Here is why what is written in the post appended below defies reason and reality.
None of the claims made by the author Gabriel has any factual basis. 1. Scientific skepticism is supposed to be based on conflicting scientific data. It cannot be based on newspaper columns, sound bites of political journalists, hacking of personal emails or finding of typing errors in governmental policy documents. It cannot be based on wild accusations of global conspiracy theories about falsification of data by all the universities, scientists, scientific organizations and governments of the world. This latter type of skepticism is irrational. It is in the same vein, if not worse, as denial of HIV as the cause of AIDS, 9/11 conspiracy, UFO cover-up conspiracy, etc. 2. There is not a single research paper published by any skeptic that conflicts with the main data and conclusions regarding global warming, or by sound alternative explanations, completely accounts for all the observations made by hundreds of independent researchers across the world. 3. The claim that consensus in science is dangerous is laughable and absurd. Consensus, by definition, comes about because an overwhelming majority of scientists agree about incontrovertible objective facts. Disagreement cannot be for its own sake, or for the sake of some preconceived ideology or dogma. It cannot be based on the possibility of existence of a world-wide conspiracy to fake scientific data, and other speculations or fantasies. For example, there is a scientific consensus regarding all established scientific explanations such as evolution, genetic code, spheroidal earth and heliocentrism. No sane scientist believes that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around it. Consensus is a natural consequence of the reality that is out there, which can be observed by any sane and rational human being. Without consensus there is no objectivity. 4. The best indication that we are dealing with nonsense here is evident from the following quote: QUOTE I am not the only one who is questioning the validity of GISS and NOAA data, as a search on the web will indicate. Besides, CRU data is currently under investigation. UNQUOTE It is clear that the author Gabriel swallows everything he finds by web searches, as long as, by hook or crook, it expresses "skepticism" about scientific data on global warming. His "skepticism" appears to be directed only at the majority of scientists and real scientific data. He is all gullible when it comes to the politicians, journalists and activists who claim to be global warming skeptics. He does not feel the need to be skeptical of the credibility and motives of these political folk whose very purpose is to treat this as a political issue rather than a scientific one. Those of us who are genuinely skeptical of what we read, know that a web search is the last thing that we can uncritically rely on, especially when we are asked to believe crackpot conspiratorial arguments. There are plenty of skeptics on the web who question data supporting every single established scientific consensus statement such as evolution, HIV as the cause of AIDS, heliocentrism, spheroidal earth, etc. Also, please note that investigation at East Anglia is a criminal investigation into the hacking of personal emails. There was no credible allegation of falsification or fabrication of data. The original 1980s data in question has always been available for independent analysis. 5. The ultimate farce in this saga, however, is equating the global scientific effort of understanding climate change, involving hundreds of experts, to what goes on in a government department. Climate research is being conducted all over the world in diverse governmental, non-governmental and academic settings, and with diverse funding sources. The claim that funding is only given to people who fake data on a world-wide scale for political reasons is a myth of epic proportions, comparable only to such things as the lie spread by like-minded "skeptics" that AIDS is caused by modern medical treatments or that autism is caused by childhood vaccination. And BTW, I work for and deal with government departments, both domestic and international, on a regular basis as a grant reviewer, and know exactly how funding for scientific research works. Please take it from me that it is nowhere close to what has been stated in the misleading propaganda of people like Gabriel who do not speak from real knowledge or personal experience. Scientific funding is a highly competitive process characterized by brutal critical inquiry rather than passive agreement. Cutting-edge science is not for the fainthearted. So please ask Gabriel to produce actual scientific data, in the form of graphs and numbers, to support his denial of global warming and/or his alternative explanations for it. I guarantee that he will have nothing to show. Cheers, Santosh --- On Sun, 2/14/10, Gabriel de Figueiredo <[email protected]> wrote: > > My oh my! So now I am making wild accusations! When does a suggestion of >a > possibility become an accusation? > > Anyhow, I think this dicussion has gone far enough, and has started >getting > personal and being blown out of proportion. I think I'll stop >here by > stating: > > 1. I am an AGW sceptic. GW/GC have occurred in the past and > will occur in future, but as to GW/GC being the result of > human activity, I do have serious doubts, doubts that have > been supported in peer-reviewed papers by climatologists. > > 2. Consensus among scientists is dangerous. It means they > have stopped thinking for themselves. Consensus has no place > in a scientific research. > > Finally, all those who believe in AGW should start leading > by example, something that I have yet to see among firm > believers and promoters of AGW. The Copenhagen summit was > the ultimate hyprocrisy in AGW. > > No more from me on this subject, whatever the outcome of > the investigations. Let truth prevail. > > Gabriel. > > PS I am not the only one who is questioning the validity of > GISS and NOAA data, as a search on the web will indicate. > Besides, CRU data is currently under investigation. > > PPS If Santosh ever worked in a government department, he > would know how lobbying for funds sometimes takes precedence > over morals. >
