On Jan 6, 2008 7:10 AM, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
> The answer to that question depends on whether any "anti-GW theories"
> have been published in any relevant technical peer-reviewed journal and what
> the technical response has been. Fred Singer's work is published in his own
> books, not the technical literature. A list of 400 names doesn't comprise a
> technical publication. Nor does an article posted on a website like
> http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp
> . I don't know of any significant publications of that nature in the last
> five years but I'd be interested to hear of any. So far no one on this list
> has provided any such references. Often the explanation offered for such
> absence is bias and conspiracy among mainstream scientists and funding
> agencies, which is usually a sign that the technical arguments are too weak.
> Evidence for such bias seldom goes further than the absence of anti-GW
> publications, leaving us with a neat circular argument.
>
> Randy
>
That they would list names rather than refer to peer-reviewed publications
shows the damage done by the "warfare" model of science and faith.
Scientific truth is not put to a "vote". Rather, it is tested. That and the
bogus claims of "persecution" and "conspiracy" makes it difficult to
properly determine the facts in any scientific endeavor. Critical thinking
becomes merely being critical. Thus, you have conspiracy theories based on
fraudulent data and methods with the "true believers" being none the wiser.
It's no wonder that the New Atheists have a field day with evangelicals
saying that we are all "lying for Jesus".
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jan 7 19:10:10 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 07 2008 - 19:10:11 EST