’nuff said, Tim. We understand.

At the U.S.’s insistence, cannabis was placed under the strictest control regime in the Convention: Schedule IV**. This regime included drugs such as heroin, for which any medical use was considered “obsolete” by the WHO. … The WHO later found that cannabis could have medical applications after all, but the structure was already in place and no international action has since been taken to alter this anomaly.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/library/history-e.htm#A.%20Single%20Convention%20on%20Narcotic%20Drugs,%201961

I had for some reason thought that George HW Bush was the Assistant to the Secretary then. Rather, Poppy Bush was the ambassador to the UN under Nixon when, in 1971 there were provisions made for government labs and drug companies while strengthening penalties on home gardeners otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush#Ambassador_to_the_United_Nations

Oh noes! drugs are a commie assault on our foundations (nifty flamethrowers…carbon neutral?):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI2e0LF6nf0

** “the most stringent schedule in the Single Convention is Schedule IV, which is equivalent to Schedule I in the Psychotropics Convention.”

“disinterested” parties in any other country

And what if the one ‘country’ is the United Nations and the only other ‘disinterested’ party is North Korea? Whole lotta swappin’ honest data going on there, hu?

To further cultivate my cannabis example, I don’t believe the UN assistant secretary general back in 1961** ever made provision for any deferment or forbearance for ‘medical use’ in his penned down Single Convention Treaty. Though the media sometimes prevaricates that the Big Country recognizes a difference in recreational and medicinal use, to the best of my knowledge no such language existed nor has it been ammended — It is an absolute decree that is expected to be adhered to by all the individual members (Big Citizens) regardless of the science or local conditions.

Surely, there is antropogenic change going on but the ‘cure’ should not be worse than the disease(?); I’ve heard it said that it is not the 20 cm in 200 years people should fret about over the 20 ft in 20 seconds that is inherent to certain fits of natural variability. Global warming, AGW, abrupt climate change, or Global Governance. Indeed.

For all the evils we hear of NK, I note that they don’t seem to have any restriction of any kind on cannabis cultivation or its’ use (at least, ‘officially’; I’m sure Dear Leader would have someone disemboweled should his crop become inadvertantly cross-pollinated). I’m not really sure of the stance on AGW there but, then again, I’m pretty sure they don’t give a rat’s red ass because they are not a member of the UN.

**Interestingly, Ernest ‘Fritz’ Hollings (D. South Carolina) once remarked that “in 1961, the single most important factor toward US national security was deemed to be textiles” {or words to that effect}. Coincidence? I think not.

Other “disinterested” parties in any other country would only need to “try it and see” and confirm the honest party and heap more bad press upon the heads of the guilty party. [Political pun being what it is.]

That’s the thing about science & its search for truth. It would not be possible to compare a disparate collection of lies on a subject and have them all agree with each other. The only way agreement can be consistently found is when it’s based on truth & reality.

Science is the labor of converging upon that truth, which is why the “collection of experts” all over the world are able to contribute, even when they don’t collaborate with each other directly. (It’s the falsifiers & deniers who need to collaborate to get their stories to agree, not the truth-seekers.)

There are too many “witnesses” gathering evidence of Nature’s Truths to be able to bump off enough to sustain a scam. Which is why the denier’s actions are so laughable. If they weren’t so obstructive/destructive.

In science, the goal & motivation are to *know* in your field, not to “see that your views are adhered to”. (That’s the conceptual hole that the denierologists have taken a pratfall into.)

If we don’t allow our scientists to communicate what they learn without obstruction, then we all will *lose*, and “consequences will be served”. Cold, like Nature’s Revenge.

The preponderance of evidence does not win in a criminal court, but it does in science and civil court.

But in science, the appeal process is built in, automatic, continuous, and really, the whole ball game.

There, fixed that for you. And thank you for (excessively) pointing out the contrast between science and law.

In the science world, experiment results and laws (“Truth”) are what Nature chooses them to be — and we can only but learn what they are and report them. Mis-reporting is scandalized and weeded out.

In the legal world, laws & trial results (“truth”) are what we choose them to be — as with climate/science deniers & “sceptics”. Mis-reporting for them is woven in to enhance scandalizing.

97 to 3

And 4 out of 5 dentists agree…

argumentum ad populum.

The legal system is often skewed to what is politically expediant; Evidence is often withheld and especially exculpatory evidence if it happens to run counter to government assertions… It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

And then there is the ‘sentencing’ and judging of the facts/law itself — Who would dare argue that life imprisonment/stigmatization/ for smoking a joint is just? Who would dare argue that strangling the 3’rd world and murdering its’ peoples with carbon restrictions and decreed new land use because of a predicted few cm of sea level rise and the sins-o-the-west are wrong.

Juries are usually instructed how to judge and those who raise the former 1’st tenant of *jury nullification* often soon find themselves afowl of the ‘law’ themselves.

Who really wants to be judged by twelve of their peers too unimaginative to excuse themselves from that farcical, vestigial remenant/remnant ghost of a ‘duty’ anyway?

I *am* a scientist, and I have been paying attention to both the claims (on the part of the denier crowd) as well as the research and the interpretations of the results (on the part of the climate science community). This includes, at times, reading technical and somewhat esoteric stuff that would confuse/bore most folks.

I have seem many claims by those who don’t want AGW to be true “evaporate” when subjected to objective evidence, measurement data, historical records, and the studied conclusions from those who have spent their careers learning all the ins & outs of climate and are qualified to be called “experts in the field”.

Similarly, I have not seen these experts’ results and conclusions “evaporate” — in fact, I’ve not seem them presented as “claims”, but as explanations for the evidence that has been collected over the years — usually after careful analysis and modeling. (The closest to a “claim” might be a climate model and what it implies, but that’s probably stretching things a bit.) Rather than see those results be shown to be inaccurate, I’ve watched as they are instead refined with additional evidence gathered, their models critiqued & improved, and other scientists & sciences cross-correlate and support these conclusions.

I, personally, really don’t want AGW to be true. I really don’t, because it will be costly for everyone — in terms of lives, finances, ways of life, etc. More than just inconvenient or disruptive — the consequences of unmitigated climate change of this scale will cost lives & fortunes… I really don’t want this to be true. But “how it really is” does not care about how I feel about it. And “how I feel about it” can not change what it is, nor will it enable me to “get different results” if I’m gathering evidence objectively.

But like your neighbor situation, what can I look to with assurance to know what’s so and what’s not? This is where science (and scientists, as a collective) play an important role for all of us, skeptics, deniers, and those who take it on faith that AGW is real. Science gives humanity knowledge and understanding about the physical world we live in — good news or bad news, for “it is what it is”. Science’s agenda is to learn what that is. (Engineering’s agenda is to leverage that, as possible & practical, to achieve things we may want within its limitations.)

The body of scientific knowledge, the disciplines & expertise, data gathering, records, and the methodologies all combine to provide the most objective and most certain view of things that we (humanity) can hope to know. Methodologies, reporting, and cross-checks have been implemented and refined over the ages to ensure that human ambition and bias does not pollute or derail this objective: It only takes one scientist to note that “the Emperor has no clothes!” to bring any such deceptions crashing down.

“Reality” is dispassionate, and the measurements (when not faked or intentionally biased) are equally so, if not without a degree of uncertainty (which magnitude can usually be accurately estimated). Scientists take it as a way of life (if you will) to accept what the data tells us, whether “good” (desired) or “bad” (undesirable).

There can be no slanting of science and what it tells us, because anything “claimed” as an outcome will be subject to scrutiny and required to be reproducible — by other, outside groups who often do not share the politics, agendas, goals of the original researcher, nor would be subject to the same consequences of the outcomes one way or another.

That’s the nature of the objectivity of the scientific method to acquire knowledge: It matters not what your intent, your goals, your politics, or your bias may be; Nature will not change itself to conform to your views, and other scientists are free to follow your stated procedures to reach the same ends — ends that will only be in agreement if they are in fact representative of reality.

In your scenario, each side is voicing an opinion of their neighbor. But science is not a collection of opinions; it’s a collection of verified facts and strongly supported theories (to provide explanations & predictions where the full facts are incompletely known). For the most part, it removes the “human element” and what people think and feel about the “way things are”.

Judgment is not arbitrary in science; it must be substantiated and validated, and the ways in which this is done allow those who are “disinterested parties” to re-run experiments, re-analyze data, and reproduce the same results — because those results are “reality” and reality remains consistent (even when we understand it only incompletely). It’s the only thing that everyone can come to agreement on, because each “wrong” will go a different direction (and give themselves away), while only a shared “right” will align and align repeatedly regardless of the person/group voicing the conclusions.

One can maintain the same opinion about something even when presented with differing and even contradictory experiences, but one cannot persuade the scientific community to maintain a view about a science issue when further evidence/inspection reveals contradiction. That results in changes, whether it be for that one group to withdraw their “claims” or the modification of existing hypotheses and adjustment of theories — and then only after thorough and convincing study and consensus.

Such changes indicate progress towards greater understanding, not the lack thereof, and should inspire confidence, not confusion. Only truth, only reality possesses this quality that anyone/everyone can, if searching honestly and dispassionately, arrive at the same results and conclusions (given sufficient technology and experience in the field).

So it’s of little wonder that 97% of those who study climate science are in consensus that AGW is real and is serious. That’s not one person’s word against another’s. That’s 97 to 3. In a court of law deciding a civil case in this country, only 10 out of 12 are needed for a conviction. AGW currently has 11-1/2 out of 12 voting in favor of “AGW is real”. That’s enough for me to say “they’re correct”.