contrails

On Jan 15, 8:47*am, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Jan 14, 11:51*am, Gary Evans wrote:

He (Rutan)simply found
information from other experts who have a differant slant of the issue
and put it together.

Anybody can cherrypick facts/evidence to prove whatever they
want - i.e. it is easy to "slant" in any direction whatsoever.

That's easy and cheap.

What's difficult and worthwhile is to balance all the available
evidence, pro con and neutral, to come to balanced judgement.

I think thats pretty commendable

No, it isn't - see above.

"Anybody can cherrypick facts/evidence to prove whatever they
want - i.e. it is easy to "slant" in any direction whatsoever."

Your right on that and I think that was Rutan's point.

On Jan 14, 12:43*am, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Doug Hoffman wrote:
On Jan 12, 6:16 am, Gary Evans wrote:

Eric, have you looked at all of the information on Rutan's web site?http://tinyurl.com/pfy9tk

The silence is almost deafening.

I try not to make RAS my life, so I usually read it only in the evening * ;-)

Sorry. No disrespect intended. You are typically very thorough and
the question had been up for a few days. Time lag understood.

Rutan has an immense measure of credibility. *He has spent his career
analyzing and making sense of large quantities of often conflicting
data. *History has shown that he is very, very good at it. *He also
has nothing, at least financial, to gain one way or the other.

Rutan is one of my heroes, and he has had a remarkable career as an
engineer and business man, but he has NO credibility as a climate
scientist.

How many of us here do (rhetorical question)? So it seems you would
suggest that (perhaps) all of us here cannot talk intelligently about
GCC. Got it. Thanks for the response.

Regards,

-Doug

Doug Hoffman wrote:
Rutan has an immense measure of credibility. He has spent his career
analyzing and making sense of large quantities of often conflicting
data. History has shown that he is very, very good at it. He also
has nothing, at least financial, to gain one way or the other.

Rutan is one of my heroes, and he has had a remarkable career as an
engineer and business man, but he has NO credibility as a climate
scientist.


How many of us here do (rhetorical question)? So it seems you would
suggest that (perhaps) all of us here cannot talk intelligently about
GCC. Got it. Thanks for the response.
Nonsense. Many are already talking intelligently about it, because they
know their limitations and proceed cautiously, trying to learn about it
instead of refute it. Rutan is not in that group. Have you read his Dec
2009 presentation? There is one sentence that is enough in error that
reading further is almost pointless. From page 3:

"Also, the GHG warming effect is primarily driven by water vapor, not by
CO2, and the human emissions’ portion of atmospheric CO2 is tiny."

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell wrote:
/snip/ Rutan is not in that group. Have you read his Dec
2009 presentation? There is one sentence that is enough in error that
reading further is almost pointless. From page 3:

"Also, the GHG warming effect is primarily driven by water vapor, not by
CO2, and the human emissions’ portion of atmospheric CO2 is tiny."


Hmmm..I haven't checked the original, but I am supposing that
if he had written...
"the GHG warming effect is primarily driven by water vapor, not by
CO2, and the human emissions’ portion of atmospheric H2O is tiny."

....he might still have been wrong, but the syllogism would have made
more sense to me.

It's true I am disappointed with him though.

Brian W

http://tinyurl.com/yedncvo

Gary Evans wrote:
"Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over 2 years old, the least in the
satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 average of 52 percent."

Finally, look at fig. 3 on this page:

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html

No good news at the NSIDC, unfortunately, despite The Mail's spin on it.




Eric, have you looked at all of the information on Rutan's web site?
http://tinyurl.com/pfy9tk

I just finished reading the Dec 2009 presentation. It was truly
depressing experience, because Burt Rutan has been one of my heroes.
It's sad to see him sucked into a field where he has no expertise, and
yet is so absolutely certain of his abilities, he thinks he can demolish
50 years of climate science, produced by thousands of scientists around
the world, in a few pages. Even with my very modest understanding, I
could see some grave mistakes.
There is just so much conflicting information out there and both sides
are soooo convinced that they have it right.
There appears to be just as good an argument on either side but as I
mentioned before religions require both faith and sacrifice.
There is very little conflicting _scientific_ information. There is a
ton conflicting _misinformation_, and plenty of confusion, and I
certainly do not think science is a religion.
If you
really think the ice is going away there are two choices. One is to
try and convince everyone else that they must join the new religion of
self-flagellation and some how turn this whole thing around by paying
third world countries not to cut down any more trees. The other more
direct action would be to measure exactly how high your house is above
the sea level and act accordingly while prices are still up. You do
live on high ground right?
In fact there much better choices than either one. 190 countries did not
show up in Copenhagen to debate about which to those two "choices" was
the best one!

If you want to discuss Burt's presentation, contact me privately. I
still think RAS is not a good place to do this.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly