> In article ,
> "Suzanne Blom" execpc.com> wrote:
>

>> "David Friedman" daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
>> news:ddfr-05D174.09492514062008@CA.NEWS.VERIO.NET...

>>> In article ,
>>> "Suzanne Blom" execpc.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>>> When have I confidently asserted a historical fact on the basis of a
>>>>> single article offering a conjectural explanation of something?
>>>>>

>>>> Global warming, author Critchon--oops! can't get that spelling right.

>>>
>>> Perhaps you could point at me doing it? Bare assertion without evidence
>>> isn't any more convincing in this context than in the other.
>>>

>> Probably I could. I'm surprised you don't remember, tho. It wasn't that
>> long ago. As soon as I have the spare time, I'll hunt it up.

>
> I wouldn't be astonished if I said something referring to a piece by
> Michael Crichton--I have a vague memory of such, although I think quite
> a while back. I would be surprised if I confidently asserted a
> historical fact on the basis of such a piece, which was your claim.
>
> A quick google search locates the discussion in December of 2005. The
> relevant bit starts with my writing:
>
> ---
> I think the starting point is to note:
>
> 1. Climate is a very complicated subject, not very well understood.
>
> 2. Lots of people talking about global warming, on all sides of the
> subject, have axes to grind.
>
> There's an interesting talk by Michael Crichton webbed at:
>
> http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
>
> Most of it is relevant to my point 2, and focusses on the idea of
> "consensus science," but he gets to global warming near the end.
>
> ----
> Looking down the thread, I find people rejecting Crichton's argument on
> the basis that he isn't an authority without commenting on what he
> actually said, and my criticizing that approach.
>
> Various other people attacked Crichton without, apparently, having read
> what he said, since they were attributing to him claims he didn't make
> and ignoring the claim he did make, as I pointed out.
>
> Having read quite a ways down the thread, I cannot find anything that
> could be described as my confidently asserting a historical fact on the
> basis of Crichton's speech. Perhaps you can, but I doubt it.
>
> One of the ways in which I try to judge sources of information, online
> or off, is by looking at places where their assertions overlap with my
> own knowledge. If you can't be trusted to give anything close to an
> accurate account of my past posts, I'm not inclined to take seriously
> your assertions about global warming, given that all you are willing to
> offer are assertions, not evidence.

> position is correct, but your saying it is isn't much reason to think so.
>