contrails

On Jan 13, 10:43*pm, 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 *
;-) 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. Would you climb into an airplane designed and built by any of
the leading climate scientists? No, and neither would I. It doesn't make
any more sense to assume Rutan is going to do climate science well, either.

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.

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 15, 4:07*pm, Gary Evans wrote:
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.

For clarity, I wasn't actually commenting on what's on Rutan's
website,
since I haven't read it.

My comments were solely about what was in your post (that I cited).