On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Nicholas Geti <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey. For once I agree with Ricardo. Good comment.
But again, the point I was making was that consensus means jack squat for proving scientific validity. It's all about the conclusion being demonstrably reproducible, which is all about data integrity + process integrity. In the case of AGW (not just GW, but specifically AGW) we have very good reason to be very skeptical of both the data integrity and the process integrity behind the so-called "consensus." - Publius > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ricardo Aráoz" <[email protected]> > To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 3:01 PM > Subject: Re: [OT] No global warming since 1995 > > >> Stephen Russell wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Michael Madigan <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Scientific consensus in 1492 was that the world was flat. >>>> >>>> Scientific consensus in the 1800s was that the gorilla didn't exist >>>> >>>> Scientific consensus in the 1930s was that the Coelacanth was extinct >>>> for millions of years. >>>> >>>> >>> ------------------------ >>> >>> 2011 Idiots finally REALIZE that the worlds temp is in flux and goes >>> up and down. The overall trend of this flux can be graphed in an >>> increasing slope. >>> >>> >> >> Reaaaaally nice piece of thought. Because scientific consensus was wrong >> in 3 (Three!!!) isolated points (against billions of correct >> conclusions) then we should ditch scientific consensus and instead rely >> on ....... a consensus table with three seats : MadAgain, Minimus, and >> Petgay. We could add a couple of preachers, GWB, Shwarzenegger, and >> Ronald Reagan's ghost. >> >> >> >> >> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >> multipart/alternative >> text/plain (text body -- kept) >> text/html >> --- >> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
