A Conversation at a Poker Game
Michael and Anthony are very good friends and enjoy their Friday night no-limit Texas Hold’em poker game each week. Michael plays with a tight, aggressive style meaning he plays only the best hands and understands the math behind the game. On the other hand, Anthony tends to be fairly loose in the hands he plays and the bets he calls; meaning that he plays weak starting hands and makes mathematically incorrect plays.
While Michael wins on most nights, Anthony typically loses most nights but he does have that occasional good night when he plays incorrectly but gets lucky. That’s what keeps Anthony coming back for more even though he is a big loser for the year.
The cards are dealt.
Michael: “Hey Anthony, did you see that doctor about the pain you have been having?”
Anthony lights another cigarette: “Yes, he says I have cancer and need to be treated immediately and the treatment is going to be somewhat unpleasant.”
Michael: “Wow! I am so sorry that you have cancer. Is there anything I can do to help?”
Anthony: “Don’t worry, I am sure I do not have cancer.”
Michael: “How come you don’t think you have cancer?”
Anthony: “I was checking the Web and I saw a site by a doctor who claimed that everything nowadays is diagnosed to be cancer so that these doctors can get research money and expensive equipment. These guys are getting rich off diagnosing folks like me.”
Michael: “But isn’t your doctor considered the best oncologist at the best cancer research hospital?”
Anthony: “Yes. He even referred me to several other oncologists and they all said the same thing. I have cancer and need to be treated. Imagine that, they are all in on this scam!”
Michael: “That doctor whose Website you saw, what were his qualifications?”
Anthony: “He is a family doctor who has been practicing medicine for over 30 years so he knows his stuff.”
Michael: “But does he do cancer research or treat cancer patients? Has he published studies about cancer in the top medical journals?”
Anthony: “Nope. He said on his site that all of these doctors publishing are just engaged in group think so that they can get funding from the major pharmaceutical companies. He says to just ‘follow the money and it becomes obvious.’ Think about it. Everything nowadays causes cancer. How convenient for these doctors. What a racket!”
Michael: “Are you seriously suggesting that a general doctor who does no cancer research nor treats cancer patients knows more than the top cancer doctors in the top cancer hospitals?”
Anthony: “If you read his Website you would be convinced. Go to http://www.cancerisahoax.com and see for yourself. I have a good feeling about this.”
Michael: “But you are a chain smoker and everybody knows that smoking is linked to many types of cancer. Don’t you think that maybe your smoking caused the cancer you have?”
Anthony: “I know plenty of smokers that don’t have cancer. I even read in Reader’s Digest that there was a guy in Russia that smoked three packs a day and lived to be 105. Smoking does not mean I have cancer – it just means I like to smoke. That doctor’s Website I have been telling you about said something about that. I think he said ‘correlation does not equal causation’ or something like that.”
Michael is dealt pocket AA, the best starting hand in poker while Anthony is dealt 7-2 off suit which is the worst starting hand in poker. Michael’s hand will win 87% of the time heads up and he knows this.
Michael opens the betting with a $10 raise. Everybody folds except Anthony who goes all-in for $200.
Michael calls instantly and shows the AA. Anthony flips over the 7-2 and says,
“I have a good feeling about this!”
(Note: I chose the cancer metaphor because it will be well understood by all. I do not take cancer lightly because my family has quite a history with this disease.)
Global Warming: Man or Myth? 
[…] ctauthor wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptMichael and Anthony are very good friends and enjoy their Friday night no-limit Texas Hold’em poker game each week. Michael plays with a tight, aggressive style meaning he plays only the best hands and understands the math behind the … […]
A Conversation at a Poker Game « Global Warming: Man or Myth?
February 16, 2010 at 7:08 pm
nice post
Marty Smyth
February 17, 2010 at 1:22 am
i just know this page, nice blog you have,
i will visit this web more often and read about your post,
i like ur topic specially about
Michael and Anthony are very good friends and enjoy their Friday night no-limit Texas Hold’em poker game each week. Michael plays with a tight, aggressive style meaning he plays only the best hands and understands the math behind the game. On the other hand, Anthony tends to be fairly loose in the hands he plays and the bets he calls; meaning that he plays weak starting hands and makes mathematically incorrect plays.
Cheers
Samantha
February 17, 2010 at 4:11 am
When Anthony went all in, it may have been a bluff. He didn’t know Michael had pocket rockets. When he made his comment about , I have a good feeling about this, he may have been trying to save face and he did actually have a 13% chance of winning. Of course, he could always buy back in. My question is, do you really want to try a bluff against Mother Nature?. I heard she is a hell of a card player. Knows all the odds and will beat you almost everytime. The consequences of that bluff are severe and a rebuy may not be possible. Do you want to take a chance on that result? Only a fool would!!
Tom Bove'
February 17, 2010 at 10:29 am
Superbly stated, sir!
Scott Mandia
February 17, 2010 at 10:35 am
sigh…
are you implying with your cancer analogy that global warming is life or death? are you implying that our knowledge of the earth-atmosphere system is akin to smoking-cancer?
i just don’t understand how scaring people is helpful. i also don’t understand the arrogance about our level of understanding of the climate system.
jfr117
February 17, 2010 at 10:51 am
Are you implying that because some people may overstate the problem that there is no problem? If there is going to be any damage, we have to think about mitigation. We are not *sure* about the damage or how fast it will come, we are only sure of the changes that have already occurred, and that we are willfully taking a risk by activities that we can change. I am also sure those changes will be worthwhile *INVESTMENTS* in the future, even if there is no damage from global warming at all.
Bryan Seigneur
March 3, 2010 at 6:32 pm
really? ok. in betting parlance, you are taking CO2 as the primary climate forcing, i will take the rest of the known mechanisms.
jfr117
February 17, 2010 at 11:59 am
Not only that, but I am “all-in” with CO2 as the primary forcing mechanism. 🙂
Scott Mandia
February 17, 2010 at 2:06 pm
again…really? more than oceans (heat capacity much higher than air)? i tend to believe that the warm phases of the PDO and AMO have occurred in concert with the recent warm air temps. is this treated explicitly in the GCMs? we don’t even understand what causes the PDO yet, right?
jfr117
February 17, 2010 at 3:08 pm
It cannot be PDO. See here:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/natural_causes_climate_change.html
Look, I am not going to debate arguments like PDO, AMO, ENSO, sunspots, GCR, etc. All of these claims do not stand up to scrutiny and they have been debunked countless of times in countless places, including some in my own Website. Have you visited my site and read everything there?
I do appreciate your candor and your time. Thank you.
Scott Mandia
February 17, 2010 at 4:59 pm
With all due respect to JFR117 who really has admitted that we don’t know enough about climate changes and agrees he don’t know enough about what is causing global warming and yet he agrues with a man who seems to have devoted years to the subject. As the poker analog suggested, do we really want to try and bluff Mother Nature who seems to play every hand. JFR117 should tell Prof Mania what he knows and not what he don’t know. I am not an educated person and I freely admit that I know nothing on the subject. I can play poker and I watch the better players more closely to achieve the results I want. Prof Mandia seems to be the better player in this game. Nuff said.
Tom Bove'
February 17, 2010 at 5:16 pm
your right Tom, science is not cut and dry like some make it seem. i don’t pretend to know it all, but that does not mean that questions cannot be asked. i don’t know why that is offensive to people, to ask questions about the climate system. it is an inherently complex, non-linear system. if you don’t have questions, then you are fooling yourself.
if you want to regulate carbon dioxide, fine. but do so for the proper reasons, not fear-based science.
just curious, if you are not educated on the subject, why are you reading this blog? i recommend you read both sides.
jfr117
February 18, 2010 at 8:55 am
…but your own words say that we do not understand or cannot predict the PDO, so how can we throw it out if we don’t understand it? we are only trying to explain the period from ~1980 through present, correct? this period correlates very well the recent warm oceans. without plotting the data, better than with co2 alone, i would imagine.
however, it may be one of the many forcings during the past 30 years!
See this paper for discussion of ocean/land temps:
Click to access CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf
jfr117
February 17, 2010 at 5:28 pm
The PDO is cyclical and cannot explain the long-term trend in climate even if it appears to correlate in a much shorter time frame. The problem is that the PDO cannot account for the following:
1) A cooling stratosphere (about 1/2 is due to ozone depletion and the other 1/2 GHG increases)
2) Warmer night time temperatures
3) Measured increases in downwelling LW radiation at the surface
4) Measured decreases in outgoing LW radiation at the top of the atmosphere
I am not claiming that GHG increases are the only climate forcing mechanism; it is just the dominant one. I would never “throw out” other factors but these other factors such as the PDO come and go and cannot explain the monotonic warming since 1960.
The radiative properties of CO2 are very well understood and have been for over a century. For quite a long time, we have known that a doubling of CO2 will warm the climate at least 1C and there is fairly good certainty that the resulting feedbacks will produce at least 2C additional warming with 3C more likely. We are also measuring CO2 increases of 2 ppm per year and climbing (except last year where there was a slight decrease due to the global recession) and we have levels that have not been seen in the past 15 million years. It is foolish to think that these increases cannot be a significant factor in warming the climate.
Finally, although far from perfect, climate models do a very good job predicting many aspects of climate change and these models can duplicate today’s climate change only when increased GHGs are included. Today’s climate cannot be explained without increased GHGs.
It is for these reasons (and many, many others) that every international science body agrees with the conclusions of the IPCC (2007) and there has yet to be a single article published in a major journal that shows how increased GHGs cannot be responsible. There have been articles that suggest other mechanisms, but none has stood up to scrutiny and none of these can explain away increased GHGs. As Carl Sagan often said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” There is extraordinary evidence for warming due to increased GHGs but not so for any other mechanism.
Let’s move on. The point of this thread is that folks are getting their information from non-experts on a very serious issue.
Scott Mandia
February 17, 2010 at 7:05 pm
why do you want to move on, why can’t there be discussion?
i thought the climate models could not exlpain the T series since the 1970’s, not 1960, with CO2? is that not the case? since the late 1970’s both the PDO and AMO have been in their warm phase (in other words, great resevoirs of heat were anomalously warm). how has tropospheric moisture changed during this same period (that is a real question). see my reply to Tom about asking questions in science.
i am also not convinced either that this 30 year period is unprecedented, nor has the warming been monotonic, which proves that natural forces can trump co2. from what i have read, the NAS confirms the recent period is the warmest in 400 yrs, but that is because we were in a relative minimum, so yes, it is warm relative to that minumum. beyond that, the proxy data is subjective and becomes suspect.
to your point about extraordinary claims: the scientifc method requires one falsification, not extraoridinary evidence. and about the peer review, c’mon we all read the CRU emails, saw the FOIA requests. there is not much trust in the peer review process right now.
jfr117
February 18, 2010 at 9:13 am
See my first blog post regarding the CRU hack. There is nothing there that refutes the mountain of evidence for AGW. I repeat, explain how the PDO and NAO cause stratospheric cooling, etc. etc., etc. One cannot just claim a natural warming if it cannot explain all the effects of that warming. So stratospheric cooling would falsify the PDO and AMO.
I say to just move on because to constantly debate the cause of global warming is to delay action. Debating the cause of global warming is essentially claiming that the vast majority of scientists around the world are ignorant. Shall we still debate the cause of AIDS or should we be trying to find the cure?
Scott Mandia
February 18, 2010 at 10:53 am
yes it seems there has been a significant upward trend in rh in the lower troposphere, with an ENSO fingerprint. el nino’s are stronger in warm PDO’s. higher dewpoints yield lower minimum T’s and will absorb IR radiation since it is a GHG, no?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-2-1.html
jfr117
February 18, 2010 at 9:24 am
i didn’t say that cru nullified agw, but that it does shed a bad light on the whole ‘system’
positive phases of the pdo and nao mean warmer water which means more water vapor in the air. water vapor is a strong ghg, so perhaps this is the ghg we should implicate (if we need to worry).
our understanding of the natural internal variability is not robust, nor are the GCMs, nor is our knowledge about past temperatures.
i say let’s keep studying this compex system, open up the process and remove the politics from this science. your concensus arguments hold no water to me – i don’t like votes in science.
just to be clear, is it just the last ~30 years that can only be explained by co2?
jfr117
February 18, 2010 at 11:09 am
Click to access i1520-0442-18-21-4498.pdf
NAO:
While the NAO and AO may contribute to hemispheric and regional warming for multiyear periods, these differences suggest that the large-scale features of the global warming trend over the last 30 years are unrelated to the AO and NAO.
BTW, I looked at the Compo paper and it does NOT support your claim in the least. That paper is stating that warming over land may be the result of a warming ocean. This makes sense because oceans cover 70% of the surface so they naturally will warm air over the continents much like an island is warmed by the surrounding waters. Furthermore, the authors state right in the abstract:
The net ocean heat content is increasing not decreasing. That means the oceans are GAINING HEAT over time and not losing it to the air above over time. I wonder how the oceans are gaining this heat? The consensus is that the radiative heat budget of the climate is not in equilibrium and the globe is gaining more than it is losing. Of course the oceans will warm in an increased GHG world and this is also well-modeled.
Do you see why there really is no valid debate on PDO or NAO as the primary cause of the warming trend?
Scott Mandia
February 18, 2010 at 1:31 pm
the NAO and AO are atmosheric regimes, i was talking about the PDO and AMO, oceanic ‘cycles’ of temperature anomaly.
of course it makes sense! north america is an island between two anomalously warm oceans, hence its temp. increases. this is all very logical and nowhere do we need to climate models or alarm.
with regard to author’s statement, well, its just a statement. seemed like they needed to put it in their to get published, but that’s just being cynical.
i thought the oceans were slightly cooling (via argo) but i’ll have to double check that. the PDO implies cooling of the pacific relative to normal.
i don’t see how this proves co2 as the primary cause since the GCMs do not explicitly account for these oceanic cycles. i would feel much better when this was accounted for in the models since, to me, this leaves a large question mark.
btw, i understand the north america is not the globe!
repeat: is it just the last 30 years that we need CO2 to match T trends?
thanks…
jfr117
February 18, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Sorry, I thought you said NAO. As I showed before PDO cannot account for the long-term trend in warming.
Here is a good summary of the AMO:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/tropical-ssts-natural-variations-or-global-warming/
Here is my summary of Climate Model Accuracy which does speak to the AMO issue:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/climate_models_accuracy.html
Here are the latest ocean heat content plots (see Fig. 7-13 through 7-15):
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/modern_day_climate_change.html
Again, what is warming the oceans? The AMO appears to be a more regional climate influencer. I can find no references that show it is a global climate influencer. Do you have some?
is it just the last 30 years that we need CO2 to match T trends?
No. It is just that in the past 30 years there appear to be no natural causes for the warming. There has been a GHG contribution to climate change in the past 130 years but in the past 30 it has really stood out.
Scott Mandia
February 18, 2010 at 8:52 pm
The answer to JFR117’s question is as follows
I am reading this blog because Global Warming is a concern for all people. The average person like myself who make up a majority of the people are powerless to make or even think that they can make a difference. So we rely on people who do know and who can make a difference. I rate the comments on the value of the words written in the blogs. On one hand we have Prof Mandia who is concerned over the future of the planet and uses his knowledge to educate others on the dangers of what is indisputably happening. You aren’t really offering a solution but rather you are just disputing the facts that are presented. Does regulating CO2 have a down side? I haven’t heard anyone indicate that it does. So why take a chance. That’s all I’m saying. This is the opinion of an ordinary guy who would like to see my grandchildren have a place to grow and play. The blog intrigued me due to it’s reference to a poker game and I have always said that life is like a poker game. As a rule I generally win so I like to go with a winner. I have drawn the opinion that Prof Mandia is the winner of this debate as he has a goal and a plan and you do not. That is only based on what I have read as I don’t really know you. I have concluded that you are educated and it’s possible that you do have a goal and a possible solution to the problem. It’s just that your blog’s don’t indicate it. At this time I am bailing out of this conversation as I do not have the intelligence or information to carry on any further. I also believe keeping an open mind to other cures is in the best interest of mankind. No one wants these different opinions to stall efforts to correct the situation even if it’s in vain. Tom
Tom Bove'
February 18, 2010 at 2:52 pm
thanks, tom. i’m glad to see you are interested in this issue – it is important. but don’t bail becuase you feel you are uneducated about it – ask questions that you have to become educated. it’s ok to ask – there are no dumb questions in science.
you are entitled to your opinions and feelings, i am not trying to sway anybody. i am engaging scott so that i can learn; it is obvious he is well versed in this topic. but again, there are two sides and i feel that there are many quesions left unsatisfactorily answered or communicated.
jfr117
February 19, 2010 at 8:55 am
sorry, you didn’t show the pdo can’t cause long term warming! we don’t know what the pdo is, just that it is a warm phase of a huge heat resevoir.
do we have longer time series of the ocean heat content? since its the ocean, its cycles are multi-decadal. i said the amo only because it has occured in concert with a warm pdo.
how can we attribute co2 to any warming prior to the 1970’s since the variability was explained by natural causes according to the ipcc?
i’ll check out your links. thanks.
jfr117
February 19, 2010 at 9:03 am
Here is why it cannot be the PDO:
(Cook, 2008)
The IPCC does not claim that prior to the 1970s there was only natural forcing. Human emissions of CO2 has just played a much larger role since that time but it has had a role since the IR. NAO, PDO, AMO, AO are regional and none of these can explain why the oceans overall themselves are warming. The ocean and climate can only warm from external forcing – the heat has to come from somewhere else. Before human emissions of GHGs the two major climate forcing mechanisms on decadal time scales were solar variability (warming or cooling) and volcanic eruptions (cooling).
The Earth either gains energy or loses energy. It can gain energy from the sun and it loses energy by radiating more heat away than comes in. Anything that blocks incoming sunlight such as volcanoes and aerosols from pollution will cool the Earth and a weaker sun (such as the past several years) will also cool the Earth. Anything that blocks outgoing radiation will warm the oceans and atmosphere. GHGs do exactly that.
According to the IPCC (2007) current estimates suggest that only 0.1 oC of the 0.8 oC of warming since the late 1800s is due to solar irradiance. More importantly, since direct satellite measurements (1980 – present) solar contribution to the observed rapid warming is negligible. There is no evidence that variations in the strength of the sun are the cause of the modern day climate change.
So what is warming the oceans if it isn’t increased GHGs?
Scott Mandia
February 19, 2010 at 9:47 am
the cook graph shows and index vs. a temp. anomaly, an index is not a measure of forcing. second, contrary to cook’s assertion, a warm phase pdo has warm anomalies in the tropics, which is more energetic than a warm anomaly in the higher latitudes, so they don’t necessarily cancel each other out. thirdly, these oceanic cycles are natural internal variability – where the energy comes from or goes to is not understood! perhaps into the deep ocean? we don’t know much about these heat resevoirs! el nino is an ocean generated heat anomaly, right? el nino’s get their excess heat from ocean and wind patterns, no ghg needed there to generate that excess heat.
i also think the pacific (given its size) has a large ‘regional’ influence.
finally, how can we tease out the co2 contribution prior to the 1970’s?
still haven’t read your links yet but will at lunch…
jfr117
February 19, 2010 at 10:52 am
The point is that the PDO causes warming and cooling in cycles and like other internal cycles, it averages a flat trend so it cannot be forcing a long-term upward trend.
Actually we do know where the energy is coming from to heat the oceans – the radiative imbalance of increasing GHGs primarily.
ENSO also cycles up (El Nino) and down (La Nina) and cannot possibly be causing a long-term trend. There is no excess heat “caused” by ENSO. ENSO just moves around the heat that already exists.
I think we may have to just agree to disagree at this point because we are both just repeating ourselves. Overall, I am pleased we have had this discussion because readers likely have learned from the exchange.
Scott Mandia
February 19, 2010 at 11:14 am
a warm pdo is a warm cycle, it doesn’t cause it. its defined by its temp. anomalies. and all heating is not equal, it is more important in the tropics (where it is already hot) than at the poles, so the footprint of the pdo doesn’t just balance.
we do not know where these warm or cool anomalies come from, otherwise we would understnad the pdo, which we do not.
i agree to disagree.
but how do we know co2’s attribution prior to the 1970’s?
jfr117
February 19, 2010 at 11:50 am
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Dunning-Kruger-effect-and-the-climate-debate.html
Skeptical Science’s Dunning-Kruger Effect post is a must-read because it shows exactly what is happening in the poker game.
Scott Mandia
February 19, 2010 at 9:54 am
“Our results suggest, for example, that the change in phase of the AMO in the 1960s may have caused a cooling of U.S. and European summer climate; a further change in the AMO may have contributed to recent warming in these regions.”
Click to access 115.pdf
jfr117
February 19, 2010 at 12:40 pm
the cooling refers to the cool period of the 1960’s…and by admitting a natural contribution to the recent warm period in two distinct regions (US and Europe) is not consisent with the IPCC statement that co2 is required to explain the recent warming (since the 1970’s).
do the models have these oceanic cycles explicitly defined as model input?
and how does the ipcc attribute co2 to the warming signal prior to the 1970’s?
these are just questions i have, not meant for further debate but if you can point me to their solution i may have further questions.
thanks.
have a good weekend.
jfr117
February 19, 2010 at 3:37 pm
The IPCC does not claim that ALL of the recent warming comes from GHG emissions. Please read the WGI report but start with the FAQ first.
Scott Mandia
February 19, 2010 at 4:32 pm
yes i read it. my take was that since the 1970’s co2 was required, in the models, to replicate the temp. series.
but my question is/was: were the observed warm anomalies of the pacific and atlantic during this time period explictly modeled in the gcms? if they were to be modeled, will the addition of those inputs reduce the amount of co2 necessary to recreate the temp. series?
jfr117
February 19, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Yes CO2 is required to duplicate the climate change and it is the major forcing mechanism. Natural forcing is still in the models. In fact, if CO2 is left out, there should have been a cooling trend for most of that time.
Yes. See chapter 8 of the IPCC WGI Report.
Why are you so determined to reduce CO2s effect? The radiative properties of CO2 are well understood and with the huge increases in the concentration of this GHG, physics tells us that we should have warmed and we did. In fact, if it were not for the ocean absorbing about 50% of that CO2 and a weak sun, we would have warmed much more.
Scott Mandia
February 19, 2010 at 5:02 pm
my edits to your first paragraph: Yes CO2 is required to duplicate the climate change in the models and it is the major forcing mechanism in the models. Natural forcing is not fully accounted for in the models. As a result, if CO2 is left out, there would have been a cooling trend for most of that time.
why am i determined to reduce its affects? i just want any action to be based on a robust foundation. there is a lot of alarm and rhetoric, which leads to rash decisions, wasted resources and distrust in science.
i think i said before, all else equal, co2 will have an effect (yes physics is correct). but all else is not equal in the real world, there are non-linear competing factors at play (cloud feedbacks, internal ocean variability), which are NOT fully resolved in the gcms.
i have not asked the same of you – why are so determined to maximize its effects?
jfr117
February 20, 2010 at 9:13 am
Most of the recent data suggests that the climate is changing faster than predicted so it is my opinion (and that of many experts) that the message is not alarming enough. I was asked after a recent public presentation if I could sum up my feeling about global warming in one sentence. My response was:
Global warming is the single greastest threat to humanity and nature as we move toward the year 2100 and beyond.
Scott Mandia
February 20, 2010 at 11:04 am
Great post, Scott.
I think the cancer analogy is very appropriate, even though it’s not a pleasant piece of imagery. I’ve used the analogy of heart disease, because it requires not just acceptance of medical judgment and treatment, but a willingness to accept long-term lifestyle changes to serve our own best interests. E.g. low-carbon life style is analogous to low-cholesterol diet, etc.
I’ll plug your blog on mine (The Cost of Energy) as soon as I post this.
Lou Grinzo
March 2, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Thanks Scott,
Fun post, the discussion in the comments are sooo funny…I almost think you must be posting as jfr117 simply for irony’s sake
disdaniel
March 5, 2010 at 1:19 am
I’ve just found your website and am really enjoying it. Thanks for all the work you put in.
Ironically, I wrote a somewhat similar piece, also comparing cancer diagnosis and climate change denial around the same time in February. Looks like you beat me to it by a couple of days.
Byron Smith
May 10, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Byron,
Thank you for stopping by and providing the link to your blog post. I think your honesty and your experience goes a long way to show us all how important it is to listen to the experts and to trust them when there is overwhelming support for their conclusions.
Scott Mandia
May 10, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Yes, the undermining of public trust in recognised experts (and the growth in pseudo-experts) is one of the most worrying developments in the climate discussion.
I was just amazed at how similar our analogies were. Great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ… 😉
Byron Smith
May 11, 2010 at 5:14 am
its a myth for sure!
igor
May 14, 2010 at 11:33 am
lol nice analogy
Poker Guy
February 17, 2011 at 2:52 pm