>It's not illogical at all. Neil speaks like a scientist. You speak like a provocateur who thinks a few links from like-minded folks proves a damn thing. You are always ready to credit yourself with 150% of what you know about any given topic. Big difference.
>
>Unlike you, I do not claim expertise on things beyond my knowledge. I'm smart enough to know what I don't know. I also know how to read, and what I have read for years is that most scientists who have studied it believe global warming is real. A signature list of 700 doubters doesn't impress me very much.
>
>By pure happenstance, last night at bedtime I grabbed the top New Yorker on the stack and came across this piece by Elizabeth Kolbert which eerily summarized my opinion. (Including the criticism of President Obama for moving forward on environmental issues with one hand and opening up the coastline to drilling with the other). She is IMO a very good reporter and is their go-to reporter on environmental matters.
>
>http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/04/12/100412taco_talk_kolbert
>
>Mike, first, go back and read Message #1466769 and Message #1466774
>
>Second, you frequently make statements that imply knowledge you don't have. Look at the rather silly remark you made about "desk/clerk" jobs in the military.
>
>Third, the signature list wasn't "700 doubters".....it is 31,00 American scientists (which includes 9,000 PHDs). The fact that you characterized what I described as "700 doubters" is disturbing.
>
>Fourth, I just read the New Yorker piece. And you know what...I now believe you....I am now supremely confident that everything you've read states that there is huge scientific consensus. . Here's the problem - what you're reading is from a staff writer - NOT a scientist. This reads like a 2nd hand public policy memo - where she puff-balled IPCC errors and refers to "ClimateGate" as "hype". NO WHERE does she bother to take on the actual numbers and actual data from scientists who have ripped holes in GWT.
>
>Her argument for GWT is, "why would so many scientists have gone to so much trouble to engineer such a huge hoax? There IS an answer, if the author had bothered to research. There were studies released in 1977 on greenhouse gases that did NOT, repeat, DID NOT account for water vapor and convection - many scientists unfortunately erred in their interpretation, and it has taken a very long time for the scientific community to determine what is now recognized, that increased temperatures from natural periodic cycles wind up increasing CO2 levels, and not the other way around. This is about the fourth time I've said this.
>
>If I want to learn something, I go much closer to the source. This topic, and the subject of nuclear energy, have been side research projects of mine for many years. No, I am not a scientist, but I would gladly debate Elizabeth Kolbert in a second, and I would win. Her arguments remind me very much of the anti-nuclear power plant arguments in the early 1980's. In time, all those arguments were discredited.
>
>I guess the New Yorker and the NYT are your "Joseph Smith" <s>

Kevin, I could rebut you point by point. Lame as it sounds, I don't want to spend the time doing so now. If someone other than you or Tracy says my credibility is on the line, then I will find time. Unless and until, I am bowing out of this. You can be your own herald about another "victory" as much as you like. Not my problem.