contrails

This discussion gets to feel like a throbbing hangover....

John C and Tom G, you two set an appallingly low standard of proof for
science that many are now claiming -- erroneously -- to be "settled"
and a sound basis for worldwide policies costing in the $trillions.
My opinion, shared by others. My mind remains quite open, though I
don't think I could possibly convince you of that. I observe that to
skeptics, you appear rather closed minded yourselves. Jack up the
standard of proof, show the (raw) data, show the source codes, let the
skeptics do their best to tear it up. If the case is really as
airtight as you think, you could win me over. But not with the
current "Ceasar's wife", attitude of the CRU and IPCC.

John Smith, few people bet their lives on unproven theories. Thermo,
QM, relativity all have a rich history of making accurate predictions
and as such can be utilized in practical engineering. This highlights
the main problem with AGW -- we're being asked to bet our livelihoods
on theory despite numerous failures in validation.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

T8 wrote:

John Smith, few people bet their lives on unproven theories.

But this is exactly what *you* do. When all those models are proven to
be correct, then it will be too late and the cost will be *much* higher.
(Personally I even think it's already too late now.) Of course that
won't concern *you* anymore. *Me* neither, but I happen to have children.

BTW, those models are neither new nor do they originate in the USA. When
I was involved into related measurements during my thesis back in the
80ties, they were already 20 years old. And sadly it must be said that
most of the predictions we then made heve been proven true by now.

Sometimes people forget that physicists are professional sceptics.

Remember when the scientists were predicting global cooling? Where are
those guys when we need them?

Just to throw a little aviation content back in this thread, how about
Burt Rutan's POV:

http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm

Kirk
66

Au contraire, T8 - doing the test that disproves the theory is THE
gold standard of science.

What you're seeking, with your demand for raw data and source code, is
merely an opportunity to cherry pick to enable you to ridicule - you
don't want to contribute. Why would any sane person indulge you?
Especially when it's clear that you have no respect for researchers
(you wrote "at least I haven't spent an entire career living at
taxpayer expense").

If by some slim chance you're serious, the data you seek isn't limited
to the UK at CRU - almost all developed nations have it. Swallow the
attitude, make friends at some place like NCAR, prove you're sincere
rather than on some preverted crusade, and you might get enlightened.

-John

T8 wrote:
John C and Tom G, you two set an appallingly low standard of proof for
science that many are now claiming -- erroneously -- to be "settled"
and a sound basis for worldwide policies costing in the $trillions.
My opinion, shared by others. My mind remains quite open, though I
don't think I could possibly convince you of that. I observe that to
skeptics, you appear rather closed minded yourselves. Jack up the
standard of proof, show the (raw) data, show the source codes, let the
skeptics do their best to tear it up.

On Dec 24, 8:57*pm, T8 wrote:
John C and Tom G, you two set an appallingly low standard of proof for
science that many are now claiming -- erroneously -- to be "settled"

You have absolutely no idea what standard of proof I might
require. Asserting that you do brings into question your
other assertions.

Are you going to answer my other question? (repeated below for
ease of reference)

Is there *any* evidence/argument that would convince you
that climate change is an *imminent* problem? I emphasis
*imminent* to avoid the possibility that you'll only be convinced
after it is too late to mitigate the effects.

*If* there is no such evidence/argument, then there is no point
in having a discussion with someone with a closed mind.


John Smith, few people bet their lives on unproven theories.

I think you are doing exactly that!

On Dec 24, 5:42*pm, jcarlyle wrote:
Au contraire, T8 - doing the test that disproves the theory is THE
gold standard of science.

What you're seeking, with your demand for raw data and source code, is
merely an opportunity to cherry pick to enable you to ridicule - you
don't want to contribute.

No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your
theory.

-T8

On Dec 24, 6:08*pm, Tom Gardner wrote:

Are you going to answer my other question? (repeated below for
ease of reference)

* Is there *any* evidence/argument that would convince you
* that climate change is an *imminent* problem? I emphasis
* *imminent* to avoid the possibility that you'll only be convinced
* after it is too late to mitigate the effects.

* *If* there is no such evidence/argument, then there is no point
* in having a discussion with someone with a closed mind.

To clarify my earlier response, "yes".

What, in your opinion, is the very best evidence that this is an
imminent problem?

Exactly - your mind's made up at the outset. Well, get your data the
old fashioned way - go to Nature and measure it.

-John

On Dec 24, 6:38 pm, T8 wrote:
No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your
theory.

On Dec 24, 7:30*pm, jcarlyle wrote:

On Dec 24, 6:38 pm, T8 wrote:

No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your
theory.

Exactly - your mind's made up at the outset. Well, get your data the
old fashioned way - go to Nature and measure it.

-John

[edited to get rid of top posting -- geeze that's annoying!]

Perfect. Thank you *so* much. I mean that. Think everyone else
pretty well gets the picture here?

Best regards,

Evan Ludeman / T8