[Vision2020] Scientific Consensus & Unqualified Pronouncements

[Chasuk]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:

> Applying your analysis below regarding "unqualified pronouncments," as you
> put it, and your lack of expertise in economics, water resources, urban
> planning, and law, your final sentence above is "pointless," again to use
> your wording, not mine.  You concede by your own argument that you lack the
> "expert level knowledge," and again this is your wording, not mine, to
> evaluate the complex questions impacting the Hawkins deal.  Yet you state
> that "Every nuance of opinion has already been expressed ad nauseum."
> regarding these complex issues, which is a bold assessment I doubt would be
> made by many experts evaluating the completies involved in the
> Hawkins/Moscow deal.

You are absolutely right.  I was absolutely wrong.

> If you presented well researched findings to support this statement, on
> water use, for example, showing that the science involved in local water
> resources demonstrates, with a high degree of probability, how much water
> can be extracted, without risk of problematic depletion, according to the
> form of the argument I make below regarding a non-professional researching
> the science of climate change, then at least you would be supporting your
> statement with research, lending some credibility, even though you are not
> an expert in water resources.  But you presented no evidence on this
> important question.

Again, you are right and I was wrong.

> In my posts on the science of climate change I present credible research to
> support any claims regarding the scientific consensus; and I certainly would
> never state that on the subject of anthropogenic climate change, "Every
> nuance of opinion has been expressed ad nauseum."

> I doubt there has been "...ample opportunity for discussion for everyone who
> had anything viable to say." as you phased it, on the question of local
> water resources and conservation, given the current uncertainties in the
> science regarding this issue, and what further investigation and discovery
> will reveal.

See my admissions above.

> The last paragraph seems to merely restate your previous points in different
> words.

Correct again.  That's because I don't have anything new to say.  I
would have preferred to abandon this subject long ago, but I feel
compelled to reply to people who address me politely, and you have
been unfailingly polite.  I wish that I managed the same aplomb and
equanimity.

HOWEVER... no, I'm not going to reiterate again.  I have nothing new
to say on this subject.  I have learned my lesson.  Maybe others have
interesting and worthwhile things to say about anthropogenic climate
change, just as others have continued to have interesting and
worthwhile things to say about the Hawkins deal.

Chas