Mediamaven,

I have never expounded upon here what my background is, and I still choose not to because I do not believe that credentials or a list of experience substitutes for what someone's words can say that supports credibility.

However, I will say this. I am appropriately trained in science and engineering, although not in climatology. But many of the fields that apply to understanding the climate monster, such as heat transfer, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, mathematics, statistics experiemental science and engineering, modelling of phenomena, etc, are within my fields of expertise.

I spent years of my career in R&D reviewing proposals based on experiemental data and research with the express intent of determining their validity. YEARS. I understand by training and by experience how science works, and how it develops over the years quite well. Further, I have been part of developing new technologies through R&D and bringing them to commercialization, so that I am fully aware of what that takes from the laboratory all the way to working machinery.

Knowing how science and research works, I know that exposing the nutjobs and well-meaning amateurs is rather easy, as they are easy targets. However, I also know that going to the source of information is key to understanding what I need to in order to glean rumors, falsehoods, and lies, if they exist. I noted in my previous post that there is plenty of indendent data from sources around the world on climate data, and where you can find it.

It therefore takes much more to me than just a declarative sentence in an essay that refers to a "hoax" or "climategate" as being fact, without supporting statements of from an analysis from the source and why or why not they are correct. An attack on the nutjobs is easy.

If you think that people are trying to control your life by stating falsehoods, it is useless to me to simply make such a statement. The scientific falsehoods that you think exist must be exposed in a scientific manner. Futhermore, the science may be absolutely correct, but the conclusions of what to do about it in terms of what you consider "control" can be attacked. Again, though, you need to present reasons to convince me. fifty bucks for a light bulb is a pretty good reason if you show me that 50 bucks for light bulbs that are x percent more efficient won't materially impact things, and/or that they are unaffordable for most people and therefore we need to go back to the drawing board. To repeat, no one I know who works for NASA or in the field of power generation or climate science supports spending 50 bucks for a light bulb. You are attacking the easy targets, and not going to the source.



Keep on soldiering on, however. I don't blame you at all based on what I see (for example, in the video that John posted) as spectacular misinformation out there. Even though your premise might very well be correct, I am not the guy to convince without a scientific refutation explaining why you believe otherwise from the global consensus.

I also

Perstare et praestare. Per aspera ad astra.