3 of 10
3
Michael Mann - Unprecedented Attacks on Climate Research
Posted: 28 February 2010 11:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  441
Joined  2009-12-17
asanta - 27 February 2010 08:46 PM
AMac - 27 February 2010 08:34 PM

Priests are epistemologically superior.  Not scientists.

With the recent proved worldwide sex scandals and cover-up by the higher ups, the priesthood has no claim to epistemological superiority. You will need to use another example!

Absolutely correct on that one Asanta !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2010 11:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  441
Joined  2009-12-17
dougsmith - 28 February 2010 08:51 AM

When it comes to scientific issues, however, the proper authority is clear. It is the community of scientists who study that particular subject.

And it is this bald statement that is at the heart of your error.
The debate on the claims of the Global Warming Climate Scientists is not a debate about knowledge of Climate science alone and if you believe this then it is no wonder there is a problem. The debate is about the success or failure of these scientists in proving that their theories are correct - and it is also a debate about how they have used their data.

Neither of these debates requires specialist knowledge of Climate Science. Anyone with a good education and a modicum of scientific knowledge can judge perfectly well if a theory is right or wrong if they have access to a fair summary of the facts. Any scientist of any field of science whatsoever is well capable of coming to a judgement on how the data in this controversy has been used if he has access to a fair statement of the facts. it is no wonder that a growing number of scientists across the world are following the public trend and becoming more and more dissatisfied with the work of these Climate Scientists when they have such huge problems both accessing fair statements of the data and the use of that data and when they see the sources of that data and how it is being manipulated to create unfounded predictions.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2010 12:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  15
Joined  2010-02-23

Upthread, AMac wrote,
“Priests are epistemologically superior.  Not scientists.”

Asanta responded,
“With the recent proved worldwide sex scandals and cover-up by the higher ups, the priesthood has no claim to epistemological superiority. You will need to use another example!”

Asata,

The sex scandals and cover-ups wouldn’t cause me to change my example, at all.  The argument that “X is superior and the public should take X’s word on subject Y” is different from whatever the reality of X’s correctness and authority on subject Y should be.  Regarding priests, such arguments were made prior to the scandals, and they continue to be made.

Anyway, I was thinking of “priests” in the most general sense, not in the Roman Catholic particular.  Sorry I wasn’t clearer.

I will leave further discussion of epistemological superiority to my epistemological superiors.  In everyday language, what we—Chris Mooney, Mike Mann, Doug and others on the thread—are talking about is this proposition:

“The majority of climate science have formed a consensus stance on AGW.  That consensus is that the science is basically settled on the mechinisms of climate change, on the extent of global warming in the past century or so, and on the large degree to which observed warming is due to human-caused rises in greenhouse gasses. The AGW Consensus is also clear that these mechanisms are very likely to cause large increases in mean global temperature over the next 50 to 100 years, as detailed in IPCC reports.  Finally, the Consensus is clear that the correct policy is mitigation of GHG emission, and not adaptation to higher temperatures and their sequelae.”

in my opinion, these claims are only as strong as the science behind them.  The stronger the science behind a particular claim, the stronger the claim.

The science behind some of the important claims of Prof. Mann is not strong.  Is what he says correct, or wrong?  Well, I don’t know.  Any given strong claim based on weak science might be right… or it might not be.  The only way to find out is to go back and do the right work, according to the scientific method.

In the interview, Prof. Mann cited his group’s 2008 paper in Science as an example of strong science that puts the 20th Century’s rising temperatures in the proper—and worrying—historical context, based on a 2,000-year-long proxy reconstruction of paleotemperatures.

From reading that paper and associated materials, I know that it contains glaring errors.  It’s weak science.  The fact that its errors go unacknowledged and uncorrected tells me something important about the paleoclimate science community, of which Prof. Mann is a leader.

The use by Prof. Mann of the “Tiljander proxies” isn’t actually that complicated or hard to understand.  They were uncalibratable, but he calibrated them anyway.  As a result, two of the proxies were used upside down in his reconstructions, such that “warmer” information was given the meaning of “colder”.

Don’t believe me—why should you?  Look it up and walk through the evidence pro and con, if you’re interested.

Does this failure to correct errors in high-impact peer-reviewed journals affect your confidence in the output of this specialty field?  You’d have to answer that for yourself.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2010 01:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  441
Joined  2009-12-17
AMac - 28 February 2010 12:26 PM

In the interview, Prof. Mann cited his group’s 2008 paper in Science as an example of strong science that puts the 20th Century’s rising temperatures in the proper—and worrying—historical context, based on a 2,000-year-long proxy reconstruction of paleotemperatures.

From reading that paper and associated materials, I know that it contains glaring errors.  It’s weak science.  The fact that its errors go unacknowledged and uncorrected tells me something important about the paleoclimate science community, of which Prof. Mann is a leader.

The use by Prof. Mann of the “Tiljander proxies” isn’t actually that complicated or hard to understand.  They were uncalibratable, but he calibrated them anyway.  As a result, two of the proxies were used upside down in his reconstructions, such that “warmer” information was given the meaning of “colder”.

Don’t believe me—why should you?  Look it up and walk through the evidence pro and con, if you’re interested.

Does this failure to correct errors in high-impact peer-reviewed journals affect your confidence in the output of this specialty field?  You’d have to answer that for yourself.

Excellently put AMac. We are faced with a group of scientists who are so religiously self persuaded that they mock anyone who dares to try to engage them on issues such as this and others such as tree rings. I spent several weeks on this forum trying to engage someone on one of these topics but was faced with this same arrogance and abuse. We can build the most awe inspiring buildings of 100+ floors covered in magnificent facades… but if their base foundations are flawed even such awe inspiring edifices will come crumbling down. We can send a triumph of engineering, a mission to space (was it a mars rover?) but if some of the engineers use imperial and some others us metric, then even the magnificence of the work crumbles into failure.

Sceptics through the years have been faced with accusations of being ‘cranks’. In my view any sceptic worth his or her salt wears that badge with the deepest of pride.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2010 02:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-09-03
dougsmith - 28 February 2010 08:51 AM

...
Not sure I get the relevance of Cialdini here—I’ve read his book, so know in general his take on persuasion. The point re. the supposed fallacy of appeal to authority I’ve dealt with at some length elsewhere on this forum—that is, it is indeed a logical fallacy, however that does not mean it is a bad argument….
...
But again, not quite sure I’m getting your point. Perhaps I’m being dense.

I’m probably not explaining it well and I may have drifted beyond what AMac was getting at.  I think you follow all the points—the main one being the appeal to authority is a complicated one since as you note there is some basis for it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2010 03:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
AMac - 28 February 2010 12:26 PM

Upthread, AMac wrote,
“Priests are epistemologically superior.  Not scientists.”
Anyway, I was thinking of “priests” in the most general sense, not in the Roman Catholic particular.  Sorry I wasn’t clearer.

Doesn’t matter, the catholics have not been alone in their scandals.

[ Edited: 28 February 2010 03:43 PM by asanta ]
 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2010 03:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2010-02-28

Somewhat belatedly - if I may toss in my two cents about the broadcast itself, on the whole I found it disappointing.  The AGW story is ripe for a good, skeptical discussion.  Chris, an excellent science journalist, I thought might be the guy to bring it - but we got a softball interview.

Now those of us who allow a degree of skepticism to creep into our views on the current state of climate science, contrary to the caricature, are not necessarily out-and-out loons.  So before you denounce me as a “denialist” who thus labelled can safely be ignored, allow me to declare that I know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and the world is warming.

I also know public policy advocacy when I see it, and a lot of what has come from climate scientists on AGW is public policy advocacy plain and simple.

So let’s really  talk about the intersection of science and public policy.  What do we do when scientists are also political actors and advocates?

And let’s talk about how we evaluate expert opinion.  However expert we each may be in our own field, we are all more or less ignorant on most topics.  How do we maintain a vibrant, active democracy, when on every topic to which we turn there are people more expert than ourselves?

And let’s talk about the role of the internet in science and scientific debate.  Prof. Mann in this interview dismissed AGW-skeptical blogs as denailist shills.  It brought to mind the years the recording industry wasted condemning and litigating against music downloads instead of embracing it.  The blogospehere will no more go away than music downloads - and we don’t want it to!  Obviously on the whole the internet is a liberalizing, democratizing force.  But how do we deal with the mass of misinformation and half truths?

Surely the answer to each of these questions is the same:  Critical thinking skills.  We need to popularize critical thinking and science-based reasoning.  AGW and other science / policy debates represent a huge opportunity for the skeptical / pro science / reason based / freethinking community.  But we’re not helping ourselves if we soft-pedal on the climate science debate.  Instead we simply hand the floor to the anti-science camp.

In truth there is much to be concerned about the way at least some of this climate science research has been conducted and in the behaviour of at least some of these climate scientists.  So first and foremost, let’s demonstrate our own critical thinking bona fides with an unsentimental look at what the climate science circus can teach us about doing science well, and doing science well in the glare of politics and public policy debates.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2010 03:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
dougsmith - 28 February 2010 07:54 AM

You got that one backwards, AMac. Priests just make stuff up. They aren’t chosen for their superior knowledge of anything, nor does their job involve careful investigations of anything. They don’t even have epistemological superiority when it comes to the contents of the Bible (professors of the relevant religions, arguably, would). A priest is first and foremost a sociopolitical position.

Even more, they are trained to protect ‘stuff’ others have made up!

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2010 03:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  15
Joined  2010-02-23
LetsBeReasonable - 28 February 2010 03:36 PM

...carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and the world is warming.

[snip]

So let’s really  talk about the intersection of science and public policy.

Yep, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, one has to argue against over a century of physics to contest that.  Yet some people do, what a gift to those with a penchant for keeping the Consensus position simple and moral.  “We’re fighting the good fight against the worst sort of Denialists!”

The instrumental record is clear that the world has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-1800s, too.  People denying that, another gift to lovers of simple stories with clear punch lines.

Climate scientist Judith Curry created quite a stir last week, when she wrote an essay reflecting on Climategate, with some attention paid to the nature of potential conflicts between science qua science and science qua public policy advocacy.  (It would have been interesting to have heard Prof. Mann respond to Prof. Curry).  Curry’s blog post is linked and discussed at *this The Blackboard post*.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2010 05:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-09-03

Al Gore had a large opinion piece in the NY Times today (Sunday 2/28)
[ We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change]
His comments basically support those of Michael Mann.

Gore mentions, a little obliquely, the role of petroleum companies and the tobacco analogy that came up in the Mann interview:

Over the years, as the science has become clearer and clearer, some industries and companies whose business plans are dependent on unrestrained pollution of the atmospheric commons have become ever more entrenched. They are ferociously fighting against the mildest regulation — just as tobacco companies blocked constraints on the marketing of cigarettes for four decades after science confirmed the link of cigarettes to diseases of the lung and the heart.

There is a lot more to the piece than this quote—Gore is trying to tie things together in a way which would support policy action.

Now if Chris can interview Gore….

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2010 05:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  258
Joined  2010-02-28

First off, I’ve been listening to PoI for several years, and have found it an invaluable podcast. In my mind the interview with Mann was revealing;

Firstly, one can understand the frustration scientists feel with the deniers. Like evolutionary biologists, they are confronted with an organised and politically motivated anti-science movement that seeks to not only undermine the credibility of individual scientists, but the discipline of science itself.

For me, the fact that Mann and his colleagues have published all their data and computer code in the public domain is testament to their desire to be transparent and show all the facts.

This fact should be promoted far more widely, and directly rebuts the skeptics claims of censorship. So called skeptics on this forum should go directly to those sources and have a look.

The denial industry may share the tactics of the tobacco lobby’s campaign but it is more akin to creationism and other anti-science movements. They’ve done a brilliant job of hitching denial to populist right wing/religious movements - the angry swarms of bloggers and forum posters who simply re-post links to WUWT, make claims to conspiracy theories and attack the science may not be directly paid by the denial industry, but have fallen hook-line-and-sinker for it’s claims. One only has to look at the posts in this thread.

Sadly, as the science confirms the truth of AGW the louder the denial industry cranks up it’s campaign to confuse the general public.

[ Edited: 28 February 2010 05:38 PM by Mike from Oz ]
 Signature 

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2010 06:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  15
Joined  2010-02-23
Mike from Oz - 28 February 2010 05:21 PM

the angry swarms of bloggers and forum posters who simply re-post links to WUWT, make claims to conspiracy theories and attack the science may not be directly paid by the denial industry, but have fallen hook-line-and-sinker for it’s claims. One only has to look at the posts in this thread.

Mike,

I agree with you that the science is paramount.

As you can see, earlier I posted my opinion that one of Prof. Mann’s studies is clearly an instance of weak science.

I came to this stance for the following reasons.

1.  In his 2008 PNAS paper, Prof. Mann included the four Tiljander proxies in building its > 1,000-year paleotemperature reconstructions. 
2.  His methods required that all proxies be calibrated to the 1850-1995 instrumental temperature record. 
3.  The Tiljander proxies are uncalibratable.  Mann’s group considered the reasons why, dismissed them, miscalibrated the proxies, and used them.
4.  As a result, two of the four proxies were used in an upside-down orientation, such that “warmer” information was added to the reconstructions as “cooler.”
5.  When these mistakes were brought to Mann’s attention, he stonewalled, dismissing them as “bizarre.”
6.  In public, the broader community of climate scientists has either kept quiet, or defended the Mann group’s flawed work.

At your blog, you advise, “Never debate a forum poster”.  You predict that “they” (the Denialists) will claim that CO2 doesn’t effect (sic) the climate, will provide a flood of links to YouTube, and more.  Its pointless engaging these individuals; they will only get nasty if you make the attempt. 

However, you wisely suggest a useful strategy.  That is to post links to the actual science.

I’m curious about what you think of Prof. Mann (and the AGW Consensus community) standing by his use of the Tiljander proxies.  I’d be particularly interested in articles or blog posts that capably defend his position, so I can add them to the list I maintain at my blog.  Heck, mount a capable defense here, and I’ll link to this thread!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2010 07:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  258
Joined  2010-02-28
AMac - 28 February 2010 06:04 PM
Mike from Oz - 28 February 2010 05:21 PM

the angry swarms of bloggers and forum posters who simply re-post links to WUWT, make claims to conspiracy theories and attack the science may not be directly paid by the denial industry, but have fallen hook-line-and-sinker for it’s claims. One only has to look at the posts in this thread.

Mike,

I agree with you that the science is paramount.

As you can see, earlier I posted my opinion that one of Prof. Mann’s studies is clearly an instance of weak science.

I came to this stance for the following reasons.

1.  In his 2008 PNAS paper, Prof. Mann included the four Tiljander proxies in building its > 1,000-year paleotemperature reconstructions. 
2.  His methods required that all proxies be calibrated to the 1850-1995 instrumental temperature record. 
3.  The Tiljander proxies are uncalibratable.  Mann’s group considered the reasons why, dismissed them, miscalibrated the proxies, and used them.
4.  As a result, two of the four proxies were used in an upside-down orientation, such that “warmer” information was added to the reconstructions as “cooler.”
5.  When these mistakes were brought to Mann’s attention, he stonewalled, dismissing them as “bizarre.”
6.  In public, the broader community of climate scientists has either kept quiet, or defended the Mann group’s flawed work.

At your blog, you advise, “Never debate a forum poster”.  You predict that “they” (the Denialists) will claim that CO2 doesn’t effect (sic) the climate, will provide a flood of links to YouTube, and more.  Its pointless engaging these individuals; they will only get nasty if you make the attempt. 

However, you wisely suggest a useful strategy.  That is to post links to the actual science.

I’m curious about what you think of Prof. Mann (and the AGW Consensus community) standing by his use of the Tiljander proxies.  I’d be particularly interested in articles or blog posts that capably defend his position, so I can add them to the list I maintain at my blog.  Heck, mount a capable defense here, and I’ll link to this thread!

Hi AMac

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate your comments - and it’s good that we can agree that the best approach is to go direct to the science itself smile

A few things I’d say about the Tiljander proxy date:

1/ Im familiar that this argument has been buzzing around the climate sceptic community for some time
2/ The criticims finds it’s genesis with Steve McIntyre and his work on climateaudit.org.

My response would be: McIntyre is operating outside the peer review system and using his blog to publish “research”. IMHO, that is classic pseudo-science. Mann et.al did put out a paper responding to McIntyre’s claims, which you have alluded too. Mann and the other authors have published their papers in the public domain at the National Academy of Science website, including the computer code here: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/E11.full

Far from stonewalling or attempts to hide information. Mann has gone out of his way to be transparent: this is a very high standard of openess, and demonstrates his willingness to stand by his use of data. However I suspect that Mann’s response does not convince you.

If that is the case, I’d also recommend going over to Stout on Science Blogs where there is a long comment thread on the isue:http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/10/tiljander.php

Stout makes the following comment:

...one thing that has puzzled some people is how little effect the Tiljander proxies have on the overall reconstruciton: see S8, which I inlined. But look at S9, and you’ll see that the Tiljander proxies are remarkably flat before 1800. This would be consistent, for example, with recent non-climatic artifacts producing more variation than is naturally present. But it also means that the effect of these proxies on the total reconstruction pre-1800 is likely to be extremely slight (which explains fig S8

I agree with Stout: focussing on the Tiljander proxies are a red herring.  Simply put, the sceptics claim the Mann inverted his graph by abusing the Tiljander proxies: the truth is this data has very little impact on the conclusions of Mann’s research.

Frankly, it’s McIntrye is using text book tactics in misrepresenting the science.

Cheers

 Signature 

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2010 08:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  15
Joined  2010-02-23
Mike from Oz - 28 February 2010 07:25 PM

Mike,

> 2/ The criticims finds it’s genesis with Steve McIntyre and his work on climateaudit.org.
> Frankly, it’s McIntrye is using text book tactics in misrepresenting the science.

To me, those are neither here nor there.  I’d rather focus on the science.

> McIntyre is operating outside the peer review system and using his blog to publish “research”. IMHO, that is classic pseudo-science.

The sneer quotes seem unwarranted.  Conferences, symposia, poster sessions, seminars, and blog posts (e.g. at Climate Audit, RealClimate, Stoat, Deltoid, and here) are all communication formats that operate outside the peer review system.  I don’t understand why that qualifies them as pseudoscience.

> Mann et.al did put out a paper responding to McIntyre’s claims, which you have alluded too.

That was a *brief reply* to a brief comment; in my opinion the Editors at PNAS allowed Prof. Mann to evade the issues raised.

> Mann and the other authors have published their papers in the public domain at the NAS website, including the computer code ...

This transparency issue was one of the major points of contention between Mann & company and McIntyre & company.  It’s a huge sign of progress in the field that such disputes are being resolved on the side of openness.  I don’t believe the code is at the PNAS website.  If you have the URL (at Penn State?), I’d like to add it to *this list of references*.

> I’d also recommend going over to Stout on Science Blogs where there is a long comment thread on the isue:http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/10/tiljander.php

I agree, that’s a good resource.  Because of Stoat blogger William Connolley’s aggressive moderation policy, I made a more concise digest of the first thread, *Here*.  If warranted, I can do the same for the other two.

> “one thing that has puzzled some people is how little effect the Tiljander proxies have on the overall reconstruciton...”
>  the sceptics claim the Mann inverted his graph by abusing the Tiljander proxies: the truth is this data has very little impact on the conclusions of Mann’s research.

It’s an important point, but one that I see differently.  In my opinion, the striking similarities of the with-Tiljander and without-Tiljander reconstructions suggest something is quite amiss with the reconstruction algorithms themselves.  Explained more fully *Here*

But before moving to consider complex matters, it would make sense to correct the simple mistakes, such as the miscalibration of the four Tiljander proxies and the consequent upside-down use of two of them.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2010 09:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  258
Joined  2010-02-28
AMac - 28 February 2010 08:34 PM
Mike from Oz - 28 February 2010 07:25 PM

Mike,

> 2/ The criticims finds it’s genesis with Steve McIntyre and his work on climateaudit.org.
> Frankly, it’s McIntrye is using text book tactics in misrepresenting the science.

To me, those are neither here nor there.  I’d rather focus on the science.

> McIntyre is operating outside the peer review system and using his blog to publish “research”. IMHO, that is classic pseudo-science.

The sneer quotes seem unwarranted.  Conferences, symposia, poster sessions, seminars, and blog posts (e.g. at Climate Audit, RealClimate, Stoat, Deltoid, and here) are all communication formats that operate outside the peer review system.  I don’t understand why that qualifies them as pseudoscience.

Thanks for the response AMac

I’ll happily remove the “sneer quotes”, however I think the point stands.

There is a difference between communicating to the general public - shaping opinion - and the peer review process which is used to filter out good/bad science.

IMHO, McIntyre’s work does not qualify as “good science” because he bypasses a critical filter (the review process) and appeals direct to a mainstream and lay audience. Much like the creationists and other anti-science advocates, this tactic is about influencing public opinion rather than engaging in debate with the scientific community. The reasonL

I think most skeptics are familiar with the tactics employed by creationists, alt-med and conspiracy theorist to understand how they are very good and using new media such as blogs to disseminate their message and circumnavigate experts.

Re the science: I trust that the peer review process and the fact that Mann et.al have published all their original data and code in the public domain, and that their papers went through the peer review process is sufficient to lend greater credibility to them as sources.

If there is good, peer reviewed articles from reputable journals contradicting the conclusions of Mann and the proxy data I’d be curious to see. However, I’m not aware of any.

I will be upfront in admitting I am *not* qualified to seriously debate the science. In fact, if you’ve seen my blog you’ll note I don’t debate the details of the science. As an educated lay person I have a great love for science, and read a great deal of popular texts and original research. I regard myself as informed, but in no position to criticise individual pieces of research in such a complex and specialised area. For the same reason I won’t pick up a scalpel and perform brain surgery, I trust the scientific process (as rough and imperfect as any human institution can be) and that the experts in the field have the knowledge, expertise and skill to make informed judgements.

I will, if you don’t mind disengage from this topic with you as I feel you’re already familiar with the debate and original resources and have arrived at very different conclusion to the science.

Cheers

[ Edited: 28 February 2010 09:55 PM by Mike from Oz ]
 Signature 

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 10
3