Re: Consensus or senseless con?



"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9AAA74252E9F4Wereofftoseethewizrd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:69ucplF357di5U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:



"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9AA9676C6CB4AWereofftoseethewizrd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:69rnriF341n8hU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:



"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9AA880F103CAFWereofftoseethewizrd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:69mul0F32fmvfU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:



"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9AA6D130BA584Wereofftoseethewizrd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:69m34vF33r5haU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:



"Scout" <me4guns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:0HbZj.13896$IK5.7736@xxxxxxxxxxx

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:69ktdrF339879U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:Xns9AA699BF7A30Wereofftoseethewizrd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=64734

Thursday, May 22, 2008


**There are a total of 40 (yes, FORTY) climate scientists who
signed this petition. Their opinions are the only ones of
interest.

IOW, those that say what Trevor wants to hear are all that he
needs to listen to, those that say something else......well Trevor
just tells us to ignore them.

**Nope. Here's how it works in the real world:

* IF I find a suspicious lump, or I have a chest pain, I go to a
doctor. I don't go to a geologist.
* If my dog is sick, I go to a vet. I don't consult a
climatologist. * If my car makes a strange noise, I take it to a
mechanic. I don't consult a mathematician.
* If I want to know about climatology, I speak to a climatologist.
I don't ask an economist.


Then why don't you listen to actual firearms experts regarding
firearms?

**That would be a strawman. However, to answer your question, I am
always willing to listen to a firearms expert, when it comes to
finding out about firearms.

Like the shooter who can sto[ his heart?

**He is certainly far more knowledgable about firearms than I am.


And you are a genuine sap if you beleive your friend can stop his heart.

**It seems you misread my statement. He is certainly far more
knowledgable about firearms than I am.

I would suggest to you that if your friend claims he can stop his heart at
will and you beleived it... well folks draw your own conclusions.





Just to bring you back on-topic: If I want to know about climatology,
I speak to a climatologist. I don't ask an economist.


You mean like

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,697)

1. Atmosphere (578)

I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )

2. Earth (2,148)

I) Earth Science (107)
II) Geochemistry (62)
V) Geoscience (23)
VI) Hydrology (21)

3. Environment (971)

I) Environmental Engineering (473)
II) Environmental Science (256)
III) Forestry (156)
IV) Oceanography (86)


Who would have study data relecvant to "global warming" and would be
able to asses it's impact on thier areas of speciality?

**Climatologists. I've explained this to you before.


or

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,924)

1. Biochemistry (768)

I) Biochemistry (703)
II) Biophysics (65)

2. Biology (1,365)

I) Biology (985)
II) Ecology (72)
III) Entomology (57)
IV) Zoology (145)
V) Animal Science (106)

3. Agriculture (791)

I) Agricultural Science (314)
II) Agricultural Engineering (111)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (74)


Who also would be in a position to assess the impact of global warming
and attempts to curtail it?

**Climatologists supply the data. It is up to others to interpret that
data. The list is one of scientists who allegedly don't believe that
the thousands of climatologists, who have attested to the realiy of
global warming, are wrong. The ONLY sicentists who are qualified to
comment on what climatologists say, are other climatologists.

So only so called experts in thier respective fields are qualfied to
render not opinions but unchallengable assertions of fact the impact of
which could fundementally change man's place on the planet.

**Of course. Who would you trust for the following?

* A cancer diagnosis. Would you trust a person trained in (say)
econometrics, or one trained in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer?

**Inability to answer duly noted.

* Quantum mechanics. Would you trust a person trained in (say)
econometrics, or one trained in quantum mechanics?

**Inability to answer duly noted.

* Economics. Would you trust a person trained in (say) heart surgery, or
one trained in economics?

**Inability to answer duly noted.

* Climatology. Would you trust a person trained in (say) econometrics, or
one trained in climatology?

**Inability to answer duly noted.


All nonsequitors. You picked disciplines pretty far removed from each
other.

**So are many of the disciplines of those who signed the list. Climatology
is the issue, not physics, nor a host of others. THAT was my point.

The majority of the scientists listed are in disciplines that impact or
are
impacted by climate research.

**So? They're not climatologists. They do not study climatology. They may
study the effects of climate. They may even study a subject which has an
input into climatology, but they do not study climatology.

Aside from thenfact the climate research seems
to be a somewhat inexact science.

**So? Quantum mechanics is an inexact science. That does not make it any
less real.


You don't think that any other discipline listed has something to say
regarding the supposed impact of "man made global warming" or it's causes?

**Nope. Others may, indeed, have a say. Their opinion as to the reality of
global warming is, however, irrelevant. Their opinion on the effects may
well be relevant, however.

So
you are saying we should accept the word of a small minority of scientists

**Just a reminder: The vast majjority of climatologists accept the relaity
of global warming. So far, only 40 (out of thousands) of climatologists have
claimed (allegedly) that global warming is not a reality. That a bunch of
chemists, biologists and others dispute this, is not relevant.


and take actions based on thier recomendations when other scientists will
tell you that the supposed impact (in thier area of expertise) is false?

**If a climatologist claimed that operation of the Super Hadron Collider was
a dangerous experiment, I would disregard his opinion, as that is not his
area of expertise. If a physicist trained in high energy particle
experiments suggested that operation of the Super Hadron Collider was a
dangerous experiment, I would be more inlcined to take his advice seriously.


Are you a religious man?

**Of course not. Religion is a last resort of the terminally stupid.

Becuase what you are sayiong is we should accept
this as an article of faith and that we cannot and should not question it.
That is hardly a scientific viewpoint.

**I accept that those trained is a particular discipline are likely to know
far more about that topic than those who are not so trained.




You may not have any faith in your own ability to rationally examine
assertions and refute them but I assur that many people can.

**Sure. In the final analysis, however, those trained in a specific field
of study will almost always have the requisite knowledge to provide an
accurate diagnosis. If I feel sick, I don't go to my local gun dealer. I
visit my doctor.

Nonsequitor.

**Nope. A perfectly valid comparison. Gun dealers (unless they are trained
in medicine) are not likely to be much help in medical matters. Bio-chemists
(unless they are trained in climatology) are not much use in climatology.


All the following disciplines impact or are impacted by "man made global
warming". Are you suggesting that "Atmospheric Science" has nothing
rational
or informed to say about all this? That Environmental Science, Forestry,
Oceanography, Biology, Ecology, Entomology, Zoology, Animal Science,
Agricultural Science, Agricultural Engineering, Plant Science and Food
Science have no legtitmate or informed position on the supposed impact?
Odd
indeed.

**Impact, yes. The reality of global warming, no.


And what of the rather incestuous relationship between governments pushing
this false science to usurp more control of thier lives of the people and
the
those climatoligists that push it?

**Cite that such a relationship exists. Provide your evidence. In your
evidence, explain why the Australian government supports the coal industry
(which is a known greehouse gas producer).

They get government grants, those that
don't do not. In our country those that disagree have even been threatened
with deaccreditation and unemployment. This hardly seems to be the free
and
open environemtn that I would normally expect from scientists. More like a
scientific inquistion.

**Cite your evidence.



1. Atmosphere (578)
I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )

2. Earth (2,148)
I) Earth Science (107)
II) Geochemistry (62)
V) Geoscience (23)
VI) Hydrology (21)

3. Environment (971)
I) Environmental Engineering (473)
II) Environmental Science (256)
III) Forestry (156)
IV) Oceanography (86)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,924)
1. Biochemistry (768)
I) Biochemistry (703)
II) Biophysics (65)

2. Biology (1,365)
I) Biology (985)
II) Ecology (72)
III) Entomology (57)
IV) Zoology (145)
V) Animal Science (106)

3. Agriculture (791)
I) Agricultural Science (314)
II) Agricultural Engineering (111)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (74)





Sorry Trevor, selctive acceptance of experts and facts is only for the
weak minded and agenda driven.

**I accept that climatologists know about climate. It seems you don't.
I find that rather odd.



Than I expect that I will never see another post from you regarding
firearms or firearms law since you have acknowledged you are not an
expert and frankly many of your technical assertions have been deeply
flawed.

**Except that I post mostly factual data. Data cannot be refuted.
Personal opinions can always be refuted. Data cannot.

Data can in fact be manipulated.

**No. Data is data. The interpretation of that data can be incorrectly
interpreted and the conclusions manipulated. Data, by it's very nature,
cannot be manipulated.

And since you are not knowledgable you are
in no position to evaluate the factual content of any data you present,
going
by your own standards anyway.

**Wrong. I just present the data.


I'll give a great example. One of the true idiot antigunners in this
country
used to claim that "assault weapons" were only intended to befired from
the
hip and therefore did not even have sights. This was presented as a fact
and
the media lapped it up. Unforturnately this "fact" is wholly and
completely
false, is demonstrably so and could easily be determined by actually
looking
at one.

So much for "facts" presented in a political context.

**Your anecdote is duly noted. Your lack of data is duly noted.




Applying the same standard, do you acccept?

**Indeed. I expect any opinions, or anecdotal information I supply to be
challenged. ALWAYS.


And the fact that you cannot accept that people have serious and well
founded reservations regarding "man made global warming" is really not
relevant. I don't accept any of the nonsense you have spouted about gun
control. Does that make you wrong?

**Cite the alleged "nonsense" you refer to. Be specific and cite my
PRECISE words. Do not paraphrase. And, don't forget: The issue is gun
control.


Sorry don't have time I refer anyone interested to refer to Google. Oh
wait,
Trevor has a "friend" who is an expert shooter who can "stop his heart"
when
he's ready to tkae a shot. Need I say more?

**Your inability to supply evidence is duly noted. I accept that you cannot
supply evidence of this alleged "nonsense" you speak of.



Sorry when proposals are being made by people being paid by the state to
find the precise results that will stifle human activity, reduce wealth
and put control over every aspect of our lices under government control
I think listening to a few contrarian views is worthwhile.

**I never suggested otherwise. We should examine all the possible
scenarios. Unfortunately, the data is now irrefutable. This planet is in
deep trouble.

No the socialist agenda is in trouble and needs a new cause. What data is
irrefutable?

**That the planet is warming at a rate faster than at any time in the
400,000 years.
* That there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time in the last
400,000 years.
* That the Polar ice caps are experiencing unprecedented melting.

How is "the planet in deep trouble"? Please cite specifics and
sources.

Certainly (unlike you, I DO supply cites):

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentcc.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futurecc.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

"
a.. Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere.
Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
b.. The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely
the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
c.. An "unequivocal" warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from
1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres,
and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
d.. The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the
atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore
virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will
continue to rise over the next few decades.
e.. Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet."
All this, from your own US EPA. An organisation which is paid by a
government which is not only clearly pro-fossil fuel, but is led by a man
who is on record as stating that global warming is bunk.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html

http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html





And if even 40 climatolagists disagree with the intial premise then
there is no consensus.

**Well, we have the words of 40 ALLEGED climatologists, vs. thousands.

What method are you going to use to dismiss the 40 now that
you've reduced 31,072 scientists to 40?

**I'm not. I would like to see their reasons, their credentials and their
complete arguments. I do not want to just see a signature.



Then go to this website:
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

Click on Summary of Peer Reviewed Research
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Review_Article.html

Preamble:

Most scientists have a detailed knowledge of their own narrow field of
specialization, a general knowledge of fundamental science, an
understanding
of the scientific method, and a mental model that encompasses a broad
range
of scientific disciplines. This model serves as the basis of their
thoughts
about scientific questions.

When a scientist desires to refine his understanding of a specific
scientific
subject, he often begins by reading one or more review articles about that
topic. As he reads, he compares the facts given in the review with his
mental
model of the subject, refining his model and updating it with current
information. Review articles do not present new discoveries. The essential
facts given in the review must be referenced to the peer-reviewed
scientific
research literature, so that the reader can check the assertions and
conclusions of the article and obtain more detailed information about
aspects
that interest him.

A 12-page review article about the human-caused global warming hypothesis
is
circulated with the petition. To view the entire article in html, 150-dpi
PDF, 300-dpi PDF, 600-dpi PDF or figures alone in powerpoint or flash,
click
on the appropriate item in this sentence.


Though primarily for scientists, most of this article can be understood
without formal scientific training. This article was submitted to many
scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and
submitted
for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing
journal.

The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a
voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change,
which the United Nations asserts is "authored" by approximately 600
scientists. These "authors" are not, however - as is ordinarily the custom
in
science - permitted power of approval the published review of which they
are
putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the
final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The
final
text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support
for
world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.

***
Perhaps you should read it unless of course you lack of formal training
prevents it. In any case I've looked at the UN report and found it
laughable
at best and a self serving power and wealth grab at worst.

**Tell me about your qualifications, which entitle you to be more believed
than the scientists who co-authored the report. Tell me how they are
operating a "power and wealth grab".


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


.