It certainly clarifies things for me. However Mercurius, you have used the words "potentially present" so Graham may take comfort that his opinion is only "potentially" less valid or reliable that that of science. If it is potentially less valid, it is also potentially more valid.

Don't be surprised to find your words twisted over time. For example, in Graham’s view a 1994 recommendation (art 45) to do further research on sunspot activity, even though it may be "spurious", was a rejection of anthropogenic global warming.

The art of political debate is well understood by Graham. Credibility and integrity are the targets. Is just your opinion vs mine. In defence, never, ever waiver. Given the standing of politicians, journalists, lobbyists and telemarketers is so high, what a wonderful methodology to replace the principles of science.*

(* MichaelK, please take this last paragraph to mean: People do not trust politics and its games. If science became similar, all real progress would halt.)

"Chris, you're the one that's being obtuse."

Sure, if you say so.

"Peiser doesn't withdraw his criticism of the 928."

This is what Peiser writes in his email response to Mediawatch's questions:

"MW: > do you know whether the 928 articles she studied were included in the 1117 articles you studied?

Peiser: Yes

MW: > This indicates that you selected your own sample group.

Peiser: As I explained above, I included all documents (i.e. 1247) whereas Oreskes only used "articles" (however, there are only 905 abstracts in the ISI databank)

MW: > It implies that, given this methodology, the 34 articles you found that "reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the observed warming over the last 50 years" may not have been included in the 928 articles randomly selected by Prof Oreskes. Is this possible?

Peiser: YES, THAT IS INDEED THE CASE. I only found out after Oreskes confirmed that she had used a different search strategy (see above). Which is why I NO LONGER MAINTAIN THIS PARTICULAR CRITICISM."

So Peiser no longer maintains that his 34 articles (or whatever number he now claims) were actually on Orekes' list of 928 articles. His claim is now that the 34 or or whatever number of articles he currently claims were on his (new improved :-) list but not on Oreskes' list.

Bolt was talking about the 928-paper, i.e. Oreskes', list, not Peiser's list. Peiser states that he no longer maintains this criticism of this 928-paper list, so Bolt is dead wrong.

Thanks god this thread has been crowded with posts discussing something gloriously interesting and not Andrew Bolt.

"The moral of this story: never assume anything written by Tim Lambert is accurate; it probably isn’t."

The moral of why this thread exists: never assume anything written by Andrew Bolt is accurate; it probably isn’t.

Latimer “Response to Col Rouge:
Yes, you have explained that global warming is a conspiracy by scientists in publicly funded institutions to get rich and investigate . Well done! The next step should be to ban scientists from our universities. We should get science undergraduates to read Andrew Bolt... by rote! Don't I feel stupid defending those frauds?

Well... No.”

“global warming was a conspiracy” I would like you to quote where I made such an assertion.

I did claim that fraud perpetrated by some scurrilous supposed scientist occurs. I would further note such fraud is not limited to under-graduates.

I would conclude, therefore that anything which a scientist states should simply be treated with skepticism and not accepted as fact simply because someone is a scientist and supposedly has the peer approval of his fellow scientists, especially when public funds are at stake.

Now your feeble attempts at dismissal of my right to express my view gives insight to how skeptically we should treat any statement which you make and how stupid we would be to accept your word as credible.

Col - I agree that you have every right to express your views.

However, you should be aware that when you exercise this right you often look really silly. Particularly when you expostulate on matters to do with scientific method, the practice of science and the understanding of statistical analysis.

It has been said in this forum that you are a goose. In my experience of owning geese and other poultry, geese tend to be cantankerous and greedy while alive, and somewhat greasy and over-rated in their posthumous state.

With respect to global warming, you'll most likely be in a posthumous state within a decade or two (save the intervention of medical... er... science), and you therefore will not have to suffer the consequences of your lifestyle of conspicuous consumption. Unfortunately for them, your precious daughters and any of their progeny will most likely inherit a much diminished natural environment than that which you and others of your ilk have blithely squandered in a century or two of orgiastic consumption.

As I've said before, you ought to stick with the loopholes and fine print. Big ideas seem to stretch you a bit.

But if you want to look like a silly goose, then of course you have as much as anybody to provide entertainment for the rest of us :)