contrails

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:

http://tinyurl.com/yedncvo



This is a graphic by Monte Heib, who is called in the URL below "an
amateur climatologist" though he is credible in mine engineering.

Amusing that his graphic is "After Scotese"
who is a paleo-geologist.
"After..." That's a term used of works of art :-)

http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/200...ologist-o.html

Brian W