On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:22:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 18/11/15 20:41, mcp wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:05:37 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/11/15 21:49, mcp wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 21:23:55 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 21:09, mcp wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 20:21:53 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 19:59, mcp wrote:

The science hasn't changed significantly in the last 6 months and 99%
of scientists working in the field still dissagree with you.



You mean some of them disagree even though they get all their cash by
agreeing?

I see, we're back to it's a world wide conspiracy. They could get more
money out of the Koch brothers or BP although, as on the case of the
Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project, that doesn't always turn
out well for the deniers.


There are only one set of deniers, the climate scientists that keep
their methods and data secret. They are denying proper scientific review
by anyone that may disagree with them. It makes their science useless to
anyone that understands science as you can no longer trust them. They
may be correct but I will disregard bad science.

They keep their methods and data secret by publishing regularly in
peer reviewed scientific journals?

Yes.

Those that disagree with them
publish in right wing newspapers and online blogs with no scientific
review.

No.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...8/2/024024/pdf

"Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the
consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published
research."

Well they would say that, wouldn't they?

Like 'published research' might be on almost anything, and nothing to do
with climate modelling per se, Most 'climate research' is 'what will
happen to the Mongolian lesser spotted ****face when the earth warms 3
degrees' (not even questioning whether in fact it will)'

There are almost no papers on the actual climate science itself, because
the party line is that that is 'settled'

And the people running the peer review process and funding the
universities simply don't let any contrary view get publicised.

Science itself is now utterly discredited, as it has become apparent
that scientists are human, and will publish what keeps them in
government funded jobs.

Even if they don't believe it.

Ok, we have now veered firmly into tin foil hat territory.