I'm leaning strongly toward Dan's opinion cuz he actually seems to understand science, not just cuz he has a lighter and sets people on fire. Whereas Hank C&Ps "eminent" scientists who counter the conclusions of other eminent scientists. Since none of us are climate scientists, eminent or otherwise, it's like he expects to persuade us with eminence.

I'm a scientist, but I'm not a climate scientist. I've read the [censored] from both sides of the climate street, and I can't decide if anyone is right. The discipline is too specialized for a scientist from another field to critically evaluate it. What a lot of folks don't seem to understand is that science often doesn't yield concrete conclusions. Evidence supports or leans toward one conclusion more than another, or give an answer like it's 95% probable that this conclusion would be correct 87% of the time. Most folks don't find answers like that acceptable, even if they are the best and most accurate answers in existance. So the conclusions often get butchered into something simple enough for the lay media and citizen to understand, even tho it's not accurate.

Meanwhile, the rivers I want to fish this weekend are too high or too low or rising too steeply. Gonna' tie crab patterns for permit I guess.

Sg