contrails

This discussion gets to feel like a throbbing hangover....

John C and Tom G, you two set an appallingly low standard of proof for
science that many are now claiming -- erroneously -- to be "settled"
and a sound basis for worldwide policies costing in the $trillions.
My opinion, shared by others. My mind remains quite open, though I
don't think I could possibly convince you of that. I observe that to
skeptics, you appear rather closed minded yourselves. Jack up the
standard of proof, show the (raw) data, show the source codes, let the
skeptics do their best to tear it up. If the case is really as
airtight as you think, you could win me over. But not with the
current "Ceasar's wife", attitude of the CRU and IPCC.

John Smith, few people bet their lives on unproven theories. Thermo,
QM, relativity all have a rich history of making accurate predictions
and as such can be utilized in practical engineering. This highlights
the main problem with AGW -- we're being asked to bet our livelihoods
on theory despite numerous failures in validation.

-Evan Ludeman / T8