Yes anti-green, you are misinterpreting what I have been saying.

I sincerely apologise if I have not been clear in my OLO posts – I will try to do better. Notwithstanding, you may find we have more in common than you think – please, be patient.

Thanks for that link; I have not seen it before and was encouraged by its format.

Although I have not had the time to look at the site in detail, there are fundamental issues about the philosophy of science that don’t appear to be adequately addressed (yet) – some of which you have alluded to in your last post.

It is late and I would like to continue with this thread. However, given the nature of my work and the circumstances in which I live, I will be “off-line” for about 2 weeks.

In the mean time, all I ask is that you re-read my posts – in this thread and others. It will give you more insight, like it or not.

BTW, what were your thoughts on the Canadian government’s policy of ‘censorship’ – you did not comment?

To be continued.

PS, you also appear to misinterpret what scientific consensus is. Really - jargon, vernacular and the English language can be a bugger sometimes!

Q and A

Thank you for your comment. I too have found the philosophy of science to be very interesting.

Passed on by request:

Subject: FRIDAY FEBRUARY 22 DONT BUY PETROL DAY

IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT IF EVERYONE IN AUSTRALIA DID NOT PURCHASE A DROP OF PETROL FOR ONE DAY AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME, THE OIL COMPANIES WOULD CHOKE ON THEIR STOCKPILES.

AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HIT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH A NET LOSS OVER 4.6 BILLION DOLLARS WHICH AFFECTS THE BOTTOM LINES OF THE OIL COMPANIES.

THEREFORE FRIDAY FEBRUARY 22nd HAS BEEN FORMALLY DECLARED STICK IT UP THEIR ASS' DAY

AND THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION SHOULD NOT BUY A SINGLE DROP OF PETROL THAT DAY.

THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN BE DONE IS IF YOU FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN AND AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN TO GET THE WORD OUT.

WAITING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN AND CONTROL THE PRICES? IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REDUCTION AND CONTROL IN PRICES THE ARAB NATIONS PROMISED LONG AGO?

THE PRICES JUST KEEP GOING UP AND WE NEED TO STOP IT

PETROL PRICES ARE CAUSING OTHER EFFECTS; AIRLINES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES, AS ARE TRUCKING COMPANIES . THIS INCREASES PRICES On EVERYTHING THAT IS SHIPPED. THINGS LIKE FOOD, CLOTHING, BUILDING SUPPLIES MEDICAL SUPPLIES ETC. WHO PAYS IN THE END? WE DO!

WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IF THEY DON'T GET THE MESSAGE AFTER ONE DAY,WE WILL DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN. SO DO YOUR PART AND SPREAD THE WORD.

FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. MARK YOUR CALENDARS AND
MAKE FEBRUARY 22nd THE DAY CITIZENS OF AUSTRALIA SAY 'ENOUGH IS ENOUGH'

Anti-green,

I am back after my sojourn again into the real world of climate change – but it is my vocation, such is life.

I can see OLO has moved on and threads seem to die a natural death – a shame really, it no doubt means that things get regurgitated – a waste of effort?

So, where to now?

We were delving into the philosophy of science and I raised the question of “scientific consensus.” Maybe we can start with this link – it is an address given by Naomi Oreske, Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego.

I guess there is no need to tell you that California is the 6th largest economy on the planet, led by Arnold the ‘governator’, the right-wing Republican conservative that also happens to care for the environment and the direction (western) society is heading.

Professor Oreske’s research focuses on the historical development of scientific knowledge, methods and practices in the earth and environmental sciences, and on understanding scientific consensus and dissent (very topical).

http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=13459

If you have the resources (and patience of course) I recommend you watch/listen to the whole address. If you are impatient – skip to about 25 minutes in.

I would appreciate your thoughts.

Q and A

I listened to Naomi Oreska. Clearly she sees the world as divided into “good and evil.”

30 minutes devoted to the good people. Quotes from reports conclusions stated with out evidence. No assessment of possible errors, biases, confounders. No error bars or confidence limits. No description of sampling errors at either weather stations or in atmospheric gas measurement.

To my mind global temperature is a statistical index, subject to great uncertainty. It is not a “physical entity.” It is a weighted average of numerous non random measurements.

No reference to the logarithmic curve between CO2 absorption and temperature increments. This implies that as CO2 levels increase the temperature effect gets smaller.

Is Naomi correct that current observations support greenhouse models, or is she just “cherry picking?”

By the way NASA has recently stated that 1934 and not 1998 was the warmest year on record in North America by a short whisker.
>>>>>>>>>

30 minutes devoted to the evil people. The defenders of tobacco (which I am not), opponents of CFC yes worthy of a Nobel Prize; but the ozone hole is still with us. Her next example is acid rain- I have no doubt she is correct here.

Try as she may her tactic is to smear dissenting experts. When her so-called dissenters, are at the very least, playing an important role in sharpening debate.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Scientific debate is settled by observation. Not by consensus, not by opinion polls, not by politicians or media celebrities etc.

According to Naomi those arguing against global warming are ideologically motivated by: ant-communism, by pro-market philosophy which she calls “market fundamentalism.”

Can I therefore conclude that global warmers are motivated by socialist philosophy plus a strong imperative to establish a command economy?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If you would like to discuss this further you can contact me at
isurveyor@vianet.net.au