David Latimer “Col Rouge tries to discredit the whole academic establishment. Never before has scientific sceptisism, which ensures reliable research, been so exploited and misrepresented”

In the beginning TurnLeftTurnRight asked

“if anyone could give me a decent reason as to why so many scientists would support the science behind global warming.”

To which I offered a series of actions which might contribute to reasons why some scientists might support the notion of “global warming”.

Concluding my post with an allusion to irony that

“In the mean time the economy goes to hell in a hand basket because the cost burden of suggested remedies, which were not needed or produced only marginal environmental benefit at best, has killed the economic viability of investment in both existing developments and new processes.

Or maybe I am just a skeptic.”

From which you claimed I was expressing a view which was akin to something from a “parrallel universe”.

I challenged your assertion to “parallel universes” and continued challenging while you ducked, waved and obfuscated through a series of pretentious responses.

You have concluded with reference to “It is the suggestion that scientists are ready themselves to act criminally and immorally to defraud their own universities and institutes to get rich.”

And I suggest such cases have and do exist, as someone else pointed out the Korean geneticist Professor.

And then “Col Rouge tries to discredit the whole academic establishment.”

No I have not!

I have, clearly established

That my view is not something from a “Parallel Universe”;
That “fraud” does exist in the scientific community;
That, to the series of motivations I responded with to TLTR original request, is both accurate and viable, based on the intensity of your responses and the extensive lengths you seem to be going to discredit my statements

So, I guess we should now all ask is

what possible personal impropriety are you trying to bury by your continual denial of known fraudulent events already perpetrated by the scientific community?

David Latimer asks (concerning the unusually light 2006 hurricane season): "Does that change the fact 2005 had the most active US hurricane season ever recorded?"

The 2005 season was indeed the most active hurricane season on record. This is virtually meaningless, however, as the accurate hurricane record is very short. It is conceded that an unknown number of early 20th century storms might have gone unrecorded. The light 2006 season is important, however, because it indicates that there is not a clear AGW related influence on Atlantic hurricane intensity and frequency -- the 2006 season proving less active than predicted.

The WMO support for Gore is qualified: "it is likely" and "if". If Gore did indeed claim that AGW is causing increased hurricane intensity and frequency, he is in conflict with the WMO's assessment.

Tim Lambert, I ask for the third time: Does your hearsay evidence, that global warming induced sea level change is forcing Tuvaluans to flee to New Zealand, constitute proof of this being the case? "Yes" or "no". If yes, do you accept the accounts of alien "abductees" as proof that aliens are visiting earth?

Tim, you're just compounding your error. Irrespective of whether Peiser is wrong or not, he does not admit to multiple errors. End of story. The issue isn't his reliability it is yours.

As for your attempt at beating up my political involvement, I'm still waiting for your evidence that Liberal Party policy denies AGW, and that Liberal Party members only push the party line. You might also like to explain how it is that there are 737 links in Google for the search term "Graham Young"+"Liberal Party" if I am trying to hide my links.

FrankGol, it is not hypocrisy to ask about Lambert's motives. I didn't say that he couldn't question my motives, just that he was setting up a straw man. Questioning someone's motives can't substitute for rebuttal of their arguments, but that doesn't make it an illegitimate field of inquiry. Lambert raised the question of motive and I'm asking him to expand on his own. As Jennifer points out, there is plenty of information about mine on the web (and in refereed articles!), but as far as I can see, none about his.

David Latimer, the paragraphs you pull out of the abstract have no bearing on the issue whatsoever - the fact that climate is variable does not prove that variation is caused by a particular factor. When it comes to causation the abstract uses the words "global-scale warming which may have occurred due to the enhanced greenhouse effect." "May" not "has". If Tim Lambert wants me to check whether Hulme thinks this abstract is sceptical, then he ought to allow surveys of scientists as evidence as to whether there is a consensus. If he does he'll find more evidence that the only "consensus" is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and no more than that.

Jennifer,

"Former politician Al Gore" is a recent dark horse prior to Democrats' preselection-2008.

And either attacking or securing Bold are unpractical because global warming is a natural historical process to which humans contribute insubstantially.

David Latimer,

"Today's debate is how to find the best solution. Carbon Trading? Sequestration? Base Loads? Nuclear Power? Economic side-effects? Solar Cities? Developing Nations? Public Transport? Demand Management? Green Power? .... and many more areas."

All these "debates" is playing English while as usual transferring funds from state -public- accounts into own -private- coffins, because a grounding approach to a problem is wrong,wrong,wrong

GrahamY, Peiser claimed that 34 abstracts rejected the consensus. Now he admits to one. That's 34 - 1 = 33 abstracts he misclassified, or a 97% error rate. So your position is that it is "deeply dishonest" do describe 33 errors as multiple errors.

Once again you have evaded my question. How come the page about the editors of OLO does not mention your Liberal Party insider role? You raised the question of your motives when you claimed to be a dispassionate editor.

Hulme and Jones did not dispute the consensus. You are the only person who believes it does. Apparently even the opinions of the authors of the paper about what they were saying don't matter.

Surveys of climate scientists do not support your claim that the only consensus amongst climate scientists is that C02 is a greenhouse gas.

Jennifer Marohasy: Graham Young responded to my article with a viscous personal attack on me, calling me "deeply dishonest" for making a true statement. But you accuse me of making viscous personal attacks? Naturally, you offer no evidence to support you slur.

"Irrespective of whether Peiser is wrong or not, he does not admit to multiple errors."

It's hard to get a written admission of error out of Peiser, but he has written one in http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000747politicization_101_.html where he says:

"I accept that it was a mistake to include the abstract you mentioned (and some other rather ambiguous ones) in my critique of the Oreskes essay."

Consider also the following facts:

Peiser no longer repeats his claim that "34 abstracts reject or question the view that human activities are the main driving force of "the observed warming over the last 50 years"" except insofar as saying that ONE abstract rejects or questions that view (and anyone who understands what scientific peer-review means knows that including that abstract was a mistake).

When asserting that Oreskes "study is flawed since her main claims are not backed up by the sample of abstracts she used", Peiser completely fails to say anything about the most important claim and instead launches a smokescreen about the lesser claim and an inconsequential difference in counting.

You have to ask, if Peiser still stands by his most important claim, why is it that when he is asked about it, he immediately launches a smokescreen with his other claim and an insignificant side-issue. If he just wants to stay silent and ignore criticism, why the smokescreen?

Peiser's email to Mediawatch says: "some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included."

continues..