--- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > wrote: <snip> > > > And how does Lindzen's getting paid for his consulting services > > > change the reality or unreality of what he says? > > > > > > How does the attention and political agenda of Al Gore change > > > the reality or unreality of what he says? > > > > > > Why don't you address what he says and the logic and > > > rationality of what he says instead of trying to show that the > > > guy makes a living? > > > > None of us here has anything remotely approaching the > > expertise to address "the reality or unreality" of what > > either he or Al Gore has said, of course. The only > > possible way for the layperson to evaluate the various > > claims is to determine cui bono, who benefits from > > promoting which point of view. > > ...but that wasn't your position with Michael Creighten, Judy. > > A multimillionaire many, many times over, Creighten has absolutely > NOTHING to gain from opposing global warming hype...indeed, he > probably LOSES money by talking about it.
Well, actually he has most likely MADE money from the sales of "State of Fear." But with an apparently independent nonexpert, such as Crichton or Al Gore, we evaluate their views by what the independent experts have to say about those views. > No, your position with Creighten -- an MD, Harvard graduate and > recognized as a scientist by most credible people -- was that he > wasn't a scientist, so we had to ignore him. Crichton is most certainly *not* a scientist, and most "credible people" recognize that; he admits it himself. You're well aware of this, since we went over it in some detail on alt.m.t awhile back. An MD degree obtained, what, 35 years ago (even if he had actually used it), plus a BA degree from Harvard, do not qualify him as a climate scientist. <duh> The bio on his own Web site begins: "After graduating from the Harvard Medical School, Michael Crichton embarked on a career as a writer and filmmaker." http://www.crichton-official.com/aboutmc/biography.html That pretty much says it all. But I never said we had to "ignore" him, any more than we have to "ignore" Al Gore because he isn't a scientist. To the contrary, unlike you, I went to the trouble to look up what independent expert climatologists had to say about Crichton's views. They tore him apart: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74 But they support Al Gore's views: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores- movie/#more-299 http://tinyurl.com/gke7d > And with the Oregon Petition -- that list signed by about 18,000 > scientists opposing the claims about global warming -- well, hey, > they don't have anything to gain by opposing global warming, do > they? Actually we have no idea. We'd have to look at each one. > And yet you found some other reason to dismiss them. Right. Here's a good summary from Wikipedia: Text The principal text of the petition reads: "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." The text also states, "Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly." This was based on comparison of satellite and balloon data from 1979-99. At the time, this was not true: the data showed warming (+0.058 °C/decade). Since then the satellite record has been revised, and shows even more warming. See historical temperature record and satellite temperature measurements [link]. Criticism The petition and its covering letter have been criticised [1]. The text of the petition is often misrepresented by its proponents as, for example, "over 17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis" [2] whereas the petition itself only speaks of catastrophic warming. Further, the covering letter, written in the style of a contribution to PNAS [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences], sent with the petition was strongly criticised as "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," (Raymond Pierrehumbert, atmospheric chemist at the University of Chicago). The National Academy of Sciences issued a statement that the petition had nothing to do with them. As with the Leipzig declaration, the qualifications of the signatories, and their agreement with the stated contents have been questioned. The Scientific American took a sample of signatories and reported: "Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petitionone was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition > > So please stop with the cui bonon business, Johnny-come-lately. > > > > > > > > If we were to find a truly financially and politically > > independent, highly credentialed skeptic, his or her > > views might be worth taking seriously as a dissenting > > voice to the general consensus (and yes, there is indeed > > a general consensus; it's blatantly disingenuous of > > Lindzen to suggest otherwise). > > > > The views of a "skeptic" funded by the energy companies > > are automatically suspect. > > > > > Oh, and by the way, Al Gore and Bill Clinton wouldn't even look > in > > > the direction of an offer of $2,500 a day... > > > > Your rhetoric is becoming increasingly empty, Shemp. > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
