If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#231
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming/Climate Change (was contrails)
On Jan 14, 12:43*am, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Doug Hoffman wrote: On Jan 12, 6:16 am, Gary Evans wrote: Eric, have you looked at all of the information on Rutan's web site?http://tinyurl.com/pfy9tk The silence is almost deafening. I try not to make RAS my life, so I usually read it only in the evening * ;-) Sorry. No disrespect intended. You are typically very thorough and the question had been up for a few days. Time lag understood. Rutan has an immense measure of credibility. *He has spent his career analyzing and making sense of large quantities of often conflicting data. *History has shown that he is very, very good at it. *He also has nothing, at least financial, to gain one way or the other. Rutan is one of my heroes, and he has had a remarkable career as an engineer and business man, but he has NO credibility as a climate scientist. How many of us here do (rhetorical question)? So it seems you would suggest that (perhaps) all of us here cannot talk intelligently about GCC. Got it. Thanks for the response. Regards, -Doug |
#232
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming/Climate Change (was contrails)
On Jan 13, 11:43*pm, bildan wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:28*pm, Doug Hoffman wrote: On Jan 12, 6:16*am, Gary Evans wrote: Eric, have you looked at all of the information on Rutan's web site?http://tinyurl.com/pfy9tk The silence is almost deafening. Rutan has an immense measure of credibility. *He has spent his career analyzing and making sense of large quantities of often conflicting data. *History has shown that he is very, very good at it. *He also has nothing, at least financial, to gain one way or the other. It's amazing that all the 'scientific' climate deniers have zero credibility as climatologists. My leading aeronautical engineering hero is Kelly Johnson of Lockheed. *Jack Northrop and "Dutch" Kindelburger make the list too - Burt Rutan doesn't. Yeah, Rutan is a real lightweight with no significant scientific accomplishments. He's certainly no rocket scientist. So let's all just accept, without question, the clearly non-political Carbon Tax legislation when it comes. I wonder what the reaction of "just plain folk" will be when they start getting billed by the feds for their excess "carbon footprint" whenever their monthly electricity consumption exceeds the mandated limit. Or their meat consumption is in excess. Or their gasoline use exceeds allowable limits. Or.... (fill in the many possibilities). Can you say $150 tow... Regards, -Doug |
#233
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming/Climate Change (was contrails)
On Jan 14, 11:51*am, Gary Evans wrote:
He (Rutan)simply found information from other experts who have a differant slant of the issue and put it together. Anybody can cherrypick facts/evidence to prove whatever they want - i.e. it is easy to "slant" in any direction whatsoever. That's easy and cheap. What's difficult and worthwhile is to balance all the available evidence, pro con and neutral, to come to balanced judgement. I think thats pretty commendable No, it isn't - see above. |
#234
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming/Climate Change (was contrails)
On Jan 15, 10:59*am, Doug Hoffman wrote:
Yeah, Rutan is a real lightweight with no significant scientific accomplishments. * Correct, in the area under discussion. He's certainly no rocket scientist. * Almost false - he's damn close to that! So let's all just accept, without question, the clearly non-political Carbon Tax legislation when it comes. A complete non-sequiteur. Just *what* does a very iffy concept and potential legislation (Carbon Tax) have to do with proving/disproving climate change? |
#235
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming/Climate Change (was contrails)
On Jan 15, 8:47*am, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Jan 14, 11:51*am, Gary Evans wrote: He (Rutan)simply found information from other experts who have a differant slant of the issue and put it together. Anybody can cherrypick facts/evidence to prove whatever they want - i.e. it is easy to "slant" in any direction whatsoever. That's easy and cheap. What's difficult and worthwhile is to balance all the available evidence, pro con and neutral, to come to balanced judgement. I think thats pretty commendable No, it isn't - see above. "Anybody can cherrypick facts/evidence to prove whatever they want - i.e. it is easy to "slant" in any direction whatsoever." Your right on that and I think that was Rutan's point. |
#236
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming/Climate Change (was contrails)
On Jan 15, 4:07*pm, Gary Evans wrote:
On Jan 15, 8:47*am, Tom Gardner wrote: On Jan 14, 11:51*am, Gary Evans wrote: He (Rutan)simply found information from other experts who have a differant slant of the issue and put it together. Anybody can cherrypick facts/evidence to prove whatever they want - i.e. it is easy to "slant" in any direction whatsoever. That's easy and cheap. What's difficult and worthwhile is to balance all the available evidence, pro con and neutral, to come to balanced judgement. I think thats pretty commendable No, it isn't - see above. "Anybody can cherrypick facts/evidence to prove whatever they want - i.e. it is easy to "slant" in any direction whatsoever." Your right on that and I think that was Rutan's point. For clarity, I wasn't actually commenting on what's on Rutan's website, since I haven't read it. My comments were solely about what was in your post (that I cited). |
#237
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming/Climate Change (was contrails)
Doug Hoffman wrote:
It's amazing that all the 'scientific' climate deniers have zero credibility as climatologists. My leading aeronautical engineering hero is Kelly Johnson of Lockheed. Jack Northrop and "Dutch" Kindelburger make the list too - Burt Rutan doesn't. Yeah, Rutan is a real lightweight with no significant scientific accomplishments. What are his scientific accomplishments? I'm aware of his many of his engineering and business achievements, but not the scientific ones. He's certainly no rocket scientist. True. If he was, we could read the peer reviewed papers he's written for rocket science journals. You know, I'm sure, that he doesn't do all that great stuff by himself. He hires people that know what they are doing to help him with the tricky bits he's not familiar with. If he had done that for his foray into climate science, that presentation he wrote would be much, much better. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly |
#238
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming/Climate Change (was contrails)
Doug Hoffman wrote:
Rutan has an immense measure of credibility. He has spent his career analyzing and making sense of large quantities of often conflicting data. History has shown that he is very, very good at it. He also has nothing, at least financial, to gain one way or the other. Rutan is one of my heroes, and he has had a remarkable career as an engineer and business man, but he has NO credibility as a climate scientist. How many of us here do (rhetorical question)? So it seems you would suggest that (perhaps) all of us here cannot talk intelligently about GCC. Got it. Thanks for the response. Nonsense. Many are already talking intelligently about it, because they know their limitations and proceed cautiously, trying to learn about it instead of refute it. Rutan is not in that group. Have you read his Dec 2009 presentation? There is one sentence that is enough in error that reading further is almost pointless. From page 3: "Also, the GHG warming effect is primarily driven by water vapor, not by CO2, and the human emissions’ portion of atmospheric CO2 is tiny." -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly |
#239
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming/Climate Change (was contrails)
Eric Greenwell wrote:
/snip/ Rutan is not in that group. Have you read his Dec 2009 presentation? There is one sentence that is enough in error that reading further is almost pointless. From page 3: "Also, the GHG warming effect is primarily driven by water vapor, not by CO2, and the human emissions’ portion of atmospheric CO2 is tiny." Hmmm..I haven't checked the original, but I am supposing that if he had written... "the GHG warming effect is primarily driven by water vapor, not by CO2, and the human emissions’ portion of atmospheric H2O is tiny." ....he might still have been wrong, but the syllogism would have made more sense to me. It's true I am disappointed with him though. Brian W |
#240
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming/Climate Change (was contrails)
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
contrails | No Name | Aviation Photos | 3 | June 22nd 07 01:47 PM |
Contrails | Darkwing | Piloting | 21 | March 23rd 07 05:58 PM |
Contrails | Kevin Dunlevy | Piloting | 4 | December 13th 06 08:31 PM |
Contrails | Steven P. McNicoll | Piloting | 17 | December 10th 03 10:23 PM |