Posts Made By: Hugh Bartlett

Great questions! However, I'm not so sure that it is fear that drives us to one position or another. I suspect that the greater population has a lot more pressing concerns to deal with, and look to the experts as reported in the press. Looking beyond the headlines is where the answers to your questions, if they be knowable, can be found.

If I may make another observation, the Astromart subset of the population, IMHO, is better educated, and more into science, albeit with some bias toward astronomical causes of climate change (solar, orbital mechanics, impacts, etc.). Perhaps this thread will go reset the discussion in a more objective manner, and become a repository for the current state of the science. Regardless of the back and forth banter that happens here, I still get a lot of good information in the various links posted, and find it a more balanced group than any other Internet site I visit on the topic.

And there are counter arguments to all their points, most of which are irrelevant, e.g. "Mars is warming"???

The 97% consensus is the weakest level of agreement possible, and does not say what the most people think it says.

You've got to did a little deeper than one-liner qoutes to grasp the skeptical viewpoint.

A lot of those arguments are straw men, silly statements that simplify the skeptical viewpoint to absurd one-liners. The positions on both sides, and the science itself, is much more complex and deserving of more than a response to a 3-5 word statement that supposedly defines the skeptical viewpoint.

For your edification, consider this definition of a climate skeptic: The "Skeptical" position is not that the climate is not warming, nor that human generated greenhouse gasses are a contributing factor to the warming (that renders the responses to most of those 130 talking points moot). In fact, most skeptics would agree with the 97% scientific concensus that the earth is warming and that we are part of the reason.

What the "Skeptics" question is that the science has proved that man's influence is the predominant forcing in the warming (as opposed to somthing the may be significant but not controlling such as 10% to 30% of the warming). Secondly, the "Skeptics" question if the warming and additional CO2 is a disaster or could actually be a benefit. Thirdly, the "Skeptics" question whether the political and economic approaches to limit CO2 emissions will have any benefit commensurate with the costs.

None of that is addressed in any comprehensive and objective way in those 130 talking points.

10 x 50 will give you a wider FOV. Orion UltraViews, for example, have a 6.5 degree FOV.

For binocular astronomical observation, magnification is more important than aperture (opposite the adage for telescopes). For that reason, you will not get much gain in seeing the objects you mentioned with larger objectives. What little you gain will be lost in field of view and weight.

Of the two choices presented, I'd go for the 10x50's.

Great job Alex. The parallels to John Dobson are amazing. A Great story!

As a somewhat regular poster on the global warming forum, I totally understand your position. It became more and more frequented by acrimonious debate populated with mean- spirited commentary that was as offensive as it was tedious. As much as I miss the forum, it had only tenuous connections to astronomy, and I fully support your decision.

I also concur with the removal of the various religious forums that have disappeared. In sum total, I say good riddance. In the future, it is probably best to follow social etiquette, and avoid incendiary topics such as sex, religion, and politics.

Search one in your area with a Personal Property designation from the American Society of Appraisers:

http://www.appraisers.org/FindanAppraiser/FAASearch.aspx

The Little Ice Age may have had multiple causes, so it seems inappropriate for the authors in one field to trash the prevailing solar theory so dismissively. Here for example, is another current scientific article in support of the solar theory:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf

It also makes some interesting predicitons for our immediate future.

As I read that non-scientific article, all it seems to prove is that they have been scared into believing something. Maybe it's really happening, but probably due to some other cause such as erosion, settling, but sea level rise (see attached global data)?

He claims to have been attacked by people who are anti-science. The National Academy of Sciences investigated his Hockey Stick graph, and found that it was an unreliable representation of temperature greater than 400 years before the present. Are they anti-science too?

Moreover, the tree data from the recent warming period (1975-2000) contradicts his hypothesis, so he altered the graph to omit that data. Is that what science does? When the data does not fit the hypothesis, does a real scientist throw out the data?