On 04/12/2007, at 9:19 AM, Mike Borgelt wrote: > Did you actually read the paper?
Absolutely yes. And you're not the first person to refer me to it either. > There's a very short summary here by David Evans, who used to be a > believer and even made his living at it > http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf That's nice. He even cites Monckton, which is lovingly self- referential. > Just look at the data. Here's the thing, Mike: Generally speaking, the scientists who are looking at this stuff, who are often quite a bit smarter than I am, are "just look[ing] at the data." As absurd as it may sound, some of them are smarter than you too. :-) While challenging each other to "just look at the data," they can't agree. In any group of highly respected climate scientists, half of them will be dead wrong, and history will plot out their legacy in the same way that it records flogiston and ether. They're all looking at different bits of the data, and they're all coming up with frankly absurd computational models to predict climactic behaviour. Until one of them can accurately predict what's going to happen more than 5 years ahead, _none_ of them are worth listening to. So here's my take: Acknowledging that I'm not smart enough to be authoritative on this, I'm not drawing conclusions and am keeping an open mind. That is, after all, what's required of a skeptical enquirer, right? Another thing that's required of a skeptical enquirer is to question sources, and that's what I've done with Monckton. If _you_ were a proper skeptic, you'd be doing the same, just like I'm guessing you do with Mann's hockey stick and the IPCC, and comparing sea level rise predictions with observed sea levels. It strikes me that by only criticising the positions you disagree with, you've probably formed some conclusions which the science is not yet capable of supporting. Monckton's record paints him as someone who's unbalanced enough to carry a taint even without considering the funding he receives from the petrochemical industry. If the science supporting your position is anywhere near as strong as you claim it is, you should be able to find a better advocate than him. That is all. Carry on. - mark -------------------------------------------------------------------- I tried an internal modem, [EMAIL PROTECTED] but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton ----- Voice: +61-4-1620-2223 ------------- Fax: +61-8-82231777 ----- _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
