Surely A Large Human
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 482 Post(s)
I'm not sure how this thread became a debate by the supreme court on me. My original complaint was that the original poster, a "scientist" who wears political activist's clothing, wasn't doing himself or his cause any favors by riding his high horse around Washington and calling for those on the other side of this question to be thrown in jail. What I've read or not read is irrelevant to that, and I think I've been a pretty good sport in humoring the tangents that you all have attempted to take this thread down afterwards.
As far as being unable to punch holes in this without success, even within this thread, the difference between surface observations and those taken via microwave by satellite doesn't appear to be reconciled. 1) The math that tries to account for the lack of consistency in temperature gains at the surface and in the troposphere is sketchy at best, and 2) by scientist's own account, there isn't enough data yet to say anything conclusive about it.
I think GS had it right when he called the GCC movement "fledgling". As I said before, I've no problem with that, nor with the hypothesis, but when you make the leap from fledgling science to indisputable scientific fact, you can't have factors of your case that rely upon faith, anecdotal/observational evidence, or acceptance of incomplete data.
I'm not an idiot, and I'm not close-minded...but I'm not gullible, and I'm not a naive either. Argue it all you want, the efforts to make this case in a compelling, accessible fashion have been complete and utter failures. It's been dogged at every turn by impatient members of the community who would do anything it took to convince the public that they were right - and even if they are - those actions have created credibility damage that has not been well managed. Between the hockey-stick graph asshole, the Weather Channel idiots, this new Washington crusader, the quacks from the 70's who predicted an ice age, and Al Gore's hypocrisy (or, to give Bear the benefit of the doubt, the appearance of his hypocrisy), these supposedly diligent scientists and their protagonists have a history of being very quick to develop doomsday scenarios while playing fast & loose with the facts. To people like myself, CMitch, and others, it's a lot like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".
A new tact, a new set of spokespersons, a new approach, are needed to set the story straight once and for all. My two cents; it would be refreshing to see some honesty and integrity associated with this message.