Admiral_Bobski

Once again, GW, you are assuming cause and effect! So what that a warmer world generally has higher concentrations of GHGs? The cause and effect link between these two facts is assumed because we all "know" that CO2 causes warming. Do you not see the logical fallacy of that argument? I shan't respond to the rest of your post for now (I've decided to have a relaxing evening of horror movies after my day of repairing my car!) but perhaps I shall come back to it tomorrow and restate all of my past counter-arguments again. CB PS - Hope you're feeling better soon

Well, I said I'd get back to you, so here I am. I've snipped the first paragraph since I've already replied to that bit, so I'll move on to the second. My first issue with what you say is that you're comparing a peak going to a trough with a just a trough(unless you are talking about the dip into the Maunder Minimum rather than the whole Maunder period). The thing is that the current period is not really comparable with the Maunder Minimum (yet!) because the Maunder minimum was a period of 70 years with little to no sunspot activity. We have had a prolonged minimum, but it was only about 2 years and it would appear that we are now coming out of it, so we are still potentially on the "downward slide" rather than "in the trough". Prior to the Maunder minimum there had been a general downward trend in solar activity for over 1000 years (compared with the current slide over about 60 years, or even 100 years if you want to round up to the nearest century). (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Sunspots_11000_years.svg/800px-Sunspots_11000_years.svg.png) Now onto the issue of the "gain or loss of 1 degree or so". The LIA started in the 16th Century and continued through to the 19th Century - the Maunder Minimum, by comparison, started around 1645 and ended around 1715. Clearly, then, something forced the start of the LIA prior to the Maunder Minimum. But solar activity had been steadily declining all ready for centuries. So perhaps the LIA was a symptom of decreasing solar activity, and the bottoming-out of sunspots over the Maunder minimum came too late to have any further effect (bearing in mind, of course, that even when there are no sunspots, the sun still gives us energy!). So, basically what I'm getting at is that the Maunder Minimum was just the lowest point in an all ready existing downward trend. If we were to have a Maunder-type minimum right now it would (tgo my way of thinking) have a more serious effect because a bottoming-out would be a particularly long way to fall from our decreasing, but still particularly high, level of solar activity. You put forward the idea that your suggestion regards solar activity is "more plausible", yet the Leaky Integrator shows that it is eminently plausible for the Sun to be responsible for 20th Century warming. It's a long way from proven, I'll grant you, but If we're talking plausibility then I think it has sufficiently shown that. I'm not entirely sure about your "exponential increase in CO2 balancing the logarithmic effect of CO2" comment either, because it seems like a heckuva coincidence that we should, quite without trying, just happen to be increasing our CO2 emissions at the perfect contrasting speed to offset a logarithmic warming effect. Does that not strike you as coincidental, or just plain odd? I will have to come back (again!) to your third paragraph - I'm starting to get some ideas of how the troposphere/stratosphere thing might work without invoking CO2, but I need to check some things through before I make an idiot of myself! As a quick reply, though, I would like to say that I have read through the RealClimate article which discusses this, and they link to this page: http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html I would draw your attention to this quote: It's, of course, harder to measure the temperature in the stratosphere than in the troposphere where we have a network of measurement stations. Stratospheric temperature measurements do exist. They have been made using weather balloons, microwave sounding units, rocketsondes, LIDAR and satellites. Most of these readings only go back two or three decades at most and there are large uncertainities associated with the data. Just how well quantified is this cooling/warming effect? I shall dig a bit more before getting back to you. I will get back to you though! CB

So all of a sudden we don't use averages any more? Why do we use averages when it suits the argument and then discrete data when the averages don't suit us? It must cool immediately on average. Some of the energy given off by water molecules will be absorbed by other water molecules, allowing them to maintain their energy content or even increase it for a time. As I said above, the temperature will cool on average. Besides that, the Earth system is comprised of all sorts of stuff, not just one thing. The "sides of the pan" are equivalent to some parts of the Earth system that warm more than others. (In fact you could argue that the land and oceans are the sides of the pan, and the atmosphere is the water inside the pan - exactly the same reasoning, and just as legitimate.) This is where it gets a bit more complicated, and it's not just to do with the (perhaps spurious) idea that objects get harder to heat at higher temperatures and harder to cool at lower temperatures. I will go into this in more detail tomorrow as I'm going out to dinner in half an hour! The solar-dominated sequence of events as you envisage them does not fit - that doesn't mean that they don't actually fit. More on this tomorrow as well. So you have a mechanism which fits, yes? Can there be no other possible mechanism? Just because an answer fits does not make it true - perhaps there are a variety of possible mechanisms which can all explain the same thing (x+y=10: x could be 5 and y could be 5, but x could be 2 and y could be 8 - both legitimate answers, but that doesn't tell us what x and y actually are). That troposphere/stratosphere thing could be trickier to explain. I shall have to get back to you on that one. But one should never assume anything, and just because it fits your theory does not mean that it can't also fit mine. I shall do some reading up and get back to you soon. CB

This expert also recommends massive geoengineering projects to reduce the effects. Is he crazy?! Here's a link directly to his study: http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/23_1/23-1_greene.pdf CB

Okay, after a minute's thought, here's a quick example of a potential mechanism for you... Think of a pan of water being brought ot the boil. Now, at 100C we know that water changes state from a liquid to a gas. We say that the pan of water is boiling when it starts to bubble. The bubbles, of course, are pockets of water which have changed into gas. If we pop a thermometer into the water then it will read 100C and we'll know that our water is, indeed, boiling. But not all of the water is boiling - it's just boiling on average. As the gas bubbles off, the level of water in the pan decreases. It takes time for all of the water to boil away (it takes several minutes for a full pan of water to "boil dry"). Why does this happen? It happens because, at the molecular level, not all of the water molecules have absorbed enough energy for there to be a phase change. The longer the pan of water is heated, the more likely it is for every molecule to absorb the required amount of energy. Similarly, when you take the pan off the boil it will continue to bubble for a while (not long, perhaps, but a while). The bubbles may well be smaller, because fewer water molecules absorb enough energy to cause a phase change. Now, if we change the focus of our attention to the Earth we can extrapolate precisely the same process. Let's consider solar radiation on a patch of concrete in my back garden. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the patch of concrete reaches a temperature of 40C. Does every atom in that slab of concrete have the same amount of energy being applied to it? No. For a start, the bottom of the slab will be colder than the top. Why? Because the solar radiation does not directly hit the bottom of the slab - the energy must be transferred down through the layers of atoms before it reaches the bottom. That's all fair enough, so let's focus on the very top layer of atoms on the concrete slab. Does every one of those atoms have the same amount of energy? Again, the answer is no, for the same reason that not all of the water in the pan reached 100C at the same moment. But, the longer the top of the concrete slab is exposed to the incoming energy, the more chance there is that all the atoms will reach the same energy level. There's a lot more to it than that, and I can go into greater detail if people want me to (we can get all atomic if you like!), but that's the basic principle. Anyone agree, or even see where I'm coming from? CB

The short answer is this: because of mitigating factors. In a laboratory, studying CO2, there is no means of investigating what factors might balance out the basic physical process's effect, so although the basic physical process is a matter of scientific fact, the effect of that process in the company of any other process is less well understood. I think there is ample scope for investigation into this. This is an argument that is dangerously close to being about semantics and interpretation. As far as I can see, the interpretation is clear, though I'm sure you feel much the same way from your standpoint. I disagree with your suggestion that "some authors may be authors with as much credibility as McLean, et al" because you yourself have argued that discredited papers would not be mentioned, so the "some authors" must, by extension, be reputable. Also, a "suggestion" is not as strong as an "argument", surely? I would suggest, in return, that you are failing to see ghosts where there are ghosts aplenty, but that is clearly a subjective opinion. And yes, the papers are not being hidden, but neither are they having any attention drawn to them in the way that all the "mainstream" papers are, which is almost as bad. I would argue that it is improper practice to disregard a paper just because it doesn't support your view, and to actively tell other scientists that you are ignoring it for that reason. Not exactly. My points in that second link emphasise they are stating as indisputable fact something which, quite clearly, can be disputed. (Further to that, there are plenty of legitimate and accepted scientific papers that suggest a variety of time lags in the solar/climate system, so the statement as indisputable fact is on fairly shaky ground from the get-go.) I'm not sure where I alleged that they were "blocking papers that have suggested such a mechanism" As for "what are those papers", typing in the words "solar lag" in Google should give you plenty to start looking through - I'm not suggesting that all of them are paragons of scientific endeavour, and I'm sure that at least a few of them have issues, or have been rebutted, but there are certainly several in there that are examples of good science. Perhaps I'll make a list another time (although I did post links to several of them in a discussion with Iceberg a while ago). What is the lagging mechanism? For a start, I'm not sure that there is "a" lagging mechanism - there may be several mechanisms (or perhaps one actual mechanism that operates slightly differently in different places, e.g. land, sea and atmosphere). I've pondered this very question on and off for several months now, and I have a few vague ideas. Perhaps I shall focus some more attention to the matter of mechanism in the near future. (Although, finding a statistically significant lag between solar effects and climate would be good evidence in and of itself, regardless of mechanism.) Yes, I do agree that solar activity has remained static or decreased over the last 50 or so years. But what has that got to do with anything? Here's a quick bath analogy: If there's only an inch of water in a bath then you might be inclined to say that the bath is nearly empty. If the bath then fills up so that there is over a foot of water in the bath you might be inclined to say that the bath is quite full. If the bath then empties by two or three inches, would you then be inclined to say that the bath is nearly empty again? So the fact that solar activity has remained static or decreased over the last 50 or so years is really neither here nor there - we have still had a period of unusually high solar activity. Surely it is the period of unusually high solar activity that is of interest, not the fact that it is coming to an end? I will, if you don't mind, come back to the question of lagging around all solar changes. I admit that I didn't answer your question when you first posed it - I apologise for that, since I really do try to answer every question that people ask of me. I think the issue is a little more complex than you seem to be suggesting - I believe it is tied in with the duration of periods of high or low solar activity more than the actual temperature level. That does slightly contradict what I started arguing when you first raised the point. My only defense is that I wasn't thinking as clearly then as I am now! Anyway, more later. CB

It simply doesn't make sense that all (or even most) of the negative feedbacks would "turn positive" at some saturation point, simply because that would at some point lead to runaway warming. There is no way around that fact as far as I can see, and since there has never been a runaway warming on the planet that means that we must be missing something. The problem with what you are suggesting is that, when we find a feedback that the "pros" and the "skeptics" disagree on, there will be no resolution (on the basis of past discussions) as to who is correct. Furthermore, any "weighting" of those feedbacks would be purely subjective since we don't know any actual figures. But perhaps I am wrong - would you like to get the ball rolling, GW? CB EDIT - Thank you for reminding us, Jethro I should be reining it in a bit, being the starter of the thread! Perhaps we should start separate threads to discuss some of the issues that have been raised, so that they don't get lost in the more general discussions?

Hi sss, where did I say that I could overturn the physics of the CO2 molecule? I said that I could address the issue, not that I could show the science to be wrong. Indeed, I have addessed the issue several times in the past, but for the sake of clarity I shall quickly readdress it here. The physical behaviour of the CO2 molecule in the laboratory is a matter of scientific fact. However, the real world, outside of the laboratory, consists of rather more than a CO2 molecule in a closed system and a heat source. For a start, the Earth is not a closed system. What other factors may counteract the effects of CO2 in the real world is a matter of debate. The physics (and chemistry) of a CO2 molecule are not up for discussion, but the interaction of those physics with all the other physical and chemical effects going on in the Earth climate system is rather more complicated. I have also addressed the issue of how the IPCC have skewed the reporting of the science with the links a few pages back. The omission of studies that "muddy the water" is a deliberate choice to make the science seem more solid than it actually is. Is that not skewing the reporting of science? Further details can be found by clicking on the two links within the link below: http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/62017-consensus-science/page__view__findpost__p__1796142 I see you're going back to the "to prove AGW wrong you have to present a whole new theory" argument. This is not strictly true, and we have been over this particular point several times in various threads before. AGW theory could well be broadly right (especially the "GW" bit), but with attributions of effects to mankind that seriously overstate our impact on the environment (less of the "A" bit). A complete rewriting of the science is not necessary, but I would suggest that the issue of "how much warming is attributable to man" is rather more than a "fiddly little detail". CB

An interesting study, from the looks of it. This study would have been conducted parallel to the "consensus" study, since it has been published just a couple of weeks later. It is hard to draw a conclusion at this point about the effect of a declared consensus on this subject - obviously it has not had an instant effect, but it will be interesting to see how people in the palaeontological community react to the two papers and whether they side with one paper or the other (or, I would hope, don't actively side with either of them). I do hope that it has no effect. Time will tell. :lol: CB

As I have said many a time and oft, there are plenty of reasons why we should cut back our consumption, recycle, switch to alternative fuel sources and so on and so forth, without needing to invoke any concept of "AGW". CO2, in this respect, is a red herring, and attempts to control CO2 by carbon trading, EPA rulings and taxation are nothing more than political restrictions and money-raising tricks. That's not what the discussions on these boards are about, though - except for those discussions that are specifically and explicitly for political debate. Most of the discussions on here are about the science. Since the science is not actually solid enough to justifiably legitimise the political decisions (which is why it relies on "consensus" and "balance of evidence" rather than solely on facts), there is plenty of scope for debate. From a political standpoint, we should make the changes that we all seem to agree need to be made because of the very real and good reasons that we have already, without having to rely on - or force - some other unproven argument. Will my sudden, blind acceptance of AGW make any difference to my views on consumption, recycling, alternative fuel sources and so on? No, it won't. So I debate AGW because I don't agree with it, not because of an unwillingness to change. I think you will find that the vast majority of skeptics on these boards feel exactly the same way. CB

Exactly! So you agree that consensus is a political device? So where in science is there a need for consensus? Basically, yes. You can't "have a problem" with there being a scientific consensus because consensus just is (in the broad definition of consensus being "general agreement"). But the establishment of a body whose sole intention it is to state that consensus is a more dangerous thing. I'm repeating myself yet again when I say that this statement of consensus necessarily influences people. To suggest that it does not influence scientists is nonsense - although science should be dispassionate and objective, the scientists who conduct science are only human. It should be their main aim to eliminate their subjectivity and their emotional connection to their studies, but it's not a switch you can turn on and off. You are trying to suggest that the statement of consensus is to influence politicians, but that there is no such influence on scientists? Do you honestly believe that scientists are immune to such things? And finally, going back to your first comment for a minute, you have said that the point of this scientific consensus is to inform politicians, yes? Then (going back to the original point of this thread) what is the point of the statement of consensus on the Chixculub asteroid's effect on the KT extinction? CB

I think you may have misunderstood me - the "it's not a scientific consensus" remark was about the "consensus" on the forum Dev linked to. And you're still missing the point about this discussion: yes, there is a consensus about plate tectonics and so on and so forth, but where is the established body which has specifically assessed the evidence and declared that consensus. There is no such body, because there is no need to declare it! Do you not see, after all these posts? I was going to write a detailed rebuttal to this paragraph, but I realise that there is no point. You still haven't figured out what this discussion is about, you still can't seem to grasp the ramifications of an official declaration of consensus. You still bang on as though I have said "there is no consensus" when in fact I have said quite the opposite. If you're not going to read what other people write, and take the time to digest and understand it, then just don't bother. I'd like to say, first off, that I started this thread partly because there is no new scientific evidence being discussed at the moment. I said a while ago that I don't have anything more to say, and that I'm just repeating myself, but I'm more than happy to engage in scientific discussions that bring something new to the table. In the absence of that I thought it might be interesting to explore the idea of consensus science. I appreciate what you are saying, Dev, but please don't think that I started this just to detract from the scientific argument - it's simply an interesting sideline while I wait for something new to talk about! And, of course, I would like to reiterate that I am not claiming that the consensus is wrong (and I'm certainly not saying that it's wrong just because it is consensus). Having said that, I would say that there is only one way to do science: without restrictions. The statement of consensus on a subject (be it AGW, eugenics or whatever) runs the very real risk of imposing, or even just implying, restrictions - channelling the science along "approved" lines, and thereby perhaps ignoring, or not properly studying, important pieces of the puzzle because of some presumption that they are not relevant. I'm not suggesting necessarily a deliberate attempt to control science, but just the subconscious, subliminal effect on humans caused by a declaration of "the state of the science" which is, by its very nature, incomplete. CB

Should the intention not be to rise above such things, rather than start basting ganders?

You accused him of trying to damage the reputation of science - that would be a deliberate attempt on his part to discredit by underhanded means. Is that not an attack on the character of the man? His objections to "consensus science" were not limited to AGW, as he clearly says in the speech to which I linked in my first post. You suggest that he offers up alternative theories to every branch of science? Would it not make more sense to try to stop the spread of something he viewed as pernicious before any more damage was done, or is it more sensible to follow consensus science around, applying bandages to the cuts and scrapes after they happen? Indeed, this thread has become more about AGW and the IPCC than I had intended it to. My intention was to look at the mechanics of consensus science in general, but unfortunately the easiest example to refer to is AGW. I could read up on eugenics and secondary smoking and nuclear winter and offer similar arguments, but we are all familiar with the arguments of AGW and so those are the examples we use. CB

But that's not actually true, is it? There isn't only one way to explain them - it's just that there's only one way to explain them that you, personally, happen to agree with. CB

But it's not a scientific consensus, is it? It's a laymen's consensus based upon much the same reasoning that certain parties have discussed on this forum. Also, as TWS quite correctly points out, it's not even much of a consensus. There are several posters whose views tally with my own fairly well, like Ken G. I don't agree with his comment in his first post, "science is a human endeavor, so has subjective elements," because I think that science should not have those subjective elements. It's not about balancing the subjective with the objective - science, at its purest, should be totally objective. Other than that one comment, though, he seems pretty much bang on the money. CB

Is that not an extremely arrogant and presumptuous thing to say, GW? Essentially you are saying, "skeptics are all just a bit slow, but eventually they'll all catch up to me." Skeptics could equally say the following to you: Just you wait until you, yourself, become aware that AGW is not real and we, in fact, have no such control over the environment. Would such a statement not raise your hackles a bit? CB

Furthermore, in the interests of objectivity he also references papers that don't support his stance. His exact words are: "Environmental science is a contentious and intensely politicized field. No reader should assume that any author listed below agrees with the views I express in this book. Quite the contrary: many of them disagree strongly. I am presenting these references to assist those readers who would like to review my thinking and arrive at their own conclusions." One of those references in particular I would like to check out: " Matthews, Robert A. J. 'Facts versus factions: The use and abuse of subjectivity in scientific research.' In Morris, Rethinking Risk, pp. 247-82, a physicist argues 'the failure of the scientific community to take decisive action over the flaws in standard statistical methods, and the resulting waste of resources spent on futile attempts to replicate claims based on them, constitute a major scientific scandal.' The book also contains an impressive list of major scientific developments held back by the subjective prejudice of scientists. So much for the reliability of the 'consensus' of scientists." CB

But you've (the mainstream) just attacked Crichton (the outsider) in exactly the way that I was describing before. Crichton makes the effort, in his speech, to explain the problems of consensus science (along with what, exactly, consensus science is), but rather than rebutting his claims, he gets attacked in a personal manner. And why would Crichton want to "damage the reputation of science"? He was a man who loved science, built a career round science (two careers, in fact - a medical one and an authoring one) and wanted to stand up for, and protect, the scientific method. CB PS - VP's post there could have been written word for word by me! I, too, was inspired by Crichton's compelling writing at an early age - starting with the Andromeda Strain and building up from there...

Actually, science is not a meritocracy. In a meritocracy, society rewards (via wealth, position, and social status) those who show talent and competence as demonstrated by past actions or by competition. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy) Science is not about "talent and competence as demonstrated by past actions or by competition" (it's not about the scientists) - it's about results. By that token, Quantum Mechanics must be wrong on the basis that Einstein - a man who had talent and competence, and certainly had phenomenal success in his past actions and against his competition - thought that it could not possibly be correct. A meritocracy is about people, not about facts. Science is about facts. (I think I may have accidentally got your replies mixed up with Essan's - apologies. I thought you had said that consensus informs, but does not influence. Oopsie!) But still, why do you think that it is right for people to be influenced by consensus? Surely that means that scientists (since they are people) will be influenced by the consensus, and surely science should not be subject to outside pressure like that? So good science - science that has not be rebutted or debunked or proven to be false - that does not fit in with the mainstream view should be left out? That science should not influence others? Why on Earth not? Yes, that is what we (or is it just "I"?!) am complaining about. Nothing is required to justify science. Why does any science need justification? Do you need to justify the pursuit of truth? "Invoke" in the context used above is meant as using consensus as an argument in and of itself. This is especially true, with regards AGW, in politics and the media, but also in scientific circles. How many scientific reports do you read that mention consensus - I've seen quite a few. The MetOffice likes to use the IPCC and consensus as a fallback position, especially in their communications with the public. I've read several scientific papers that mention "the consensus". Later I shall see if I can trawl through some websites (NASA, NOAA, MetOffice and other scientific bodies) and science papers and copy and paste some uses of the word. Consensus is used in the entire peer review process? What do you mean by that, exactly? Do you mean that the approval of a scientific paper is agreed upon by consensus, or do you mean that the peer review process is influenced by "The Consensus"? If it's the latter, especially, then there's a problem. I agree, and have said several times before in this thread, that there is an unspoken consensus that exists. This thread is about the declaration of consensus as an established viewpoint, stated for the purposes of influencing others. In science - a subject which is not about opinions or moral judgements, but facts and truth - there is simply no place for this kind of thing. CB Well, yes, that's basically it. The "Scientific Consensus on AGW" is basically that which is being appealed to, especially outside the scientific community, but I can see that it is starting to creep into it. "Consensus Science" is the catchy phrase, perhaps most famously used by Michael Crichton, to describe this appeal to popularity. I had hoped that I had been able to get this idea across in my first post, but clearly I failed (although I did post links at the bottom of that first post which I had hoped people would read before wading into this surprisingly emotive discussion). CB

No, a consensus view is decided by democracy. Since when has science been a democracy? Do you honestly feel that people aren't influenced by a statement of consensus? Do you think that it is right to omit legitimate scientific research from a report just because it confuses the issue? ............................. What do people think about this quote from Michael Crichton: Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

Did I say that any research had been ridiculed? I said that scientists have been ridiculed. But that's precisely the problem with consensus, do you not see? I don't have time to respond fully now, but I shall be back later. CB

I'm sure that that's true, to an extent. As a case in point, look at the scientists who are trying to prove that the Sun has more of an effect on Earth's climate than the IPCC allow for. How do the mainstream scientists respond to them? They ridicule them, they tear them to pieces, both professionally and personally. And those outside the mainstream do the same thing in return. Is that good science? The fresh research that may come out of the Chixculub consensus is something we'll have to wait and see about, of course. But how many mainstream scientists (those who think the asteroid was responsible) are going to take the outsiders seriously, and how far will they go to preserve the mainstream view? Only time will tell, but the above example with AGW doesn't set a very comforting precedent. CB

I think you're right - scientists certainly do do a much better job of being balanced than the politicians...which isn't saying much! But seriously, as I said on the CRU hack thread a while ago, I do believe that the scientists are generally being honest and they certainly believe themselves to be objective. The problem is that everyone has preconceptions and bias, whether they're aware of it or not, so nobody is automatically 100% objective. You can force yourself to be objective, to an extent, by playing Devil's Advocate or by performing double-blind studies. The problem with a consensus report, like the IPCC's, is that it introduces bias quite blatantly, and most scientists are likely to be subconsciously (or even consciously) influenced by that bias. Which brings us back to the point (reworded slightly) of "What is the point of the consensus assessment?" If a scientist wants to study solar effects on climate then he should be allowed to do that (and indeed there is no evidence that people are being forced to ditch studies...bear with me here!). But if the consensus assessment says "we know enough about solar effects to be able to dismiss them as being a major factor" then the seed is being planted to make people think "why waste my time and my grant on something that's agreed to have been solved?" By issuing the assessment, the IPCC are effectively stating what the boundaries of the AGW argument are - "this is a more important aspect to study than that is." It's not an overt declaration of what should and shouldn't be studied, but it does influence what people are willing to spend their time and money on. Furthermore, it marginalises those scientists who study outside of the defined parameters of investigation simply by stating what those parameters are. CB

We're not talking about research, we're talking about the IPCC assessment, which was an assessment of the existing science - no new science was performed for the report, as we are frequently told. The IPCC assessment is used to inform, but since it is a rounding-up of the relevant science the purpose of the report is to influence people's view of that area of research. The worst part is that is a selective rounding-up of the science, which disregards pieces of legitimate research that don't fit in with the preconceived view of what the assessment should show. You are still grabbing the wrong end of the stick (and proceeding to beat around the bush with it). I have not, at any point in this thread, said that the science is wrong. I have said that the science is incomplete, I have implied that there is bias, but I have not attacked a single piece of science at all. You can't attack "the science", but you can argue about the validity of individual studies and the conclusions of them. I discuss science on other threads all the bloomin' time! This thread is not about that, and I am certainly not using the "Consensus science is automatically wrong" argument at all. What this thread is about is discussing the potential dangers of allowing science to proceed under the cover of consensus, and how anti-scientific that is. CB