On 24 February 2010 08:09, <ton...@tpg.com.au> wrote: > I think you miss the point. It's not about whether or not we should have a > debate about it.
It depends on your point of view I guess. I'd argue any day of the week that debate is a healthy part of any democracy. If an ex-railroad engineer is qualified to run the IPCC, then I think my status as a software engineer at least entitles me to have an opinion. :) > Only the > scientifically proven facts are important, If that is the case, then you cannot draw any conclusions on AGW currently as the field is too young. Anything to come out of the field of dendrochronology is far from a fact by any standard definition of the word. Theories and hypotheses abound - but precious few proven facts. > not heresay based on heresay based on heresay. And the > skeptics can't simply pick and choose the points that they are going to > argue about without looking > at the overall picture. It all comes down to who you trust to interpret the > data. And I put my > money on the scientists, no matter how much mud gets thrown at them. > Like I said, it depends on your point of view and I suspect that you and Ken and I would never agree at any rate. I'd probably have a different opinion if the IPCC, Hadley, GISS etc guys were the great edifice of well studied and objective science. Sitting on the outside though, they appear to be a pretty politically motivated bunch who are FAR from idealised objective scientists. Check out the UEA mail leaks as it does not sound like you have. It is really eye popping reading. Conspiracy to delete data, fudge data and models, ensuring the deletion of mail at Hadley and uPen on impending assessment report findings, constant withholding of data and source code preventing independent verification of findings, conspiring to illegally block perfectly valid freedom of information requests - it is all there if you want to have a long read. These are not bit players on the fringe - we're talking about the core "team" - Jones, Mann, Briffa, Trenberth, Schmidt, et al. Of course, that does not disprove the central tenants of AGW theory however I think it is naive (as I learned in reading about this stuff over a number of years) to assume that the handful of core researchers driving most AGW research are beyond reproach. There is a LOT of heat on the citations in AR4 and almost none of it has come from within the established scientific community. Hell, even Greenpeace Britain are calling for Pachauri's head. Anyway - this has been fun but I have a metric pant load of work to do over the next few days. -- David Connors (da...@codify.com) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 189 363 V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
