At the bottom of this week’s column titled “Carbon capture is not yet here” Christopher Booker writes the following correction:-

I have been asked by Generation Investment Management, the company set up by Al Gore, to correct a statement in last week’s column. Although Mr Gore is a friend of the erstwhile managing director of Lehman Brothers, GIM has never (as was reported elsewhere) been a “client of Lehman Brothers and has no direct links with the bank at all”.

This is an article I wrote on the Stupidity Index. Steve Mac you snip at will just let Mosh see it to give me a review. Actually, You might enjoy the hockey stick graph link in the article.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) said Wednesday a consensus exists in the Senate “that we have to do something” by passing a financial-rescue package, even though most members don’t like the Treasury Department’s proposal and want it changed.

Consensus got us into this mess and consensus will get us out.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/09/richard-lindzen-climate-science-is-it.html

we are grateful to Dr. James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who, at the end of a particularly informative dinner hosted by Ben Cotton of the Man Group, gave generously of his time to clear up a number of scientific questions that had been niggling us.

Was Hansen’s generosity repaid with a generous speaker’s honorarium?

I knew Lehman was toxic, but not so far. I tried the Report link, it froze my PC.

Did it mention Carbon Derivatives? It is one of the markets Lehman wanted to play with.

That is, do they tend to produce results that are replicable, or, at the least, able to be falsified, or that follow standard practices? In other words, good science will eventually produce something resembling consensus, so being skeptical about “consensus” is not enough. That’s all.

If you have been reading at CA you will find that the answer to your first question would be “no” in any number of papers and methodolgies analyzed here.

I would agree with your second sentence if changed to read: “In other words, good science will eventually produce something resembling a correct consensus, so being skeptical about “consensus” is not enough as one needs detailed analyses to determine whether the consensus is correct and particularly so when there is evidence that new methods have been invented in attempts to substantiate the consensus and that the weaknesses and invalid aspects of these methods have been discovered outside the bounds of the consensus.