|
Dippin:
As always, people (and scientists are people), see what they want to see. So are, and do, you. And that is not a problem with the scientific method, but with the peer review mechanism.
I have never denied global warming. Most evidence suggests it is happening. I have yet to see any conclusive evidence of AGW, because the data is inconclusive and extremely difficult to come by because of the extremely short time-span over which we have reliable data in geologic terms. As for East Anglia, I read the leaked documents myself. I stand by my own conclusions as a well-trained and reasonable person. Five inquiries coming to the wrong conclusion does not make them right, only five.
As for the issues about getting published, for heaven's sake READ the CRU e-mails and their comments on black-balling journals that would consider publishing dissenting views/studies. These were serious comments by senior researchers!! Or just ask Tom Tripp (one of the original lead authors on the IPCC, albeit a metallurgist, believe it or not) how easy it was to get his opinions/concerns published. His letters of dissent were regularly rejected by journals and magazines. Letters of opinion or criticism of the process! Or Richard Tol and the 1000+ scientist who have dissented to the IPCC AGW conclusion. Their extensive critique of the IPCC report has been widely ignored by the media because it flies in the face of the non-existent consensus on AGW.
__________________
The secret to great marksmanship is deciding what the target was AFTER you've shot.
|