Bottletop, we've won this debate. If its scientific credibility, we are after then Davina R and Stripey Toothpick, have presented nothing yet of any substance what so ever. All they have presented is gossip and personal opinion. And that will be glaringly obvious to all those with an ounce of scientific knowledge. These two are obviously about TEE level or below, their lack of comprehension is palpable. Bottletop, thanks for your suppoort, you obviously have a good grasp of the situation. Its a shame we didn't get a bit more support from readers, but hey it is complex.
So to sum up, actualy engaging these guys is pointless. Not one peer reviewed scientific journal, not one prestigious scientific academy or National Institution has been offered by way of support for their views. Zilch, Nader. They have adopted their positions for reasons other than the scientific merit of their arguemnts and evidence.
We are always going to be facing people who think they know. Its a case of the less you know, aka Dumb Davina and Tiger lily who say the earth is flat, it was built in 10,000 years, we didn't go to the moon, elvis is still alive, etc etc etc. And no matter how much reason and logic and evidence and patience you throw at them, they are (thick) brick walls.
Davina, the good thing about science and being a scientist and having a scientific understanding, is that you know that at some point a model, a hypothesis will come along which better fits the data you have, is better able to explain observations you've made and more powerful at predicting future events.
In fact these, "paradigm shifts" (T.S.Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific revolutions [1970]), are the most exciting things about science. Every scientist worth his salt is always prepared to alter (even reverse) his position, faced with sufficient evidence of the right quality i.e Peer reviewed(read Henry H Bauer, 1992). They don't have problem adopting a better model once they are persuaded of the argument. Which relies on the accumulation of peer reviewed evidence. Unlike you! Who requires little in the way of substance to adopt a position. You certainly don't rely on the accumulation of worthwile knowledge. That cap definitly fits Pfhb (position rather half baked)who suffers from delusions of comprehension too!
When you can provide some evidence which has SOME credibility. As Bottletop and I have tried to steer you in the direction of plenty and the best, you should know whats good, whats indifferent, and whats bad pseudo-science (read Popper, any) ,tittle tattle, and worhless personal opinion, unless your a climate scientist! Actually you sound like a Howard Climate Change advisor.
