Publius Maximus wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Nicholas Geti <ngeti@optonline.net> wrote:

>

>> Hey. For once I agree with Ricardo. Good comment.

>>

>

> But again, the point I was making was that consensus means jack squat

> for proving scientific validity. It's all about the conclusion being

> demonstrably reproducible, which is all about data integrity + process

> integrity.

>

Which proves you know "jack squat" about how science works.

Scientific consensus does matter. Or did you think scientists have

enough time to reproduce every conclusion since the beginning of science

again and again? If there is consensus then the conclusion stays until

you PROVE the conclusion is wrong, then you write a paper and see if you

can get it published, only then will scientific consensus start moving.

You seem to believe there is a Big Daddy in the sky approving scientific

work, it's all about consensus with your peers. You may dissent to your

hearts content, no one outside this list... sorry, outside Petey and

Madagain, will give a damn about your opinion.

You talk big words, words like "data integrity". Tell me, how would you

know another man's data obtained some years ago has integrity? Can you

certify he didn't make it up?

Now with "process integrity". There may be that in engineering, not in

science. Scientist devise their own processes to prove their theories,

and such processes may later be challenged by their peers (the famous

scientific consensus), but there is nothing like process integrity.

After all, who would certify that integrity? God or the scientific

community (the consensus again)?

> In the case of AGW (not just GW, but specifically AGW) we have very

> good reason to be very skeptical of both the data integrity and the

> process integrity behind the so-called "consensus."

>

Hereby I extend an allowance for you to be skeptical about GW.

Hereby I extend an allowance for you to be skeptical about gravity.

Now, the scientific community will take you for what you really are and

will give your *opinions* their proper weight.

Then science will go on working, and politicians will keep taking from

science the bits they can use to their ends and conveniently ignoring

those that are uncomfortable, the media will continue to highlight what

sells, and you will continue shouting and spitting your boring theories.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---

multipart/alternative

text/plain (text body -- kept)

text/html

---

_______________________________________________

Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com

Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox

OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech

Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox

This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/4B7BFA2D.4090507@gmail.com

** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.