I watched the first brief intro to the lesson, and hopefully I can watch one of the 10, 45 to 50 minute lectures per week, over the next ten weeks.

I hope the lecturer gets more at ease when he gets into the subject matter than he is with the overview, because my initial response to his style was that he is not a natural speaker, and his halting, ummhing style could get annoying if the subject matter does not carry me past that first impression.

But thanks for the link, I have it bookmarked now, so will give it a go, it never hurts to try and learn something new.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 10:26am:

Apparently, when scrubbing down a female elephant, you should never touch her vagina... You can try it if you like, but few living elephant handlers have been there and those that have... they've only tried it once.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 11:29am:

Yeah, I wouldn't try them once either... Got a feeling it might hurt.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 11:19am:



Or possibly vica versa, if that's the expression I'm groping for...

What are the key questions about climate change, and what are the answers? ...Willis Eschenbach oulines his views »  Walt Meier responds »  Eschenbach replies »

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/31/18010/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/08/nsidcs-walt-meier-responds-to-willis/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/10/my-thanks-and-comments-for-dr-walt-meier/

Intelligent debate..

Final Conclusions, in no particular order

1. Reading Dr. Meier’s answers to the questions has been very interesting and very productive for me. It has helped to identify where the discussion goes off the rails.

2. Understanding how the guy on the other side of the table sees the situation is valuable for everyone concerned.

3. Dr. Meier’s answers were well thought out and well expressed. He obviously has considered these matters in detail, answered honestly and fully, and taken the time to lay them out clearly.

4. As I didn’t discuss most of the questions where Dr. Meier and I were in basic agreement, it likely appears that I disagreed on almost all points. This is absolutely not the case.

5. I wish that Dr. Meier had included citations for his assertions. Not having them makes it harder to discuss his ideas.

6. I sincerely hope that I have not offended Dr. Meier. I am a reformed cowboy, but despite going to the cowboy reform meetings and following the twelve steps,  sometimes the raw ranch kid shines through. I am passionate about these matters, and sometimes I overstep the bounds. I apologize for any sins of omission or sins of commission I may have committed, and I hope that Dr. Meier considers my words in the spirit of vigorous scientific debate.

7. Since the null hypothesis that the climate variations are natural has not been falsified, the AGW hypothesis is still a solution in search of a problem.

8. As I have found out more than once to my own cost, putting one’s ideas out on the web for people to find fault with is a daunting prospect, and one which may not always end well. I offer Dr. Meier my profound thanks and my respect for his courage and willingness to put his ideas on the firing line, as it is not an easy thing to do.

Not each and every. Only the ones that say the same thing: climate is not controlled by that one variable, CO2.

No climate scientists could ever say that the climate is controlled by a single variable, CO2. But reading your posts and muso's it seems that CO2 is the one ring to rule them all (to allude to another discussion). But that is preposterous nonsense. Nevertheless, you and muso will trace every other variable back to CO2.

If you really were concerned about the climate itself and not AGW, you would list, in your own minds, all the variables that make up the climate and would allocate some sort of influence to them. You would include the little understood variables, of which there are many, apparently. I have never, ever seen this from any boooster. I have only seen discounting of every other factor but CO2. You elevate CO2 from being a factor to being THE only factor that matters.

This is why it is a Catch 22 - no matter what you do or say, it will be taken as proof that it's the CO2 that did it - no matter if you are mad or not, you'll have to continue flying.

You cannot even honestly conceive of a scenario where AGW may turn out to be an incorrect hypothesis. This is why none of your arguments are primarily scientific but epoistemological and political. If you were really scientific you would have said what it is that would prove to you the falsity of AGW.

(stomach ulcers were thought to be caused by all sorts of things, for decades, until relatively recently, when they turned out to be caused by bacteria. Everyone who was NOT working in bacteria research poo-pooed the idea.  Or despite scientific testing and trial, how often do you hear about drugs that turn out to have completely unpredicted consequences in the medium to long run? I mean science is a great method but it is not a magic wand. But you have transfered your faith from the cassock to the labcoat. Freud could regale you about tranference for hours, I am sure.)i

You are only pissing in the (head)wind. The point is that for decades bacteria were not thought to be the cause and certianly not to the extent that they turned out to be. Despite decades of resaertch. autopsies and research projects. And I reckon the climate in man's stomach is a lot less complex than the Earth's climate. Plus you have a very lange supply of stomachs to experiment with. And still, it turned out to be bacteria to an unexpected extent and the reaction was 'blow me down wiv a feather, gov', followed by a rush knowing nods. Nobody want's to be left behind when the consensus changes.

As to how many times you said/I said:

You may have said thay there are other influences. yet you mention them only to discount them or trace them back to CO2.

You do take CO2 to be the overwhelmingly most important variable that drives change at the present. But the proportion of that responsibility you actually attribute to CO2 is unknown. Is it 85% ? 10? 50? 99%? (or is 99% is the degree of certainty that CO2 has SOME impact?)

As Lindzen says, uncontrobersially, the debate is about the how much influence human CO2 has. That is not settled by a very long shot.