Sorry for my late response. I had a small family emergency myself that is now taken care of. I hope your father is doing better…

#1 You seem to be admitting that AGW is not settled science without having to admit it is not settled science.

Jones admits that, “I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view.” Jones is a believer. Maybe a large majority of scientists are believers. However, Jones definitely does not believe that he or a “vast majority of climate scientists” believe that it is “settled science.”

When the #1 supporter of AGW theory disagrees with you, it may be time to jump off the sinking ship and admit you are wrong. AGW is possible, it may be likely, it may be overwhelmingly likely, but is not “settled science.”

I hate to say it. But most of the rest of the post is a group of petty and small statements, most logical fallacies.

#2 Are you really worried that the WS did not link to the article? For heaven’s sake. They referenced the appropriate article in the magazine. It is a PAPER magazine that happens to put their content online. Technology is great but I have yet to see the ability to put a live link on a magazine page.

You then have trouble “taking an article with a caricature of a naked, freezing Al Gore on the top of it very seriously as an unbiased source.” (genetic fallacy) Yet, looking over a couple of posts since I came back to this website a few minutes ago, you quote Bill Maher, Media Matters, the Huff Post, and PBS. I guess you do not have a problem with biased sources when they are yours…

# 3 You then go on to say that, “Assuming I have the right interview, it would be interesting to see where you (and the writer at the Weekly Standard who you are quoting) found that in there, because I don’t see it.”

In about 30 seconds, without even reading the entire interview, it is pretty easy to see where Jones admits that only 80% of the data has been released. You cannot “verify” or “replicate” with anything less than 100% of the data.

#4 I never commented on the Petition Project, so will not here either.

#5 You state: “The concept of switching the argument from R/D mode to Liberal / Progressive seems like one of convenience to me, because I guess that’s what I would do if I had been generally in support of the Republican party, but was displeased with the direction it’s taking right now.”

This does nothing but show your close-mindedness. Just because you are so blinded by the R or D after a politician’s name does not mean that everyone follows the same lemming approach. I am a registered independent who considers himself a classical liberal. I agree with Washington’s take on political parties as illustrated by his farewell address. Look it up. Perhaps you should put down Maher and pick up more Washington.

#6 Mao ornament- I’m not quite certain what it being a replica of an Andy Warhol painting has to do with it. The man killed 70 million Chinese and his picture should be no where near the WH (or high level aides that see Mao as one of their “favorite political philosophers” or agree with him that “political power mainly comes from the barrel of a gun.”) in any way, shape, or form. Something tells me that you would have a different outlook if it was Bush with a “pop-art” picture of Der Fuhrer.

And actually, I am more alarmed by the ornament with Obama’s face imposed on Mt. Rushmore…

#7 Typos? You really want to comment on typos? Small, very small.

#8 You state: “Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) was a direct response to Enron, and the fact that the auditors were self-regulated prior to it. The public pressure was immense to get that in place. Are you trying to use that as an example that the Bush administration was in favor of regulation?”

Did I use that as an example that the Bush administration was in favor of regulation? No, but thanks for the strawman fallacy…

#9 You state: “IMHO, the current round of financial reforms is similar — a direct response to public outrage surrounding another financial disaster arising from a lack of regulation, albeit in a different sector.”

Lack of regulation? I could easily fill your office with nothing but books of regulations on the financial sector. Policy created this mess, not lack of regulation. Mix in one part cheap money (interest rates too low), one part social engineering (we all deserve the American dream!), and four parts political corruptness (Fannie & Freddie, etc.) and you have a recipe for disaster.

I shudder at the thought of John McCain as President almost as much as Barack Obama, but he does get kudos for being one of the only politicians calling for the reigning in of Freddie and Fannie, government owned corporations by the way, long before the crisis occurred.

If the banks had no one to sell bad mortgages to, they would not have sold them.

An Arctic cold snap that began in 1998 could last for years, freezing the northern marine passage and making it impassable without icebreaking ships, said Oleg Pokrovsky of the Voeikov Main Geophysical Observatory.

“I think the development of the shelf will face large problems,” Pokrovsky said Thursday at a seminar on research in the Polar regions.

Scientists who believe the climate is warming may have been misled by data from U.S. meteorological stations located in urban areas, where dense microclimates creates higher temperatures, RIA Novosti quoted Pokrovsky as saying.

“Politicians who placed their bets on global warming may lose the pot,” Pokrovsky said.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/04/23/Scientist-says-Arctic-getting-colder/UPI-94431272034113/

In legal terms, man-made CO2 had been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, it’s just another suspect. (BTW it was a commenter, not Steven, who asserted that AGW was settled science.)

The APA endorses the precautionary principle, when they call for “prudent steps should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”. Unfortunately, there is no realistic action the US can take that will stop atmospheric CO2 from continuing to increase. It’s dubious that the US has the political will to reduce our CO2 contribution. Solar and wind power are fine, but they’re too minor. It would take a crash project to build hundred or thousands of nuclear reactors to make a real difference.

Worse, even if the US started reducing our CO2, the growth in China, India and other developing countries would keep atmospheric CO2 rising.

IMHO the right sort of prudent step would be to research ways to reduce the world’s temperature more directly. E.g., it was been suggested that sand or dust particles could be shot into space so as reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the earth. That osr tof approach could be cheaper and less risky than building thousands of nuclear reactors. Furthermore, if the globe is dangerously warming due to some cause other than man-made CO2, these other methods might still be effecting and controllling the earth’s temperature.

http://tinyurl.com/2b5oe35

It offers a good perspective on the Petition Project, among other things. This is National Review talking here. Not exactly Mother Jones magazine.