Reply To: Cap and Trade

[HermannH]

Brian H wrote:
There have been a sequence of posts; recapping the whole sequence every post is unworkable.

As I said, your interpretation of CO2 flux can be summed up in two sentences. But you couldn’t be bothered with that. Instead you came up with flippant one-liners and some numbers that only make sense in a very specific context.

Brian H wrote:
And “unconventional” is a matter of opinion.

No it’s not! When a vast majority believes something it’s ‘conventional’, regardless of whether that belief is right or wrong. When a small minority believes something fundamentally different and the majority is not even aware of that view it’s ‘unconventional’.

I wasn’t aware of your interpretation and neither was Eric Lerner. I fact he got involved for the sole purpose of telling you to get your math straight. That makes two out of two who participated in the discussion with you.

Usually people know whether their views on a particular topic are mainstream or unconventional. I am sure Eric doesn’t believe that his views on the Big Bang or on the feasibility of FF are conventional at this time. To be unaware that your views are unconventional may a sign of delusion.

Brian H wrote:
That data-based verification has become “unconventional” in climate science is the ultimate sign that it is off doing something else besides science. Milking a giant cash cow comes to mind.

Your favorite: its all a conspiracy!
Have a look at this http://noimpactman.typepad.com/blog/2008/06/the-climate-cha.html and this http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482 for some alternate conspiracies.