Alastair wrote:
Remarkably, none of the papers
disagreed with the consensus position."
Your conspiracy theory does not cut much ice with me. Let's have some
evidence.
There is no "conspiracy theory." Saying so is merely an attempt to
minimize my skepticism by calling me names. I believe this is called an
ad hominem attack.
The fact that none of the subset of papers examined disagreed with
consensus position means only that. It cannot be extrapoltaed to imply
that there is no dissent, nor does it imply that the consensus position
is right and anything else is wrong. This is not how science works. We
do not pile up one set of papers on one side of the room and dissenting
papers on the other side and see which pile is tallest.
The Oreskes video is not about the scientific consensus. It is about
about the junk science of the sceptics, their connection with the
tobacco industry, and their political motivation.
There is no "junk" science. This again is merely another ad homenum
pejorative attempt to minimize dissent. I am a skeptic. I have no
connections with the tobacco industry and I have no political motivation.
I am concerned only with the science of climate variability.
But there is not much point in your watching it. You obviously have
the same political leanings as them :-(
Ah, this would be guilt by association, then?
Disappointing.
Hayduke
--
Hayduke Blogs
http://hayduke2000.blogspot.com/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
