British scientists' new "I pledge allegiance to global warming" loyalty oath
Thad Floryan
relocation camps for the dissidents and/or disbelievers?
Firing squads for those who eat beans and fart too much?
The Met Office, Britain's national weather service, "has
embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation
of climate-change science" in the wake of revelation of
widespread misconduct by climate scientists, London's
Times reports.
Full article here:
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574587811671196406.html>
Davoud
> ...London's Times reports.
> Full article here:
> ...wsj
That's the Wall Street Journal, an integral part of the immoral
right-wing lie machine. It has a vested interest in lying and it has no
credibility in scientific matters (or practically anything else) among
rational, critical thinkers.
Acting on the basis of incontrovertible -- even by the pathetic
right-wing lie machine -- evidence that the Earth is warming in an
unprecedented way, scientific researchers are now focusing on causes
and if we can or should attempt to reverse the trend.
I'm thinking that the rubble of Wall Street would make a nice
foundation for a Peoples' Park.
Davoud
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Dick Meister
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/
"Thad Floryan" <th...@thadlabs.com> wrote in message
news:4B235185...@thadlabs.com...
Rich
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487035144045745878116711964
> 06.html
So world socialism (after the failure of communism) has found a new cult,
how nice.
oriel36
> Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote innews:4B235185...@thadlabs.com:
>
> >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487035144045745878116711964
> > 06.html
>
> So world socialism (after the failure of communism) has found a new cult,
> how nice.
Like everything else a community spirit is fine so long as it allows
individual talents to express themselves hence the demise of the
commie ideologies as a social entity but the vestiges live on in the
indoctrination through the education system and by using trees, polar
bears and things like that to act on the natural concern of people
for their environment and their community.
I am heading to California today where the sheer beauty of the
American West swamps the senses and brings out that humble recognition
that while the terrestrial and celestial background is far mightier
than the individual it is never so severe on the individual that it
makes him fear existence,nay,but to love it in all its splendor.People
have forgotten this or through various designs have turned existence
into a dull round of fears and potential catastrophies but this is
either self-inflicted or done on a consensual basis,the 'scientific
method' as they call this unintelligent abomination.
They say that scientists were pressured into signing that petition and
I have no doubt they were after all who would want to scupper their
finances when most of the wider population is going along with the
charade that it is global climate they are focusing on instead of
pollution levels.It is time to open the windows and allow some fresh
air in by widening the links between astronomy and terrestrial
sciences and that means a thorough review of planetary dynamics.
Skywatcher
news:048a0eb4-8bc8-4a4a...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> Like everything else a community spirit is fine so long as it allows
> individual talents to express themselves hence the demise of the
> commie ideologies as a social entity but the vestiges live on in the
> indoctrination through the education system and by using trees, polar
> bears and things like that to act on the natural concern of people
> for their environment and their community.
Yep, and Communism is what the vast majority of these 'community' types are
really about while trying, unsuccessfully, as far as those who dare to
THINK are concerned, to pretend that they're not.
And isn't it ironic that the individual, which they seek to destroy,
replacing it with their Collective (we're not the 'Borg' and never will be)
is the most important factor necessary to the existence of any community in
the first place.
> I am heading to California today where the sheer beauty of the
> American West swamps the senses and brings out that humble recognition
> that while the terrestrial and celestial background is far mightier
> than the individual it is never so severe on the individual that it
> makes him fear existence,nay,but to love it in all its splendor.People
> have forgotten this or through various designs have turned existence
> into a dull round of fears and potential catastrophies but this is
> either self-inflicted or done on a consensual basis,the 'scientific
> method' as they call this unintelligent abomination.
Yes indeed, only those who First Agree to become FOOLS can ever be FOOLED
that they may then be Taken for FOOLS...but I want NO PART of THEIR
FOOLISHNESS for while they Will get the 'government' that they Deserve,
they will NOT get the government that I DESERVE!!!
In other words, STOP this STUPID ride...I WANT TO GET OFF!!!
> They say that scientists were pressured into signing that petition and
> I have no doubt they were after all who would want to scupper their
> finances when most of the wider population is going along with the
> charade that it is global climate they are focusing on instead of
> pollution levels.
Fortunately, there are many REAL scientists who have the Courage to Dare to
exclaim that THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES.
> It is time to open the windows and allow some fresh
> air in by widening the links between astronomy and terrestrial
> sciences and that means a thorough review of planetary dynamics.
That planetary dynamics part is so very obvious to those who are not Abject
FOOLS...in particular, the FACT that Solar output is what determines global
temperature, and CO2 levels...and so far, we're headed for another Maunder
Minimum...global COOLING, not warming.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> Thad Floryan
>
> > ...London's Times reports.
> > Full article here:
> > ...wsj
>
> That's the Wall Street Journal, an integral part of the immoral
> right-wing lie machine. It has a vested interest in lying and it has no
> credibility in scientific matters (or practically anything else) among
> rational, critical thinkers.
Is there anything at the URL below that you care to dispute?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000847769030489.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments
> Acting on the basis of incontrovertible -- even by the pathetic
> right-wing lie machine -- evidence that the Earth is warming in an
> unprecedented way, scientific researchers are now focusing on causes
> and if we can or should attempt to reverse the trend.
You need more data. All the more so, since you ;ost some of what
little you did have.
> I'm thinking that the rubble of Wall Street would make a nice
> foundation for a Peoples' Park.
What is a "People's Park"? Does that mean "No Pets Allowed" ?
oriel36
Global climate and understanding what goes into it remains in its
infancy therefore this contemporary ideology based on 'halting' or
controlling climate change pretty much reflects an intellectual nadir
for our race in terrestrial/celestial sciences and a genuine
dangerous situation,not the technical details of climate change ,but
rather the actual ideology which brought it forth and many scientists
now coming to understand this.That being said, the same scientists
would refuse point blank to consider the root empirical cause which
can be pinpointed within the realm of astronomy and the area of
planetary dynamics where a very crude conclusion was allowed to
snowball and provide the foundation for the narrow approach of
experiment and predictions,specifically attempting to fit the Earth's
orbital dynamic into right ascension.
Genuine global climate studies are a million miles away from where
they are today,what the wider population sees of global climate is a
thinly disguised entity based on pollution levels which is then used
to exploited natural concern people have for their surroundings and
direct it towards social ideologies which the world hasn't seen since
the rise of communism,turning natural excitement and curiosity for
scientific investigations into something that must be feared and
controlled.For a person who is all too familiar with the original
fraud of Newton and the means by which he distorted the great insights
of the astronomers involved in planetary dynamics,the recent fraud
woven around climate is amazing for any intelligent person who can
read -
http://junkscience.com/FOIA/mail/1241415427.txt
Like it or not,a certain sense of something lost must well up in
those who venture into the arena of astronomy and the links between
planetary dynamics and terrestrial effects yet for the most part it is
self-inflicted,the ideology which props up the crude conclusion
between carbon dioxide and global temperature would only entertain
those who are desperate for those things which would not interest a
genuine scientist.
Jax
> That's the Wall Street Journal, an integral part of the immoral
> right-wing lie machine. It has a vested interest in lying and it has no
> credibility in scientific matters (or practically anything else) among
> rational, critical thinkers.
>
> Acting on the basis of incontrovertible -- even by the pathetic
> right-wing lie machine -- evidence that the Earth is warming in an
> unprecedented way, scientific researchers are now focusing on causes
> and if we can or should attempt to reverse the trend.
>
> I'm thinking that the rubble of Wall Street would make a nice
> foundation for a Peoples' Park.
>
> Davoud
>
What in the article is incorrect?
Chris L Peterson
>What in the article is incorrect?
Well, for starters, the title: I Pledge Allegiance to Global Warming.
What the scientists signed was a statement of support for the quality of
the science. That's all.
Then there's the repeat of The Times's assertion that one scientist felt
pressured to sign. They (maybe) found one (unnamed) scientist (from
1700) who "felt" pressured. The WSJ isn't technically wrong in repeating
this assertion, but the lack of any fact checking doesn't point to very
high quality journalism- even for an opinion piece. Even worse is their
further extension of this idea- without any support- in claiming
"signing a loyalty oath under pressure from the government". That could
be taken as libelous.
The clip from The Times that the WSJ used also gives a very one-sided
view of the original article, which is here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6951029.ece .
Again, poor quality journalism.
It's amusing (and hypocritical) that the WSJ in the past has often made
reference to statements from scientists who have problems with AGW, but
when scientists who support the theory sign something, they are happy to
say, "The concept of scientists--or journalists, or artists--signing a
petition is ludicrous." The WSJ also errs in using the term "petition",
which this is not. A petition is a formal request for something, and the
document in question is a statement in support of a position. I think
most people would think it absurd to claim that scientists signing a
statement of support for something is "ludicrous".
All in all, a poorly constructed, factually flawed, obviously biased
article that can't be taken seriously as news. Just another opinion
piece (and no opinion piece about climate science should be taken very
seriously, regardless of viewpoint).
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
wsne...@hotmail.com
The bottom line here is that the Met Office doesn't have any business
collecting signatures about this. That is not how science is done.
Any scientist who holds {perhaps secretly) a dissenting opinion must
either sign the "petition" or else be thought "disloyal" to the party
line if his or her name does not appear.
Chris L Peterson
>The bottom line here is that the Met Office doesn't have any business
>collecting signatures about this. That is not how science is done.
They aren't doing science. This is a case where public policy depends on
scientific input, and it is perfectly reasonable for the Met Office to
seek to demonstrate that most scientists consider AGW to be well
supported.
>Any scientist who holds {perhaps secretly) a dissenting opinion must
>either sign the "petition" or else be thought "disloyal" to the party
>line if his or her name does not appear.
There's absolutely no evidence of that. The WSJ gives none, and the
Times gives only one example, with no support that it's even true.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:24:10 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >The bottom line here is that the Met Office doesn't have any business
> >collecting signatures about this. That is not how science is done.
>
> They aren't doing science.
That is exactly what the "Climate-Gate scandal" alleges.
> This is a case where public policy depends on
> scientific input, and it is perfectly reasonable for the Met Office to
> seek to demonstrate that most scientists consider AGW to be well
> supported.
The problem is that any scientist who believes AGW is not well
supported can/will be "smoked out" if his name does not show up on the
"petition." So no, it is NOT reasonable for the Met Office to gather
those signatures.
>
> >Any scientist who holds {perhaps secretly) a dissenting opinion must
> >either sign the "petition" or else be thought "disloyal" to the party
> >line if his or her name does not appear.
>
> There's absolutely no evidence of that. The WSJ gives none, and the
> Times gives only one example, with no support that it's even true.
Where there is smoke there is fire.
I once was asked to sign something of a political nature that
contradicted my (secret) opinion on an issue, but I _carefully_
declined to do so. You seem to utterly lack the ability to comprehend
such situations.
Davoud
> > That's the Wall Street Journal, an integral part of the immoral
> > right-wing lie machine. It has a vested interest in lying and it has no
> > credibility in scientific matters (or practically anything else) among
> > rational, critical thinkers.
> >
> > Acting on the basis of incontrovertible -- even by the pathetic
> > right-wing lie machine -- evidence that the Earth is warming in an
> > unprecedented way, scientific researchers are now focusing on causes
> > and if we can or should attempt to reverse the trend.
> >
> > I'm thinking that the rubble of Wall Street would make a nice
> > foundation for a Peoples' Park.
Jax:
> What in the article is incorrect?
I didn't mean to imply that the article or anything in it is incorrect.
I meant to imply that it is an intentional and transparent lie from a
mouthpiece of the right-wing lie machine.
See Mr. Peterson's post for particulars because 1) he's much more
energetic than I am 2) he's much more diplomatic, which is remarkable
because I spent a career in the U.S. Foreign Service (aka the
Diplomatic Corps).
Jax
> Davoud:
>
> > > That's the Wall Street Journal, an integral part of the immoral
> > > right-wing lie machine. It has a vested interest in lying and it has no
> > > credibility in scientific matters (or practically anything else) among
> > > rational, critical thinkers.
>
> > > Acting on the basis of incontrovertible -- even by the pathetic
> > > right-wing lie machine -- evidence that the Earth is warming in an
> > > unprecedented way, scientific researchers are now focusing on causes
> > > and if we can or should attempt to reverse the trend.
>
> > > I'm thinking that the rubble of Wall Street would make a nice
> > > foundation for a Peoples' Park.
>
> Jax:
>
> > What in the article is incorrect?
>
> I didn't mean to imply that the article or anything in it is incorrect.
> I meant to imply that it is an intentional and transparent lie from a
> mouthpiece of the right-wing lie machine.
>
lie?
Oh, well in that case, .....
Chris L Peterson
>I once was asked to sign something of a political nature that
>contradicted my (secret) opinion on an issue, but I _carefully_
>declined to do so. You seem to utterly lack the ability to comprehend
>such situations.
You won't allow yourself to see reality. But you have amply demonstrated
in the past a poor understanding of science, so I'm not surprised.
The simple fact remains, this was a low quality opinion piece which
selectively quoted a rather poorly written news story from another
source and made a few questionable assertions. There was no reason to
even reference it in a science forum, and anybody who remotely considers
it a worthwhile bit of evidence to base their ideas on is hopelessly
incapable of even having a rational opinion on the subject.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:03:48 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >I once was asked to sign something of a political nature that
> >contradicted my (secret) opinion on an issue, but I _carefully_
> >declined to do so. You seem to utterly lack the ability to comprehend
> >such situations.
>
> You won't allow yourself to see reality. But you have amply demonstrated
> in the past a poor understanding of science, so I'm not surprised.
You seem not to understand that science is not based on "consensus"
but on facts and repeatable experiments and observations.
> The simple fact remains, this was a low quality opinion piece which
> selectively quoted a rather poorly written news story from another
> source and made a few questionable assertions.
Again, Where there is smoke, there is fire.
> There was no reason to
> even reference it in a science forum,
IOW, no dissent from the party line, eh?
> and anybody who remotely considers
> it a worthwhile bit of evidence to base their ideas on is hopelessly
> incapable of even having a rational opinion on the subject.
Anyone who fails to see the dirty politics involved in collecting
signatures and pledges in order to support a _scientific_ position is
incapable of having a rational opinion on anything.
Tom McDonald
Do you similarly reject such petitions when they come from
anti-AGW folks?
--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald
Chris L Peterson
>You seem not to understand that science is not based on "consensus"
>but on facts and repeatable experiments and observations.
You are 100% wrong. Consensus amongst experts is one of the cornerstones
of science. Without consensus, there is no mechanism for the majority of
people to have a rational way of placing value on different theories.
Consensus is also a tool that helps experts in an area determine where
to focus their research.
I'm pretty sure that nobody in these climate discussions on SAA is doing
any active climate research. And even the few of us who regularly read
primary research could not be called experts. For any of us to ignore
the consensus of actual climate researchers is both irrational and
foolish.
Most people (including you) accept consensus in science all the time
with little or no question; it is only when they allow their ideology to
get in the way, as with AGW, that they suddenly decide that "consensus"
is somehow not a fundamental part of the scientific process.
oriel36
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:28:25 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >You seem not to understand that science is not based on "consensus"
> >but on facts and repeatable experiments and observations.
>
> You are 100% wrong. Consensus amongst experts is one of the cornerstones
> of science.
There are no experts,a race of people who cannot recognise the most
basic planetary facts of shape and rotation are in serious,serious
trouble insofar as the conclusion that carbon dioxide is a global
temperature dial is merely a symptom of the core problem,to invent a
crude conclusion and run with it , the original departure from
scientific thinking began with the crude determination of planetary
dynamics via the circumpolar motion of the constellations,something
that is repeated here every occasion that the 'sidereal time'
conclusion is posited.
As planetary dynamics are responsible for global climate and the
seasonal fluctuations of temperatures at different latitudes,it is
nearly impossible to reach conclusions for global climate without
first recognising the daily and orbital components involved.It takes
just one additional fascinating component in terms of the specific way
a planet orbits the Sun (aside from daily rotation) to modify the
original explanation which Copernicus used for why the seasons and
temperature fluctuations occur by assigning the proper role for
rotational orientation (tilt) yet where are the experts that can
handle it using interpretation of contemporary imaging and planetary
comparisons ?.
There are no experts,there are however people with agendas that have
nothing to do with science or life but with lifestyles.
Without consensus, there is no mechanism for the majority of
> people to have a rational way of placing value on different theories.
> Consensus is also a tool that helps experts in an area determine where
> to focus their research.
>
You are mistaking anonymity for consensus,a gelatinous mediocrity
which stumbles along trying to disguise lack of direction and
authority with worthless opinions,it is happening right now in
Copenhagen where global climate is reduced to a political entity with
not one individual having the stellar intellectual qualities to call a
halt or rise the study of global climate to where it should be - a
marvel and something to behold without fear or catastrophic
tendencies.Copenhagen is important because it exposes empiricism as a
lack of balance where speculation lacks no interpretation yet the
people who feel things have gone far enough have to come from
somewhere,even here in these forums.
> I'm pretty sure that nobody in these climate discussions on SAA is doing
> any active climate research. And even the few of us who regularly read
> primary research could not be called experts. For any of us to ignore
> the consensus of actual climate researchers is both irrational and
> foolish.
>
Want to read the 'experts' -
http://junkscience.com/FOIA/mail/1241415427.txt
In this forum,participants were offered to work with modern imaging on
multiple different fronts in a way that was impossible before, among
them the ability to make planetary comparisons within the solar system
such as using Uranus and its characteristics to set off against the
Earth's dynamics thereby modifying the seasonal explanation .What
happened is that the 'experts' can't alter their conceptions beyond
the original 'tilt' explanation of Copernicus thereby exposing their
expertise in climate matters as a total sham that is insidious by
virtue that it is a social agenda driven by pollution levels - we a re
literally a race with its head in the gutter looking down into the
gutter.
> Most people (including you) accept consensus in science all the time
> with little or no question; it is only when they allow their ideology to
> get in the way, as with AGW, that they suddenly decide that "consensus"
> is somehow not a fundamental part of the scientific process.
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com
The only experts the world needs at the moment are those who
understand that the predictive convenience of Ra/Dec is limited to
observing and not as a predictive tool using its conception of
planetary dynamics while those who adhere to Ra/Dec as something other
than a calendar based timekeeping average are on the same level as
flat Earthers and for once that is not an opinion but a 100% geometric
and technical certainty.
Copenhagen and all the hyperfuss ends here,not is great political
pronouncements of promises that will never be realised but in the
exposure of a crude conclusion that is many magnitudes more terrifying
than the individual conclusion of determining carbon dioxide as a
global temperature dial but in the sheer stultifying condition where
not even the basic planetary facts survive due to the presence of
mediocrity,laziness and all those traits which diminish our race and
provide a background for exploitation based on fear and alarmist
tendencies.This is where the temporary destruction of astronomy by
the late 17th century mathematicians lead.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:28:25 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >You seem not to understand that science is not based on "consensus"
> >but on facts and repeatable experiments and observations.
>
> You are 100% wrong.
No, I'm 100% correct.
> Consensus amongst experts is one of the cornerstones
> of science.
Consensus implies unanimity, which is not the state of affairs for
Global Warming.
> Without consensus, there is no mechanism for the majority of
> people to have a rational way of placing value on different theories.
Even a layman can look at a scientist's theory to see if there are any
major flaws in it. Consensus is not needed.
> Consensus is also a tool that helps experts in an area determine where
> to focus their research.
>
> I'm pretty sure that nobody in these climate discussions on SAA is doing
> any active climate research. And even the few of us who regularly read
> primary research could not be called experts. For any of us to ignore
> the consensus of actual climate researchers is both irrational and
> foolish.
No, consensus of climate researchers does not make a theory right, but
if the science was actually good the theory might stand on its own
merits.
> Most people (including you) accept consensus in science all the time
> with little or no question; it is only when they allow their ideology to
> get in the way, as with AGW, that they suddenly decide that "consensus"
> is somehow not a fundamental part of the scientific process.
We all believe in evolution, plate tectonics, the big bang,
relativity, because these theories have stood up to testing, not just
because many other people believe in them. With AGW there hasn't been
enough (or really any) testing, just some sparse data and flawed
computer models.
Ideology doesn't really come into play in any of those afore-mentioned
theories either, but it certainly does with the AGW crowd. Those who
are skeptical of AGW are questioning both the science and the ulterior
motives of the warmingistas.
wsne...@hotmail.com
If a skeptic signs such an anti-AGW petition he is probably doing so
voluntarily. Those who would sign usually do not have any power over
one another.
When a government or quasi-government agency is involved in such a
thing one cannot rule out the possibility of coercion. In fact one
should strongly suspect it.
Chris L Peterson
>Consensus implies unanimity, which is not the state of affairs for
>Global Warming.
Consensus does not imply unanimity. However, in the case of AGW, the
consensus does approach unanimity, with something in excess of 95% of
active researchers accepting it as real. That's probably greater than
the number of cosmologists who accept the consensus Big Bang model.
>Even a layman can look at a scientist's theory to see if there are any
>major flaws in it. Consensus is not needed.
Very few laymen can do that. Certainly, there are no significant flaws
in AGW, but plenty of ignorant laymen (and even ignorant scientists) are
unable to understand the theory, which obviously doesn't stop them from
having uninformed opinions.
>We all believe in evolution, plate tectonics, the big bang,
>relativity, because these theories have stood up to testing, not just
>because many other people believe in them. With AGW there hasn't been
>enough (or really any) testing, just some sparse data and flawed
>computer models.
AGW is better supported by evidence than the Big Bang theory.
Tom McDonald
I was referring to the 'dirty politics' you referenced; but some
such anti-AGW have a possibility for a subtle (or not so subtle)
level of coercion from their aAGW fellows.
One such petition is from The Global Warming Petition Project, an
effort led by Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. A concise
and, AFAICT accurate, portrayal of that petition can be found in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
"# The Petition Project itself avoided any funding or association
with the energy industries[20]."
However, one of the major funders of the Oregon Institute of
Science and Medicine itself is an energy company. The Institute
does, or did, publish a newsletter on energy issues, with a
pro-energy-company bias. (And, if I recall correctly, poor
spelling, grammar and editorial care.)
Also from the web site:
"Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400
signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related
science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases,
11 said they still agreed with the petition �- one was an active
climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight
signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not
sign the petition today, three did not remember any such
petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated
messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include
a core of about 200 climate researchers � a respectable number,
though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[23]"
So this is an example of an aAGW petition that has all the
earmarks of the kind of political petition to which you object.
So I repeat, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and
swims like a duck, and roasts up nice and tasty like a duck,
would you call it a duck?
wsne...@hotmail.com
Does a company that builds windmills or solar panels qualify as an
energy company?
> The Institute
> does, or did, publish a newsletter on energy issues, with a
> pro-energy-company bias. (And, if I recall correctly, poor
> spelling, grammar and editorial care.)
>
> Also from the web site:
>
> "Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400
> signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related
> science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases,
> 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active
> climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight
> signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not
> sign the petition today, three did not remember any such
> petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated
> messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include
> a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number,
> though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[23]"
But enough to conclude that there is no "consensus" unless one
attempts to exclude the dissenters, which is one of the accusations
that "Climate-Gate" implies.
> So this is an example of an aAGW petition that has all the
> earmarks of the kind of political petition to which you object.
I'm sure that you can come up with all sorts of strawman arguments.
> So I repeat, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and
> swims like a duck, and roasts up nice and tasty like a duck,
> would you call it a duck?
The point you seem to be missing is that those who signed the petition
that you mentioned seemed to have done so voluntarily, whereas a
government agency (which is ultimately what that agency in the UK is)
has no business building a list of loyal subjects to use as a
propaganda tool. If one doesn't sign, one's name might become
conspicuous through its absence at some future juncture (tenure,
renewal of contract, peer review, etc.) Having a list of names in
support of your theory does not make your theory true, so why collect
the names? Politics has no place in science.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:27:00 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >Consensus implies unanimity, which is not the state of affairs for
> >Global Warming.
>
> Consensus does not imply unanimity.
My dictionary includes the words "unanimity" and "solidarity" in
defining word "consensus." However the related word "consent" has a
definition that implies "compliance" but also includes (more
ominously) "acquiescence," which implies "going along in order to get
along." Is that the sort of "consensus" of which you speak?
> However, in the case of AGW, the
> consensus does approach unanimity, with something in excess of 95% of
> active researchers accepting it as real.
And 5% who definitely don't, along with some number of the 95% who
might have acquiesced on the subject.
> That's probably greater than
> the number of cosmologists who accept the consensus Big Bang model.
Government politics hasn't intruded on the Big Bang model to any great
degree.
> >Even a layman can look at a scientist's theory to see if there are any
> >major flaws in it. Consensus is not needed.
>
> Very few laymen can do that. Certainly, there are no significant flaws
> in AGW, but plenty of ignorant laymen (and even ignorant scientists) are
> unable to understand the theory, which obviously doesn't stop them from
> having uninformed opinions.
Maybe if the data and models used by the AGW crowd were more widely
available, there would be fewer "uninformed opinions" as you call
them.
> >We all believe in evolution, plate tectonics, the big bang,
> >relativity, because these theories have stood up to testing, not just
> >because many other people believe in them. With AGW there hasn't been
> >enough (or really any) testing, just some sparse data and flawed
> >computer models.
>
> AGW is better supported by evidence than the Big Bang theory.
Um, no, we can actually look at the evidence for the Big Bang theory.
Chris L Peterson
>Um, no, we can actually look at the evidence for the Big Bang theory.
If you honestly believe there isn't a lot of climate evidence we can
look at, then you are simply beyond any possibility of reasoned
discussion on the subject.
oriel36
> Um, no, we can actually look at the evidence for the Big Bang theory.
You sure can and I will even show it to you -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YBujC17Ky4
"Suppose person A were on the earth somewhere below the north pole of
the heavens and person B were at the north pole of the heavens. In
that case, to A the pole would appear to be at the zenith, and A would
believe himself to be at the center; to B the earth would appear to be
at the zenith, and B would believe himself to be at the center. Thus,
A's zenith would be B's center, and B's zenith would be A's
And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the
center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that
the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot
be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and
a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
nowhere. . . " Archbishop Cusa
You have evidence too that you can make a direct correlation between
the circumpolar motion of the constellations and daily rotation but
this is both unintelligent and crude but moreover directly related to
the complete intellectual dishonor of 'big bang'.
I suggest you keep on saying 'big bang' until you find the term itself
so utterly stupid that you will kick yourself for being indoctrinated
into its precepts.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:15:36 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >Um, no, we can actually look at the evidence for the Big Bang theory.
>
> If you honestly believe there isn't a lot of climate evidence we can
> look at, then you are simply beyond any possibility of reasoned
> discussion on the subject.
Reasoned discussion seems to be the last thing that warmingistas want.
What you need to do is to figure out what, exactly, the climate would
actually be doing if there were no fossil fuel being burned. Since
accurate temperature readings didn't even begin until about the time
we started using fossil fuels, you have a big problem. There is
evidence that the climate was getting warmer, on its own, before
then.
Even today, you do not have enough reliable temperature and climate
data, obtained in a methodical and systematic way, over a long enough
span of time, and from a sufficiently large number of sites on land,
over the the ocean and in the ocean to make anything other than a WAG
about AGW.