By all means, school me. I know you have absolutely no background in the natural sciences, so it should be funny. I don't claim to be a great researcher or to have much of a background in "bench science", but I do have my name on one paper that we are still trying to get published.
I'll assume that is one more than you.
If you really want to discuss the "scientific method", then you'd better be prepared to discuss some biostats (i.e. p values, sensitivity, specificity, positive predicitive value, negative predicitive value, Relative Risk, Odds Ratios, Chi Squared, etc), because that is where I start to pay attention to it. Especially when it comes to hypothesis and the null hypothesis.
Scientific consensus is a byproduct of scientific work which is done under the scientific method.
I've listed it once already:
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To claim that consensus is irrelevant is idiotic. But, then again, so are you.
See? We both used the term "idiot" in our post!
You cite Wiki? No wonder you're still waiting for publication. Don't quit your day job while you;re at it!
That was the kind of lame-assed retort I expected from you. As I said, I am more than prepared to discuss the scientific method and process with you if you want to step up the plate.
Also, you've been called on your bullshit.
So go ahead and produce some peer reviewed work to back up your claims.
WHy dont you?
The fact is that the scientific method requires reproducible results to be fact. The anthro global warming jihadists have not and cannot provide that. They have gone so far as to make up data. That is fact.
When people start trotting out their credentials they've lost the debate.
Thanks for playing.