
Even less clear is how these groups obtained their power to run
things, and why the majority of people allow them to continue to
issue and enforce edicts, fiats, ukases, etc. despite their
demonstrated incompetence, arrogance, and venality.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]

Isn't it obvious, "Bread and Circuses".
It keeps getting them returned to office.
...lew...

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
gy.net...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
digy.net...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

What makes you think he's talking about lying? It sounds like the
statement
says you have to get peoples' attention by focusing on the danger,
more
than
you might otherwise do in discussions about the subject. It doesn't
say
*misrepresent*, it says *over-represent*.

So instead of "lying" substitute "exaggerating". Not much difference
AFAIC.

It doesn't say "exaggerating," either. All is says is that the story
about
danger is "over-represented." But compared to what? One writer says
that
Gore meant that getting attention requires a heavy emphasis on the
danger
side of the issue. It doesn't say that one should lie about it. It
doesn't
say that one should exaggerate the level of the danger.

That sounds reasonable in context, doesn't it?

Apparently you see a difference in meaning between "over-represented"
and
"exaggerated".

To me, saying the danger is greater than it is, is exaggerating. Saying
that
it's dangerous first and last, and talking relatively little about
solutions
in between, would be "over representing."

In other words, it means what you want it to mean.

This is a test, Doug, to see if you have any common sense. Here's Al Gore
in
an interview that's going to be committed to print, and you think he means
"we have to wake people up, so we lie about the facts." Is that what you
think he intended?

Here are the common meanings of those terms. Webster's Unabridged
Dictionary's first (non-obsolete) definition for "exaggerate": to enlarge
beyond bounds or the truth. Here's the definition for "overrepresent": to
give excessive representation to.

So, excessive representation means "lying" to you? Or does it mean giving
excessive emphasis? To exaggerate often means to enlarge beyond the truth;
to overrepresent generally means harping on something to excess,
overstating
its importance, perhaps, but not lying about it. And an experienced
politician giving an interview is not likely to tell the audience that he
lies to get peoples' attention.

Right? Or do you just think that everyone but you is a fool?

No, Ed, I just think Al Gore is. And you.

You make up the meaning of words, ignore what the dictionary says, and then
accuse *me* of making up the meanings.

Now, in addition to calling you a fool, I'm calling you a liar. I did no such
thing.

The truth doesn't matter to guys like you, Doug.

That's what the psychologists call "projection", I think.

PLONK

On Sun, 4 May 2008 11:25:33 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

What's your opinion on Easterbrook, Bailey, etc?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook

I don't know of Easterbrook. I see that he's a retired geologist who
apparently has made his fame as a warming-skeptic editorialist. A geologist
commenting on climatology is like a dentist performing heart surgery.

Do you see your own severe biases, Ed? You read three paragraphs
about a guy and then come back with "...who has apparently made his
fame..."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Bailey

I covered Bailey in another message. He has no background in the subject at
all, and he's paid by the CEI to write rants. He apparently is an effective
propagandist but there's no evidence he knows what he's talking about.

He also gathered together a group of scientists who think that the
current group of ecoterrorists who are running the human herd's
emotional trains is full of ****. (my words) See _Earth Report 2000_.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels

Aha. *That* Michaels. He's a contrarian. There's one. g


Peter Huber: Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, columnist for
Forbes, MIT-trained engineer and instructor, Harvard law grad, law
clerk for both Ginsberg and O'Connor.

Are their backgrounds and sciences too flaky for you?

A mechanical engineer and a lawyer. When did you get so warm and fuzzy about
lawyers?

I hate lawyers, but this guy used his intellect to get the law degree
and his common sense to become an engineer and instructor. The man is
brilliant, he spent a year or more researching the subject, and he
wrote a very interesting book, _Hard Green_. Read it!

You pick apart these brilliant men and have nothing to counter with.
Sad.

Ed, when you do research, don't you come across things which you don't
understand, do further research on them to understand them fully, and
then _know_ WTF you're talking about when you write the article? Do
you expect less of these guys?


Ed, do you believe that climate models are functionally accurate?

I don't know. I haven't tried to pick them apart. I doubt if I could if I
tried.

I respectfully submit that you haven't yet read enough about them,
sir.


Can you?

Give me a couple hours or days with 'em and I sure would try.

--
I am Dyslexic of Borg. Prepare to have your arse laminated.
--Troy P, usenet

On Sun, 04 May 2008 13:18:28 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, F.
George McDuffee quickly quoth:

On Sat, 03 May 2008 13:36:53 -0500, nick hull
wrote:
snip
All over they found one sign after another that the climate was
changing and changing very quickly. You would have to be blind not to see
it. Sea ice which should have been abundant when they were there was almost
nonexistent. Natives told them that the climate was turning hot in the
summer like they have never seen before. Yeah, the signs are there for
anyone with a bit of objectivity to see.

The data is clear that ALASKA is warming, less clear about the globe.
The pacific is cooling and it is bigger than alaska.
snip
------------
What is not clear is why the politicians and "beautiful people"
are so concerned about "global warming" which may [or may not] be
due to human activity [correlation is *NOT* causality] but seem
to pay no attention to the socio-economic havoc their "trade" and
monitary/financial policies, which are most definitely under
*THEIR* control, are causing world-wide, from the hops shortages
in the first-world, to the actual food shortages and riots in the
less developed countries.

The economic factor is something the Peter Huber covers well in _Hard
Green_.


Even less clear is how these groups obtained their power to run
things, and why the majority of people allow them to continue to
issue and enforce edicts, fiats, ukases, etc. despite their
demonstrated incompetence, arrogance, and venality.

Don't forget downright wrongness. Paul Ehrlich is an extremely good
example that even being totally wrong all the time means nothing to
the litany these ecoterrorists take to heart. He wrote meaningless
books about the coming deadly overpopulation, the coming deadly dearth
of natural resources, the coming deadly... Yet his name isn't mud and
isn't cursed by Greens, it's endeared and held sacred by them! They're
all Bozos on that bus.

--
I am Dyslexic of Borg. Prepare to have your arse laminated.
--Troy P, usenet

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 May 2008 10:15:26 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

I don't think Al Gore knows enough about climate change to fill a shoebox.
He gets his information from climate scientists, most of whom seem to
favor
his conclusions. But I have no interest in Gore's opinions on the matter
for
the same reason I have no interest in Gunner's opinions about the life
expectancy of Mexicans.

Gore's researcher cherrypicked the data, a 10% sample from what was
out there, and every one supposedly agreed with the other. That ain't
good science, IMNSHO, because so many other of those reports disagree
with those same findings six ways from Sunday.

How do you know this? Did you read everything that's "out there"? Do you
know what everything that's "out there" says, or are you taking someone's
word for it? And, if so, whose word are you taking?

This is the root of our problem, IMO. There is too much to check. And
everyone who's packaging it for us is suspect. The ones I'm most inclined to
believe are the real scientists. It's true, I have a pro-science bias. It's
based on a lifetime of watching them come out right far more often than
their detractors. And the real climate scientists, at least 98% of them,
appear to agree on the basic issues about global warming. So I'll proceed as
if they're correct.


Do you trust the climate models, Ed? Don't you doubt them a bit,
given that it's hard enough even to forecast weather for a full week
in advance?

I have some knowledge of statistics and modeling, but climate models are
so
far over my head that I wouldn't hazard a guess. We know that models are
widely misused. Which ones are misused is a matter of opinion -- among
people who really understand climate models. I don't, and I don't know
anyone who does.

Nor do I, but many of us could tell if a particular model worked if we
asked for a test. Some of the scientists (many of them skeptics whom
I've mentioned) asked those climate-modeling scientists to do some
tests to prove their models worked well. Others complained of GIGO,
not agreeing with the input parameter values. The models don't quite
work due to far too many unknowns. If they can't prove their stuff to
their _own_ people (other scientists), why should -we- believe them?
17,000+ scientists signed the disclaimer about global warming(kumbaya)
being unproven. Granted, some of those names (a few, not many, not
most) were proven to be fakes, but the vast majority were valid.

I don't know how much you know about modeling, so at the risk of belittling
your knowledge of it, and at the greater risk of abusing it by
oversimplification, I'll try to put what I know about it in a nutshell:

1) There is only one sure way to test a model: Use it to make predictions,
and see if those predictions come true. Unfortunately, many of the
predictions made by climate models won't be tested for years.

2) There is an infinite number of models that "predict" the past. That is,
if you're working with historical data, you can produce any number of models
that fit that data.

3) Unfortunately, virtually all models are based on the past. Experience is
the raw material from which models are built. You can't avoid that, except
by hypothesizing events out of your imagination. And such models are rarely
good for anything. So all modeling starts with this Achilles' Heel: mining
the past to predict the future is a very problematic and evolutionary
business. But that's what modelers are doomed to do.

4) There is an arcane body of theory about "testing" models without waiting
for their predicted events. It's as controversial as global warming itself.
It is not for me: I've looked into it and it's over my head. In this case I
*do* happen to know one person who knows what he's talking about regarding
modeling, testing them, and so on. But he doesn't talk to us mortals about
it. We shoot pool and drink beer together, and I try to improve his son's
baseball pitching mechanics, but that's the extent of our conversation. d8-)

While we're on a roll, I'll try to wrap up the rest of what I care to say
about this subject. I don't care about it nearly as much as you appear to
do. Having more physics and economics in my background than earth science,
climate science, or life science, I tend to see it through a physical and
economics microscope. For what little it may be worth, this is what I see:

1) There isn't a damned thing we're going to be able to do about it. Any
fierce effort we may put into it, any attempt to legislate it or to persuade
the public with guilt trips, is bound to fail. Because even a large
reduction in our carbon output is going to be overwhelmed by the increased
fossil fuel consumption by China, India, and the emerging economies of the
world. And when we see them doing it, we won't allow our economy to suffer
by trying to reverse what they're doing. The same applies to Europe. They'll
abandon the whole thing if it hurts them enough in their pocketbooks.

2) The way we're going about implementing new energy technologies will
probably make things worse. The second tier is not wind or solar, biofuels
or nuclear power; it's coal gasification and liquifaction, tar sands, and
shale oil. When oil gets tight, that's what we'll revert to. So will China.
And probably Europe -- at least, Germany and the UK, who both have a lot of
coal. By doing so we will multiply our carbon output by a factor of two to
four per unit of energy. And it's going to happen. There is no way around
it, IMO.

3) Even if we keep discovering more oil, the world's carbon output will
continue to increase because of accelerating demand and consumption.

4) The only thing that will change this is some breakthroughs in technology:
one of the two new, GM-funded biomass liquifaction processes will work, or
Honda's thin-film photovoltaic technologies will be made vastly cheaper to
run, or someone will come up with a revolutionary new battery or fuel cell
for cars. None of these look particularly likely, if not alone, then in
combination with the other things that would be required to make them
significant.

5) The real climate scientists are probably right, based upon the general
accuracy and integrity of scientists in the western world throughout modern
history. If they're 'way wrong, it will be an anomaly and a long shot. I
don't play long shots. I put $2 on the favorite to win. The real scientists
are the favorites.

5) I am an optimist, not a pessimist, and these are my most optimistic
predictions.

So I don't find this subject to be one that I'm going to spend a lot of time
investigating. It's interesting, it's vastly consequential, but I think that
getting excited about it one way or the other is misplaced energy.

Enjoy your pet avocation, however. I'd never discourage anyone from pursuing
an engaging hobby. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 May 2008 12:47:48 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, as I said to Larry, one group that *is* making money is the
contrarian
book writers. Who ever heard of Bjørn Lomborg before he decided it was
all
a
hoax? g

Well, no kidding. Maybe reading contrary arguments, by the glow of the
fireplace taking the chill off the room, appeals to people that would
like
to hear more than just one side of a story.

It seems to appeal to quite a few of them. It's a pretty lucrative segment
of the book business these days.

I wonder how many actually read the first side?

The "first side" (environmentalist loony version) has been crammed
down our throats in newspapers, magazines, books, and TeeVee -daily-
for thirty years now, Ed. How could one have NOT?

The "first side" is the science as it's reported in the professional
journals, as Wayne described. That's the kind of source I use for basic
research on most subjects that involve academic or high-science reporting.
Apparently Wayne has attempted it; few people do. All most people know is
the non-scientists who vulgarize and popularize the professional thinking on
both sides of the issue.

--
Ed Huntress

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

snip


You make up the meaning of words, ignore what the dictionary says, and
then
accuse *me* of making up the meanings.

Now, in addition to calling you a fool, I'm calling you a liar. I did no
such
thing.

Yeah, you did. I laid it out for you, with direct copy-and-paste from
Webster's Unabridged, and you just ignored it and claimed I was making up
the definitions -- again.

You're full of crap, Doug.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 4 May 2008 22:50:25 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 4 May 2008 10:15:26 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

I don't think Al Gore knows enough about climate change to fill a shoebox.
He gets his information from climate scientists, most of whom seem to
favor
his conclusions. But I have no interest in Gore's opinions on the matter
for
the same reason I have no interest in Gunner's opinions about the life
expectancy of Mexicans.

Gore's researcher cherrypicked the data, a 10% sample from what was
out there, and every one supposedly agreed with the other. That ain't
good science, IMNSHO, because so many other of those reports disagree
with those same findings six ways from Sunday.

How do you know this? Did you read everything that's "out there"? Do you
know what everything that's "out there" says, or are you taking someone's
word for it? And, if so, whose word are you taking?

No, I haven't/Someone else's word, primarily/Some of the authors.

Did you watch that set of vids on YouTube which someone posted? It
was over an hour's worth. I'll see if I can scrounge up the URLs.
It sums up a lot of the problems quite handily. From there you do your
research and you may end up like me: Angry about the lies.


This is the root of our problem, IMO. There is too much to check. And
everyone who's packaging it for us is suspect. The ones I'm most inclined to
believe are the real scientists. It's true, I have a pro-science bias. It's
based on a lifetime of watching them come out right far more often than
their detractors. And the real climate scientists, at least 98% of them,
appear to agree on the basic issues about global warming. So I'll proceed as
if they're correct.

That's part of the lie, Ed. There IS no real concensus. Keep digging.
You'll hit the old "AHA!" moment soon.


I don't know how much you know about modeling, so at the risk of belittling
your knowledge of it, and at the greater risk of abusing it by
oversimplification, I'll try to put what I know about it in a nutshell:

1) There is only one sure way to test a model: Use it to make predictions,
and see if those predictions come true. Unfortunately, many of the
predictions made by climate models won't be tested for years.

And the century models take longer still.


2) There is an infinite number of models that "predict" the past. That is,
if you're working with historical data, you can produce any number of models
that fit that data.

3) Unfortunately, virtually all models are based on the past. Experience is
the raw material from which models are built. You can't avoid that, except
by hypothesizing events out of your imagination. And such models are rarely
good for anything. So all modeling starts with this Achilles' Heel: mining
the past to predict the future is a very problematic and evolutionary
business. But that's what modelers are doomed to do.

AFAIK, they're up to the tens of thousands of variable data inputs for
the models now. How'd you like to code THAT little monster?


4) There is an arcane body of theory about "testing" models without waiting
for their predicted events. It's as controversial as global warming itself.
It is not for me: I've looked into it and it's over my head. In this case I
*do* happen to know one person who knows what he's talking about regarding
modeling, testing them, and so on. But he doesn't talk to us mortals about
it. We shoot pool and drink beer together, and I try to improve his son's
baseball pitching mechanics, but that's the extent of our conversation. d8-)

The problem I continue to see is that all of the past-based modeling
is unable to foretell the future with any accuracy. And once they fix
it to be somewhat accurate futurewise, it no longer tracks the past
well. Like I said, from everything I've read about them, they're just
not ready for prime time, yet TRILLIONS of dollars in funding (and bad
planning) is being tossed around from their predictions. It's all
wasted when far more good could come out of the use of those dollars.
Those are life and death funds.


While we're on a roll, I'll try to wrap up the rest of what I care to say
about this subject. I don't care about it nearly as much as you appear to
do. Having more physics and economics in my background than earth science,
climate science, or life science, I tend to see it through a physical and
economics microscope. For what little it may be worth, this is what I see:

1) There isn't a damned thing we're going to be able to do about it. Any

True.


fierce effort we may put into it, any attempt to legislate it or to persuade
the public with guilt trips, is bound to fail. Because even a large
reduction in our carbon output is going to be overwhelmed by the increased
fossil fuel consumption by China, India, and the emerging economies of the
world. And when we see them doing it, we won't allow our economy to suffer
by trying to reverse what they're doing. The same applies to Europe. They'll
abandon the whole thing if it hurts them enough in their pocketbooks.

Let's hope so.


2) The way we're going about implementing new energy technologies will
probably make things worse. The second tier is not wind or solar, biofuels
or nuclear power; it's coal gasification and liquifaction, tar sands, and
shale oil. When oil gets tight, that's what we'll revert to. So will China.
And probably Europe -- at least, Germany and the UK, who both have a lot of
coal. By doing so we will multiply our carbon output by a factor of two to
four per unit of energy. And it's going to happen. There is no way around
it, IMO.

If ever we needed fusion, it's now! I'm sure wind and solar will
continue to gain ground but won't make much of a dent until we find
super-efficient nanolights and nanoengines to reduce the power
requirements.


3) Even if we keep discovering more oil, the world's carbon output will
continue to increase because of accelerating demand and consumption.

'Ayup. Asia ain't even begun yet.


4) The only thing that will change this is some breakthroughs in technology:
one of the two new, GM-funded biomass liquifaction processes will work, or
Honda's thin-film photovoltaic technologies will be made vastly cheaper to
run, or someone will come up with a revolutionary new battery or fuel cell
for cars. None of these look particularly likely, if not alone, then in
combination with the other things that would be required to make them
significant.

Since PV has been gaining efficiency by the bucketloads every few
years, I'll bet it continues on until it's ubiquitous.


5) The real climate scientists are probably right, based upon the general
accuracy and integrity of scientists in the western world throughout modern
history. If they're 'way wrong, it will be an anomaly and a long shot. I
don't play long shots. I put $2 on the favorite to win. The real scientists
are the favorites.

As many of the skeptics have said, man continues to find clever ways
around his predicaments. Better fertilizers, mechanization, and land
management blew the threat of overpopulation away, etc.


5) I am an optimist, not a pessimist, and these are my most optimistic
predictions.

I'm much more optimistic now than I used to be, but I need to nurture
that curmudgeon, too, so...


So I don't find this subject to be one that I'm going to spend a lot of time
investigating. It's interesting, it's vastly consequential, but I think that
getting excited about it one way or the other is misplaced energy.

I'm sure you're right, but someone's gotta do it.


Enjoy your pet avocation, however. I'd never discourage anyone from pursuing
an engaging hobby. d8-)

Danke.

--
I am Dyslexic of Borg. Prepare to have your arse laminated.
--Troy P, usenet

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


And who would that be, Wes?

Unclear

Well, as I said to Larry, one group that *is* making money is the
contrarian
book writers. Who ever heard of Bjørn Lomborg before he decided it was all
a
hoax? g

The same people who knew who the author Michael Weiner (Savage) was before
he became a right wing talk radio talker?

Hawke

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 May 2008 11:25:33 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..

What's your opinion on Easterbrook, Bailey, etc?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook

I don't know of Easterbrook. I see that he's a retired geologist who
apparently has made his fame as a warming-skeptic editorialist. A
geologist
commenting on climatology is like a dentist performing heart surgery.

Do you see your own severe biases, Ed? You read three paragraphs
about a guy and then come back with "...who has apparently made his
fame..."

Well, that's all you gave me to work with, and that's what it said. I read
the NYT piece that the Wikipedia item points to, in which he's quoted, and
the abstract of the talk he gave on the subject to the Geological Society of
America. He uses geological data to show that other warming cycles have
occurred without the implication of CO2, and concludes from them that CO2
cannot explain those cycles. But the abstract does not imply that he has any
information from which to draw conclusions about the climatic effects of
large increases in CO2. This is a very curious kind of skepticism about the
effects of CO2, IMO.

Do you have more paragraphs about him I should read? I think the question is
whether these people really have the credentials to make expert judgments
about the climate science itself, right? I mean, that *was* the issue,
correct?

What's you're coming up with is a bunch of those people that we so often
make fun of, who think their expertise in one field qualifies them to
pontificate in others. Easterbrook does *not* conclude in those references
that human-produced CO2 cannot cause warming, only that it hasn't in the
geologic history. He is, after all, a geologist, not a climatologist. So why
is he called a "skeptic," if he makes no attempt to be skeptical about the
climatological claims about what is happening *now*?

It seems that he is not challenging the basic points that Gore made, only
some of the details. I can appreciate that the devil is in the details on
this subject. I just haven't seen anything from him, in my cursory checking,
to indicate he challenges the general picture of human-induced global
warming at this time in history. He points to other climatological cycles
that have caused warming and cooling, but so do the real climatologists.
Their job is to separate the noise from the trend. He just points out the
noise.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Bailey

I covered Bailey in another message. He has no background in the subject
at
all, and he's paid by the CEI to write rants. He apparently is an
effective
propagandist but there's no evidence he knows what he's talking about.

He also gathered together a group of scientists who think that the
current group of ecoterrorists who are running the human herd's
emotional trains is full of ****. (my words) See _Earth Report 2000_.

A Curmudgeon's Convention, huh? g I don't know what's supposed to be
significant about that. Apparently you're impressed by it. Good enough, then
it must be impressive.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels

Aha. *That* Michaels. He's a contrarian. There's one. g


Peter Huber: Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, columnist for
Forbes, MIT-trained engineer and instructor, Harvard law grad, law
clerk for both Ginsberg and O'Connor.

Are their backgrounds and sciences too flaky for you?

A mechanical engineer and a lawyer. When did you get so warm and fuzzy
about
lawyers?

I hate lawyers, but this guy used his intellect to get the law degree
and his common sense to become an engineer and instructor. The man is
brilliant, he spent a year or more researching the subject, and he
wrote a very interesting book, _Hard Green_. Read it!

No thanks. I have other things to read. Right now I'm reading _Bad Money:
Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American
Capitalism_, by Kevin Phillips. It's a real mood-lifter. Read it!


You pick apart these brilliant men and have nothing to counter with.
Sad.

That's the way it goes. Having only one life to lead and having been given
only 24 hours in my days, I find I have nothing to counter most things in
life. That's life, I guess. I'll just have choose whether to put my chips on
the scientists and to turn my back on the brilliant lawyers, or the other
way around. Sad.

Add to that the fact that the older I get, the less I'm able to be
impressed. I've known a lot of brilliant people who are full of crap.
Nothing impresses me much these days. I've grown unimpressible. g


Ed, when you do research, don't you come across things which you don't
understand, do further research on them to understand them fully, and
then _know_ WTF you're talking about when you write the article? Do
you expect less of these guys?

I've known and worked with too many writers over the last 35 years to be
impressed by the way most writers handle the facts. You could call it *my*
skepticism. When you tell me that someone like Huber spent a whole year
studying the subject, my eyes roll back in my head. The real scientists have
spent, in many cases, 20 or 30 years. And they do it full time.



Ed, do you believe that climate models are functionally accurate?

I don't know. I haven't tried to pick them apart. I doubt if I could if I
tried.

I respectfully submit that you haven't yet read enough about them,
sir.

I'll have to await your illumination on the subject. I've worked with
econometric models. I've seen the water get deep before you get far from
shore. If you have a handle on the "functional accuracy" of climatological
models, more power to you.


Can you?

Give me a couple hours or days with 'em and I sure would try.

OK. Let us know how it comes out.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, as I said to Larry, one group that *is* making money is the
contrarian
book writers. Who ever heard of Bjørn Lomborg before he decided it was
all a
hoax? g

Well, no kidding. Maybe reading contrary arguments, by the glow of the
fireplace taking the chill off the room, appeals to people that would like
to hear more than just one side of a story.

Wes

You'd probably like to hear the story about the KKK being a great
humanitarian group and not hating blacks too, right?

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 May 2008 13:41:18 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..

Another quote from Algore is "I believe it is appropriate to have an
over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous [global
warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to
what the solutions are." So, it's OK to lie so you can set up the
suckers for buying into your carbon credit scam?

What makes you think he's talking about lying? It sounds like the
statement
says you have to get peoples' attention by focusing on the danger, more
than
you might otherwise do in discussions about the subject. It doesn't say
*misrepresent*, it says *over-represent*.

I'm curious, Larry. Is the idea that he's suggesting lying your own
idea,
or
something you read somewhere?

It's everyone's idea, Ed. He's a politician. But, yes, I was wary
about his ecological statements all the way back in '96. Once I read
what he had said and written, I knew it was lies, half truths, and
deceptions. Do you note the fact that he is now selling carbon
credits? His little movie and book were good sales material, weren't
they? Do you believe his statements, despite that the gullible Brits,
worse eco nuts than us, required nine separate sections of his book
and movie to have discalimers put on them before allowing them to be
shown in their schools? Do you doubt that he cherry-picked his 900
out of 9000 articles which "proved concensus" of the particular
theories he was trying to push?

I don't think Al Gore knows enough about climate change to fill a shoebox.
He gets his information from climate scientists, most of whom seem to
favor
his conclusions. But I have no interest in Gore's opinions on the matter
for
the same reason I have no interest in Gunner's opinions about the life
expectancy of Mexicans.


Do you trust the climate models, Ed? Don't you doubt them a bit,
given that it's hard enough even to forecast weather for a full week
in advance?

I have some knowledge of statistics and modeling, but climate models are
so
far over my head that I wouldn't hazard a guess. We know that models are
widely misused. Which ones are misused is a matter of opinion -- among
people who really understand climate models. I don't, and I don't know
anyone who does.


One more Algorism: "Scientist have an independent obligation to
respect and present the truth as they see it."

"...as they see it"?!

Yeah, as they see it. That's as opposed to, say, the current
administration's scientists, who present the truth as their neocon
bosses
see it.

While there may be some neocon scientists, the rest of the skeptics
are apolitical/global in origin. Bjorn Lomborg is from Denmark, etc.
As Crichton warned, it's dangerous to politicize science.

Crichton, who is not a scientist, vulgarizes science and technology for a
living. That's what I did for most of my career as well, in my own little
way. I could tell you a lot about how that's done, what it's all about,
why
it often misses the mark, and so on. But I won't bore you with it. You can
read my book about it if I ever write it. d8-)


Here's a thought from somebody who's been in the publishing business for
a
large part of his working life, and who has written chapters of several
technical books: If you want to sell books, be a contrarian.

Have you read any of the skeptics' books? Are they all just neocons or
contrarians to you? Are you giving them a fair shot, or just hanging
in with the liberals who automatically label as "junk science"
anything which comes into disagreement with their ideas, as flaky as
they are?

I think I gave Lomborg a fair shot. He's very convincing. That is, he can
convince people who know nothing about climate science. I know nothing
about
climate science. Do you?



On a subject like global warming you have two choices: The obvious one
is
to
go with the overwhelming majority of the science and write a book that
says
we're in for man-made global warming. Unfortunately, you'll have about a
thousand other books to compete with that say the same thing. Nobody
will
notice your book unless you already are famous.

Or, write a contrarian book. People who don't like the idea of global
warming will scoop it off the shelves; you'll become famous enough that
non-experts will actually remember your name; and you'll make one hell
of
a
lot more money.

I'd rather have an author, especially a science author, write the
truth. Wouldn't you? Read Lomborg, Huber, Michaels, Horner, and
Bailey, then tell me that you still believe in Global
Warming(kumbaya). I'll bet that you won't.

Lomborg is a political scientist with no background in physical science of
any kind.

I don't know which Huber you're talking about.

I don't know who Michaels is.

Horner is a litigation attorney in Washington and a lawyer for the
right-wing Competitive Enterprise Institute. Besides dabbling in the
environment (he generally opposes it g), he speaks on rail deregulation
and unfunded pension liability. No science background whatsoever.

Bailey, like Horner, is paid by the CEI. He's a television producer and
writer with a background in philosophy and economics. No science
background
whatsoever. For what little it's worth, Bailey recently said that he
believes Al Gore got the science mostly right -- as if Bailey would
actually
know.

Why do you believe these pretenders, cranks, and dabblers, Larry? Have you
ever read what real climatologists have to say about it?


Lowell Ponte (_The Cooling_, 1976) had the right idea but he just jumped
the
gun. If he published that book today he'd be the darling of the warming
skeptics. He didn't know any more than climatologists know today --
actually, a lot less. But he could cherry-pick some facts with the best
of
them and feed the paranoid mindset who just wants to believe they're
being
lied to by all but a tiny minority of the world's climate experts.

How are we paranoid if we disbelieve the unfounded rants? Besides,
science was founded on skepticism. It's an integral part of it.

Firstly, I doubt if either of us would know what claims of climatologists
are founded or not. You're certainly not going to find out by reading the
pretenders and dabblers you've listed above. Secondly, a healthy
skepticism
is a good thing. But it can easily become unhealthy. One can be skeptical
without throwing his hat in with the anti-warming fringe.



At your request, I read Crichton's _State of Fear_, which was a fun read
in
the typical Crichton techno-style. But it wasn't very convincing. I went
looking for some rebuttals and found them all over the place. The first
one
I found gave me an idea of what Crichton was doing: he claimed that
there
were large increases in floating ice chunks and bergs around Antartica.
The
rebuttal (by a climate scientist) said, essentially, "duh...yeah, that's
what happens when floating ice sheets are breaking up -- the chunks
float
around until they melt." This was backed up by some satellite photos
showing
that the floating sheet had shrunk during the period Crichton was
talking
about.

I don't recall him saying that, and I don't see it in his Author's
Message at the end. I belive it was someone else saying it. He's savvy
enough to have grasped that summer ice melting concept.

The "someone else" was one of his fictional characters, the one who was
obviously Crichton's surrogate. He said it as I represented it. The story
about CO2 percentages and the football field was the same kind of
nonsense,
calculated to appeal to the logic of the climate ignoramuses among us --
which is to say, almost all of his audience.



So it's easy to be misled. No one here, I'm sure, has the knowledge to
evaluate the basic claims, nor to compare things that Crichton et al.
said
versus those said by, say, Al Gore.

I certainly don't. And I don't know anyone who does. But there's no
shortage
of people who claim they have strong reasons to believe one way or the
other. I wouldn't even attempt to judge them, but I'm really curious
about
one thing: What lies behind their inclination to believe one way or the
other? I'm particularly curious about the mindset and the mental
processes
of the people who believe the contrarians. That's why I like talking to
you.
d8-)

I'm really surprised that you're not with me on this one, Ed.

I'm not with you, but I'm still interested in how you think. You've really
aligned yourself with the tiny minority, and most of them have no science
background. Yet, you're deeply skeptical of the real scientists, who,
except
for a miniscule percentage, line up on the other side of the equation.

For some reason you've decided that mainstream science is wrong, and the
dabblers are right. I still find that very curious.

I don't know why you would find that curious. All those who lean to the
right politically are disbelievers, deniers, and skeptics of anything coming
from what they consider "left wing" sources. Al Gore is one of these, in
fact he symbolizes the left to them. Therefore, anything said by him is
automatically suspect. The flip side of this inability to believe anything
from the left is that they automatically accept whatever the other side says
is true. Even as you have ably pointed out that the anti global warming
advocates have no expertise in the area whatsoever that doesn't matter to
them. It boils down to the that they are the kind of people who can only
believe what their "side" tells them is right. You see this in religion all
the time. The followers accept anything their leaders tell them and reject
everything else they hear. Larry is a right wing guy and as you would expect
automatically thinks anything from a left wing source has to be wrong. He's
not exactly unique in this. Why do you think all the people who say there is
no global warming and it's a hoax just happen to be right wingers? It's no
coincidence. To them it's the "left" who says humans are responsible for
heating up the planet. To the right wing set that means it has to be wrong.
Nothing you can say will change their minds either.

Hawke