[RobRoy]

>>...you passed over a number of points with no substantive response.<<

It may because I had already answered them or I didn’t consider them worthy of response. The problem is that I just get tired of typing and I “choose my battles”. Sorry if it is irritating. But I also know what you mean. It fried me when a guy posts two pictures, one of a VERY similar contrail from a year ago that IS accepted as an airliner contrail, and another with a nice blue sky that looks nothing like it, and someone ignores the former and attacks the latter. Sheesh.

And you will notice, if you look at my position on AGW, that Appeal to Authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority is not at all persuasive to me. Heck, the IPCC was “the authority”, and they were full of sh!!.

[justa-hairyape]

....and another with a nice blue sky that looks nothing like it, and someone ignores the former and attacks the latter. Sheesh.

What is more annoying are people who post images of inconclusive events and try to insinuate that they were conclusive. Not saying you did that, someone else did. And I also choose my battles. Time constraints. :>

[TigersEye]

Well, we've gone around enough about how we dealt with each other today. It was a pretty decent exchange in most respects. I take your points and have a similar tale to tell re marriage.

The "appeal to authority" is definitely overused and shaky without some other backing for the authority. I would trust experts on aviation and aeronautics more easily than a scientist in a theoretical field. The context of the argument is a factor too. Airplanes rockets and their contrails comprise a much simpler subject than the climate of the whole planet.