Re: Snow on Memorial Day

On May 23, 5:49 pm, Wildepad <Wildepad> wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 18:05:03 -0400, PJ <authores...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Wildepad wrote:
You might also want to look at a short list of some of the scientists and former scientists who have put their jobs and reputations on the line to refute the hoax:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstre....>

You want credibility, you're gonna have to quote something besides
wikipedia, Bud.

While the selection of who to include and who to exclude can be
biased, and the credibility of the presentation can be questioned, the
fact that those people said and/or took the positions indicated is
substantiated by the cites.

some of whom I personally interviewed for my books. I'll be glad to post
my "interview with author" cites. You got "interview with author" cites?

Cites are listed on the page I referenced. That's what those little
numbers in brackets after the quote means -- you can go to a list at
the end of the article and see where the quote came from.

Also, what makes "interview with author" so special? Everyone in the
public eye knows that very little of themselves or their beliefs come
across accurately -- how the questions are phrased, what parts of the
answers are selected, and especially which quotes end up in the final
copy all reflect the interviewer's bias.

Much better cites are those from works published by the scientist,
where they were free to present their statements outside the framework
of a possibly biased question.

But if you just have to have an "interview with author" quote handed
to you on a silver plate:

Reid A. Bryson (widely recognized as one of the world's leading
climatologists, lauded by everyone from the UN to NOAA):

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is
absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of
one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You
can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling
carbon dioxide.

<http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html>
(Hint: if you click on the link, you'll see the article which contains
the quote.)

Methinks the only thing you're really, truly interested in is hearing
yourself blather.

Since you have no answer for the serious statements, you attack the
person stating it. That's really unbiased.

Which is why you do all those posts asking questions
and don't respond to half of the people who answer.

I respond to every meaningful answer from reasonable people which
shows up on my server. Always have, always will.


I did not know there was a mandate t o respond to every tom *** and
harry who posts an inane comment. I only customarily respond to the
people I like: Hope, Skip, Boots, pj, John the idiot and of course
Ray the Genius.

If I responded to everyone who comments on my insightful writing I
would be up half the night. And, of course, that is not practical
because I have a daytime life.

--Well Hung, (note comma)
.

Loading