Arrest these people.
_______________________________________________
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/528677.20601.qm@web31403.mail.mud.yahoo.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.
On of the comments to that article hit it on the head. Consensus has
nothing to do with AGW's scientific validity: it's about
reproducibility. Missing data invalidates the conclusion, period,
unless some other studies can reproduce the same results.
- Publius
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Michael Madigan <mmadi10699@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Arrest these people.
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
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/56f880751002150019o1e352900yfe5af36b5c2bfe37@mail.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.
Scientific consensus in 1492 was that the world was flat.
Scientific consensus in the 1800s was that the gorilla didn't exist
Scientific consensus in the 1930s was that the Coelacanth was extinct for millions of years.
--- On Mon, 2/15/10, Publius Maximus <publius.b.maximus@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Publius Maximus <publius.b.maximus@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [OT] No global warming since 1995
> To: "ProFox Email List" <profox@leafe.com>
> Date: Monday, February 15, 2010, 3:19 AM
> On of the comments to that article
> hit it on the head. Consensus has
> nothing to do with AGW's scientific validity: it's about
> reproducibility. Missing data invalidates the conclusion,
> period,
> unless some other studies can reproduce the same results.
>
> - Publius
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Michael Madigan <mmadi10699@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > Arrest these people.
> >
> >
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
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/417255.23462.qm@web31402.mail.mud.yahoo.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.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Michael Madigan <mmadi10699@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Scientific consensus in 1492 was that the world was flat.
>
> Scientific consensus in the 1800s was that the gorilla didn't exist
>
> Scientific consensus in the 1930s was that the Coelacanth
Stephen Russell wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Michael Madigan <mmadi10699@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Scientific consensus in 1492 was that the world was flat.
>>
>> Scientific consensus in the 1800s was that the gorilla didn't exist
>>
>> Scientific consensus in the 1930s was that the Coelacanth was extinct for millions of years.
>>
>>
> ------------------------
>
> 2011 Idiots finally REALIZE that the worlds temp is in flux and goes
> up and down. The overall trend of this flux can be graphed in an
> increasing slope.
>
>
Reaaaaally nice piece of thought. Because scientific consensus was wrong
in 3 (Three!!!) isolated points (against billions of correct
conclusions) then we should ditch scientific consensus and instead rely
on ....... a consensus table with three seats : MadAgain, Minimus, and
Petgay. We could add a couple of preachers, GWB, Shwarzenegger, and
Ronald Reagan's ghost.
--- 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/4B79A811.8050309@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.
Hey. For once I agree with Ricardo. Good comment.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ricardo Ar
Actually there are plenty of examples of consensus being wrong
* the theory of continental drift proposed by Alfred Wegener and supported by Alexander Du Toit and Arthur Holmes but soundly rejected by most geologists until indisputable evidence and an acceptable mechanism was presented after 50 years of rejection.
* the theory of symbiogenesis presented by Lynn Margulis and initially rejected by biologists but now generally accepted.
* the theory of punctuated equilibria proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge which is still debated but becoming more accepted in evolutionary theory.
* the theory of prions -proteinaceous infectious particles causing transmissible spongiform encephalopathy diseases- proposed by Stanley B. Prusiner and at first rejected because pathogenicity was believed to depend on nucleic acids now widely accepted due to accumulating evidence.
* the theory of Helicobacter pylori as the cause of stomach ulcers. This theory was first postulated in 1982 by Barry Marshall and Robin Warren however it was widely rejected by the medical community believing that no bacterium could survive for long in the acidic environment of the stomach. Marshall demonstrated his findings by drinking a brew of the bacteria and consequently developing ulcers, subsequently curing himself with antibiotic medication. In 2005, Warren and Marshall were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work on H. pylori[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
--- On Tue, 2/16/10, Nicholas Geti <ngeti@optonline.net> wrote:
> From: Nicholas Geti <ngeti@optonline.net>
> Subject: Re: [OT] No global warming since 1995
> To: "ProFox Email List" <profox@leafe.com>
> Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2010, 6:02 PM
> Hey. For once I agree with Ricardo.
> Good comment.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ricardo Ar
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.
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."
- Publius
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ricardo Ar
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.
So what? Are you telling me that everytime there is consensus that it is
wrong? Goofy. Consensus is part of the scientfic process. Come up with a
theory, then gather facts until the theory is shown to be correct or wrong.
If wrong, you adjust the theory.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Madigan" <mmadi10699@yahoo.com>
To: "ProFox Email List" <profox@leafe.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] No global warming since 1995
Actually there are plenty of examples of consensus being wrong
* the theory of continental drift proposed by Alfred Wegener and
supported by Alexander Du Toit and Arthur Holmes but soundly rejected by
most geologists until indisputable evidence and an acceptable mechanism was
presented after 50 years of rejection.
* the theory of symbiogenesis presented by Lynn Margulis and initially
rejected by biologists but now generally accepted.
* the theory of punctuated equilibria proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and
Niles Eldredge which is still debated but becoming more accepted in
evolutionary theory.
* the theory of prions -proteinaceous infectious particles causing
transmissible spongiform encephalopathy diseases- proposed by Stanley B.
Prusiner and at first rejected because pathogenicity was believed to depend
on nucleic acids now widely accepted due to accumulating evidence.
* the theory of Helicobacter pylori as the cause of stomach ulcers. This
theory was first postulated in 1982 by Barry Marshall and Robin Warren
however it was widely rejected by the medical community believing that no
bacterium could survive for long in the acidic environment of the stomach.
Marshall demonstrated his findings by drinking a brew of the bacteria and
consequently developing ulcers, subsequently curing himself with antibiotic
medication. In 2005, Warren and Marshall were awarded the Nobel Prize in
Medicine for their work on H. pylori[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
--- On Tue, 2/16/10, Nicholas Geti <ngeti@optonline.net> wrote:
> From: Nicholas Geti <ngeti@optonline.net>
> Subject: Re: [OT] No global warming since 1995
> To: "ProFox Email List" <profox@leafe.com>
> Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2010, 6:02 PM
> Hey. For once I agree with Ricardo.
> Good comment.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ricardo Ar