[at-l] Cold. Gonna get colder.
jim.bullard at gmail.com
Sun Jan 10 10:42:40 CST 2010
Well Jim what I saw in his paper was a batch of allegations, basically
saying the opposite of most of I've been reading about climate change,
without a single source to back up what he saying. No references, no links,
no charts, no data, just "they're wrong, I'm an expert and I say so". The
basis for his authority? He has a PhD and is an IPCC reviewer. It takes very
little effort to find that his area of expertise is oil exploration and
equally little to find that he is one (1) of 2500 IPCC draft reviewers.
Given those facts I'd like to see more than just his say-so to throw out
what the reports I've read (including the IPCC reports) are saying.
And exactly why is it "sliming" him to point out that he spent his career in
oil exploration, not climate study? It is a simple fact.
I fully expect that there is and will be disagreement on climate change,
even among the IPCC 3800 or so lead authors, contributing authors and
reviewers, but when I see a rebuttal by just one of the reviewers that
stands in stark contrast to the majority I have to wonder where he's coming
from. If a career in oil exploration is a more appropriate background for
judging climate change data in your estimation than the majority of the
other scientists involved then I can see why you would accept his view over
the others. It is not a background that trumps the majority in my
estimation. It is a minority POV.
I find in 'interesting' Jim that you quote his credentials as a geologist
(there are many types of geologists with very different specialties) as
evidence of his expertise yet in the next breath dismiss those who are
climatologists. Their credentials don't count? You also assume that I know
nothing of the topic. Like you I am a self learner and I don't broadcast to
the list all that I know. I know enough to look at a the source of contrary
statements and ask "Is where this person coming from coloring his/her
FWIW I don't believe everything I read from Al Gore & company but I also
don't believe everything contrarians say in dismissal of global warming,
especially when it is not accompanied by evidence. You say that it is all
backed up by evidence and I should accept your word for it that Dr.
Gerhard's word is better than the majority. Sorry. I need better than that.
The polar ice cap *is* melting. Whether man is the cause and to what degree
is open to debate and I'm reading/listening but "I'm an expert and I say so"
is not evidence. YMMV
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Jim and_or Ginny Owen <
spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> *In other words, he's not a climatologist, he's an oil man.*
> That's one of the dumbest copouts ever used in these arguments.
> Rajendra Pachauri is not a climatologist, he's a railroad engineer.
> Jim Hansen is not a climatologist, he's an astropysicist.
> Al Gore is not a climatologist, he's a failed divinity student.
> VERY few "climatologists" are actually climatologists. Most of them
> are computer nerds. If you want a real climatologist, try Roger Pielke,
> You're not a climatologist, you're a retired state government worker.
> But you're willing to slime the author of something you don't like rather
> than counter the arguments he presents. Even though his credentials
> (geologist/IPCC expert reviewer) say he knows whereof he speaks. In fact,
> as a geologist, he necessarily knows more about the geologic processes,
> the history and the evidence concerning climate change than many of
> those who call themselves climatologists. IOW, he's far better qualified
> to judge what it is and what it isn't than many of those who call
> climatologists, but whose only real qualification comes from a "climate
> (computer program).
> I'm not a climatologist, I'm an engineer with a 40+ year background in
> atmospheric science courtesy of NASA and the atmospheric scientists
> that I worked with. And a 10 year self-taught education in climatology
> because of the obvious lies promulgated by the IPCC/AGW community.
> I've also spent the last 5 years getting an educaton in archeology - and
> finding/confirming massive amounts of evidence that the IPCC/AGW community
> is either ignorant or just plain lying - your choice.
> Everything in that paper *IS* supported by the available science. If it
> I wouldn't have posted the link.
> So .....What part of that paper do you believe is wrong? And why?
> Where's YOUR science? If you can't counter the science, then
> you're just wasting bandwidth.
> Walk softly - and don't argue about things you don't know anything about,
> Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 22:48:30 -0500
> Subject: Re: [at-l] Cold. Gonna get colder.
> From: jim.bullard at gmail.com
> To: spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com
> CC: at-l at backcountry.net; nightwalker.at at gmail.com
> *Lee C. Gerhard*
> *Research and Background* Gerhard is a retired geologist<http://www.aapg.org/explorer/1999/09sep/pres_elect.cfm>from the University of Kansas. He has government and industry experience in
> petroleum exploration, research and exploration program management, oil and
> gas regulation and reservoir geology. According to a search of 22,000
> academic journals, Gerhard has published 13 research articles in
> peer-reviewed journals, mainly on the subject of resource geology in the oil
> and gas sector.
> In other words, he's not a climatologist, he's an oil man.
> Jim Bullard
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Jim and_or Ginny Owen <
> spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> The Frozenwalker wrote:
> >It's called global climate change. Those who don't know the difference
> >between weather and climate should just try not to sound silly. I'm just sayin...
> A couple comments:
> 1. Keep in mind that "climate change" goes both ways, hot - and cold. It's gone
> both ways for the last several billion years.
> 2. "Weather" is when it happens once (or twice). The third time it's not weather -
> it's climate. This is not the first (or second) world-wide "cold snap" in the
> last few years.
> 3. Some interesting reading (notice that the author is an IPCC expert reviewer) -
> 4. That's all I have to say about that. This is NOT the place for this kind of
> discussion. See me at the SoRuck or PA Ruck if you want to discuss the science.
> Walk softly - and stay warm,
> at-l mailing list
> at-l at backcountry.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the at-l