[at-l] Cold. Gonna get colder.

giniajim jplynch at crosslink.net
Sun Jan 10 11:52:12 CST 2010

The paper also contained statements that have little if any relevance and can be treated as red herrings.  Things that make you say: "so?".
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jim Bullard 
  To: Jim and_or Ginny Owen 
  Cc: at-l 
  Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 11:42 AM
  Subject: Re: [at-l] Cold. Gonna get colder.

  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 opinion?".

  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

  Jim Bullard

  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, Sr. 
    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 themselves 
    climatologists, but whose only real qualification comes from a "climate model" 
    (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 wasn't 
    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 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) -  http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/fact_based_climate_debate/ 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, Jim http://www.spiriteaglehome.com/

      at-l mailing list
      at-l at backcountry.net


  at-l mailing list
  at-l at backcountry.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://patsy.hack.net/pipermail/at-l/attachments/20100110/ec911b61/attachment.html 

More information about the at-l mailing list