But does it sell carbon indulgences? Oops - sorry about that, Martin Luther, I meant carbon credits (grin).
Discussion is locked
.......... the comments, as they are in bold face and included in quotation marks, I assume they were copied from somewhere. Thus credit to the authors is required. It is also helpful helpful for members to know the sources.
I could not find one by passing my cursor over the text, either.
This guy gets paid to make such comments
Alan Caruba is a public relations advisor, a vitriolic critic of environmentalism and founder of the National Anxiety Center.
His personal website boasts that his clients have included or currently include "chemical and pharmaceutical companies, think tanks, trade associations, service providers, publishers, authors, and others. Since the 1990s, he has been the public relations counselor for the New Jersey Pest Management Association. For ten years, he served as the Director of Communications for the American Policy Center." 
A staunch conservative, he has also strongly supported the Bush administration's war with Iraq and advocates similar military action against other countries in the Middle East, including Syria. 
Follow the link to his self named site and you will see this message...
Everything you need to know about public relations is available from The Caruba Organization or, more precisely, from Alan Caruba, a veteran public relations counselor with three decades of experience. For a single public relations project or fulltime service, this is where you want to start!
along with links to such environmentally significant subjects such as...
The Growing Power of Internet-Driven Public Relations
Link here to:
The National Anxiety Center
Noted think tank on media-driven scare campaigns
Ten Secrets of PR Success... Why Your PR Program Isn't Working... Top 10 Most Common PR Mistakes... Crisis PR: Most are Unprepared... Email News Release Guidelines... Word of Mouth and Your Website:"Referral Blast" Promotes Traffic... How to Spot Hype
To borrow a phrase Edward just used... here is a "new Kool-Aid flavor" for us to try. I must admit the fellow can't be accused of junk science because he's as much a scientist as Al Gore is.
Of course, the "Suffolk, Virginia" comments were unsearchable, for obvious reasons. "The Canuba Organization" is in South Organge, NJ
All I could find about him is that he is in public relations and what he has written, and his web sites, etc. I did notice he appears to use some blogs as sources.
Not unless some specific item has changed since then and then only that item needs updating because the rest already is current.
Take for example this page http://www.caruba.com/tenmistakes.htm which it can be noted has a copyright of 2005. It was incorporated into the content made available in 2006 but was not itself altered.
Click on the Start button then the Run option then type in CMD. In the command prompt window that opens what is the date of copyright that you see Angeline?
His site however is NOT where the quote came from nor is it to be located anywhere on his site (although there is a link to the National Anxiety Center and the material can indeed be found there). The quote can be found via many sources by clicking here on this Google search:
what he actually said. And note that it's much the same as what Freeman Dyson said: "The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in."
And of course, Dyson IS a scientist.
... what small moratorium we had established.
First off, Ed, prove that I was appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect. Is the guy a scientist? I think I proved he is not by listing the sources that Edward conveniently failed to supply. Why did Edward not supply links? Because the guy's credentials make him as reliable as Al Gore (which I also said).
As for Dyson? Yes, he is a scientist. A theoretical physicist and mathematician... but not a climatologist. The article which I read in its entirety last week was very entertaining. When I raised some questions about it last week, you either missed my comments or ignored them, so why you want to rehash it now, I'm not sure.
But let us take the WHOLE introduction into context rather than cherry pick.
HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
by Freeman Dyson
My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.
First off... I like this guy. He thinks outside the box as I try to do. He tells you in the title that he is being a devils advocate, asking for the consideration of heretical thoughts. Next...he admits he is no climatologist and says that his concerns deal with computer modeling. I can accept this as valid critical considerations from a man who has given time to exploring the subject.
CAN YOU SAY THE SAME ABOUT CARUBA ?
Now, if one goes on to read the complete article, one can see that Dyson's objective in the article is to raise doubts about all sorts of conventional wisdom. No where does he say... "this is the reality". No, his intention is to shake up the preconceived notions of future stability whether it be climate change, or his prediction of the US becoming a less than dominant super power by 2070. In short, his article is about challenging all sorts of preconceived notions. The only thing I can ask you, Ed, is if you are going to cite him as extremely credible when it comes to his doubts of climate modeling, then do you also credit his predictions of the US taking a back seat to other countries in the near future?
One other thing intrigued me here was Dyson's comment... "It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."
I made exactly this point back in April when I pointed out that outdoor adventurers such as Yvon Chouinard, had reported noticeably degrading environmental conditions of wildness area made over decades of first hand observation. Your position, Ed, was that these first hand observers were not qualified to make scientific observations... "If the obvious evidence before our own eyes really was obvious, there would be no disagreement, would there. But it is NOT obvious."
My opinion is that you argue for all sides to be heard, while cherry picking the information that supports your agenda. I would love for you to change my mind about this, but providing Dyson's paper as if it was proof against climate modeling rather than his self admitted aim of raising doubt, does not encourage me. In short, I see your point, but I feel the motivations for your POV are strictly economic in nature rather than a desire to see the science proven right or wrong.
"What you think of Dyson's opinion is meaningless to me. Are YOU a Climatologoist? Are you a scientist of any kind? No, didn't think so. And I didn't reply to you before because frankly, it's the same old horse hockey and not really something I needed to comment on. Byyyyeee!!"
You cite a source but won't discuss it...
I'm not a scientist and that is significant in your argument, but the fact that you are not a scientist has no bearing on the conversation...
Same old "horse hockey" is supposed to be a civil, and acceptable comment...
"Byyyyeee!!" is supposed to be a reasonable, and an adult sign off rather than a display of your contempt for me.
Sigh... same behavior from Ed... just a different day.
Where on this post have I attacked or accused anyone?
You picked up the shovel and started digging the hole yourself, Ed. Don't blame someone else for your own actions. All I have done is pointed out your own statements... word for word.
Now is about the time you accuse me of being the Svengali of distortions though, isn't it.
Feel free to have the last word.
I supplied the name of the person I quoted and attributed the quote to him. Nowhere did I claim he was a scientist (nor does he himself even hint at such on his own site) and his quote didn't claim anything except that CLOUDS are inconvenient and thus IGNORED in computer weather modeling. A weakness that can't be simply ignored any more than condensation in the gas tank can be ignored if a gasoline engine runs rough - may be CONVENIENT to ignore it but any troubleshooting done without considering it is rather incomplete.
You can ignore the message and indulge in tossing out odious red herrings all you want but after tossing them in the trash the truth of the matter at hand about computer weather modeling remains - CLOUDS are not taken into consideration.
That Kool-Aid you like sends a message (obtainable via lab analysis).
to cite facts doesn't alther the facts nor have any other meaning than that the man profits from the junk science spouted by others by pointing out how and why the junk science is junk science - flawed methodology.
Algore profits from his own "carbon credits" but I haven't seen you making any point of mentioning that.
He is actually being paid for public relations work but unlike some has the ethics to not accept commissions from the junk science groups.
What I "claimed" you did stands because you did indeed do it.
Because of previous comments by certain people who "don't approve" of certain sites (and who have deleted posts simply because of such links) all quotes will not be linked Angeline but I most certainly did attribute them to their source. Verification can easily be done via a search of the source attributed.
Some quotes may need amplification (such as "?Suffolk, Virginia") but one assumes that if curious enough one can search through many reader comments and letters to the editor. A specific phrase from the quote coupled with the location would get you there.
Credit to the authors and originators of the qouted materials was conspicuously present Angeline.
understand what the fuss is all about. It is a given that climate variances are a natural phenonom, It is also a given,whether some like it or not,that the pouring of millions of tons of junk into our atmosphere can influence these natural cycles. So just from a standpoint of "why take a chance on making it worse" and it is to humankind's benefit to stop using fossil fuels regardless of the temporary inconvenience why do you object to that goal? O I see you object to the politics. So why not just say so instead of muddying the waters?