muso wrote on Feb 7^th, 2010 at 8:58am:



This analogy makes the same kind of category mistakes that all your other ones do - the banana weighing, the thermometer up a rat's arse, the drinking of poison and the rest. 

The one graph that rules them all: tracking the rejection of AGW.

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/files/2010/02/AGW_hockey_stick_graph_big.gif

Soren wrote on Mar 1^st, 2010 at 11:38am:


Thanks Soren Lorenson. Possibly even less authoritative than a Lord Monckton powerpoint slide, but certainly every bit as colourful! Maybe they should have incorporated that ever so tasteful House of Lords logo.

Strange how it always comes back to a contempt for the people.

Paella wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2010 at 1:16pm:


Wrong, as usual (are you conferring with Abu? I am detecting the same tendency of always getting the wrong end of the stick. I suggest you try going against your instinct when presented with a conundrum. You'll find you'll be right every time from then on.)

Scientists hiding their political agendas as if they were not political - that's what I don't like. But this appears to be a far too fine a distinction for your mind. Scientists can research away, as far as I am concerned. Pay them double. But they have no special place in politics.

ANd what's with the lorenson tag? Attempt at humour?

Paella wrote on Mar 4^th, 2010 at 8:05am:


The various recent debunkings have evidently bypassed you.

If you are aware of a published & peer reviewed "debunking", as you call it, please post a link to it.

I can help if you want, because I know of some. Of course, there will inevitably be a few, because scientific measurements can only be stated as a range with a stated confidence level.

So, if you state a conclusion with a 99% confidence interval, that seems pretty solid doesn't it? BUT if there are, say 2000 such reports, twenty of them will reach a false conclusion. TWENTY!

For this reason, if you reach a conclusion that seems to contradict existing theories, you do more research, gather new evidence and test that evidence.

Unless, of course, you are unscrupulous and realise that you can obtain a benefit from your probable false conclusion. But that would never happen would it now Professor Plimer?

Then of course if you need a particular conclusion that just happens to be ... like ... wrong, all you need to do is keep running your tests until you get a false positive. Then discard all the others and publish that one. Now that wouldn't happen, would it. Philip Morris, for example, would never have commissioned that sort of research would they. Oh, what's that? They did. OK, I'm sure that the oil, gas and coal companies wouldn't do it. Would they?

But never mind, take comfort in the fact that if something (such as this explanation) goes way over your head, you can always just dismiss it as elitist nonsense.

I'll keep waiting for you to post that link soren lorenson.

And waiting,

and waiting.

Really, I could help you out on that you know. But of course, someone as learned in the physical sciences as yourself wouldn't need my help, would they?

... and waiting ...