[Pretzel Logic]

Because I often argue for objectivity and balance, my positions are sometimes unpopular, and can be confusing to folks. Beliefs I do not share are sometimes ascribed to me, because a fact I cited is "tied" to a particular belief in someone else's mind.

Let me give an example: Someone states, "90+% of scientists agree that man-made global warming is a real problem."

I rebut with: "Well, that's totally inaccurate. There are tens of thousands of scientists who disagree."

People then assume I hold all sorts of other beliefs, beliefs I may or may NOT share, based on my debate of ONE fact. "Well, he must think THOSE scientists are more credible!" Not necessarily. I simply corrected the fact, because the fact was inaccurate. I do not believe we can get to the truth of anything without CORRECT FACTS.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

As you read my replies, please try to limit "reading into" them. Facts are unbiased. They do not "take sides." They have no politics. FACTS SIMPLY ARE. In order to get anywhere with our understandings, our hypotheses, our advancement of science -- WE FIRST NEED FACTS.

If we wish to advance ourselves in an intelligent and rational manner, then we are also required to ACCEPT facts, even if those facts countermand our primary and previous beliefs.

We can debate how to interpret facts, we can debate what those facts mean, but we cannot debate the facts themselves -- unless we wish the debate to devolve into utter senselessness.

Only then can we form intelligent opinions. Opinions without facts are nothing more than BLIND SPECULATION. And blind speculation is almost never productive, because in the absence of facts, we have only emotion to "fill in the blanks." With emotion filling in the blanks, we will come up with opinions that suit only our hopes, fears, and desires. In other words, we will arrive at conclusions that simply support our biases.

Strong opinions predicated on blind speculation are worse than worthless to the advance of objective understanding. They are, in fact, wholly counterproductive and RETARD the advance of understanding -- because now one first has to overcome the strong, non-fact based opinion before one can even HOPE to reach understanding!

It is my observation that far too many humans simply do not understand the difference between opinions which are based on fact and opinions which are based on emotion. But the world would be a much better place if we could learn to sort out the two, because it would lead to decreased fear, decreased hatred, increased objectivity, increased understanding, and increased love for our fellow humans.

Yet we continue with emotion-based opinions, because humans don't like uncertainty. We instead prefer to create false senses of certainty, especially within our belief systems. Nobody likes saying, "Hey, man, I/we just don't know enough yet!"

So we rush to form an opinion to fill the empty void we feel -- to insulate ourselves from the emotional DISCOMFORT of uncertainty. Unfortunately, objectivity, rationality, and understanding become the tragic victims of our emotions when we operate from this tendency. It is my experience that many folks are wholly unaware of their own tendencies in this regard. It is simply what many people do, without conscious thought to what they are doing, or why.

Those who are familiar with my market analysis may realize that, while I may not always be 100% thrilled with uncertainty, I have at least accepted it as a simple fact of life. Emotionally, it sometimes causes me as much discomfort as anyone. But intellectually, I am quite comfortable with it, for I view uncertainty as a key component of reality itself. From our human perspective, NOTHING is guaranteed. Uncertainty just "is." Whether I choose to embrace it or deny it doesn't change it: Uncertainty will continue to exist as a driving force of the human experience -- so I may as well accept it.

That's my thinking, anyway.

My stance regarding man-made global warming likewise calls for us to embrace reality. And that reality is, our models, our understanding of how climate works, and our understanding of OUR impact on climate are all inadequate. Our understanding is not complete enough to allow us to know what's coming next. In my opinion, anyone who is intellectually honest -- and knows the facts -- will agree that "our understanding of climate is incomplete" is an undebatable fact.

Where we will begin to disagree is on the SPECULATIVE ASPECTS, such as:

1. HOW accurate are our models?

2. How DOES climate work? Is it driven by greenhouse gases, solar cycles, earth cycles, other mechanisms of which we are not yet aware? Or some combination therein; and to what extent does each component have influence?

3. What is our true impact on the climate? Is it significant, minimal, or somewhere in-between?

4. Is our impact somehow dangerous? If so, how dangerous, and at what point is it dangerous?

These are the questions my research has led me to believe science simply does not yet have complete answers for. In some cases, we have partial answers. In other cases, we have an understanding more suited to the dark ages.

My broader point with this debate was that, in order for it to be conducted with anything approaching a modicum of intelligence, the world needs to dump the emotional responses and recognize the FACTS:

1. NOBODY HAS ALL THE ANSWERS. We are thus dealing with something that is not "settled," that is not fully understood, and that thus relies on significant amounts of SPECULATION. Debate accordingly.

2. The only way to get to the truth (assuming we ever can) is to allow open debate. Society needs to stop all attempts to ostracize those who disagree with the party line. Stop labeling dissenters as "uneducated," "pawns of big oil," "deniers." As I stated earlier: We can only "deny" facts; but the facts of how climate operates as a complete system are FAR from being fully understood. Therefore, there is nothing to "deny." There are only points on which we disagree.

3. Humility in the face of uncertain science about an extremely complex system is, IMHO, the only correct response. Arrogant and "we're certain" responses are simply not logical, because they are not currently supported by facts. Emotional, subjective responses are the enemy of true science -- and thus the enemy of our hopes of working together to reach future understanding.