> There were 11 other panelists at the hearing. =A0Perhaps we should consid=
er
> all of their testimony.

> http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsI=
D=3D2947

Not necessary to achieve my original carefullyqualified statement. :-)
ie
             If you decide to read only one paper with this point of view

The last5 words being pivotal.
I have not read the rest but I'm sure it would be interesting and that
much of it would offer opposing viewponts in the paper that I referred
to. All I want is to know the truth - so while I don't mind when
radically opposing views are offered as holy writ, it does make me
terminally wary of accepting any of them at face value - Lindzen's or
others.

I would expect any submissions to a political hearing of any ilk to be
different than scientific papers in learned journals and I'd expect
much of these to be partisan or to appear to be.

My point is that many bad things have been written from proponents of
both extreme points of view about the quality of science involved,
people hating science, lack of relevant qualifications etc.

Prof Lindzen does seem to meet the hurdle several times over for
people who are allowed by others to have a potentially valid view
point. That his viewpoint is diammetrically opposed to those of some
others of similar qualifications tends to make his major point.

Some, of course, point out where the "Sloane" in "Sloane chair of ..."
comes from but such are getting really desperate and can almost always
be safely ignored :-).

The last presenter was Dr Judith Curry. I have immense respect for her
position and will try to get to read what she has said.
She has maintained a reasonably constant stance throughout but in
latter times has been evicted from the "camp" that she thought she was
in and forced into the middle ground where Godwin labels get applied
to people.

She appears in the famed Hadley emails asking questions about data
sources and integrity, as is her wont. As I recall, she didn't get any
sort of answer after being passed down the chain to 'people more
qualified than I'.

If all scientists were as veracious as she seems to be our science
would be in a far better state overall and we may know valuably more
than we do about some key matters. Obfuscation and data hiding or data
selection to support a point of view will ultimately lead to disaster.

Go Judith !!! :-).

         Russell

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.