Jones,
This quote from the Nisbet paper you posted sums up my feelings exactly.
"Indeed, hypotheses of catastrophe should be tested very rigorously. `Crying wolf' has direct consequences on society. To some extent the governance of the global economy is involved: incorrect or over-stated hypotheses will cause erroneous policy. On the other hand, dismissal of correctly perceived risk may lead to real danger. Moreover, large energy resources are involved, which are potential sources of prosperity."
Ron
--On Thursday, October 13, 2005 8:13 AM -0700 Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> This is a good point about the very egregious and sloppy
> work done by M. Mann. Having a strong bias or believe is
> NOT an excuse for out-and-out dishonesty, no matter how
> valid you under-lying cause may be - "lying" being the
> operative word.
>
> I say this even though, like Nick Palmer and others (who
> may have been led to this forum because they are looking
> for solutions), it seems clear that we could be facing an
> incredible environmental crisis due to overuse of fossil
> fuels. Unfortunately the proof is in the eye of the
> beholder, and there does not exist the kind of
> Hollywood-style dramatic (and falsified) evidence which
> Mann concocted - it is mostly statistical and
> interpretive (unless you have lived in Alaska for years
> and can see the evidence of melting glaciers out your
> front window every morning)... and we should admit that
> up front, for the benefit of those who doubting Thomases
> who want to see the bloody palm. You need to go North for
> that kind of first "hand" evidence.
> There are other good studies which indicate, but not
> prove this warming hypothesis to be the case, but the
> biggest point that should be made from any of it - is to
> err on the side of caution. Here is a fairly balanced
> analysis of the biggest problem IMHO which is an arctic
> methane release, but of course, not everyone agrees as to
> the exact details and time frame:
> http://www.gl.rhbnc.ac.uk/staff/pdf/SuddenMethaneLGM.pdf
>
> The evidence for global warming is certainly MUCH
> stronger in the Arctic - and that is the point that many
> overlook. This is the problem area - every doubter who
> wants to become and activist for "more-of-the-same"
> should have a guided tour of any area in the far North by
> a native.
>
> When a fool like Mann has been caught in such a pattern
> of deceit, this does incredible harm to those many other
> scientists who have done good work and come to the same
> conclusions, but without the kind of dramatic
> non-evidence which has been largely concocted here.
>
> Shame on you Michael Mann. You have done the cause a
> great dis-service.
> Jones
