Thousands March Through Snow Protesting Global Warming

[westwall]

You deny the planet has warmed?

What I deny is the need for such fear from the GW fear mongers.

No worries my friend.........the fear monger crap has been totally marginalized in 2015!!! Every poll shows it........nobody gives a rats ass about global warming!!

those damn scientists at NASA!!!

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

When you post shit up it's still...well you know...shit.

Science is NOT a threat.
please reconsider entering a opsyche ward

BAD science is. I refer you to phrenology and the particularly vile eugenics...oh wait, you espouse eugenic ideals from time to time....why am I not surprised you espouse this crap too.

 

[westwall]

I know what will be said by the fearists, this type of weather is not abnormal and to that they are exactly right.

Thousands March Through Snow Protesting Global Warming The Daily Caller

The “Gore effect” has struck again, this time forcing thousands of Canadian eco-activists to march through the snow over the weekend, rallying against global warming on a cold Quebec City day.

The Globe and Mail reports the “Act On Climate Change” march included “representatives from First Nations, environmental activists and political groups” who are trying to convince politicians to ban oil sands extraction and prevent pipelines from being built to bring that oil to market.

You deny the planet has warmed?

You denying that the US has not for at least the last 15 years?

What I deny is the need for such fear from the GW fear mongers.

Yep I do.

Power said that 1998, the start of the 'pause', was a particularly hot year due to the natural El Niño climate pattern that has a warming influence on worldwide temperatures.

Power said that if you choose a 15-year period starting in 1996 instead of 1998 then the rate of warming almost triples to 0.14°C per decade.

"Globally average surface temperature is just one measure of changes in the Earth'sclimate system," he says.

During the 15-year 'hiatus' period, studies of other aspects of the climate system have continued to show warming as expected.

The world's oceans have continued to gain heat, a recent study has found. And, in late March, a study in the prestigious journalScience found Antarctica's ice sheets were melting at an accelerating rate.

Many scientists have pointed to the recent extended periods of ocean cycles that are in phases that tend to have a cooling effect on temperatures at the surface of the planet.

The sun has also been in a state of unusually low activity, which can also have a cooling influence.

Global warming hiatus explained and it s not good news

Fear fear fear. Have you ever noticed that when someone in power is trying to steal your money they always try and make you afraid so you will willingly hand it over? It's a well known propaganda tool and what I find hilarious is these so called deep thinkers can't figure that out.

If anything the recent observations should quell the runaway global warming fears. Better to study how we can adapt rather than how we can change human behavior. Besides, a warmer earth has been a boon for mankind.

The recent observations have shown beyond doubt that can't occur. Of course we have a very good paleo climate record that confirms when it was much warmer in the past not a single catastrophe the AGW supporters claim is possible, ever happened. But, they have never let a thing like facts dissuade their hysteria.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What I deny is the need for such fear from the GW fear mongers.

No worries my friend.........the fear monger crap has been totally marginalized in 2015!!! Every poll shows it........nobody gives a rats ass about global warming!!

those damn scientists at NASA!!!

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

When you post shit up it's still...well you know...shit.

Science is NOT a threat.
please reconsider entering a opsyche ward

BAD science is. I refer you to phrenology and the particularly vile eugenics...oh wait, you espouse eugenic ideals from time to time....why am I not surprised you espouse this crap too.

Phrenology was considered BAD science by the mainstream professionals.

Eugenics? was considered bad public policy

your examples don't back up your premise. good gawd, your lack of anything resembling a critical thinking skill set is astounding

 

[Avatar4321]

You deny the planet has warmed?

What I deny is the need for such fear from the GW fear mongers.

No worries my friend.........the fear monger crap has been totally marginalized in 2015!!! Every poll shows it........nobody gives a rats ass about global warming!!

those damn scientists at NASA!!!

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

When you post shit up it's still...well you know...shit.

Science is NOT a threat.
please reconsider entering a opsyche ward

No kidding.

Global warming isn't science though. It's completely faith based.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What I deny is the need for such fear from the GW fear mongers.

No worries my friend.........the fear monger crap has been totally marginalized in 2015!!! Every poll shows it........nobody gives a rats ass about global warming!!

those damn scientists at NASA!!!

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

When you post shit up it's still...well you know...shit.

Science is NOT a threat.
please reconsider entering a opsyche ward

No kidding.

Global warming isn't science though. It's completely faith based.

NASA scientists have a web site you may want to check out: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

Let us all see if Avatar4321 can refute one single fact

 

[westwall]

No worries my friend.........the fear monger crap has been totally marginalized in 2015!!! Every poll shows it........nobody gives a rats ass about global warming!!

those damn scientists at NASA!!!

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

When you post shit up it's still...well you know...shit.

Science is NOT a threat.
please reconsider entering a opsyche ward

BAD science is. I refer you to phrenology and the particularly vile eugenics...oh wait, you espouse eugenic ideals from time to time....why am I not surprised you espouse this crap too.

Phrenology was considered BAD science by the mainstream professionals.

Eugenics? was considered bad public policy

your examples don't back up your premise. good gawd, your lack of anything resembling a critical thinking skill set is astounding

Phrenology was popular for about 30 years (roughly the same time that AGW has enjoyed its popularity, and like the phrenologists of old the climatologists are desperate to be taken seriously. That's why they are so deeply invested in the failed theory of AGW.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

those damn scientists at NASA!!!

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

When you post shit up it's still...well you know...shit.

Science is NOT a threat.
please reconsider entering a opsyche ward

BAD science is. I refer you to phrenology and the particularly vile eugenics...oh wait, you espouse eugenic ideals from time to time....why am I not surprised you espouse this crap too.

Phrenology was considered BAD science by the mainstream professionals.

Eugenics? was considered bad public policy

your examples don't back up your premise. good gawd, your lack of anything resembling a critical thinking skill set is astounding

Phrenology was popular for about 30 years (roughly the same time that AGW has enjoyed its popularity, and like the phrenologists of old the climatologists are desperate to be taken seriously. That's why they are so deeply invested in the failed theory of AGW.

popular with whom? not mainstream science

Phrenology has been almost universally considered completely discredited as a science since the mid-19th century. Even during the peak of its popularity between the 1820s and 1840s, phrenology was always controversial and never achieved the status of an accredited science, which was so coveted by its main proponents, such as

​

the Edinburgh lawyer, George Combe and his circle.
History of Phrenology on the Web​

 

[westwall]

No worries my friend.........the fear monger crap has been totally marginalized in 2015!!! Every poll shows it........nobody gives a rats ass about global warming!!

those damn scientists at NASA!!!

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

When you post shit up it's still...well you know...shit.

Science is NOT a threat.
please reconsider entering a opsyche ward

No kidding.

Global warming isn't science though. It's completely faith based.

NASA scientists have a web site you may want to check out: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

Let us all see if Avatar4321 can refute one single fact

I will take them in order.

Sea level rise. There has been a massive slowing of the rise to a point now where it is declining in more areas than it is increasing. And not by a little bit. Further the Maldives (who were so worried that they would be under water in 20 years have decided that they should invest more than 400 million dollars to build four brand new international airports to bring tourists to the islands.

"Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend"."
Rise of sea levels is the greatest lie ever told - Telegraph


Global temperature rise....

There has been NONE, in the last 18 years in spite of global CO2 levels increasing.


Warming oceans.....


There has been NONE. Trenberth has famously stated that it is a travesty that the "missing heat" can't be found in the oceans. He has never been able to show us how it would be physically possible to defy the Laws of Physics to accomplish this but they have recently come up with some cute computer models to show warmer oceans. The problem of course is there are no corresponding physical measurements.


Shrinking ice sheets.....

Provably WRONG. There is just as much ice today as there was 35 years ago. There was indeed a period of melting from the late 1990's into the 2000's. That period has passed and the Antarctic has been at record ice levels for over two years now and the Arctic (which the AGW bleaters claimed would be ice free by 2013) is on the rebound and is in fact at the lower end of the historical 20 year range. FAIL.

Glacial retreat....

Yes, some are, and some are advancing. Funny how the AGW supporters always seem to ignore those...


Extreme events....

There are fewer extreme events now than at almost any time in recorded history. The 1950's (when CO2 levels were "safe" were far more violent and numerous in the weather "events" that occurred. FAIL




Ocean acidification....



Has been debunked many times.



Decreased Snow Cover....


In the western US. Yes indeed. Every where else pretty much no.

 

[westwall]

When you post shit up it's still...well you know...shit.

Science is NOT a threat.
please reconsider entering a opsyche ward

BAD science is. I refer you to phrenology and the particularly vile eugenics...oh wait, you espouse eugenic ideals from time to time....why am I not surprised you espouse this crap too.

Phrenology was considered BAD science by the mainstream professionals.

Eugenics? was considered bad public policy

your examples don't back up your premise. good gawd, your lack of anything resembling a critical thinking skill set is astounding

Phrenology was popular for about 30 years (roughly the same time that AGW has enjoyed its popularity, and like the phrenologists of old the climatologists are desperate to be taken seriously. That's why they are so deeply invested in the failed theory of AGW.

popular with whom? not mainstream science

Phrenology has been almost universally considered completely discredited as a science since the mid-19th century. Even during the peak of its popularity between the 1820s and 1840s, phrenology was always controversial and never achieved the status of an accredited science, which was so coveted by its main proponents, such as

​

the Edinburgh lawyer, George Combe and his circle.
History of Phrenology on the Web​

Why do you think I chose that for my example. This passage in the history is particularly applicable to climatologists today....

"So it was believed that by examining the shape and unevenness of a head or skull, one could discover the development of the particular cerebral "organs" responsible for different intellectual aptitudes and character traits. For example, a prominent protuberance in the forehead at the position attributed to the organ of Benevolence was meant to indicate that the individual had a "well developed" organ of Benevolence and would therefore be expected to exhibit benevolent behaviour.

However, like so many popular sciences, Gall and the phrenologists sought only confirmations for their hypotheses and did not apply the same standard to contradictory evidence. Any evidence or anecdote which seemed to confirm the science was readily and vociferously accepted as "proof" of the "truth" of phrenology. At the same time, contradictory findings, such as a not very benevolent and disagreeable person having a well-developed organ of Benevolence were always explained away. This was often done by claiming that the activity of other organs counteracted Benevolence. What was never accepted by phrenologists, however, was that admitting that the activity of a particular faculty could be independent of the size of its organ undermined the most fundamental assumptions of the science- and thereby rendered all of its conclusions inconsistent and meaningless."


The History of Phrenology

 

[BlindBoo]

You deny the planet has warmed?

You denying that the US has not for at least the last 15 years?

What I deny is the need for such fear from the GW fear mongers.

Yep I do.

Power said that 1998, the start of the 'pause', was a particularly hot year due to the natural El Niño climate pattern that has a warming influence on worldwide temperatures.

Power said that if you choose a 15-year period starting in 1996 instead of 1998 then the rate of warming almost triples to 0.14°C per decade.

"Globally average surface temperature is just one measure of changes in the Earth'sclimate system," he says.

During the 15-year 'hiatus' period, studies of other aspects of the climate system have continued to show warming as expected.

The world's oceans have continued to gain heat, a recent study has found. And, in late March, a study in the prestigious journalScience found Antarctica's ice sheets were melting at an accelerating rate.

Many scientists have pointed to the recent extended periods of ocean cycles that are in phases that tend to have a cooling effect on temperatures at the surface of the planet.

The sun has also been in a state of unusually low activity, which can also have a cooling influence.

Global warming hiatus explained and it s not good news

Fear fear fear. Have you ever noticed that when someone in power is trying to steal your money they always try and make you afraid so you will willingly hand it over? It's a well known propaganda tool and what I find hilarious is these so called deep thinkers can't figure that out.

If anything the recent observations should quell the runaway global warming fears. Better to study how we can adapt rather than how we can change human behavior. Besides, a warmer earth has been a boon for mankind.

The recent observations have shown beyond doubt that can't occur. Of course we have a very good paleo climate record that confirms when it was much warmer in the past not a single catastrophe the AGW supporters claim is possible, ever happened. But, they have never let a thing like facts dissuade their hysteria.

Well no not really. If we have another strong el Nino combine with a strong solar cycle you never what might happen.

NASA GISS Science Briefs Sea Level Rise After the Ice Melted and Today

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Science is NOT a threat.
please reconsider entering a opsyche ward

BAD science is. I refer you to phrenology and the particularly vile eugenics...oh wait, you espouse eugenic ideals from time to time....why am I not surprised you espouse this crap too.

Phrenology was considered BAD science by the mainstream professionals.

Eugenics? was considered bad public policy

your examples don't back up your premise. good gawd, your lack of anything resembling a critical thinking skill set is astounding

Phrenology was popular for about 30 years (roughly the same time that AGW has enjoyed its popularity, and like the phrenologists of old the climatologists are desperate to be taken seriously. That's why they are so deeply invested in the failed theory of AGW.

popular with whom? not mainstream science

Phrenology has been almost universally considered completely discredited as a science since the mid-19th century. Even during the peak of its popularity between the 1820s and 1840s, phrenology was always controversial and never achieved the status of an accredited science, which was so coveted by its main proponents, such as

​

the Edinburgh lawyer, George Combe and his circle.
History of Phrenology on the Web​

Why do you think I chose that for my example. This passage in the history is particularly applicable to climatologists today....

"So it was believed that by examining the shape and unevenness of a head or skull, one could discover the development of the particular cerebral "organs" responsible for different intellectual aptitudes and character traits. For example, a prominent protuberance in the forehead at the position attributed to the organ of Benevolence was meant to indicate that the individual had a "well developed" organ of Benevolence and would therefore be expected to exhibit benevolent behaviour.

However, like so many popular sciences, Gall and the phrenologists sought only confirmations for their hypotheses and did not apply the same standard to contradictory evidence. Any evidence or anecdote which seemed to confirm the science was readily and vociferously accepted as "proof" of the "truth" of phrenology. At the same time, contradictory findings, such as a not very benevolent and disagreeable person having a well-developed organ of Benevolence were always explained away. This was often done by claiming that the activity of other organs counteracted Benevolence. What was never accepted by phrenologists, however, was that admitting that the activity of a particular faculty could be independent of the size of its organ undermined the most fundamental assumptions of the science- and thereby rendered all of its conclusions inconsistent and meaningless."


The History of Phrenology

Applicable to climatologists today? What i sup with your people? Weird. Seriously.

The climate science today is recognized by consensus in the science community as a whole:NASA recognizes global warming as does mainstream science.

phrenology never was

your example is fruitcake-nutty


the old popular science is akin to the denial science today..as in pop-science...popular science accepted by a population of dimwits, not accepted by the scientific community as a whole

 

[westwall]

You denying that the US has not for at least the last 15 years?

What I deny is the need for such fear from the GW fear mongers.

Yep I do.

Power said that 1998, the start of the 'pause', was a particularly hot year due to the natural El Niño climate pattern that has a warming influence on worldwide temperatures.

Power said that if you choose a 15-year period starting in 1996 instead of 1998 then the rate of warming almost triples to 0.14°C per decade.

"Globally average surface temperature is just one measure of changes in the Earth'sclimate system," he says.

During the 15-year 'hiatus' period, studies of other aspects of the climate system have continued to show warming as expected.

The world's oceans have continued to gain heat, a recent study has found. And, in late March, a study in the prestigious journalScience found Antarctica's ice sheets were melting at an accelerating rate.

Many scientists have pointed to the recent extended periods of ocean cycles that are in phases that tend to have a cooling effect on temperatures at the surface of the planet.

The sun has also been in a state of unusually low activity, which can also have a cooling influence.

Global warming hiatus explained and it s not good news

Fear fear fear. Have you ever noticed that when someone in power is trying to steal your money they always try and make you afraid so you will willingly hand it over? It's a well known propaganda tool and what I find hilarious is these so called deep thinkers can't figure that out.

If anything the recent observations should quell the runaway global warming fears. Better to study how we can adapt rather than how we can change human behavior. Besides, a warmer earth has been a boon for mankind.

The recent observations have shown beyond doubt that can't occur. Of course we have a very good paleo climate record that confirms when it was much warmer in the past not a single catastrophe the AGW supporters claim is possible, ever happened. But, they have never let a thing like facts dissuade their hysteria.

Well no not really. If we have another strong el Nino combine with a strong solar cycle you never what might happen.

NASA GISS Science Briefs Sea Level Rise After the Ice Melted and Today

Oh, so a naturally occurring cycle, combined with another naturally occurring solar cycle could warm the Earth? Is that what you're saying? I'm asking because the last time I checked we have no ability to do anything to the Sun. And, El Nino is a phenomena that likewise has been know about for far longer than it was every postulated that man could effect the climate.

Just wondering....

 

[westwall]

BAD science is. I refer you to phrenology and the particularly vile eugenics...oh wait, you espouse eugenic ideals from time to time....why am I not surprised you espouse this crap too.

Phrenology was considered BAD science by the mainstream professionals.

Eugenics? was considered bad public policy

your examples don't back up your premise. good gawd, your lack of anything resembling a critical thinking skill set is astounding

Phrenology was popular for about 30 years (roughly the same time that AGW has enjoyed its popularity, and like the phrenologists of old the climatologists are desperate to be taken seriously. That's why they are so deeply invested in the failed theory of AGW.

popular with whom? not mainstream science

Phrenology has been almost universally considered completely discredited as a science since the mid-19th century. Even during the peak of its popularity between the 1820s and 1840s, phrenology was always controversial and never achieved the status of an accredited science, which was so coveted by its main proponents, such as

​

the Edinburgh lawyer, George Combe and his circle.
History of Phrenology on the Web​

Why do you think I chose that for my example. This passage in the history is particularly applicable to climatologists today....

"So it was believed that by examining the shape and unevenness of a head or skull, one could discover the development of the particular cerebral "organs" responsible for different intellectual aptitudes and character traits. For example, a prominent protuberance in the forehead at the position attributed to the organ of Benevolence was meant to indicate that the individual had a "well developed" organ of Benevolence and would therefore be expected to exhibit benevolent behaviour.

However, like so many popular sciences, Gall and the phrenologists sought only confirmations for their hypotheses and did not apply the same standard to contradictory evidence. Any evidence or anecdote which seemed to confirm the science was readily and vociferously accepted as "proof" of the "truth" of phrenology. At the same time, contradictory findings, such as a not very benevolent and disagreeable person having a well-developed organ of Benevolence were always explained away. This was often done by claiming that the activity of other organs counteracted Benevolence. What was never accepted by phrenologists, however, was that admitting that the activity of a particular faculty could be independent of the size of its organ undermined the most fundamental assumptions of the science- and thereby rendered all of its conclusions inconsistent and meaningless."


The History of Phrenology

Applicable to climatologists today? What i sup with your people? Weird. Seriously.

The climate science today is recognized by consensus in the science community as a whole:NASA recognizes global warming as does mainstream science.

phrenology never was

your example is fruitcake-nutty


the old popular science is akin to the denial science today..as in pop-science...popular science accepted by a population of dimwits, not accepted by the scientific community as a whole

"Consensus" science...isn't science. It is political pure and simple. If I ask you what the speed of light is you will tell me a number (well you probably don't know it) and that number is either accurate or it's not. There is no "consensus" needed to know what that is. That..... is science.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Consensus" science...isn't science. It is political pure and simple. If I ask you what the speed of light is you will tell me a number (well you probably don't know it) and that number is either accurate or it's not. There is no "consensus" needed to know what that is. That..... is science.

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

scientific consensus - Google Search

 

[BlindBoo]

Yep I do.

Power said that 1998, the start of the 'pause', was a particularly hot year due to the natural El Niño climate pattern that has a warming influence on worldwide temperatures.

Power said that if you choose a 15-year period starting in 1996 instead of 1998 then the rate of warming almost triples to 0.14°C per decade.

"Globally average surface temperature is just one measure of changes in the Earth'sclimate system," he says.

During the 15-year 'hiatus' period, studies of other aspects of the climate system have continued to show warming as expected.

The world's oceans have continued to gain heat, a recent study has found. And, in late March, a study in the prestigious journalScience found Antarctica's ice sheets were melting at an accelerating rate.

Many scientists have pointed to the recent extended periods of ocean cycles that are in phases that tend to have a cooling effect on temperatures at the surface of the planet.

The sun has also been in a state of unusually low activity, which can also have a cooling influence.

Global warming hiatus explained and it s not good news

Fear fear fear. Have you ever noticed that when someone in power is trying to steal your money they always try and make you afraid so you will willingly hand it over? It's a well known propaganda tool and what I find hilarious is these so called deep thinkers can't figure that out.

If anything the recent observations should quell the runaway global warming fears. Better to study how we can adapt rather than how we can change human behavior. Besides, a warmer earth has been a boon for mankind.

The recent observations have shown beyond doubt that can't occur. Of course we have a very good paleo climate record that confirms when it was much warmer in the past not a single catastrophe the AGW supporters claim is possible, ever happened. But, they have never let a thing like facts dissuade their hysteria.

Well no not really. If we have another strong el Nino combine with a strong solar cycle you never what might happen.

NASA GISS Science Briefs Sea Level Rise After the Ice Melted and Today

Oh, so a naturally occurring cycle, combined with another naturally occurring solar cycle could warm the Earth? Is that what you're saying? I'm asking because the last time I checked we have no ability to do anything to the Sun. And, El Nino is a phenomena that likewise has been know about for far longer than it was every postulated that man could effect the climate.

Just wondering....

Yes they are as evidenced by the peaks and valleys of the plots of the temperature variations that match the solar cycles. It looks like a sine wave. The problem is that it has been an ever increasing sine wave for the last 150 years. Could it be natural? Yep. Could it be caused by mankind? Yep. Do scientist know for certain what will happen? Nope.

 

[westwall]

Fear fear fear. Have you ever noticed that when someone in power is trying to steal your money they always try and make you afraid so you will willingly hand it over? It's a well known propaganda tool and what I find hilarious is these so called deep thinkers can't figure that out.

If anything the recent observations should quell the runaway global warming fears. Better to study how we can adapt rather than how we can change human behavior. Besides, a warmer earth has been a boon for mankind.

The recent observations have shown beyond doubt that can't occur. Of course we have a very good paleo climate record that confirms when it was much warmer in the past not a single catastrophe the AGW supporters claim is possible, ever happened. But, they have never let a thing like facts dissuade their hysteria.

Well no not really. If we have another strong el Nino combine with a strong solar cycle you never what might happen.

NASA GISS Science Briefs Sea Level Rise After the Ice Melted and Today

Oh, so a naturally occurring cycle, combined with another naturally occurring solar cycle could warm the Earth? Is that what you're saying? I'm asking because the last time I checked we have no ability to do anything to the Sun. And, El Nino is a phenomena that likewise has been know about for far longer than it was every postulated that man could effect the climate.

Just wondering....

Yes they are as evidenced by the peaks and valleys of the plots of the temperature variations that match the solar cycles. It looks like a sine wave. The problem is that it has been an ever increasing sine wave for the last 150 years. Could it be natural? Yep. Could it be caused by mankind? Yep. Do scientist know for certain what will happen? Nope.

Well, I would expect the sine wave to be ever increasing when the globe is recovering from a little ice age. Wouldn't you? Now the question is...what is the normal global temperature in the first place? We know that 75% of the Earths entire history it has been far warmer than the present day so it stands to reason that the global temperature is STILL abnormally low.

 

[westwall]

"Consensus" science...isn't science. It is political pure and simple. If I ask you what the speed of light is you will tell me a number (well you probably don't know it) and that number is either accurate or it's not. There is no "consensus" needed to know what that is. That..... is science.

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

scientific consensus - Google Search

Consensus is a political term. Not a scientific one.

 

[SSDD]

When you post shit up it's still...well you know...shit.

Science is NOT a threat.
please reconsider entering a opsyche ward

BAD science is. I refer you to phrenology and the particularly vile eugenics...oh wait, you espouse eugenic ideals from time to time....why am I not surprised you espouse this crap too.

Phrenology was considered BAD science by the mainstream professionals.

Eugenics? was considered bad public policy

your examples don't back up your premise. good gawd, your lack of anything resembling a critical thinking skill set is astounding

Phrenology was popular for about 30 years (roughly the same time that AGW has enjoyed its popularity, and like the phrenologists of old the climatologists are desperate to be taken seriously. That's why they are so deeply invested in the failed theory of AGW.

popular with whom? not mainstream science

Phrenology has been almost universally considered completely discredited as a science since the mid-19th century. Even during the peak of its popularity between the 1820s and 1840s, phrenology was always controversial and never achieved the status of an accredited science, which was so coveted by its main proponents, such as

​

the Edinburgh lawyer, George Combe and his circle.
History of Phrenology on the Web​

How long did you have to find some obscure source that said that phrenology was not widely accepted? Fact is, before it was discredited, it was widely accepted...much like what is happening to climate science now....in a hundred years, people of your type will deny that the AGW hypothesis was ever widely accepted.....it will be like you guys now denying the ice age scare of the 70's.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Consensus" science...isn't science. It is political pure and simple. If I ask you what the speed of light is you will tell me a number (well you probably don't know it) and that number is either accurate or it's not. There is no "consensus" needed to know what that is. That..... is science.

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

scientific consensus - Google Search

Consensus is a political term. Not a scientific one.

a consensus within the scientific community .. like when we went into space or exploded the first nuke. There were worries and doubters, but the scientific consensus was,...

you truly are in need of assistance here

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

SSDD fruit-nutty-nitwit

Science is NOT a threat.
please reconsider entering a opsyche ward

BAD science is. I refer you to phrenology and the particularly vile eugenics...oh wait, you espouse eugenic ideals from time to time....why am I not surprised you espouse this crap too.

Phrenology was considered BAD science by the mainstream professionals.

Eugenics? was considered bad public policy

your examples don't back up your premise. good gawd, your lack of anything resembling a critical thinking skill set is astounding

Phrenology was popular for about 30 years (roughly the same time that AGW has enjoyed its popularity, and like the phrenologists of old the climatologists are desperate to be taken seriously. That's why they are so deeply invested in the failed theory of AGW.

popular with whom? not mainstream science

Phrenology has been almost universally considered completely discredited as a science since the mid-19th century. Even during the peak of its popularity between the 1820s and 1840s, phrenology was always controversial and never achieved the status of an accredited science, which was so coveted by its main proponents, such as

​

the Edinburgh lawyer, George Combe and his circle.
History of Phrenology on the Web​

How long did you have to find some obscure source that said that phrenology was not widely accepted? Fact is, before it was discredited, it was widely accepted...much like what is happening to climate science now....in a hundred years, people of your type will deny that the AGW hypothesis was ever widely accepted.....it will be like you guys now denying the ice age scare of the 70's.

Science denial is POPULAR and widely accepted in the non scientific community .. doesn't mean it's widely accepted by science

In 1832, Spurzheim came to the United States. Three months later, he died in Boston, a martyr to his cause. Phrenology then spread widely into American popular culture, encouraged by the entrepreneurial efforts of "the phrenological Fowlers" and others like them. By 1843, the entire Western scientific community rejected organology and phrenology.
Phrenology in the science and culture of the 19th century. - PubMed - NCBI​

gawd, you people are weird

In 1832, Spurzheim came to the United States. Three months later, he died in Boston, a martyr to his cause. Phrenology then spread widely into American popular culture, encouraged by the entrepreneurial efforts of "the phrenological Fowlers" and others like them. By 1843, the entire Western scientific community rejected organology and phrenology.
​

note: widely accepted by nutty Americans and rejected by all of western scientific community

sort of like saving UFOs widely accreted in popular culture = widely accepted by scientists