What you believe is hogwash, like I said on this subject it's difficult for you I moderate when you are clearly so skeptical. Your response to me confirms you don't even want to accept you have bias and that it might be an issue. Has Phetha actually been banned? If that's the case I think an explanation of why he has should be said, and it needs explaining why Enrique hasn't as the conversation was two way. If you look at some of the things he's said they're pretty out of order.
PETHA has indeed been banned. On Saturday night, be reported over 100 posts by various people including two that referred to Alex! It took me considerable time just to process them all. I also had a number of complaints from other members of this forum.
PETHA was not banned for his opinions.
You think people who are against CAGW are deluded or even in the pay of big oil. I guess I have made the comparison with the scientific treatment of ψ enough already, so let me give you another interesting example of the corruption of science. A few weeks ago, a report was released in the UK reducing the safe limits for drinking alcohol. The impression was given that even a small consumption of alcohol incurred some danger, and that cancer was a particularly high profile risk.
In the newspaper stories about this issue a book title appeared:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Good-News-...1680791&sr=8-1&keywords=good+news+about+booze
Despite its title, much of this book is somewhat technical,and it goes through the statistics about the medical effects of alcohol, collected over many years. The book meticulously quotes the research papers on which it is based. On the basis of these statistics, it paints a vastly different picture of the effect of drinking alcohol. People drinking large amounts, are obviously putting themselves at great risk of a variety of medical problems, but in fact those drinking moderately - even those drinking rather more than the old safe drinking limits - actually live longer and suffer less disease than teetotallers, or (obviously) those who veer towards excess.
The author explains the stark contrast between the experimental facts and what has been told to the public by pointing out that many of those responsible for the final advice had been GP's earlier in their career, and had seen too many people who had become alcoholics.
However, it is surely reasonable to ask if it is right to feed the public a fantastic distortion of what the science actually says, because someone decided it would be better for them to be fed lies! Furthermore, I would hazard a guess that those who would take notice of the new advice, and maybe stop drinking, would be exactly the ones who would drink moderately and reap the benefits that the evidence shows this confers.
It is really worth reading this book and comparing it with the public advice given out in Britain.
This is an interesting, but probably well meaning bit of scientific deception, but it illustrates the way in which those at the top of large scientific organisations see fit to twist the truth as they see fit. It is also easy to see that after a while scientists may feel locked into a lie because they can't explain what evidence they ever had to justify their original advice.
Most science is now organised on a very hierarchical basis, and control is exerted on potential mavericks using the peer review system, and the grant system.
Lot's of people have speculated over the origins of CAGW, I have heard it suggested that it arose out of a drive by the nuclear industry to promote its power stations. Another possibility is that it arose as a way to sell expensive electricity rather than cheap electricity - soak the poor to increase the wealth of big business. It may have been done - at least in part - to deflect the Green movement from things that really mattered.
I know you think we are just a group of people who know nothing about science, so here is a Nobel Prizewinner in physics espousing similar views:
http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel...ver-global-warming-revisited/laureate-giaever
Please, please listen to this speech - it is very clear and impressive.
Martin, Hurmanetar, and others - please save this link - it is the best I have discovered.
(He also resigned from the American Physical Society because of their championing CAGW without indicating the level of dissent on this subject).
Freeman Dyson - another revered physicist - has expressed similar views. It is noticeable that both of these men are retired, and thus beyond the reach of the sanctions that can normally be applied to those who step out of line on such issues.
There seem to be a whole set of scientific issues of this type, where either a mistake was made and subsequently covered up, or a deliberate bias was introduced for one reason or another. Alex didn't come up with his book title for no reason.
David