"When Science Becomes Treason"

Originally posted by wittywonka
How formal and mature. I can definitely see you found a very professional source, there, Spastic.

While I'm at it, I'd like to clear something up.

You're attempting to disprove the importance of a consensus, which those of us supporting AGW have already conceded, and yet you are now attempting to prove that those who do not support AGW constitute the majoirty/consensus.

Incredible logic.

Wrong again Wonky Woofter! As usual you've missed the point. Do you do that on purpose? For your edification, I have shown two things: 1). That a so-called "consensus" view on anything does not necessarily mean or imply that that position is valid or correct, and 2). That the notion of a "consensus" in favour of AGW theory is wrong in any case. Thus, the proponents of AGW theory lose on both counts.

It is both ironic and revealing that the majority of scientists appear to be skeptical of AGW theory, contrary to the popular misconception that it's the other way around which merely demonstrates the magnitude of the lie!

Originally posted by wittywonka
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011

"The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called 'the gold stand have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now."

SPASTIGOV - Any response to this?

Or are you conveniently ignoring it?

Originally posted by SpastiGov
It is both ironic and revealing that the majority of scientists appear to be skeptical of AGW theory, contrary to the popular misconception that it's the other way around which merely demonstrates the magnitude of the lie!

The only lie I can see is when you state that most scientists who are qualified to have opinions on climate change are sceptics when you consistently fail to back those claims up.

Originally posted by SpastiGov
What a cheap cop-out! You're lying when you say it's a lie!

In any case, the point is Oreske's pretend analysis of the alleged consensus:

"Oreskes's study contained major flaws. Oreskes did not inform readers in today's commentary that she admitted to making a search term error that excluded about 11,000 papers - more than 90% of the papers - dealing te change.

http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=259323

Yet again you're out of date on this one. Though a sceptic, Pieser HIMSELF asserts here that
"I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."

also saying "I only found out after Oreskes confirmed that she had used a different search strategy. Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included."

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf

The paper, and consensus stands. Try to keep up to date, this was resolved last year.

Originally posted by SpastiGov
Wrong again Wonky Woofter! As usual you've missed the point. Do you do that on purpose? For your edification, I have shown two things: 1). That a so-called "consensus" view on anything does not necessarily mean or imply that that position is valid or correct, and 2). That the notion of a "consensus" in favour of AGW theory is wrong in any case. Thus, the p ...[text shortened]... ception that it's the other way around which merely demonstrates the magnitude of the lie!

If the consensus is that AGW is not true, then where are all the peer reviewed papers? Just because the skeptics are screaming doesn't mean there's more of them.

Originally posted by Esoteric
SPASTIGOV - Any response to this?

Or are you conveniently ignoring it?

Oh right, Wee Wonky Woofter's bottom lip is trembling again because I ignored his plea for attention. So are you his dopey sidekick?

Originally posted by SpastiGov
Oh right, Wee Wonky Woofter's bottom lip is trembling again because I ignored his plea for attention. So are you his dopey sidekick?

No, just highlighting the fact that you CAN'T and WON’T reply to that post.

Originally posted by Esoteric
No, just highlighting the fact that you CAN'T and WON’T reply to that post.

In any case you ninny, wonky's post was completely random, ie. not aimed at anyone in particular so why should I have replied to it. If it was intended for me to answer, why not make that obvious by replying to one of my posts with it?

But just for you, I looked at Wonky's post and guess what? It's hogwash and means nothing because it is essentially a statement of political expediency. The "official" stance taken by assorted government-funded bodies, like universities and other scientific establishments (who are benefitting from government largess for AGW "research" ), is of necessity a politically skewed ie., motivated, position and does not necessarily reflect the opinions held by all or even the majority of their members.

Just because wonky can pull some specious statement from a random web site that says various scientific establishments agree with each other and with the latest alarmist scenario, doesn't mean a thing because when you break it down and actually look at who really supports it and who is skeptical among the scientists, you will find the picture is very different. Wonky is very naive and quite daft to hang his hat on the strength of politically skewed statements. He would do better to look at the scientists themselves and see what's left of the so-called "consensus".

See here for a taster: http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm

Originally posted by mrstabby
If the consensus is that AGW is not true, then where are all the peer reviewed papers? Just because the skeptics are screaming doesn't mean there's more of them.

And just because the alarmists are screaming doesn't mean the sky is falling.

As for peer-reviewed papers, here's an interesting thought: Do you think Copernicus, Andreas Vesalius, Giordano Bruno, Gallileo and many others who went against the "consensus" view of the world at the time, would have managed to get their papers "peer-reviewed"? And were they proved right or wrong despite opposition from their peers who thought they were lunatics? Does it necessarily mean anything? I mean didn't even the 'cold-fusion' boobies get their paper peer-reviewed?? What does that tell you about the process? In any case I have actually posted one, just to keep you happy, but then you probably missed it.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Hmmm, before you wanted to isolate a 5 year cooling period, now you want long term trends. You make things up to suit yourself, who is the real liar by deception? Dr David Evans certainly hasn't changed his postion, nor have I that leaves ????????innz

Edit: also wants to isolate the 1955 1975 period, claims there was 5 years cooling from 1940. So what happened between 1945 and 1955? Damn can this gut even begin to think straight.

Said it once, say it again. You're an idiot.

Your guy is trying to take data out of context in order to tell a story he wants it to (a period of cooling lasting 30 years). Problem is, this doesn't occur in reality.

keep on with the polemic, but, please come back when your data and your story match.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Said it once, say it again. You're an idiot.

Your guy is trying to take data out of context in order to tell a story he wants it to (a period of cooling lasting 30 years). Problem is, this doesn't occur in reality.

keep on with the polemic, but, please come back when your data and your story match.

Your guy is trying to take data out of context in order to tell a story he wants it to (a period of cooling lasting 30 years).

This exactly what you do, you see what you want to see and discard everything else as "anomalies", like I've said it goes up, it goes down, so what. All I've been doing is calling you on your hypocrisy.

The earth cooled between 1940 and 1975 FACT. edit: (with some anomalies thrown in hehe)

Originally posted by SpastiGov
And just because the alarmists are screaming doesn't mean the sky is falling.

As for peer-reviewed papers, here's an interesting thought: Do you think Copernicus, Andreas Vesalius, Giordano Bruno, Gallileo and many others who went against the "consensus" view of the world at the time, would have managed to get their papers "peer-reviewed"? And were they ...[text shortened]... se I have actually posted one, just to keep you happy, but then you probably missed it.

I don't care what the alarmists are saying, the scientific community has given us solid reason to be very concerned

Peer review has nothing to do with consensus and everything to do with scientific viability. It isn't perfect, but it works for the most part. If there is nothing wrong with a paper then it will be published. Scientists and editors will not deem a paper unfit just because it contradicts their viewpoint.

Granted, elitism can and does happen to a certain extent across science, the level it would have to be happening such a large scale for AGW to be incorrect is nothing short of a conspiracy theory.

As for naming scientists who went against the wisdom of their time, are you seriously suggesting that to be correct you have to go against the consensus? If I say that Evolution is wrong does that make me right because I'm against the consensus?

Your memory must be very short or highly selective if you do not remember your paper being shown to be highly controversial for all the wrong reasons. Besides, you need to show me that the body of data is not in favour of global warming, not that 1 paper contradicting climate change managed to get itself published. It is in fact a good example of peer review failing.

Originally posted by Wajoma
It seems, like scottish, you'd also like to choose a particular period in time that suits your devotion to AGW

What, is "Everything since the industrial revolution, with all of geological history as the baseline". That a bit too selective for you?

Originally posted by SpastiGov
As for peer-reviewed papers, here's an interesting thought: Do you think Copernicus, Andreas Vesalius, Giordano Bruno, Gallileo and many others who went against the "consensus" view of the world at the time, would have managed to get their papers "peer-reviewed"?

Well, given that they had evidence to back up their claims, yes. Look at Einstein, he undid the entire world of newtonian physics in under a year (he was a mathematically challenged patent clerk at the time, with a theory which shook not only the consensus view, but the unanimous world view), simply because his arguments had logic and evidence.

That's what peer review does, it ensures you follow good scientific method, but does not judge what you publish in and of itself, just how you went about researching it.

You don't really know how peer review works, do you?

Originally posted by agryson
What, is "Everything since the industrial revolution, with all of geological history as the baseline". That a bit too selective for you?

Yes yes, any ups and downs prior to the industrial revolution were anomalies, anything since is AGW, except any dips which are anomalies as well.

If Dr David Evans is a liar then so is scottish, it's that simple.