[at-l] Cold. Gonna get colder. - LONG
Jim and_or Ginny Owen
spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com
Sun Jan 10 18:51:09 CST 2010
Let's start with this - I said up front that this wasn't the forum for this discussion. Once again,
YOU are the one who wants continue the conversation. So be it - I had my hike today.
>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".
He wasn't writing that for you. He was writing a summary of the present state of the science
for people who actually have some understanding of what it's about. If you have questions
and want the references, links, etc, ask me. I'll be happy to supply them. If you don't have
questions, then I have no irresistable desire to educate you.
>The basis for his authority? He has a PhD and is an IPCC reviewer.
Note to self - snark is unnecessary when dealing with the uneducated.
>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
>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.
Not sure why it is that I'm not surprised that you don't understand that. But I'm not. So...
How is it that you don't understand that what you did is SOP for those who are too lazy,
uneducated or biased to actually answer the content of the message. So they dehumanize
the messenger by claiming that having EVER worked in, with or around any oil company makes
the messenger not credible, stupid, biased or otherwise unfit to express an opinion on the
subject. Intellectually dishonest - and stupid.
Now the question becomes - why do you care?
>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
What 3800 lead authors, contributing authors and reviewers? You've inflated that number by at
least 50%. And reality is that the actual number of people involved with the final report is far less.
If you've only seen ONE dissenting scientist, then you really haven't been paying attention. I've
seen dozens, if not hundreds - including lead authors who've quit the process in protest against
the bias and dishonesty involved. You need to learn more about the actual IPCC process.
>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.
Of course, you're welcome to your uneducated opinion. But a career in oil exploration does
not make one stupid - or unfit to understand science -or any more biased than a career
in state government or environmentalism.
>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?
I won't mess with "his" credentials but I will mention that there are a lot of mainstream
"climatologists" who rate little or no respect. You have apparently entirely missed the Climategate
scandal. Allow me to point you to some places to start:
This is a more recent analysis of the situation (in 2 parts) -
This is an analysis of the the email dump with access to the other documents as well:
If you want to do the basic research on Climategate yourself, this is a searchable data base of
the email dump:
In case you haven't figured it out, I'm not gonna lead you through the 1000+ emails and the
nauseatingly horrific code. BTDT
Finally, you obviously don't know about it, but two of the principal actors in the climate
science/IPCC/AGW alarmist camp (Phil Jones, director of the UK CRU and Michael Mann,
inventor of the infamoous hockey stick so beloved of the AGW crowd) are presently under
investigation by their respective organizations with respect to their parts in the corruption
of the scientific process. There are others who should be indicted with them.
Oh, while we're on the subject, Rajendra Pachauri is now under fire due to conflict of interest:
Or maybe you'd be interested in the"Wang affair"?
You want the answer to your question? Read .....
If you can read all that and not understand the depth of the corruption of climate science
then you may be unsalvageable.
>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?".
I don't have to "assume" anything about your level of knowledge on the subject. You keep
on vividly illustrating your level of knowledge every time you write.
>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
That's a beginning. But it's JUST a beginning. You're not sceptical enough.
>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.
I said no such thing. That would be "unscientific" - and I don't do that. One of the reasons
I'm a sceptic is the alarmist insistence that THEY are right, that the science is "settled" and
anyone who disagrees is a "denialist". My view is expressed by the following quote:
>I am suspicious of any ontological system that claims to deliver unchallengeable truths. The extent
>to which scientists claim to have delivered such certainty is the extent to which they have perverted
>the real purpose of science, which is above all a rigorous but open-minded and dynamic system of inquiry.
> From – “Hunting Down the Universe” by Michael Hawkins
>Sorry. I need better than that.
Good. But you also need better sources of information cause you're headed off in the wrong direction.
>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
Bull hockey. First, you might want to start with this article to get some perspective on the matter.
Then - WHICH ice cap? The North ice cap is doing fine, thank you. You can follow its progress here:
Watch it for a year and then tell me if it's really melting.
But this is the latest news that you won't find in the NYT:
Can we quit this now? I'm tired and I have other things to do with my life.
And I'm probably gonna get attacked privately again.
Walk softly, but don't slip on the ice age -
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the at-l