> I am explaining why even if that's true it doesn't mean that AGW people are "paid to confirm AGW".
What part of "you get grants for peer-reviewed publications" don't you understand?
> Also, so far as I can tell it isn't true for any sensible meaning of "fixed".
The folks who wrote the "ClimateGate" e-mails disagree, but then they did the fixing.
> So, I wonder, is there anything the peer-reviewed literature could contain that you would regard as good evidence that careful scientific study supports AGW?
The climate people have threw away raw data, so we can't know whether "normalization" was actually reasonable. They're still saying "trust us" even though every time someone finds an error in their work, the error goes the same direction....
BTW - Scientific truth isn't defined by consensus.
Everything you have said here I think I have already answered earlier, with the following exceptions.
It was you, not me, who introduced peer review into the discussion; I've no idea what your basis is for talking about a "fixation".
Most of the raw data that the CRU threw out in the 1980s are, AIUI, still available elsewhere. CRU's model produces results extremely similar to everyone else's models.
I don't think it's true that every time an error is found it goes in the same direction. (Specifically, I think I remember seeing a counterexample. I don't remember what it was, but then you haven't mentioned any specifics of anything at any point so I don't feel too bad about that.) It might be true that every time an error is found and trumpeted about by disbelievers in AGW it's in the same direction, but there is an obvious explanation for that, no?
Of course scientific truth isn't defined by consensus, and of course I neither said nor suggested that it is. But for someone who isn't an expert in any scientific field, the consensus of experts is typically pretty much the best estimator they have for the truth.
Comments
> I am explaining why even if that's true it doesn't mean that AGW people are "paid to confirm AGW".
What part of "you get grants for peer-reviewed publications" don't you understand?
> Also, so far as I can tell it isn't true for any sensible meaning of "fixed".
The folks who wrote the "ClimateGate" e-mails disagree, but then they did the fixing.
> So, I wonder, is there anything the peer-reviewed literature could contain that you would regard as good evidence that careful scientific study supports AGW?
This fixation on "peer-review" is interesting. You claim that the "peer"s all agree, so their review is subject to all that that implies. You might remember http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fail_accept_defeat/ .
The climate people have threw away raw data, so we can't know whether "normalization" was actually reasonable. They're still saying "trust us" even though every time someone finds an error in their work, the error goes the same direction....
BTW - Scientific truth isn't defined by consensus.
Everything you have said here I think I have already answered earlier, with the following exceptions.
It was you, not me, who introduced peer review into the discussion; I've no idea what your basis is for talking about a "fixation".
Most of the raw data that the CRU threw out in the 1980s are, AIUI, still available elsewhere. CRU's model produces results extremely similar to everyone else's models.
I don't think it's true that every time an error is found it goes in the same direction. (Specifically, I think I remember seeing a counterexample. I don't remember what it was, but then you haven't mentioned any specifics of anything at any point so I don't feel too bad about that.) It might be true that every time an error is found and trumpeted about by disbelievers in AGW it's in the same direction, but there is an obvious explanation for that, no?
Of course scientific truth isn't defined by consensus, and of course I neither said nor suggested that it is. But for someone who isn't an expert in any scientific field, the consensus of experts is typically pretty much the best estimator they have for the truth.