[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 25, 8:55*pm, Norman wrote:
On Nov 25, 4:18*pm, William Asher wrote:





Ben C wrote :

Right but can't you see that it's _you_ who is doing that? I'm not the
one believing in anything here. The CO2 global-warming hypothesis is
definitely worth exploring, but obviously only if you do it properly.

I just have to know, if having thousands of researchers at hundreds of
laboratories around the world including experimentalists, modelers,
observationalists work on different facets of the problem, with those
scientists all striving to have their work reviewed by others working in
the field (including scientists who are skeptical of the theory to begin
with) and published in open journals, *and* with periodic review of the
combined results being conducted by an independent international body of
experts (that again includes some of the skeptical voices) *isn't* "doing
it properly" (as you seem to be implying), what would be a better way to
go about it? *

If by "thousands of researchers" you're including the grad
students with rulers entering tree-ring data into notebooks,
then I guess there are thousands of researchers.

Exactly how many papers supporting AGW published since
1990 do _not_ cite Wang, Mann, Jones, Hansen, or any of the
other known frauds & fudgers? *Any paper that cites them
should be treated as suspect, & any paper that uses them
for primary evidence should be summarily tossed out.
Further any paper that these fellows performed review on
should be rechecked. *& any paper that these gentlemen
stifled, blocked, or contested should also be re-examined
in light of their perfidy.

Just for the sake of comprehensiveness, let me throw in a couple more
necessary adjustments.

All papers refused in the last twenty years because their findings
differed from the prevailing hysteria of global warming require
reassessment on their merits rather than for their political
correctness.

There's a class of scientist that deserves special contempt. They
published papers containing data contrary to global warming which they
got published by prefacing them with a statement that they believe in
global warming, and usually concluding with some crap about how
they're sure their data indicates only a temporary glitch or an
anomaly in the glorious march of global warming. Along the way they
usually also submitted to editing to tone down their findings. These
scientists had their own data in their own hands and knew it was true,
and submitted to a form of mind control simply to stay in the game. I
think that once we finished making them fell our contempt for their
weakness, we should instantly make them heads of department (in the
place of the fired Jones, Mann, Briffa, et al) for their political
slyness in at least bringing some version of the truth to the table in
circumstance oppressive to the truth and dangerous to their careers.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar