you say: ‘I’m sorry shills was listing off a bunch of “denials” supposed to mean something?’

Merely to show that many denialist movements have before focused on influencing public opinion rather than addressing the science properly. Just a possible historical analogy. You know, like you said, what we don’t learn from history we are doomed to repeat.

you say: ‘Meyer does reference, at least generally’

Is ‘general’ referencing good enough for you?? Look at his layman’s guide; very inadequate referencing. I don’t need to show you specific examples because just a quick browse over should make it apparent to you. You might even accuse me of cherry-picking.

Nope. What I want is honesty and integrity, from the scientists and the people who criticize the scientists. So far the scientists are far more honest and have a great deal more integrity.

What I also want is an honest evaluation from people who know the field and some respectfulness from the people on the fringes. I perfectly well understand that climate science is a brand new field that is still in the process of defining itself, and I understand that there are magnitudes of uncertainty about all sorts of things – things I don’t even know about (and probably neither does anyone else here). I even understand that the entire climate change debate may either turn out to be a non-issue for any number of reasons we are all familiar with or may turn out to be exactly what current scientific thought predicts.

But simply because not everything is known about the science of climatology, or simply because scientists (who are human) have made mistakes or even, on occasion, acted unprofessionally, I and people like me do not accept the notion that they are or are under the influence of “politicos” or riding the “gravy train” or, most importantly, that the science is faulty. There is virtually nothing on this website, or in the deniosphere in general, that conclusively implies any of these things, and certainly the sorts of charges made here and at places like Watts Up or Pete’s Place or Jo Nova or C3 are unproved and usually proved false – we’ve been debating them for months now.

Mr. Meyer is not a “commentator” and this is not “open review” science – look at the top of this page for a perfect example of what Mr. Meyer and the people here are involved in.

And no Wally, those are not valid criticisms above. I made them up on the spot. I could email Mr. Meyer or write the Ca. assembly or hire a lawyer or write a blog and accuse Mr. Meyer of all sorts of things. But that does not make any of these actions valid.

****”This involves assessments of the soundness, integrity, applicability and usefulness of evidence considered.”

That is not what goes on here or on sites like this one.

Couldn’t have said it better regarding the self-education on topics that enter into political debate.

And regarding scientists’ roll in policy, ,y personal belief is that its one or the other. You shouldn’t be formulating political documents (ie. IPCC reports)and trying to guide the political debate with your own research, or while doing any research in that field. Along with the issues you bring up, this creates a pretty obvious conflict of interest.

And yes, Meyer does reference, at least generally, I can’t say I’ve read everything he’s done. Is there something in his work you have a specific question about?

You say: ‘…and that while these comments likely don’t effect the science, they very well could effect the public debate…’

And this is the reason we have vaccine denial, tobacco denial, aids denial, evolution denial, holocaust denial, 9/11 denial, swine flu denial, and climate denial.

You say about Meyer: ‘…and occasionally he links to science or makes his presentations using other people’s science.’

So those presentations of his are borrowed ideas but he doesn’t reference??

“I still maintain that little blog criticisms do nothing to contribute to the science. ”

Not sure how you got the impression I think I’m contributing to the science. I’ve never said anything like that, and if you interpreted something that way, you misunderstood. Though I think you’re now just trying to build straw men in an attempt to ‘win’ or ‘score points’.

What I’m saying is that one can have a valid criticism of some scientific work, but not go through peer review, and that while these comments likely don’t effect the science, they very well could effect the public debate (yes very minimally, but if they change one person’s opinion its something).

“However, you are reminding us all of how the denier groups are making it so hard for honest scientists to communicate with the public.”

If they are having trouble it is their own fault. If someone could present me with adequate evidence of a looming catastrophe I’d certainly be willing to change my behavior. I’m not sure why you alarmists go through so much trouble attacking the skeptics motives (even if in the round about way you did above). Do you think we want to see a disaster? If an asteroid where about to hit Earth (something that’s easier to know for certain), that would kill 90% of life on this planet, possibly leading the extinction of man, do you think we’d ignore it and try to tell people nothing is going to happen? Don’t you think I’d support relatively extreme taxation to fund a project to stop such an asteroid? I just don’t get it.

So to return to the point, the pro-DAGW scientists are running into my opposition because I do not fiend their data to support their conclusion, while at the same time they (and their politico friends) attempt to alter my behavior based on this faulty conclusion. If they had better data, and all round better science (including more open science), I’d have no issue with them.

“how does one know that one’s criticisms are, in fact, valid? I could concoct all sorts of “criticisms” about any number of subjects – and I would easily get a number of people agreeing with me whether or not my “criticisms” are valid.”

There is no 100% perfect way to know which criticisms are good or bad, important or trivial. This is even true among the experts in any given field. People will disagree about such things and there is often not a “correct” answer. You seem to want the perfect answer, but not even the experts can give that to you.

“Weather is just an excuse. I demand to see his records because I believe he is hiding something from us.

Is this a valid criticism? Are these valid demands?”

Yes. Just about every request for more data is a good thing. Further, I don’t claim Meyer is really doing science. He’s more of an outlet for the public debate and occasionally he links to science or makes his presentations using other people’s science.

Now if you want more information about this park and are skeptical of Meyer’s data or what ever, I suggest you email him. He doesn’t read these comments, at least not often it seems.

Yes, and this is why it is so disturbing when one finds a purported commentator, such as Mr. Meyer, who appears to be simply drumming up hastily conceived notions about science based upon dubious information from dubious sources. The public is often very easily misled by people such as Mr. Meyer.

****”One doesn’t need peer review to voice criticisms in such a public debate.”

Okay – but I always have the same very pertinent question: how does one know that one’s criticisms are, in fact, valid? I could concoct all sorts of “criticisms” about any number of subjects – and I would easily get a number of people agreeing with me whether or not my “criticisms” are valid.

For instance…

The park system in California is very poorly run. Parks are not opened in Spring when they are supposed to be – just look at Rock Creek Lake. Mr. Meyer is clearly deceiving taxpayers. If he wanted to, he could open Rock Creek Lake. Weather is just an excuse. I demand to see his records because I believe he is hiding something from us.

Is this a valid criticism? Are these valid demands?