Sunday, March 30, 2008

You want consensus, here's consensus

AGW true believers are forever claiming they've got a huge "scientific consensus" in their favour.

Well, if they think consensus is so important Marginalized Action Dinosaur has assembled one for them to ponder, starting with:

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest Scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus…“- Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard

19,000 Scientists declare that “man-made” global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever (OISM)
4000 Scientists sign ‘The Heidelberg Appeal’ (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares (Heartland Institute)...

...Long list follows...

12 comments:

marginalizedactiondinosaur said...

Now why don't they say that on the CBC?

I have never heard of anyone suing the OISM to be removed from their list unlike the 1500 trumpeted by the IPCC.

PS thanks for the link.

Anonymous said...

You believe in the scientific credibility of the individual by the name of "Michael Chrichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard," and the scientific credibility of those on yon cited long list, but you do not believe in the credibility of those on the "other" long list -- the one you don't cite.

How selective of you.

Using your own cited definition, you're either trying to build, or reinforce, a political consensus of your own, since what you have cited here has little to do with scientific evidence, but mainly with the arbitrary semantic opinion of... an Anthropologist.

This doesn't inspire confidence in your ability to get your head around the issue.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I get all my important science from best selling authors.

On a similar note, when you require medical attention in the future, why don't I suggest that you seek the assistance of an accountant?

Anonymous said...

Are you aware that the National Academies of Science censured Seitz (the fellow who wrote the cover letter and intro for the OISM "project") and went further to distance itself from its former president, stating:

"The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

from statement by National Academies of Science, April 20, 1998.

Great foundation upon which to build the so-called "case against" global warming.

x2para said...

you don't have to be an expert in anything to know that Kyoto is a scam

JR said...

Predictable responses from anonymous 'true believers'.

First, you lamebrains, the main point is, as Michael Crichton, correctly, never tires of reminding people: consensus has NOTHING to do with science. It's purely political.
Second, it's the AGW true believers who insist on the importance of consensus as proof of their position.
Third, there is no need to cite the IPCC 1500 or 2500 or whatever number of scientists agreeing with them - it's a well known claim and as well as being scientifically meaningless it's mostly a bogus claim anyway.
Fourth, your complaint that competing data isn't cited is pure hypocritical, childish nonsense. AGW theory is well known and since when have AGW proponents ever cited scientists contradicting orthodox AGW theory except to deride them as "deniers".
Fifth, there are many, many scientists whose work is at odds with AGW science. The debate is not over as AGW true believers never tire of asserting. In science it's never over.

Anonymous said...

JR:

Yours is a typical response by blinders on, "I believe it because my ideology tells me to". Damn the science.

You refer to specific supposedly serious and substantive groups/works/studies to support your case and I present strong evidence indicating that the largest one, the OISM, was largely discredited, and by no less than the National Academies of Science, which is the institution from which the lead author drew his stature, and you summarily dismiss as nonsense, because you cannot refute it.

Of course science is evolving - DUH! But hiding one's apparently poorly functioning head in the sand in the face of the preponderance of evidence is the mark of the greater fool.

You wear it well!

JR said...

Anonymous, You completely miss the primary point of this post. 'Consensus' is irrelevant to the truth of the matter. The so-called 'consensus' of the IPCC scientists has also been completely debunked - by none other than the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Serious scientific issues remain unresolved.

Yours is a typical response by blinders on, "I believe it because my ideology tells me to". Damn the science. But hiding one's apparently poorly functioning head in the sand in the face of clear evidence is the mark of the greater fool. You wear it well.

Anonymous said...

"Truth" in science is arrived at through near endless data collection, analysis and re-analysis and examination etc... There are realtively few absolutes in science and thus "consensus" among those who are expert in the field is all we have to rely on.

At least in your last "response" you quoted from someone from who you can learn.

JR said...

This particular science is relatively young so there remains much uncertainty about how climate operates. The data is noisy and difficult to interpret. Making matters worse, IPCC scientists like Michael Mann, et al have been careless with their science (e.g. the debunked hockeystick graph) and suspiciously reticent about sharing their data and methods. Worse yet, the issue has been invaded by hacks like Al Gore who have rendered it hopelessly contaminated by politics.

And in this 'climate' you want everyone to just accept your one-sided 'consensus' and to believe there's nothing to debate?

Get real.

Anonymous said...

If the terrible weather destruction in the US has nothing to do with global warming do you suppose it is God's punismnet for what theya re doing in Iraq?

concerned citizen said...

To the guys putting stock in that list of “scientists” who signed the petition, I hate to burst your bubble.

Without even mentioning the vast number of duplicate names (go check it out for yourself, pick a state), 90% of the “scientists” on there are not even in a field related to climatology or any complementary studies. Most of them are in completely unrelated subjects, and do not have experience or recent education in the subject of climate change/global warming.

I don't go to a Mathemetician to try my case in court. I go to an Attorney.
I don’t go to an Economist to remove my tumor. I go to a Surgeon.
I don’t go to an Anthropologist to manage my stock portfolio. I go to a licensed Financial Advisor.
And I don’t go to a Mechanical Engineer who designs air conditioning systems for my house, to educate me about climate change.

There may be some climatologists or related scientists who have signed this bogus petition, but who would know because the list has been so fluffed up with air, to make it look bigger than it is.

If these guys were truly credible, they wouldn’t take just any old person who has a degree. It makes the whole thing look shady.

Not to mention it prominently includes people like Ian Clark, Lindzen, Robinson, Seitz, and Tim Patterson. Anyone who has spent hours and hours reading about this very complicated topic has already come across tons of material that discredits these quacks. Oh yeah, and the "Oregon Institue" that created the petition is a non-profit run by 6 people. SIX. So don't get all excited thinking the word Institute gives it any weight or credibility. It's only reason for existence was to create this bogus petition. It has no other function.

PS - meteorologists are weathermen.