You can’t find even a single independent scientist in your lying “consensus”.

And you have no objection to being supported by people who nobody honest can deny are corrupt lying shit & who, we seem to agree, represent the very highest standard of honesty to which alarmist aspire.

Next.

http://decentpedia.blogspot.com/2007/08/will-you-condemn-thon.html

And that does not make you a lying eco-fascist shit – the fact that you have not a word of disagreement about Douggies obscene lies does.

Try ‘search for people’ box here (it’s Plimer, BTW):

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/

So, by your exacting standards, he’s tainted by gummint money (unless Professor of Mining Geology is an unpaid gig). But yet…

Instead we have a number of statements from Douglas Clark which certainly represent the absolute pinnacle of honersty of which he is capable & also the absolute pinnacle of which any eco-fascist who is not willing to publicly call him an obscene lying piece of shit is ever capable. Or perhaps he is able to prove me wrong by producing evidence?

That sceptics are well paid (implicitly in excess of the £13.7 million Prof Jones got) by the “coal industry”, “oil industry” & “anti-science industry”. This is of course not something that anybody with the integrity of pond life would say without evidence. In fact the emails show what a close relationship the CRU had Shell & BP (both oil conmpanies in case Doug doesn’t know).

What he said about all libertarians/traditional liberals.. Obviously no attempt at evidence because truth is a stranger to eco-fascists. Note that I have never said anything remotely comparable about all eco-fascists & still don’t. I accept that it is possible to be an eco-fascist without being a complete piece of shit & that the proof is that all remotely honest eco-fascists say Doug is lying shit.

I note the other neil has declined to produce any verification for his claim Ian Plimmer is well funded by government. That is sensible because it merely represents the very highest standard of honesty to which eco-fascists ever aspire – that is to say a total & indeed obvious lie.

Yes, me too. I found it rather odd that a leading figure from the Royal Society said that playing computer games was leading kids’ brains to ‘evolve’ differently and within 2 generations we could expect blah….blah….

What’s your take on the age of the Earth, or the Universe say? Do you deny gravity? Could you explain please, how exactly your ‘concerns’ should exercise anyone else whatsoever?

If you want to roll with it, please explain what elements of evolution you don’t understand and we can take it from there. A gentle hint. DNA is pretty common amongst living things….

Quantum Theory is almost completely counter intuitive. Yet, at the scale it operates at, it works. Who are you, or I, to argue with it?”

In a previous reply to Jim, I responded to a similar question. I’ll add a few more words.

Academic papers and newspaper articles are constructed in similar fashions: they start off with a precis that tells you where the piece is heading; then they do a bit of who, what, when, why; eventually, you get to the meat.

But if the precis is discussing the “obvious” (“Over indulgence in beer causes next day regrets”), you aren’t going to concentrate too hard when reading the article. You may miss the side point about friendship damage amongst the other concerns. If you talk about it with colleagues and friends, you may identify something further that the author overlooked.

Quantum Theory is not a singular argument. Owing to debate and research, it is revised to accommodate new discovery. And QT forks when there is serious disagreement.

“Or do you have issues with, say, evolution?” Nope, newspapers have issues, not single edition human beings like me. I do have concerns about the popular presentation of evolution (eg confusing short term behavioural adaptation with long term genetic change).

Andrew I see your 2.900 & trump you 31,000+ Oregon petition (& several others)
“Consensus” hah.

The difference is that my 2,900 have actually published papers related to climate change in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Your 31,000+ are people who may or may not have scientific credentials of some kind who have signed an online petition. It’s not quite the same.

And you can’t come up with a single one who isn’t paid by alarmists – merely claim that apparently you believe absolutely nobody has ever restrained their opinions when they know the boss would disagree

As I’ve said, I don’t know who pays most of them. The assumption that because they may be funded by the state their opinions or actual published work is suspect is nonsense. Earlier in the current decade when the Bush administration refused to accept the notion of AGW state-funded scientists in the US were still strongly in favour of the notion that humans were causing climate change.

I would also say that rewriting blogs, if that is what they were doing, would be a step up on rewriting advertising releases. Wouldn’t you?

No I wouldn’t, given some of the dishonest nonsense they are pushing.

I take it you are also acknowledging that “denialist” blogs are both more common & more quotable than eco-fascist ones?

I’ve no idea if they are more common but they are certainly quotable – there is no end of uninformed people parroting the factual inaccuracies, logical fallacies and plain idiocy they preach.

Unlike the MSM which is much happier towing the government line – or is there some other reason for the disparity?

Actually the “skeptical” point of view is disproportionately represented in the media compared to the actual scientific basis for that view. Do Melanie Phillips, James Delingpole, Iam Plimer, Dominic Lawson, Christopher Monckton, Christopher Booker et al. have trouble finding outlets for their views? Have you seen the Daily Express this week?

Re: Permission to criticise. I understand your impatience with those who repeat flawed arguments that have been previously contradicted. But many of the comments in the various threads here appear to be about closing down debate, rather than correcting misunderstanding.

Unfortunately, web culture does not encourage publication of corrections and amendments. In many cases, articles can be easily changed, but the moral imperative to put things right is rarely displayed. So I hope that we’ll still have academic libraries in the future, rather than a dependence on popular internet search engines.

Re: Examining and analysing data. Perhaps you are correct in suggesting that the logical method is to examine the data before drawing conclusions. My own observation, thus anecdotal evidence, is that people’s gut instincts are pretty hard wired and that few of us are able to process information in the analytical way that you describe. I confess that I often read papers at work three or four times to ensure that any criticism is logical rather than gut based. Perhaps also, when somebody proposes something that I support, my analysis is more shallow and my support more profound than it should be.

Re: Papers that flatter sponsors. I was not suggesting that governments welcome AGW/climate change. But if there is a social and intra-government consensus that it exists, research funds from government will be directed towards those who support that argument. As you correctly remark, when that consensus did not exist in the USA, AGW “supporters” were denied funds.

Incidentally, my comment about flattering sponsors was primarily aimed at those who automatically damn any paper from researchers funded by energy companies. It’s the analysis that counts, not the source of funding. And when researchers overemphasise an argument, I attribute it to excessive commitment to a theory rather than excessive dependence on a bung.

Douglas says “libertarians are the scum of the earth” which, since libertarianism is pretty close to what the founders of liberalism believed, shows, in 2 entirely different ways, since nobody disagreed with him, how illiberal most people on here are. Also shows inadvertent irony in that in the same post he accused me of not being open minded

Don’t need no agreement Neil. Libertarians are liars who protect their lying asses just because. They are screwed up arseholes who have a neat arguement about individuality that they unfortunately seem to renage on when they feel the need. Y’know drop their drawers. Then they tend to include women, whom they have otherwise forgotten.

Libertarians are henceforth to be known by the collective noun:

A ‘liar’.

You, surely, wouldn’t want to be called that?

Thank you for letting us know your qualifications for expressing opinions on the MSM – that you don’t read (or view?) it.

Jolly good Neil. There are various routes for understanding the MSM. Unity’s posts on here have been a bonus in understanding that sort of shit. There are others who do it too, 5cc comes to mind. Anyway….

I have no idea whether P Z Myers or Tim Lambert are paid by the government. What is pretty plain is that they are not paid by any sort of climate pro or anti lobby. They are independent voices.

If you speak out against the warming scam you don’t get government funding – or perhaps you can produce evidence otherwise.

Alternatively, you may be paid oodles of dosh by the coal industry, or the oil industry or you may be a shill for the new fangled anti science industry, like the very well endowed anti Darwin mob. (Endowed in the sense of money rather than penile length)

Who knows?

And you can’t come up with a single one who isn’t paid by alarmists – merely claim that apparently you believe absolutely nobody has ever restrained their opinions when they know the boss would disagree.

I would also say that rewriting blogs, if that is what they were doing, would be a step up on rewriting advertising releases. Wouldn’t you? I take it you are also acknowledging that “denialist” blogs are both more common & more quotable than eco-fascist ones? Unlike the MSM which is much happier towing the government line – or is there some other reason for the disparity?

Douglas says “libertarians are the scum of the earth” which, since libertarianism is pretty close to what the founders of liberalism believed, shows, in 2 entirely different ways, since nobody disagreed with him, how illiberal most people on here are. Also shows inadvertent irony in that in the same post he accused me of not being open minded

Ian Plimer

Here is a list of the most cited scientists on the subject of climate change, over 2,900.

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html

It notes where they have signed public declarations either supporting or opposing the concept of AGW (the former considerably outnumber the latter). I don’t know if they are funded by governments and I don’t care since the notion that this somehow makes their views suspect is entirely bogus.

If you speak out against the warming scam you don’t get government funding – or perhaps you can produce evidence otherwise.

Thank you for letting us know your qualifications for expressing opinions on the MSM – that you don’t read (or view?) it.

No, it rewrites nonsense from denialist blogs instead.

Yup.

Neither Tim Lambert nor P Z Myers is obligated to one side of the arguement nor the other. On the one hand, we have a computer whizz, and on the other an expert on squid.

I’d suggest that neither earns their living through climate change. They have other ways of earning their money. Their viewpoints are, perhaps, worthwhile? Are they not?

Considering I live in the same city as you, I don’t really get this:

or is that not part of the mass media in your parts

I do not really read, except for a laugh, mass media. I prefer to read the blogosphere, just, because…

Obviously, it takes a critical mind. I find you quite funny, others might take you seriously…..

Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales”

So not entirely unfunded by government then.

I would certainly be happy to read something not predigested by the BBC, or is that not part of the mass media in your parts, & certainly if not handled by that corrupt government funded lying supporter of genocidal Nazis, the Guardian. By the traditional definition of “news” as something that somebody in power doesn’t want you to know the Mail is pretty much the only newspaper in Britain which doesn’t rely on rewriting press releases.