MtnGoat

"All commute 2-20 miles, alone, daily." If this is *their* view of need, that's ok by me. I realize we don't agree and appreciate your reasoned approach.

"What happens when whatever company comes to build a subdivision or extract resources (trees, oil, etc.) in your fave recreation spot, and they're not too keen on spending the extra dough to go about it "responsibly," and your spot is threatened?" Then you use opposition and bargaining to try and work it out. No one is saying environmental concerns are not valid ones, but some seem to hold the position that all claims are valid everywhere and if you don't agree, you don't care about any of them. Greenies claims to have balanced views would carry more weight with me for example, if they could point to *anywhere* they feel mining or drilling for example *is* acceptable, instead of pulling the dodge "we have too much" and never answering the question.

heck, he still hasn't found evidence that we support "screwing" other people by our admission, not his. I can claim all kinds of things about anyone, if I am willing to use my views of their activities as "proof" in absense of asking them what they really believe and support.

"There is a need for social responsiblity, whether you consider that wuss talk or whatever, it's the truth." IMO, it's not wuss talk, it's a valid consideration. My contention is that "social responsibility" only works when it's practitioners *choose* it, however. *someone* is buying SUV's, and from the claims of "progressives" that there is a "progressive" majority, something isn't making sense here because many of those progressives must be buying SUV's. Your ownership of a Tacoma proves my point. I will not berate you for ownership, because I assume you've examined your ownership in light of your actual commitment to social concerns, and judged that how you use it and other measures you take meet your own standards for responsible use. I respect your judgement of need. However when someone who doesn't know you sees you in it, isn't it likely they think about you what is spewed on this board? A gashog driving selfish owner who doesn't need what they drive? This is the issue I have with all the judgements passed around here like candy, they are almost entirely about people we do not know driving vehicles we don't know their reason for purchasing.

j_b's debate moves into "moron" claims because someone doesn't agree with him. A good example of the actual degree to which the poster implements consideration of others in practice.

"but airplanes don't line up in a hover 5 abreast and 6x10^100 deep everyday at 7 and 5 for no good reason." No they don't. But people do fly for reasons I could just as legimately claim "for no good reason", mainly, the simple desire to go somewhere on what is a whim. The arbitrary desire to fly for a vacation is just as arbitrary as the desire to drive a gashog to work. The reason people drive what they drive to work, is because they want to. The reason people fly, is because they want to. Wether or not either reason is a "good" one is up to the person making the choice, not you. "and it gets ridiculous when most of those people don't need a 4x4 monster to get to Fred Meyer, that's all." what they "need" is up to them.

"Global warming is not a moral view but a reality." Your contention it's a "reality" is at least as tiresome. Calling something reality doesn't make it so, regardless of how often one does it. "Your litany about your god-given right to screw others is tiresome." I look forward to a single example proving I've claimed a god given right to screw others. There is a search utility here on the board which should aid your quixotic quest. Give it a try.

"As a tradly alpine climber and presumably an enthusiast of the wilderness or at least semi-undespoiled natural areas where you like to climb, how do you reconcile your anti-anti-development (not sure if you're actually pro-development), pro-oil extraction, anti-environmentalism standpoint with your enjoyment of the outdoors?" both can be accomplished. oil is only where it is, and isn't where it isn't. Even if everywhere was open for drilling, only a limited number of places would actually be drilled, and given observation of rational rules for drilling, impacts can be kept low. "Say Exxon found 200 billion barrels worth of oil under the crags at Leavenworth, and you'd never get to climb there again." since side drilling is a modern reality, you could get oil and still climb. Placement of the rigs in one of the side valleys would keep them out of sight to assuage delicate sensibilities and still allow access using side drilling. "Would you be riled if a new subdivision paved over a choice fishing spot?" now they pave water?

I like it when we're told how bad SUV's are, by folks who then travel by air and then burn kerosene straight into the upper atmosphere for trivial reasons they won't accept from anyone else. It seems that when their reasons for doing so are acceptable, but those of people they don't even know are not.

"People already complain about gas prices when they are spending upwards of $40 a week to commute in an Excursion on heavily subsidized gas." So end the subsidies, and end the limitations on exploration and let the market work out the appropriate price given demand. The market is the best democracy in the world, the one where actions speak and bullshit walks, where each person puts their own choices into expression, or not. I totally agree fuel should not be subsidized, but neither should it be penalized based on the moral views of folks who say they don't like using it. Then don't. [ 10-23-2002, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"he's just providing an admittedly exaggerated example of the typical selfish right wing view of "I'll do whatever the hell I want, regardless of the effect it has on others" " is this like the selfish left wing view, I'll try and legislate whatever I can regardless of the effects it has on others, because I feel I'm helping? Seems worrying about effects on others is really really important...until leftists decide they want to impose all kinds of effects on others, because it makes them feel good.

"So if I feel like driving an M1 Abrams to work you wouldn't mind the damage to I-5 that you will be taxed for rebuilding?" Seems to me due to user fees like weight fees for heavy vehicles and fuel taxes that get more from low milage ones, as long as the rates are appropriate to cover the repairs, it's your choice since you are paying the costs.

"bear spray, lighter and cheaper, and I'm willing to bet more effective" Since both a gun and spray require the calm and luck to have it in hand for proper usage, personally, I'd rather go with something that has stopping power, a blinded enraged grizz is still enraged after all.

"you are placing a burden of proof before any action be taken about human greenhouse gas emissions that is unreasonable" isn't the burden of proof on those who demand others be subservient to the claimants? Seems to me the burden of proof is right where it belongs, on those who feel their reasons are sufficient to force people to live by these reasons claimed to be so true that it's worth coercion. "and 'incidentally' serving your purpose of not wanting anything to be done." If I thought it was supportable, I'd want it to be done *assuming* the costs were worth the benefits. Since I doubt both, yes I can't say it isn't convenient. Lucky me! Besides, whose "purpose" is served by asking people making predictive claims, to prove them, is really besides the point, it's just plain old science, world saving sweeping claims aside. "For example we may not have proven that increased CO2 causes warming (in the sense that it has not been reproduced in the lab) but all data, theoretical and numerical models point to increased CO2 concentrations causing warming." All? Really? And still, we're talking models, right? "Clearly nobody arguing in good faith would question it seriously on the basis of the evidence gathered." So based on your view of the evidence, you conclude anyone not in agreement is not in good faith? I just want to make sure I have this straight without making assumptions. "So .... do you buy home fire insurance? do you have any proofs of your house burning tomorrow?" yup. nope don't have any proof, but no one needs to force me to buy fire insurance, either. but I know it happens, and it happens a fair amount. Unfortunately, so does warming, and cooling, and unlike a fire, no one can even tell me how those past events happened ,while they strive to convince they know just what will happen. An odd situation. thanks for the info on the synthesis report for policy makers. I'm interested in who wrote that paper and if the resulting translation has been vetted by the scientists contributing to the earlier reports. [ 10-02-2002, 02:31 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"Estimates of confidence relating to WGII findings are: very high; (95% or greater), 'high' (67-95%), 'medium' (33-67%), 'low' (5-33%), and 'very low' (5% or less)."" Please note that estimates are in themselves admissions of uncertainty, thus in no way representing proof, and when reading the latest IPCC report one finds uncertainty estimates accross a large number of areas to be high. It's nice to see that they have numbers to represent uncertainty, something I see a lot in the 2001 Synthesis report I downloaded, which has been my starting point. Which report is your quote taken from, and which of the comments on impact regarding your "organisms" post, have which uncertainties? That list of uncertainties from a table is not showing which specific allegations I am asking about, have which uncertainties. Which kind of approaches another point here, no matter how you cut it we have folks claiming "proof" consists of uncertainties about uncertainties, something not often made clear to the public, but that's for another day. "funny how you did not have such qualms embracing the Chang paper." That is because the chang paper does not make predictive claims concerning the function of a tremendously complex systems even those studying them "prove" by assigning *estimated* error to. They merely report finding of proxies which happen to be verified by other reports of proxies, *none* of which requires predictive behaviour of vast and complex systems. [ 10-01-2002, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

Nah, this is a pretty obvious outgrowth of increasing intermarriage between racial groups and across cultural boundaries.

I'm wondering if each of these "projected" changes in in turn supported by valid peer reviewed studies in detail, or are simply a basket of allegations added by one or two researchers who are on the bandwagon. Remember, wether or not someone feels warming is a given, each and every other assumption relating to these assertions must also be proven separately. As for particulates, that is a separate basket of worms from "proving" CO2 is causing warming. [ 09-30-2002, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"As the global climate changes, and as the natural environment chokes with pollution, we're beginning to see what sort of organisms nature can and will suddenly unleash to confront us." What kind of organisms?

"I think the burden of proof is on us to demonstrate that we are NOT the cause of this problem." Proving a negative had never been a standard of science, for good reason. The burden is fully on proponents to prove it is occurring.

Not going to go the bite size route except where it makes sense to me, one can always just skip 'em. Is this short enough?

"No climate scientist believes that today is warmer than it has ever been (although it may well be the case for the past 120,000 years)." What climate scientists believe is one thing, what is said here, and other less formal places this debate occurs, another. If I have removed the "hottest ever" claim from discussion here, that was the intent. "the second sentence is confusing enough to leave the reader with the message that 2000 years ago global climate was warmer than at present" It was, we've already established the "warmest ever" claims are false. "and that today's warming is entirely due to natural causes similarly to the Chinese example of 2000 years ago." That's what we're discussing here, and from the evidence of the cyclical nature of the global climate, we can see precisely what scientists convinced of warming must prove is not natural. Whatever "inferences" a reader gets from reading the *facts* about variability, from this study and numerous others with similar results, are entirely legitimate because fact is, climate changes all the time, none of us argues that (apparently) and according to you neither do any climate scientists. "And we know this is not true for a number of reasons (climate in China versus global climate and natural variability does not exclude human caused variability)." We do not "know" this is true, else it would be proven and settled. Further, non one here nor in the article is claiming natural variability excludes human caused variabilty. Only that "warmest ever" can be taken off the table as evidence of warming in both professional and informal circles. [ 09-27-2002, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"this is not really deserving of an answer because this is the usual 'climate scientists are self-serving unless I like what they say'." Oh is it? Where did I say that? The assumptions you inject into many of your points here are constant. I did not claim the report that initiated this thread, contains claims about anthro warming, only *specifically* that this and other data shows warming proponents who claim "warmest ever" are wrong. I did not claim the authors intended this as a comment on antro warming directly, which you also imply. I challenge you to read this thread and find where I claim the authors have a position on anthro warming, rather than are reporting their findings on cylclical patterns. Further, I did not comment that climate scientists are self serving unless I say. I used sarcasm to point out that *anyone* with a point of view they believe in is necessarily self serving while they support it. I never ever claimed only those I say are self serving, because I believe everyone is. That is the point of having a point of view and striving to support it. I welcome comments and arguments, but I strive to avoid injecting comments you did not make into arguments, instead I ask you to clarify. "I find it interesting that once in a while you endorse a piece of data wholeheartedly, whereas you claim to be dubious of every other data set which does not go your way." Are we now supposed to not criticize data we think is flawed? Am I supposed to ignore what I agree with and support what I am not convinced of, to prove I have no agenda when I and everyone else does have an agenda? "Your motives and methods are transparent." I should hope so, putting forth a point of view and trying to support it is what we each do. [ 09-26-2002, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"exactly what I thought, you pounce on the IPCC for basing a report on data that you judge insufficient (have you read the papers presenting said data?)" I'm working through it, it's a monster. "yet you jump at the opportunity to take a stab at the global warming hypothesis on the basis of data you can't really comment on since you have not read the paper." The abstract makes clear what the determination is, since it's close enough to show commonalities with other data for cyclic behaviour, it was worth an interesting thread. Since I am interested in the details, that's why I started a subscription. Further, if you'll please note, I am taking a stab at the erroneous comment "warmer than ever", which is sufficiently proven false by more reports than just this one. I'd like to ask you, have *you* read the IPCC report and data you are likewise claiming is valid? "You can call it personal attacks, what I see is poor application of the scientific method by a critic of the climate science community." No, I call personal attacks making comments on hidden agendas when my agenda is open for anyone to see and saying I fit data to what I think in the first place. If I did that I would neither be reading further on the methodology presented on AGU letters nor the IPCC stuff. "First, I don't have the time to address your posts point by point, they are way too lengthy. Second, I take responsability for not answering some of your questions, and let my posts stand as they are." Good enough. I would still be interested in your response to the few questions I summarized elsewhere however, if you have time. "Finally, I mentioned my asking you twice whether or not you read the paper before you commented on it because I think it pretty well supports my hypothesis that you actually mostly care about whether it supports your conservative agenda (whether it is good science or not)." If we are not to use third party evidence gathered in good faith, or to rely on summaries of reports for talking points, nothing we discuss can considered valid until we show we have indeeed read the entire body of data we are discussing. I have never asked for this from you, because I expect you to comment on what you have learned from a relatively informal perspective, at least backed by some level of honest judgement, which I grant you simply from first principles, this is not reciprocated. If I understand this correctly, IMO to be consistent we should no longer consider any discussion not backed by full reading of the texts in question invalid. "whenever you have evidence that I let my perpective on life unduly color my assessment of scientific ideas, let me know." What do you consider evidence in this case, for future reference?

"Hey, Goat - The Doctor means no disrespect, but do you write this kind of stuff down as you're posting, i.e. what questions you asked or what questions were asked of you?" No worries doc, you've always exhibited courtesy and I appreciate that, you don't go for the bogus "you've got an agenda" stuff, which doesn't hold much water since all have agendas, it's how we resolve and study them that make a difference. All I do is read a persons post and try to answer questions posed in it using the text as a guide.

perhaps you can do what l_b has not, and explain how you, for example, are exempt from being self serving. Your arguments that I am self serving, reveal both a viewpoint and reasons that support same. Not one person has done so far. I see a lot of remarks about how having a point of view and trying to support it is self serving, but it only seems to apply when I do it. It would also be cool to see an explanation about having an open viewpoint on a subject is anything *but* transparent. That's the point, I do not shirk having an agenda nor do I hide it. How do you explain your agenda? [ 09-26-2002, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]