On Mar 6, 6:15 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

SNIP

Let me help you digest my sentence so that your exposition will be more attuned
with Reality:

1) Note that the named class was those with membership in
"Global Warming Orthodoxy" - a group that even you have
vigorously argued does NOT largely contain scientists

False. My argument is that the "Global Warming Orthodoxy"
is a straw man you invented. I assume it to be a subset of another
of your straw men "Scientific Orthodoxy."

Well, if you want to invent meaning I did not intend, you're welcome to, but
it does make meaningful discussion difficult.

I didn't invent any meaning you did not intend. You claimed that I
had vigorusly argued about who belongs to your "Global Warming
Orthodoxy". In fact I did not. I addressed how the media, the
public, and the
government reaches its conclusions.


Incidentally, just because I identify a group broadly does not inherently make it a
strawman. (You seem to like to resort to calling things strawmen when you cannot
rationally defend your position.) There *is* a GW Orthodoxy - it is evident in
popular culture, media, and politics. To deny it is to be obtuse beyond words.


That depends on how one defines "Orthodoxy". If you define it
synonymously with "conventional wisdom then yes, there are a
multitude of such "Orthodoxies".



2) Note also the context. I was responding to a part of the thread that involved (at least
obliquely) a reference to the consensus argument. Again, clearly not the method of
scientists. "Consensus" is the method and argument of media, politicians, and the
global warming religionists whom I *am* attacking.

In the past when you have ranted about "Scientific Orthodoxy"
and I have suggested that scientists on the scientific and not on
consensus, you have disagreed.

Right, but in an *entirely different* context.

'Intelligent Design' as I recall.

I have argued that that scientific
method may be more-or-less dispassionate, but scientists are not. They get married
to their cherished theories in much the same way anyone else might. That's *why*
the scientific method was developed - to separate the ideas from the person and test
the ideas in light of data, experiment, analysis and so on. But the dearly held positions
of scientists themselves do constitute a kind of baked-in orthodoxy that takes
a swift kick to overcome. Someone famously commented that "Funeral by funeral, science
progresses." They were exactly referring to this orthodoxy that tends to discount
new ideas, even/especially at the early discussion and funding phases. Here again, to
deny that this orthodoxy exists is obtuse. It is also not germane to this particular
discussion, hence I did not bring it up.

You used the same terminology, in the context of a different
scientific
hypothesis.

....

3) "Global Warming Orthodoxy" should thus be read specifically to exclude people in their
practice of science (though they may personally hold religious views on the matter as well)

I am glad to see that you are changing your opinions. Next time you
would do well to give us notice, if you chose to use the same words
but define them differently.

I will bear in mind that you need particular help in understanding the plain meaning
of words, phrases, and general semantics.

Here I congratulate you on your progress and yet you sound
rather testy.


.
I don't think I should have to constantly parse standard English for you just because your
religious views on warming require you to walk around with your panties in a permanent knot.
Lighten up...

Good to see you making light of your opinions. Hopefully no one
else takes them seriously either.

I am indifferent to the matter. I await (with bated breath) the actual data that supports
your earth worshiping religiosity incontrovertibly.

The I took you advice and lightened up, making a joke, and you now
seem to be ****ed off. There just is no pleasing you, is there?

OTOH, if you think that I am now presenting a different interpretation
of those remarks than I intended when first I wrote them, maybe you
will understand why I have a similar opinion of your remarks.

It is you who makes the claim that I have an 'earth worshiping
religiosity.'
I deny it.

I also note that you STILL have present no evidence of controversy
in the climatology community. There is controversy on UseNet,
and in the media, but you have asserted that there is substantive
controversy among climatologists.

What is your evidence?


I have not said now or ever that
your position is *wrong*, merely that it is unjustified in light of what can actually
be demonstrated today - more particularly, the level of *confidence* you place on stated
position is not currently justified.

You have never stated clearly in what part you lack confidence.
My position is based on infrared molecular spectroscopy, the
conservation of energy, and the observed change in atmospheric
composition.

What is it that you consider to be uncertain?

IOW, I do *not* await mass approval or my or anyone else's ideas (dare I used
the word, "consensus'). I await *evidence* that cannot easily be argued by contrary
positions - the situation we find ourselves today. Keep up the good fight though, I've
always enjoyed theology, even the pantheist strains are entertaining reading...

You have not presented _any _ 'argument by contrary position'.
As I recall, you made the incorrect statement that there is no
reason to suppose that CO2 is causative to global warming. I
pointed out why that statement was wrong because it is contradicted
by the spectroscopy of common atmospheric gases.

So, having settled that, what objections remain? Ranting about
'Orthodoxies' not only does not tells us if (let alone what it might
be)
you have a substantive objection, but it tends to lead one to
suspect that you do not.

--

FF