Comments on: Straight talking on that crooked consensus

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:34:51 +0000

“Those 2,500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.”

Not just pundits and press.

“I’m sticking with the 2500 scientists” – Obama’s Energy and Climate Change Czar Carol Browner.

First on the list of “2500 scientists”?

IV.1 Core Writing Team members
BERNSTEIN, Lenny
L.S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.
USA

By: Australis

Australis — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 11:41:04 +0000

Once you have 75 (out of 3,000 odd) respondents giving the answers you like, you just have to find ways to disqualify the other 2,925. Do that, and a 97%+ result is assured.

But who is convinced by a survey of people who make their living from studying AGW? Who amongst them is likely to confess it is all a waste time and money?

If you wanted to know whether astrology is a science or pseudoscience, who would you ask? Astrologists?

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 10:16:06 +0000

Perhaps. But the “adjustments” to their sample, according to Solomon’s description, showed their bias and went in one direction only — to reduce the sample size. I’d love to hear from a statistician on the effects of tearing the sample apart like they did. It certainly offends common sense, but how does an expert describe it?

By: David White

David White — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 10:04:18 +0000

Sounds like data “adjustments”. The sort of thing that is considered a normal part of the scientific method by “scientists” in that field of science (and increases the skepticism with which the public regards science as a whole).