BewaConsensus Science

>
> You on the other hand have asserted that Soon
>and Baliunas have lied and misrepresented their material and I still
>await evidence of this claim.
>
They claimed to re-analyze somebody else's data, and did it in a
selective fashion that wasn't evident from the text of the paper.
Scientists are generally too polite to call a lie a lie, but that's what
it was. I don't think this discussion is being very productive - as I
said, I'm no expert, I'm just a physicist who has some experience in the
way science works, and you seem to think it works very differently from
my experience. There's a free market of ideas in science, everybody has
a chance to be heard - but consensus really is meaningful. If science is
being corrupted on climate issues, please, "show me the money" - what's
the source of the corruption? Because I don't see it - except on the
other side of this debate,