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

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

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.

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?

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.

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).

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

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

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

http://tinyurl.com/yedncvo