Leo, you are too willing to do just what I said - repeat the soundbite and leave out the rest to misrepresent Phil Jones' answer. Now you shift to wanting to talk about the regional - not global - changes centuries ago as if that proves recent global warming is inconsequential or that CO2 can't cause warming. You also expect me to provide you with a basic education in climate science and if I don't it proves that every scientific institution that studies climate is wrong. Please address your concerns to them.

Seriously, would you change your mind if I did? I think it's clear that you wouldn't - you won't even accept the validity of weather station data from the Bureau of Meteorology. You dish out accusations of bias but can't prove any such thing. Like I said, lets look at the depths that opponents of climate science stoop to. Climate science doesn't stand or fall on the strength of the MWP - that's just a distraction from the real issues around emissions. Even your "no warming since 2002" is using the same deliberate tricks to hide the incline used to misrepresent Phil Jones and are the basis of the 'cooling since 1998' nonsense. Why 2002 except to misrepresent the data? Do you take into account a known, strong natural variation (ENSO - el Nino Southern Oscillation) or choose to ignore it to show something false? Correct for the biases that ENSO imposes on the data and even your cherrry picked, too short interval fails to show what you claim. That's the level of intellectual honesty you use Leo.

We should stake the future prosperity and security of our Nation and Planet on arguments that flawed?

Some people would appear not to have paid attention to basic documentaries.

Dan, you should provide physical evidence that the universe is *not* expanding*.

The best interpretation of physical evidence available is that it is, from a central point.

I recognise that as a creationist, you may not be able to connect the dots, as in so many areas where you make false assertions. Is that *just* to adverstise the ignorance of creationists?

Making stuff up, that would be the province of religion, wouldn't it?

Rusty

Rusty,
I have seen a few documentaries in my time, and read a few books, but perhaps not all taken from the same shelf as yourself.

The issue, as with many of these controversies, is not so much the empirical evidence but rather the interpretation thereof.  The same evidence is available to all  but, as others above have suggested, what is telling is the fight between the rival theories and the evidence at hand.

You yourself talk about the 'best interpretation of physical evidence available'. The implication is that other interpretations are possible.

This is getting to the heart of the Ridd article. He is arguing that for a variety of reasons dissenting views, those off the well worn path, however reasonable are not given sufficient hearing.   

That almost sounded thoughtful Dan, but not really.

With so many "other interpretations" that might be "reasonable" why do you support the ones most clearly rubbish.

Given your previous nonsense objections to molecular evolution, false assertions about mathematics and stated fondness for biblical creationism, it is very clear that you have no capacity to assess what might be "reasonable".

Just being able to frame some "other interpretation" grammatically does does not make it "reasonable".

"is there anything lower than a creationist?"

No, it is contemptible.

Rusty

I'm not sure I follow you, eyejaw.

>>...we can reasonably assume that even if the system is not 'broken', it is open to and probably is being to some extent corrupted by the methods you quote<<

If the system is not broken, merely corrupted, would not a proper solution be to address the corruption?

If you are unhappy with the laws-of-cricket analogy, how about, say, our electoral system? If you suspected ballot-box fraud, would you advocate changing our democratic process, or rooting out the miscreants?

>>Confidence in Science itself would be eroded with dreadful long term consequences<<

Whose "confidence" is referred to here? The general public does not possess the ability to assess the validity of either the process or its results, as a result of which most simply choose to believe that which most neatly fits their prejudices.

So it must be the scientists' confidence that is at issue.

But if the problem is already known within scientific circles, then surely it is in the scientists' interests to mend their leaky boat.

After all, if it sinks, they all sink with it.

Research will not grind to a halt because management of the system is slack, or because vested interests intrude too far. But it will be a matter of physician, heal thyself. Interference from outside, however well-meaning, cannot but exacerbate the problem.

The process of honest peer review has much going for it, I would have thought. The existence of dodgy editors, biased reviewers, grant-hungry researchers and lazy scientists are impediments to a clear outcome, for sure. But I fail to see how the introduction of a contrarian publication such as that proposed - the "Scientific Challengers Office" - will solve that.

Especially as it is suggested that it should be taxpayer-funded. Which would automatically turn it into an arm of government policy.

We all know where that would take us. And it certainly would not improve the quality of the science.

Thanks Rusty,
I've grown accustomed to your derogatory remarks after nearly every thought raised on creationism (at least you're consistent). Should I expect anything substantial from your end or only more personal slurs?

Ridd's article describes how it is that sometimes pet theories can self perpetuate, inhibiting thought and progress. I see that when I question one of your pet theories, it touches a nerve.

In the post above I've given a summary and reduced version of an open letter to the scientific community (found in its entirety at cosmologystatement.org ) signed by a large number of senior scientists and cutting edge astronomers. They are challenging the commonly accepted theory of the big bang, and suggest alternative frameworks for understanding our history. Much of what Ridd objects to regarding funding and peer review issues appears in this open letter.

"Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible."

Part of the solution, especially in such controversial areas, would be for scientists to remember their committment to scepticism and to holding their views tentitively. It seems everyone champions scepticism except when it's their pet view which is at stake.