If you pick up a brick, and drop it on your foot, I can guarantee that gravity is going to cause that brick to fall on your foot and cause you pain. And it matters not one iota that you can find some gravitational physicists that write emails that you think are politically or ethically bankrupt. That brick is still going to fall on your foot and hurt you. That is the difference between gravitational theory (of which we have many scientific papers on) and reading someone else’s email. One is science – the rest is an exercise in sociology.
Science, and the scientific method, stand on its own. It is simply impossible for a small group of people to suppress a large amount of empirical evidence that would detract from their stated position. Instead we have a large body of scientific evidence (many tens of thousands of papers) that indicates certain things are happening, and they are being caused by certain causative factors. You cannot point to anything that says contrary. If things were so ambiguous, there would be a corresponding number of papers that point to evidence that supports the contrary conclusion. But that body of evidence simply *does not exist* And what is happening in the real world will continue to happen regardless of whether the IPCC cites a blog, or not. The rest of the science – IPCC or no – is still there awaiting refutation. Which you are unable to provide. Cheers Ken PS I don’t have some fetish for peer reviewed scientific papers. The *scientific method* calls for the statement of testable hypothesis, and repeatable experimentation. That is what has allowed us to derive the theories, over time, whether that be biological, atomic, cosmic, physical, chemical or whatever. It’s what’s put man on the moon, and the computer on your table. This is why documents that follow the scientific method are valuable. The hypothesis that they put forward can be tested and refuted. And the experiments that they do can be repeated by anyone who cares to put in the time and effort – they are independently verifiable. PPS the IPCC doesn’t produce any scientific papers. It’s job is to summarise the state of science. If a few false citations creep in, in a 3000 page document, where there are tens of thousands of citations, then that’s a human fallacy. The reports are vetted by many independent scientific bodies, and many government representatives. It’s not a conspiracy – it’s human error. The important issue is whether the conclusions are altered in any way. And at the moment they aren’t. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Connors Sent: Friday, 5 March 2010 7:51 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed 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. [Description: Image removed by sender. 3324909334_c440763ed2.jpg] On 5 March 2010 21:21, David Burstin <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com<http://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
<<inline: ~WRD033.jpg>>
