Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
BackAgain- Again.If we had a national referendum and the majority of voters dismissed the AGW claim as liberal propaganda, that would be a meaningful consensus.
And yet, consensus still has exactly nothing to do with science.
But scientific method plays a Giant role IN Consensus.Consensus plays no role in the scientific method.
Aboob Dumfuk.
It’s a demofk mandateNo. It doesn’t. But even if it were true, so what? Science isn’t governed by consensus. It isn’t the subject of democracy of any vote.
This “consensus” jive is some shit that the agw faither community tries to foist off on the people.
And you know this already. But still you lie.
It’s amazing to watch you scurrying around in your obvious ignorance trying to hard to buttress up the credibility of a phony scientific agenda. I don’t know who you work for, but it’s not for genuine scientists. Maybe you’re a low end lobbyist for the socialist nonsense behind the climate alarmist agenda.
And they put you here? Lol.
They know low quality minions when they see you.
It's not the number it's the type. Low variability versus high variability solar output datasets. And urban versus rural temperature station datasets.How many datasets do you think reality supports?
Nope. I'm not frustrated at all. I'm incredulous that you believe temperature is a function of CO2 without actually crossplotting CO2 against temperature.Ding is frustrating because he gets a thought in his head that he thinks is really significant but he seems to be almost unable to examine it critically - Like EMH and his ice age nonsense. In the case of this bit where scientists come to different conclusions when they look at different data - he believes that the data they are being shown is inaccurate or fraudulent or fabricated, but he doesn't come out and say that any more because, of course, he has no evidence that that's the case. That scientists conclusions depend on the data they examine tells me that scientists are following the data, like they're supposed to. Without his claim of fraud, the bit says nothing else. But I guess he keeps hoping.
There is no consensus. Just the politicization of science. That's all there is. The sky is not falling.ding Posting ONE STUDY (or 10) is of course NO answer to the claim of huge Consensus.
Dishonest and non sequitur.
He has none.
This is, OF COURSE, nonsense/idiocy. Your usual.
One can find Dissenters on anything.
The question is how many/What Percent of scientists, what percent of especially climate scientists... and what percent of Science orgs.
and the numbers that agree with AGW are Overwhelming/in the High 90%s, (100% of the Intl orgs), and elaborated in the OP link and many posts within this thread.
You disingenuous and dishonest little POS.
- - - -- - - -
The Huge Consensus Remains untouched by Lost and dishonest-ding-dong.
`
Ding is frustrating because he gets a thought in his head that he thinks is really significant but he seems to be almost unable to examine it critically - Like EMH and his ice age nonsense. In the case of this bit where scientists come to different conclusions when they look at different data - he believes that the data they are being shown is inaccurate or fraudulent or fabricated, but he doesn't come out and say that any more because, of course, he has no evidence that that's the case. That scientists conclusions depend on the data they examine tells me that scientists are following the data, like they're supposed to. Without his claim of fraud, the bit says nothing else. But I guess he keeps hoping.
I would ask again, how many datasets do you think reality supports? The question here - the point you seem to be avoiding - is that for this argument to have any meaning, you must believe one set of data is more accurate than another. Why don't you skip ahead and tell us what you think solar output and Earth temperatures are actually doing?It's not the number it's the type. Low variability versus high variability solar output datasets.
The temperature data compiled by NASA, NOAA, NWS, Berkeley Earth, Hadley, JWA all contain both urban and rural temperatures. They are not separated as seems was done in the comparison study you've quoted here a dozen times.And urban versus rural temperature station datasets.
I didn't say you were frustrated. I said it is frustrating dealing with you. Your repeated comments about different datasets and crossplotting and variability and our "bipolar glaciated planet" just seem to be your obsessions. You never explain what argument you're actually trying to make when you bring them up. This makes us all pretty certain that that is because you can not.Nope. I'm not frustrated at all. I'm incredulous that you believe temperature is a function of CO2 without actually crossplotting CO2 against temperature.
There is an astoundingly strong, worldwide consensus created by mountains objective evidence in tens of thousands of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies. Claiming that there is not or that it is political in nature are simply lies.There is no consensus. Just the politicization of science. That's all there is. The sky is not falling.
Nope, science doesn’t use consensus, only political bias does!There is an astoundingly strong, worldwide consensus created by mountains objective evidence in tens of thousands of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies. Claiming that there is not or that it is political in nature are simply lies.
Consensus my ass…..I would ask again, how many datasets do you think reality supports? The question here - the point you seem to be avoiding - is that for this argument to have any meaning, you must believe one set of data is more accurate than another. Why don't you skip ahead and tell us what you think solar output and Earth temperatures are actually doing?
The temperature data compiled by NASA, NOAA, NWS, Berkeley Earth, Hadley, JWA all contain both urban and rural temperatures. They are not separated as seems was done in the comparison study you've quoted here a dozen times.
www.newscientist.com
As you prove to us all, every day in every way, you don't have the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about.Nope, science doesn’t use consensus, only political bias does!
futurism.com
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
All political make believe! How old are those articles?As you prove to us all, every day in every way, you don't have the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about.
Scientific Consensus: Why Should We Accept It?
Scientific consensus isn't reached only through whipping up votes. It's actually born out of an overwhelming agreement between scientists of varying fields of study regarding a particular issue at hand.Here's one that I bet many deniers will think supports their position. But it doesn'tScientific consensus - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Interests, Bias, and Consensus in Science and Regulation
Scientists are human. As such, they are prone to bias based on political and economic interests. While conflicts of interest are usually associated with private funding, research funded by public sources is also subject to special interests and therefore ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Best statement that it’s political is this statement from my link….All political make believe! How old are those articles?
Interests, Bias, and Consensus in Science and Regulation
Scientists are human. As such, they are prone to bias based on political and economic interests. While conflicts of interest are usually associated with private funding, research funded by public sources is also subject to special interests and therefore ...
Why? Have you seen recent research altering the definition and value of the term "consensus"All political make believe! How old are those articles?
Sure I posted one. If consensus experts benefitWhy? Have you seen recent research altering the definition and value of the term "consensus"
That was my link dipshit. That you think it helps you is simply the result of your impenetrable ignorance.Sure I posted one. If consensus experts benefit
The quote I posted was from my link! Again if consensus benefits the experts it’s all for one reason, money, politicalThat was my link dipshit. That you think it helps you is simply the result of your impenetrable ignorance.
Liar. But if you want to give my link your vote of approval, I won't complain.The quote I posted was from my link! Again if consensus benefits the experts it’s all for one reason, money, political
