Global warming and scientific consensus

[sasguru]

I wouldnt vaccinate my children because of a concensus(and didnt with rubella), and I wouldnt take any treatment because of a concensus. I would use the approach that I outlined above.

All of medicine is consensus. There are always dissenting voices about what treatment to give for a particular disease.
There is generally a Western modern medicine consensus. Then there is Homeopathy, Chinese medicine, Ayurvedic medicine which have different approaches.

Why didn't you give your children the rubella vaccine?

[Old Greg]

and that is why it galls when we are told, and our children are taught, that the science is settled

What proportion (roughly) of serious scientists who support the man-made global warming position is saying that they are 100% sure that global warming will occur and is man made?

[sasguru]

and that is why it galls when we are told, and our children are taught, that the science is settled

There are morons who "support" AGW just like there are morons on the opposite side of the debate. I suspect rather more of the latter, though.

[BlasterBates]

Fred Singer would dispute that passive smoking is a cause of cancer and indeed would say that the data was 'cooked'. Fred Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But you don't need to quote Fred Singer, what about

Professor Judith Curry

Professor Don Easterbrook

Professor Balll

and here is a new guy on the block

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/about.html

just to name a few, and they have tremendous academic reputations.

But what makes their criticism poignant is that they are accusing the scientists you believe of dishonesty.

Doesn't that ring alarm bells?

We're not talking about scientific disagreeement, but dishonesty.

Lets revisit that:

It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest

Now that is quite an accusation. So a professor with high standing comes out with a statement like that, but you still accept their view without question?

[sasguru]

But you don't need to quote Fred Singer, what about

Professor Judith Curry

Professor Don Easterbrook

Professor Balll

and here is a new guy on the block

coaps.fsu.edu | Ryan Maue's Seasonal Tropical Cyclone Activity Update

just to name a few, and they have tremendous academic reputations.

But what makes their criticism poignant is that they are accusing the scientists you believe of dishonesty.

Doesn't that ring alarm bells?

We're not talking about scientific disagreeement, but dishonesty.

PJ has addressed at least one of the dishonesty claims. What do you have to say about his rebuttal?

[TimberWolf]

I have noticed two trends in all global warming discussions here on CUK AND elsewhere.

One trend I have noticed on CUK is that PJ does a fine job of representing the scientific consensus, while sasguru does his best to undermine it from within

The 'enemy within' ploy.

[Old Greg]

But you don't need to quote Fred Singer, what about

Professor Judith Curry

Professor Don Easterbrook

Professor Balll

and here is a new guy on the block

coaps.fsu.edu | Ryan Maue's Seasonal Tropical Cyclone Activity Update

just to name a few, and they have tremendous academic reputations.

But what makes their criticism poignant is that they are accusing the scientists you believe of dishonesty.

Doesn't that ring alarm bells?

We're not talking about scientific disagreeement, but dishonesty.

Lets revisit that:




Now that is quite an accusation. So a professor with high standing comes out with a statement like that, but you still accept their view without question?

I was talking about passive smoking.

[EternalOptimist]

All of medicine is consensus. There are always dissenting voices about what treatment to give for a particular disease.
There is generally a Western modern medicine consensus. Then there is Homeopathy, Chinese medicine, Ayurvedic medicine which have different approaches.

Why didn't you give your children the rubella vaccine?

Because I did a rudimentary risk analysis. I weighed up the danger to her of doing it and the danger of not. Then I looked at the wider implications, and I made a judgement

[sasguru]

Because I did a rudimentary risk analysis.

Interesting. Could you provide more detail with some figures?

[BlasterBates]

PJ has addressed at least one of the dishonesty claims. What do you have to say about his rebuttal?

The rebuttal was from a blogger who said that the greenland ice core data was only up until 1855.

In fact the ice core data goes up to 1987 as Easterbrook said.

The rebuttal was from an amateur blogger. It's just BS.

But the claim of dishonest was from Judith Curry.