See you around.

(1) “…but rather to highlight your pattern of cagey enticement of your adversaries to believe your credentials more impressive than theirs and more than in fact they are.”

I do not have any adversaries here. In fact I had great discussions with Evan, Smokey, Jeez, etc.; they are not my adversaries and I certainly have great respect for each one of them. I did not post here to gain converts. I really do not care which side wins. Science is self-correcting, eventually the truth will win, and I am comfortable with that. I came to understand how the AGW critics will respond to some direct questions I had, all of them except you gave very clear answers. I understand where they stand, and whether I agree or not, I respect their views and I had great pleasure in communicating with them.

My credentials are immaterial in this discussion. As I stated, the credentials of the scientists who endorse AGW, particularly the members of the National Academies all over the world, is what is important in this discussion. If you want to compare credentials, you should compare their credentials with yours and that of any other person you consider to be my adversary.

(2) “We generally do not take this as a harmless deceit and such will be uncovered.”

Having MD does not help anyone to claim to be a climate science expert, and I have stated it very clearly that my knowledge in climate science is not extensive. So, if I want to be deceitful in order to have some advantage in this forum, certainly MD is not the way to go. I should have said that I am a climate modeler or something like that. Your statements do not make any sense at all to me. I do not know exactly what you mean by uncovering the so called “deceit”?

(3) “you have been resolutely evasive, deliberately obtuse if I may, as though your opinons are too sacrosanct for challenge or articulation.”

That is exactly my feelings about your response also.

(4) “you attempted to pass off examples of collaboration as consensus, apparently not recognizing D. Webster as an authority.”

How do you know that? You never indicated or implied his name to begin with. You make lots of assumption about the other person. Yet when I stated something explicitly, and you completely misrepresented it to reach a wrong conclusion, I did not make any disrespectful assumptions about you. (see my earlier response:
Gary Gulrud: “To say at some level they are similar is not an argument that they are not different,…”:
I did not say they are similar, I said they are almost the same, meaning the difference can be insignificant, meaning they are not different. This is what I said: ““At some level science, engineering and medicine, all become almost the same.”” ).

Unlike what I saw from you towards the end, I do not use any ad hominem attacks against anyone.

Unless two people recognize that they can continue their discussion with respect but without always agreeing to each other, there is reason to continue such discussions.

““All men are grass”.”

Disagree. All men are like grass (in certain aspects).

Just wanted to clarify some things, as my concluding remarks.

All I asked after presenting a opening challenge, ‘that science does not depend of necessity on consensus for its prosecution’, as Robert Cote had before me with less detail was some manner of explicit defense.
On the third reply, as your first offering, you attempted to pass off examples of collaboration as consensus, apparently not recognizing D. Webster as an authority.
Thereafter you have been resolutely evasive, deliberately obtuse if I may, as though your opinons are too sacrosanct for challenge or articulation.
My guess as to your profession was not to detract from your profession, but rather to highlight your pattern of cagey enticement of your adversaries to believe your credentials more impressive than theirs and more than in fact they are. We generally do not take this as a harmless deceit and such will be uncovered.
“All men are grass”.

I am so sorry to see that you do not want to continue this discussion, I was hoping for a good discussion on the topic. But, I am disappointed so see that it has taken a rather unprofessional tone.

About my own profession, you are certainly entitled to your belief. As you know, I do not need your recognition in my own profession. FYI, I took Kuhn’s course when I was doing my undergraduate work; but that is immaterial.

I do VERY STRONGLY OBJECT to your implication that there is something lacking by being a medical technologist. I believe every profession that genuinely helps the humanity is important and every person is worthy of respect.

I wish you all the best. Good Bye.

John McL

“Your queries give me reason to doubt that you are indeed familiar with Thos.”

I would like to know your stand fully before I can agree or disagree (since you never stated that you endorse Kuhn).

“Whatever else one might think of the statement, the focus is definitely not on the scientist,..”

I agree.

“And the work does not depend on other’s confidence.”

Disagree.

“I charged you to show why consensus is necessary to the performance science as defined by Kuhn, the framework, and now you ask me to provide definitions!”

Yes. Because you are making a clear distinction between pure science and engineering/medicine with respect the need for consensus. So, it is important to have our definition of science clear before we can discuss further. Otherwise such a discussion is meaningless.

“How about starting with funding and resources, with teachers, students, technicians, etc? ”

Because they are not relevant.

“Are you as advertised? Why cite wikipedia and not PubMed?”

Cite whatever that makes sense, we can even site the Web of Science and COMPENDEX if you prefer. But in any case, please let us stay with the topic rather than getting sarcastic and personal. Similar to what you wrote earlier, it is about the topic, not about who is discussing it. But if is becoming a discussion about you or I, then of course I have no interest in continuing this discussion. I am sorry, but I am sure you and I have better things to do.

Your queries give me reason to doubt that you are indeed familiar with Thos. Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, the background I indicated would be implied in my argument.

Einstein, in his “On Science and Religion” essay said of science “It is the human endeavor to reconstruct the universe.” Whatever else one might think of the statement, the focus is definitely not on the scientist, but his work. And the work does not depend on other’s confidence.

If a scientific paradigm, e.g., Einstein’s special relativity, could in any sense be considered a final form then perhaps our perception and acceptance of the form might be crucial, as it certainly is in selling a procedure to a patient. There is no possibility of returning to Start and trying again with an improved procedure or a superior specialist.

I charged you to show why consensus is necessary to the performance science as defined by Kuhn, the framework, and now you ask me to provide definitions! How about starting with funding and resources, with teachers, students, technicians, etc? Do I have to make your case and argue pro forma?

Are you as advertised? Why cite wikipedia and not PubMed?

It has been a pleasure! I am also prepared to be wrong. Nonfalsifiability is nowhereland. But one advantage of relative optimism is the fact that one can be joyful if one turns out to be right. #B^1

At any rate, being called to defend one’s ground is good, healthy exercise, provides introspection, and forces one actually to own one’s positions.

Be seeing you further up the queue!

I understand where you stand. We will see how it goes. I will keep reading it when I have time and if any of your predictions come true, I will be happy to admit it (BTW: please, John will be just fine, thanks! No Dr., the Dr. is when patients call you!!).

No. Even if you accept Kuhn, not all scientific progress comes from revolutions and paradigm shift. There are countless critics on Kuhn’s interpretation as well, to begin with. My basic comment relates the unpredictability of rapid scientific progress (in particular the Green Revolution), I don’t have to agree with Kuhn and never said I endorsed him.
(please look at the criticisms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions)

Gary Gulrud: “Consensus is equivalent with collaboration?”

No. But collaboration may result in consensus in a small group.

Gary Gulrud: “Consensus precedes paradigm elaboration?”

We do not have to assume a paradigm for every case. Lots of progress happens by incremental changes. Kuhn himself is very clear on that.

Gary Gulrud: “To say at some level they are similar is not an argument that they are not different,…”

I did not say they are similar, I said they are almost the same, meaning the difference can be insignificant, meaning they are not different. This is what I said: ““At some level science, engineering and medicine, all become almost the same.””

Gary Gulrud: “Pure research is not quid pro quo, which does indeed apply in the case of medicine and engineering.”

May be we should define what we mean by pure research and applied research, and also what is pure science and what is applied science.

I will note the following characteristics. A person with an engineering undergraduate degree generally ends up in doing mostly applied work – designing buildings or engines, etc. A MD with his/her own practice is also engaged in mostly applied work. With an engineering Ph.D. one could do applied work or basic work in a company, but in general most work done by a Ph.D. faculty member in a university is on the pure side than applied side. The same thing may be true for MDs in a university as many of them do pure scientific research and some clinical research.

Understanding how a particular protein is being synthesized in the cell, how a specific neurotransmitter receptors bind with a specific ligand, how gas molecules trigger the sensation of smell, etc. are all investigations in the fundamental sense – to understand a phenomenon or understand why something behave they way they do. Those are the kind of research done in some medical schools. I am sure the same is true with university engineering research as well – how to make a material stronger by engineering at the molecular level is more pure science than applied science. At the end, whether someone is doing basic or applied science is not determined by the level of “apprenticeship” they have, but on the basis of the nature of their research publications.

Gary Gulrud: The consensus, the conventional wisdom, can be wrong and pure science is the process by which this is revealed. Consensus a raison de etre of science?

It depends how they formed the conventional wisdom. If they formed it without good evidence and reasons, you are correct. But that is not what I have claimed so far.

Gary Gulrud: The Bohr atom and continental drift examples make my point, the elaboration precedes consensus that the paradigm has moved science forward. Work by members of the community begins at any time after elaboration and consensus need not follow by any predetermined schedule.

Please elaborate. I cannot really follow exactly where you are going with this.

Yes. The argument they make is that they are relying on their current distribution methodic to determine the appropriate locations.

So there will be some question. But in any case, it will be a system that does not require the adjustment of data from individual sites. And even if it finds a different base level, the delta should be a LOT cleaner than what we currently go by.

It’s one of those cases where we are striving not for perfection, but for advantage.

And (FWIW) we will still have the microwave meeasurements from the satellites as a check-sum.

I’ll give the NOAA the benefit of the doubt when I can (which isn’t too often).

Etymology: a contraction of “Anthropogenic”.

Well, my prejudiced reaction, is that they would say that. Anything that supports them is ironclad and anything that doesn’t is moot.

But the AquaSat was launched precisely to determine atmospheric vapor more accurately. I read somewhere that the main purpose of Aqua was to prove global warming (via feedback loops).

So now I hear one side going, “AHA!” and the other said saying, “…Whaaat? ” and then hastily changing the subject.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t know what the data is going to show in the fullness of time. It’s all very recent. They only launched the thing in 2002. But my instincts as a student of history causes me to place a fair amount of chips on the former bet.

Consensus is equivalent with collaboration?
Einstein studied with Goldberg inorder that he learn the math necessary to present his intuitions. This is not consensus. Whether the group is a tightly-knit group of trailblazers or or all practitioners everywhere, consensus need require no work at all from the majority.

Consensus precedes paradigm elaboration?
Consensus is a recognition on the part of the scientific community, most of whom are superfluous, or merely replaceable, to the elaboration that is science, that a particular solution is seminal.

The Bohr atom and continental drift examples make my point, the elaboration precedes consensus that the paradigm has moved science forward. Work by members of the community begins at any time after elaboration and consensus need not follow by any predetermined schedule.

“At some level science, engineering and medicine, all become almost the same.”

Pure research is not quid pro quo, which does indeed apply in the case of medicine and engineering. To say at some level they are similar is not an argument that they are not different, and my point is that research science is a process that requires a certain apprenticeship, that research done badly is not science even if it necessarily occurs.
Most of the participants as ’scientists’ are not essential, their work being accomplished many times over.

“It did not happen overnight, it took years of consensus development (based on evidence, of course).”

The dissonance between your opinion of Kuhn and the specifics you are able to articulate seems not to have leaked through to your conciousness.

The consensus, the conventional wisdom, can be wrong and pure science is the process by which this is revealed. Consensus a raison de etre of science?

O.k. That’s just pure stupid.”

Let’s see. I’m on a busy city street and want to catch some public transport. I ask the nearest passer-by about bus frequencies and he shrugs his shoulders. The second passer-by tells me that a bus leaves from ‘around here every ten minutes’.

According to you, both answers would be “pure stupid”. But by choosing the uncertain data I would have a much better chance of getting to my destination than you, who would be left on the sidewalk searching in vain for certain data. Before you knew it, a mugger would have sensed your helplessness, and you’d be stranded without a penny.

A climate trend is by definition long term. Three months does not a climate trend make.

“It is well documented that Wikipedia has been hiijacked by pogies on AGW issues.”

What is a pogie?

This is what NOAA has to say.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html
“…we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor.”
Somewhere, and I cannot really track it now, I read the accuracy is only about 30 % or so. This is a problem, unfortunately we have not devoted enough resources and work to develop a tool to measure one the most important feedback mechanism. I hope this will be corrected in the future.

BTW: I do believe knowing something is better than knowing nothing (I was just making a mild joke with my quote in my previous post)

I do not really understand the CRN procedure. If it is purely a geometric grid, that may not represent the real altitude adjusted (also wind adjusted) equivalent stations for obtaining a (or the) U.S. average from a simple arithmetic averaging. Which means some type of modeling must have gone in there in determining the locations. In places like Oregon and Washington, if you travel few miles east (like to Bend Oregon) the temperature can fall substantially. So, I am not sure how they are adjusting for such rapid transitions. At the end I hope it all comes out OK, at least I hope everything will be transparent.

I enjoyed our discussions very much. Keep up your work with a skeptical AGW view. It will keep the other side honest. But I still hope both sides could develop a little more trust and remove all the suspicions about the other groups. We will discuss again sometime in the future.

Gary Gulrud: “..Your point is a non sequiter..”

I assume you are using the strict logical formalism here (if A is true, then B is true, since B is true, therefore A must be true; which may or may not be true). That is why I asked for at least one counter example to show something in science that came about to be a rule (or scientific truth) without consensus. I mentioned statistical thermodynamics, we can add quantum mechanics, string theory, uncertainty principle, Boyle’s law, Maxwell’s law, etc., etc. all of which are in pure science. For example, the uncertainty principle evolved due to the endless discussions between Einstein and Bohr (Bohr had to constantly modify the details even until 1930s), and most of the arguments were simple thought experiments (not real experiments), and it kept evolving until a formulation is reached to a stage that is accepted by most scientists in the field. I don’t know what we call that, if it is not refinements for consensus. Most of the public and many scientists have never seen an atom (atomic force microscope and scanning tunneling microscope are relatively recent developments – and even with that only few people working with those devices really see atoms), but slowly and slowly atomic explanations (especially in chemistry and physical chemistry) became recognized as the fundamental explanation, without even seeing it. It did not happen overnight, it took years of consensus development (based on evidence, of course).

Take for example the continental drift theory: Abraham Ortelius (in 1956 or 1957) initially talked about it, developed more fully by Wegener (in 1912), but widespread recognition of this theory came in 1960 or so, and now progress in geology and evolutionary biology etc is based on the continental drift theory. Since the theory was not established before 1960, even though the theory was later shown to be correct, it was not always used for other investigations, thus diminishing the progress of science. It is the general consensus that made continental drift theory a scientific theory and facilitated further progress based on it, etc. Until someone can point out a concrete counter example, it is difficult to believe otherwise. But if someone could show a good counter example, I will be happy to change my view. Kuhn’s subject is scientific revolutions, or paradigm changes.

“Scientific revolutions over turn consensus, prima facie. If I were writing such a book I might consider it given that consensus is irrelevant”

Please look at some of the scientific revolutions: Replacing Sun for Earth as the center of universe, Gilbert’s work in 1600 that gave the foundation for magnetism and electricity, Isaac Newton’s development of calculus, particle wave duality of subatomic particles, development of quantum mechanics, general theory of relativity, …. .There were skeptics all around when such developments came up, and it took years and years before it really became a theory. It took consensus.

“…but without an MD/PhD and post Doc with a top PI you have no background in pure research, the target of our discussion. Therefore abstract allusions to experience are unpersuasive.”

At some level science, engineering and medicine, all become almost the same. Engineers working in nanotechnology are essentially doing physics and chemistry, medical research involves significant amount of biochemistry, medicinal chemistry, molecular biology, etc. and many with applied training work also in basic sciences (including me, I have Ph.D. students and post-docs). So, such classifications will not always apply, that only Ph.D. in science can have background in science. I understand fully what you are saying, that there must be (and natural to have) accepted guidelines and procedures when medicine or engineering is practiced. Sure. But, I believe there is more.