Re: Gunner's Status


"Ed Huntress" <huntres23@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4986fb11$0$25441$607ed4bc@xxxxxxxxx

"Buerste" <Buerste@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:TSwhl.10104$pr6.4004@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Ed Huntress" <huntres23@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4986813e$0$17998$607ed4bc@xxxxxxxxx
<snip>
Well, you know how I feel about the Global Warming(kumbaya) scam. I
still can't understand how anyone with two synapses firing can fall for
it. Oh, I think I just got the answer.

Between Dr. Tom and Dr. Larry, we seem to have all major forms of denial
covered except for the health hazards of smoking, the Earth traveling
around the sun, and the holocaust.

'Good to have you with us, doctors. It's a relief not to have to believe
anything so inconvenient, and to have such outstanding experts to help
us discredit 90% of the world's top climate scientists.

I can't wait to re-read your PhD. dissertations.


And I always gave you credit for firing synapses! AGW is not a voting
issue for and by scientists...

The legitimate climatologists appear to have weighed in and they would
disagree.

The fact that the AGW folks refuse to use the "Scientific Method" and
refuse to debate the issue is what frightens me the most.

I have no idea what you're talking about here but it sounds like a
cock-and-bull story.

And, they push the "We're taking control of the energy, money and
political power!" position first and foremost..

I've yet to hear a climate scientist say any of that. That's you're
interpretation of the politics, not the science.

It's not science anymore. It's not denial, it's skepticism!

It's self-serving politics.


Let's just wait and see if the issue sort's itself out as more facts and
data comes along. My mind can be changed with good evidence.

Well, that's good to hear.

That doesn't exist yet.

Not you, not Larry, not me, nor anyone else I know -- certainly no one
here -- has the faintest clue about whether it does or not.


Smoking is bad.
Earth orbits the Sun.
Jews were murdered.
Global Warming facts are not complete, the issue is not closed for
debate.

(Does that clear it all up?)

My feeling is that the global warming facts will never be complete to a
sufficient degree to satisfy you. Nor will you ever know when and if it
is. I'd have more confidence in your judgments about the validity of
string theory or the existence of naked singularities or dark energy.

With all due respect, Tom, you don't have enough knowledge to be skeptical
about it. Neither do any of the rest of us. For you to engage in the
"debate" implies that you would know enough to debate. You don't, and it's
likely that you never will. Neither will Larry, I, or 99.99% of the
population. We're no more able to engage in the "debate," nor to
understand those who can, than we are to engage in the debate about the
evolution of black holes. The idea that we could is ludicrous.

All we have to go on is the reputation of the people who *can* engage in
the "debate," if there really is a debate. I don't know if there really
is. What passes for "debate" sounds an awful lot like the "debate" over
evolution versus creationism -- it contains some of the same elements, and
even the politics are not dissimilar.

The one thing I can see about it is the history of the conflict. First,
mainstream science began to coalesce around the idea that the Earth is
warming and that greenhouse gases are largely responsible for the current
pattern. Then there was a reaction from the right, because the right is
worried about the economic implications if it's all true. This provoked a
defense from the left. So now it's a left/right issue.

But not really. It's still mainstream science versus the reaction. That
the left has taken up science's banner is just an artifact of the
political basis of reaction. It has nothing to do with the science, which
is still clearly on the side of greenhouse-gas-induced global warming. The
con game that's telling us that there is no general agreement in favor of
it is EXACTLY like the con game that's telling us there is no general
agreement in favor of evolution. It's coming from the same political
angle, in fact, only the con game on global warming is a lot more
sophisticated. It's one hell of a good shell game, and none of us knows
where the pea is.

So that's all you're doing, and all you can do -- argue the politics,
disguised as science. You can't understand the science. Neither can I. It
is many years of study over our heads.

I don't have an opinion on it of my own. If I have to engage the issue, at
the level of voting or whatever, I'll do what I did about landing a man on
the moon, or what I'm doing now about nuclear power -- I'll try to
separate the mainstream science from the quacks and cranks with political
motivations on the fringes, and I'll go with the mainstream science. It's
not easy now, since the issue has been politically polarized, but I'll
throw out the Al Gores and the Michael Crichtons, along with the other
outliers and the freaks on both sides, and take my best shot.

It won't be because I have an opinion on the science. Opinions are what
one has when he has exhausted the known facts; I can't even read the
facts. Neither can anyone else posting here. Your opinion, and Larry's,
and mine, apply only to whom we believe, not to the science. All you're
reading and learning, and Larry, is polarized arguments that are
indistinguishable from con games. In that regard, you could take all of
our opinions, add them up and calculate their value, and we'd find that
they're worth less than the powder it would take to blow them all to hell.

d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


A few points that you might rethink. "The left that you portray as "taking
up science's banner." due to the reaction from the right." Maybe from the
left's point of view, but I tend to believe the right is reacting to the
attempted seizure of power and money by putting a strangle hold on energy.

The left ridicules the belief in God because there is no proof yet believes
in AGW with less proof! My only point is the AGW folks won't tolerate even
proven experts to debate the issue.


.

Relevant Pages