In article .com,
"raylopez99" wrote:
Right you are again Clifford. Truth is, there is absolutely nothing
controversial about my post--it is exactly as stated by the IPCC--many
people don't realize that a range from X to Y means X is just as
probably as Y--there is no need to pick either endpoint as 'more'

No, but if the data is normally distributed, the center is more probable than
the extremes.

probable than the other. I could have just as easily said "IPCC 2001:
Greenhouse gas warming 10% UNLIKELY", which would have been an
_equally_ valid statement.

Or "existence of atoms 0.00000000001% unlikely."


In other words we have a 1-in-3 (best) case
or 1-in-10 (worse) case that there is no anthropogenic global warming,

That's not what the statistics mean.

according to the (biased) IPCC, with a (typical) 95% confidence. Yet
another reason not to panic over GW.

As for the regulars here--they are polemicists like myself but with one
critical difference--I have stated I am a 'useful troll', that I have
an open mind about GW (I doubt it is real, but I am open to
suggestion), and agree that for policy reasons we should tax gasoline
to encourage transition faster to nuclear, solar and clean coal and the
like. By contrast, my critics, RC, CB, LP, Dan etc (mostly
non-scientists, typical is CB--who I think is a girl) are rabid eco-nut
fanatics--on-line cyber eco-terrorists, who have a "cult-like"
mentality, refusing to consider alternative scenarios.

We believe in the power of science; you believe in the power of Tinkerbell.


The only mantra
they chant, like the Buddha worshipping RC, is "The IPCC said AGW=GW so
we must stop all human activity (and roll over and die)". This
nihilism is popular in Asian religions and cults, and resonates with
these Neo-Club of Rome doomsdayers.

Small wonder the 'real world' has all but forgetten about GW after a
few years in the spotlight. And once a recession hits, it will be
forgotten faster. Shame, because if presented intelligently, a good
case can be made that we need to think about (not necessarily act, just
think about) transitioning out of fossil fuels--and GW is a good
'excuse' to do this (the actual impact of GW remains to be seen, and
many reports indeed say the USA will do better with a small temperature
increase). Nuclear (fission then fusion) is the obvious choice over
fossil fuels. But post "3 Mile Island" nuclear is (wrongly) taboo in
the US, so perhaps GW is a good Trojan Horse to reintroduce America to
the benefits of nuclear, as the French already know. We will wait and
see. One thing is for sure--it's much too early to act just yet.

Cheers,
RL



Clifford wrote:

RL,
And none of the regulars could disprove you! just call you names. That
shows
EXACTLY where they stand. Smear and discredit the messenger rather than
deal
with the COLD hard FACTS.

Clifford