Monday, March 01, 2010
On Saturday they published an opposing letter.
Firstly, if he wants to find out the scientific consensus, I suggest he turn to science magazines rather than newspapers, where he will find ubiquitous agreement.And have today published, as what appears to be the lead letter, my reply to that
Or perhaps he could consult a meta-analysis of climate research in any related scientific journal, where he will again find agreeing evidence.
Secondly, the Oregon petition means nothing.
There are millions of people working in science worldwide. but the fact that a few thousand of them signed a list is irrelevant.
I thank Graham Cooke (Letters, February 27) for his response to my letter saying that nobody, out of tens of thousands asked, could name more than one scientist, worldwide, not funded by government who supports the alleged "scientific consensus" over catastrophic warming.How different from the UK & US press which, while giving lots of space to alarmist liars like Gore & Moonbat, won't even publish short pieces telling the truth.
I note that, despite arm-waving about journals, he makes no attempt to provide a second name, which is pretty conclusive.
His point – that the widely unreported Oregon Petition, in which more than 31,000 scientists said that this scare was false, “means nothing” because there are millions of scientists worldwide – seems overstated.
It is, after all, the single largest expression of scientists’ opinions, far larger than any such supporting the alleged “consensus”.
Of course, the vast majority of scientists have never said anything publicly on the subject, which is precisely my point.
The claim of consensus has always been a PR artifice rather than a scientific reality.