The attacks by science editors and campaigners on critical
scientists are not only fuelled by political considerations.
Sometimes they are due to blind faith in an apocalyptic future,
as a recent editorial in New Scientist reveals:

"One of the most corrosive contributions of climate sceptics has
been to promote any uncertainty as an excuse for inaction. In
truth, the remaining uncertainties should be making us redouble
our efforts to mitigate climate change. It's a fair bet that much
of what we do not yet know for sure will turn out to be scarier
than most of us like to imagine."

In other words, the editors of New Scientist are certain that
what we do not know today will, upon knowing it in the future,
prove to be even worse than they fear. Evidently, such hyperbole
has nothing to do with science but belongs to the realm of
superstitious divination.


http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Editorial-bias.htm


Regards

Bonzo

"Science based on "consensus" is a tricky business. I am agnostic
about it because the history of science tells us that today's
consensus can, and quite frequently is, tomorrow's redundant
theory." Benny Peiser, Liverpool John Moores University, Faculty
of Science

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

"Bonzo"  waffled in message
>
> The attacks by science editors and campaigners on critical
> scientisblah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah

Tell me Bozo, what's it like marching to the beat of your own drum?