It's official: Al Gore and the IPCC win the Nobel Peace Prize

[scorpion]

I'll just move on. Continually attacking the spokesman for an issue on a personal level is about as substantive, intellectually stimulating, and useful for discussing climate change as attacking The President for the war based on his lackluster military service. It can be fun. It can be satisfying to our base nature. But it isn't productive or illuminating. We'd all get an F in debate class - you could fill a corn field with the straw men in here.

 

[ScottS]

I'll just move on. Continually attacking the spokesman for an issue on a personal level is about as substantive, intellectually stimulating, and useful for discussing climate change as attacking The President for the war based on his lackluster military service. It can be fun. It can be satisfying to our base nature. But it isn't productive or illuminating. We'd all get an F in debate class - you could fill a corn field with the straw men in here.

Then I'll rise on a point of information, to continue your debate metaphor. I thought I offered a fairly substantive explanation of the problems I have with the global warming science. I've made it a point to go dig up the Vostok ice core literature, on which much of the models are based, done some extra reading on the physics of gaseous diffusion in ice, read every article in Science having to do with this stuff in the last two years, and I occasionally professionally referee modeling papers, and a lack of sensitivity analysis is a solid flaw that often gets a paper rejected. I also expressed some trepidation in the idea of a generalized goal to cut emissions without any target or guidelines for success.

Politically, you could hardly call me conservative, and I am involved in two or three environmental pursuits. Some might even call me an environmentalist, and not be too far from correct. It's not gonna make me overlook what I perceive as scientific flaws.