BewaConsensus Science

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"

> Uh, Tech Central Station is (openly) funded by Exxon-Mobil and
> friends. They have a very clear agenda, and it's not good science.

What a sad state of affairs when people need to have their thinking
and opinions approved by group-think organizations.

I know where their funding comes from and it matters not. I know
that they have an interest in exposing zeal and excess in the green
movement and that works to my interests for the moment. I won't find
the same analysis or reporting from your approved group-think
originators.

Why is it that the Washington Post hasn't yet run the news of
Lomborg's vindication? Where is their retraction?

http://search1.washingtonpost.com/?
wp=on&_u.1&_u.2=2&_u.3 03&_u.4=1&_u.5&_u.6 04&_g.k_1=lombor
g&_v.7&_u.14=1&_b.1.x=9&_b.1.y

I don't buy into all that comes out from TechCentralStatation for I
can do thinking on my own.

> Lomborg runs the Danish institute in question,

Lomborg runs the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute. He was
condemned by the Danish Research Agency. The Danish Research Agency
reports to the Danish Ministry of Science. It was the Danish
Ministry of Science, the highest body of its type in Denmark, that
issued the report condemning Lomborg's treatment by the Danish
Research Agency.

For you to imply that Lomborg ordered the Institute he runs to
vindicate him is very tacky.

> Anyway, greenwatch is part of the "Capital Research Center",

I'm not sure what's going on here. You never before presented
yourself as the type of person who couldn't independently assess
information. Why this reliance on group-think all of a sudden? You
had nothing to say about the subject material in the link, but find
it sufficient to attack the source. Frankly, I'm surprised.

> So I rely on peer-reviewed scientific publications and the
> statements of major scientific societies, and you rely on these
> guys for your information? I think you need to change the websites
> you frequent.
>
> Arthur

Smears are usually a very ineffective tactic. It's a shame that your
entire response to this thread has been of that calibre.

It's unfortunate that I have to turn to sources that you disapprove
of for analysis but since I've just checked the Greenpeace website,

http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/

and their search function returns nothing on Lomborg, all I'd be
left reading there is about the "Sauron White House."

You'll note that my criticism of the "Nature" article was entirely
my own. It was my analysis that there was too heavy a reliance on
computer models. My critiques of the links you provided were
entirely my own. Only last night did I come across a more
sophisticated critique of the article on TechCentralStation that
more effectively exposes the weaknesses of the research. As I've
already stated, it matters not that they published it, for the I can
judge the critique independently of the sponsor. I would have
thought you'd also have that same ability. Perhaps it has atrophied
by a heavy reliance on letting others do one's thinking for them.

It's odd that you smear me by siding with the side of authority but
make no mention of my fair linking to Mann's critique of Soon &
Baluinas in the journal "Eon" which is published by the American
GeoPhysics Union. Not a peep from you on my concerns about their
rebuttal. You seem to rely on authority doing your thinking for you.
It's not my place to lecture you on the lack of critical inquiry.

You've consistently misread my entire argument and have sought to
characterize it, and me, as a strawman that you could beat down with
group-think and ad hominem attacks.

My concern transcends the issue of globl warming for I see a future
when the prospect of microwave beams 10 km in diameter being beamed
down from orbit is going to rile the masses and if you expect
rationalism to win the day I think you'd be betting on the wrong
horse.

Some scientists will find that e-m radiation in the quantity beamed
will have deleterious effects on the ozone, the stratosphere or the
troposhere and they'll publish their results. These results will be
picked up on and the same precautionary principle will be applied.
Other scientists will also detect anthropogenic causation of
stratospheric interaction and will publish their results. There will
be a scientific consensus that microwaves do affect the
stratosphere. The long term implications will not be well understood
or well modeled. The ability to mitigate will not yet be developed.
And you can continue to draw parallels ad infinitum.

That's a future that I'm worried about, and this global warming
debate is really only a proxy for that future, for I fear the same
dynamics and mindsets will be at play.

I'd rather have people in the future confronting this situation who
can analyze matters on their own rather than turning to approved
group-think arbitors for their pre-digested opinions.

Look, it's obvious we're not making any headway in this discussion,
so I'm prepared to drop it. If you don't bait me, I won't post new
material. Fair enough? I hope so.

TangoMan