On Dec 25, 12:11*pm, Mike wrote:
On Dec 25, 11:06*am, T8 wrote:





On Dec 24, 8:09*pm, Tom Gardner wrote:

On Dec 24, 11:38*pm, T8 wrote:

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

Is there any possibility that it might "prove" the theory?
Or is that out of the question?

Sounds like you mind is (almost completely?) decided!

The way I look at it, the burden of proof is on the researcher to
prove the theory which upsets the status quo, in this case AGW.
However, I believe that burden also includes providing every
opportunity for his skeptics to prove him wrong by checking his
assumptions, raw data, reasoning, models, results and conclusions.
These responsibilities are amplified by the rush to public policy and
the extreme costs of such policy. *In my view this is absolutely
required. *My impression, exemplified by JohnC's response, is that the
AGW community is not interested in being found in error, even if such
errors are factual and provable.

I am after truth. *Yes, I am naive. *This was driven home very nicely
by JohnC's comment and although he obviously does not speak for the
community, it was a revelation to me that anyone would be so plain
faced about this. *But it fits. *We don't share the same scientific
ethics.

Because I am after truth, I am deeply suspicious of those who claim to
have found "truth" who are clearly on board with the political agenda
that follows and all the more so when a) their support for the
political agenda appears to be independent of the truth or falsity of
AGW -- exemplified by the "well, there are plenty of *other* good
reasons to regulate carbon" thoughts that are expressed again and
again -- and b) they deny opportunity to their skeptics to rigorously
check their work. *To deny that a great number of researchers in the
AGW community fit this description would be to invite gales of
laughter. *Hence, my skepticism of the AGW research community as a
whole. *I distrust the "management", the agenda setters. *They've
earned this. * I hold them in contempt.

If AGW is provably real, then I agree it would be necessary to
consider the range of possible consequences and appropriate actions/
costs/benefits, the range of which also includes "no action necessary
or economically desirable". *But if the current state of the art in
AGW research can be shown to be significantly in error, or much less
than certain -- which is my sense of where we are currently -- then
no, I absolutely will not support the creation of whole new regulatory
agencies and the dismantling of entire industries, etc.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Really appreciate your point of view Evan.

Mike Carris

Ditto............