What an excellent point, and not at all ineloquent (sic).

Patrick that is all you deserve, i tried to debate with you and refuse to answer any question, or make an intelligent point, i had said i would not bother to read your comments and im not except i saw my quote.
you remain a tosser and in your instance it seems a great description so infact quite eloquent

*GODWIN*

No delusion in the Middle Ages? That seems a bit strong. I am not an expert in the belief systems of the period, but the most obvious example is the question of the position of the earth in the solar system. The prevailing view, dating from time immemorial, was that the sun went around the earth. When Copernicus proposed the heliocentric theory there was no actual physical evidence for this view at the time. It mainly arose from Copernicus’s personal belief that the mathematical prescription for the movement of the planets was thereby rendered simpler and more aesthetic than the prevailing system of Ptolemaic epicycles. The theory only gradually gained acceptance over the next hundred years, and we can only imagine the arguments between right and left-wing loony Copernicanists and anti-Copernicanists that must have raged at the time. Due to technical innovations such as the telescope, physical evidence for the theory gradually became available and it eventually became widely accepted. Now, 400 or so years later, we can confidently assert that the theory that the earth orbits the sun is a certain fact.

However, if you had approached a rational philosopher in the 12th century and suggested to him that something might be wrong with the accepted consensus concerning the movement of the planets, you would probably have been branded as denialist scum, your sanity questioned and perhaps you might have been run out of town for being a threat to the mental and moral health of the population. Everybody who knew anything about the subject at all, every educated persion, knew that Ptolemaic epicycles were the bee knees and nothing further by way of explanation could possibly be required.

Were such philosophers, along with the entire intellectual class of the period, deluded? Only now, when the science of astronomy has become far more sophisticated, along with the development of rocketry and satellites etc, can we say with any real certainty that they were.

This is only a very simple example. Consider the vast history of peculiar medical theories, such as the notion that being bled by leeches was good for you, or that the ingestion of mercury compounds was a health tonic. All of these dubious practices and more were recommended by the experts of the day on the basis of elaborate theory. The history of science, or perhaps more correctly the history of rational thinking, shows over and over again that a congregation of experts or authority does not guarantee certain knowledge. Indeed this is one of the lessons of history that is supposedly incorporated into the scientific method itself, but which particularly in relation to climate science seems to have sadly fallen by the wayside in a big way.

““More bunk from denialists ! How is that denialist scum deny the data quality then go and use it anyway. You fucking hypocrites.”

It should be tattooed on their foreheads.”

Like politically uncorrect individuals during the 3rd Reich who had it tattooed on their arms?

You see that’s exactly my point in the two sentences you dismiss an entire body of research because you don’t like the (widely accepted) methodology. Then you use a pejorative to attempt to belittle you opponents.
Why do you dismiss modeling when it is a widely used technique in many fields? Why are you at odds with large numbers of practitioners in the field? I presume you feel that another round of insults will answer the question?

“What experts, what fields?”

I presume experts in fields related to the problem at hand. Why is that such a wild assumption? Do you have evidence that large numbers of unqualified people are constructing an elaborate conspiracy?

Total rubbish, the figures I gave were copied and pasted from the report. I also invited others to view the other survey results. I don’t need to manipulate the data to make my argument. All the other results point to majority support for a belief in AGW. I don’t think the result for a “wait until after … ” stance can be interpreted as support for the anti-AGW position.
I don’t regard the science as settled, I think there are few who do, they are called extremists and the occur in all debates. I don’t dismiss the views of Walter Starck, I don’t know what they are. I don’t care, the evidence will be collected and interpreted by experts.
I take issue with the stance taken by the denialists that AGW is a grand conspiracy and that anyone who expresses a view that takes the weight of evidence from a large number of experts as supporting the AGW theory is an idiot. To me that type of argument lacks logic, it is simple, childish, infantile. I’m amazed at the incapacity of adults here to reflect for a moment on the basis for their arguments and the way that they argue. The lack of an ability to reflect and adjust is the mark of an extremist.
I’m not patrickg from LP I’m patrickb, the snarkiness comes with the name.

What an excellent point, and not at all ineloquent (sic).