>> People believe in God, and pray (i.e., "do something with urgency") armed with far, far, far less evidence.
They do. Largely because they're indoctrinated as children and have no other explanation for some things.
Precisely what has happened with Global Warmists.
>> You grudgingly admit there may be an effect but say it is nothing to be concerned about with allusions to injuries not needing ambulances. You offer no data yourself for this position but ask those who do have spent time studying the peer reviewed data to dissuade you from holding your ill-founded beliefs.
It isn't grudgingly. It is just factual, which is my MO.
Don't start with the peer reviewed nonsense. It is meaningless. I refer you to "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by A. W. Montford. The most fascinating analysis of the GW fiasco and fake statistics written to date, which really takes apart the failures of peer review process in detail.
amazon.com
(Everyone, pro-and-con, ought to read it. Very little knowledge of statistics is required, although understanding regression and correlation helps.)
If you don't want to read the book, the headline is this: Peer review involves peers but no review. At most, there are cursory reviews. Datasets are not made available for replication of the so-called science. In one case, a phone to call to a major scientific journal to request a copy of the dataset was met with, "We've never had anyone ask about that before."
And if you don't believe me, google "Peer Review Failures" and see what you find.
Do you think Michael Mann is sitting around "reviewing" the articles written by others? I'll answer that. Hell, no. He makes nothing for reviewing someone else's writing; it adds nothing to his fame or fortune. The average peer review of an article involves reading the abstract and the conclusions, and maybe a minimalist comment. |
