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