Nick -
>> <Nick> You claim to have interpreted the "facts" but your postings reveal that you are not looking at facts, you are looking at what the deniers tell you are the facts - these people are lying to you - frequently, relentlessly, blatantly. </Nick> Where the heck are you getting that from my posts? I don't read much from "deniers" (sounds very political and I like to avoid that), but this exchange here on Vortex has inspired me to take a closer look at their material. I said the models upon which AGW rests are critically flawed. I noticed that long before anybody told me that because this was something I knew about first hand. Subsequently I noticed that others who had better credential than mine were picking up on the same theme. Are people lying about the ice and CO2 and other historical records? I base my position an interpretation of facts that is primarily my own, but it is shared by a significant minority of scientists have arrived at similar conclusions based on those facts. We all are for the most part working off the same data set. There's been discrepancies in temperature readings in the past that have been well documented, but much of what my argument is based on goes to the ice and fossil record. >> <Nick> It comes down to this. You seem to have a BELIEF, that has little genuine scientific credibility, massaged and encouraged by professional liars and deceivers that we are not screwing up the climate. </Nick> I founded my position on the science as I stated above and have referred to those facts in the thread. Your perception that I'm basing them on belief despite facts is simply wrong. I've made attempts to present my case as clearly and as briefly as possible and I've stated the facts connection with them. Do you understand this? It's only belief in that it's a conclusion that I hold based on facts I know about now. I have no goal in mind! I don't work for the oil or tobacco companies or George Bush or Blackwater or Haliburton or the Christian Coalition for Extremist Right Wing Nationalist Policy or whatever! I don't care if the outcome IS that AGW is proven, in fact I would have to admit that I would indeed favor that outcome instead because it would give us a handle on what would otherwise be hopelessly out of our control - but unfortunately... Do you see? I actually *wish* I could be with you on this but the facts and the inescapable conclusion based on those facts prevents me from doing so. I'm honest and fair. I have no political or economical or National ego interest in the outcome, only an interest in the discovery of the truth. >> <Nick> Then there are those who have a BELIEF, backed up by the most credible scientific knowledge we have that there is a very strong chance that we are indeed screwing up the climate. If we weigh the various opinions, yours is of less worth because, by looking at the consequences of the various beliefs, reckless or cautious, we can easily ascertain what to do about greenhouse gases. You have no right to risk everybody else futures with your over-confident view. I know you are American, but Christ does your national ego know no limits? </Nick> I have no right, you say? Perhaps you would be among those who would take away my right to disagree if you were given the chance to wield such power? Time for a little introspection I think, Nick. I would have to say that yours is the overconfident view that proposes to wreck everyone's future by destroying economies and liberty (including free speech, apparently) with hopelessly unnecessary government restrictions and programs aimed at a non-existent problem, which would additionally steal money and effort from real problems. An error in the wrong column doubles the magnitude of the error. If we could in reality address the problem, then perhaps the efforts would be worth it. That would be another debate. You're overconfident because yours is a belief founded in an absence of facts to support the CO2 theory. And you reveal, at last, that your reaction to my postings is indeed rooted in unfortunate belief that I'm writing these thing out of some crazy "national ego", and you reveal a lurking desire to silence criticism! Nick, you are soooo far off base here I can't ...I just don't know how to proceed. I present my facts, present the logical conclusions to those facts, and present cases of scientific agreement regarding that interpretation. That's all a man in my position can do. If you think that this is anything but what I've just stated, then ... I just don't know. I've said my piece. - Rick
