On 11/02/2014 06:11, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2014 10:14:24 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

Now getting back to the gist of this exchange: You claimed there are hundreds of
thousands of climate scientist who say AGW is irrefutable. So far you've named
none. Now try and find me some more which shouldn't be hard and I
mean climate
scientist not some b tech study in the increasingly early spawning season of SE London frogs.

Irrefutable? I bet you can't find where I said that, but climate deniers lie all
the time and that's another for the pile. Read what I say in my posts and it will
help you to learn (or it won't; no-one really cares).

Find them for yourself, larry. Then realise how small is the minority that you
feel are scientists we should believe, even though the enormous majority of their
peers feel they are simply wrong. You may like to read about how not a single
scientific institution *on earth* has dissented from the same view (but you
probably won't read, as your mind is closed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

I asked for your source in t'other thread, but you didn't own up,
although you did mention Wiki. Generally speaking Wiki is seldom
thought of as a reliable source, and is perceived to be on the AGW
side of the debate. That doesn't mean the data IS false, but it may
be a bit skewed.

Let's look at what Wiki actually says:

"No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a
formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was
the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated
its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent
climate with its current non-committal position. Some other
organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold
non-committal positions."

There are several caveats in there aren't there? If an organisation did
hold an opposing view they could be classed as not being of 'national
or international standing' and the claim remains valid. Of course, no
such organisation would wish to go against the trend, which would
inevitably result in loss of status, loss of funding, etc. It's like
asking men 'when did you stop beating your wife?', you won't get
answers that are necessarily correct.

For example, as recently as last October there was a comment on that
page about the Ohio State section of the AIPG saying there was no
evidence of AWG (in 2009), but the Wiki censors removed it because it
was a US State not a national body. The AIPG took a decision in 2010 to
cease publishing articles and opinions about climate change because 'the
question of anthropogenicity of climate change is contentious'.
That quote was also removed in October. The 'censor' is anonymous,
going by the handle '9Questions'.

Wiki's behaviour on contentious topics is well documented should
anyone be interested. It's one reason there are so many blogs around
that may be labelled 'denier' (in a climate change context, there are
contentious topics of all sorts in the Wikisphere).

You are in a tiny minority, yet you think you are right. Why?

Like you and me, I suspect Larry is just 'having fun'.

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire