re: #206 Teh Flowah

I don’t know. Did the “scientist” with the Ph.D. in molecular genetics working at the creationist museum have an expert’s authority to question the theory of evolution? Before you answer the question, allow me to laugh heartily.

Yes. That one can be an “expert” does not imply that their interpretation of a theory is wrong- or right. Experts disagree all the time, with some being proven right and others wrong.

Physics of course, being related to many fields because it is so fundamental being a poor indicator of someone’s knowledge in the field of climate change. He might know everything there is to know about thermodynamics but he would likewise need to know everything about the earth’s climate to put the two together. Does he? Is he supported by other scientists as well? Has he been peer reviewed?

Do you really think there’s anybody who knows “everything” about the earth’s climate? With respect to AGW, we’re talking a relatively specific claim- that an increase of concentration of CO2 from .025% to .040% of the Earth’s atmosphere is going to cause significant warming.

The peer review process is important, but don’t confuse science with consensus- it isn’t a popularity contest, it’s about proving theory against observable data, and we’re pretty freakin far from that when it comes to AGW.

Do you think there is some worldwide conspiracy wherein the vast majority of scientists are in cahoots to fool the world about AGW in some grab for funding? That would really be the only way to show that the “scientists” who have real evidence that AGW is wrong aren’t getting peer reviewed because their theories are bullshit. (They are.)

With respect to individual scientists, no “worldwide conspiracy” is required. Become an AGW alarmist, get funding and headlines. Question AGW, you become a “denier” who gets compared to an Intelligent Design creationist. As to organizations like the IPCC, there is a bit of conspiracy there; they are a political advocacy group after all, and of course will try to advance their goals while trying to shut down countering arguments. Dismissing critics out of hand without addressing the evidence they base their argument on is not how science is supposed to work, but the IPCC is primarily a political, not scientific organization.

I don’t know exactly what relationship CO2 has to climate. The problem is that no one else does either, yet advocates want to spend trillions of dollars on an unproven theory for which there exists little consensus or proof regarding specifics.

But you go on dismissing out of hand those who question AGW as having “bullshit” arguments while simultaneously claiming that there is no effort to stifle dissent on the subject.