I am over this. I am being pilloried as a neocon for just suggesting that IPCC references are less than scientific - that the UEA guys have vested interests and that people would be well served by looking at a couple of view points. Quoting guides on cleaning shoes, trying to get journal editors sacked and citing New Scientist is in - and in the interests of bandwidth and time - I'm out.
I have foxtel so I'm off to find some good neocon right-think. I leave you with scientists who have no political motivations at all and write only but peer reviewed scientific papers. [image: 3324909334_c440763ed2.jpg] On 5 March 2010 21:21, David Burstin <[email protected]> wrote: > I may be reading this wrongly, but here is the argument as I see it (and > btw I do believe in AGW): > > Ken: I believe in science and the scientific process. I believe that there > is a great deal of peer-reviewed science supporting AGW. > David: Agreed. > > David: Despite the above, I am not convinced that we are being told the > whole story due to [insert Climategate/email issues/etc]. These things show > that some people disseminating the data/science have vested interests and > are choosing not to reveal anything contrary to their view. > Ken: I don't find the issues you raise relevant. The science stands > completely independently of the people disseminating it. > > David: I believe that we are being told the truth, I'm just not sure if > it's the whole truth, so I remain sceptical. > Ken: I am not sceptical. I have seen enough supporting evidence and nothing > that disproves the existence of AGW. > > It seems to me that both paths are legitimate choices. Ken/David - what am > I missing? > > Happy Friday > Dave > > > -- David Connors ([email protected]) 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
