Warmers are Neurotic Basket Cases

[westwall]

All of them

Yes, you are correct. They ALL make huge sums of cash by supporting the consensus.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Yes, you are correct. They ALL male huge sums of cash by supporting the consensus.

You misspelled science

 

[westwall]

Prove itConsensus.


Prove what? That scientific consensus is a joke?

That's already been done. Alfred Wegener exposed the bankruptcy of consensus science 100 years ago.

You should try and keep up.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Scientific consensus is something you use everyday to make life and death decisions

 

[westwall]

Scientific consensus is something you use everyday to make life and death decisions

I don't. No one in their right mind would either. Consensus is the language of politics.

Science deals in facts. Facts are not disputable. Heart surgeons don't deal in consensus. They ask, is this blockage fixable with a Stent, or do we need to do a bypass?

Simple. No consensus. It is life or death, yes or no.

 

[Vegasgiants]

I don't. No one in their right mind would either. Consensus is the language of politics.

Science deals in facts. Facts are not disputable. Heart surgeons don't deal in consensus. They ask, is this blockage fixable with a Stent, or do we need to do a bypass?

Simple. No consensus. It is life or death, yes or no.

Heart surgeons absolutely use consensus. Stents are the current consensus on how best to deal with some blockages


You are making my case

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That's pretty funny considering I have been schooling you on paleo-climates and their drivers.

Only ONE of the drivers. Please remember, so far the ONLY thing you've discussed is the relative position of landmasses.

That is only ONE of MANY climate drivers.

 

[ding]

You're certainly entitled to a opinion


Consensus is how we decide what to do with science


Consensus is how we decide if your water is safe to drink

First of there is no consensus. The dissensions have been excluded from their reports. Secondly, consensus isn't how we decide what to do with science unless of course you believe governments should make and control markets. What part of "free" in free market don't you understand.

 

[ding]

Only ONE of the drivers. Please remember, so far the ONLY thing you've discussed is the relative position of landmasses.

That is only ONE of MANY climate drivers.

The main driver. You'd understand that if you understood the earth's climate.


It's right freaking here! What part of this graph don't you understand?

 

[Vegasgiants]

First of there is no consensus. The dissensions have been excluded from their reports. Secondly, consensus isn't how we decide what to do with science unless of course you believe governments should make and control markets. What part of "free" in free market don't you understand.

Consensus is how we decide if yiur water is safe to drink

 

[ding]

Consensus is how we decide if yiur water is safe to drink

That's a pretty stupid statement and is a very poor analog to AGW. Standards exist for logical reasons, not consensus. Arguing a half a degree change over 40 years is due to man burning fossil fuels when scientists reach opposite conclusions by excluding urban stations and use high variability solar output datasets give opposite results. So, no. There is no consensus.

 

[westwall]

Heart surgeons absolutely use consensus. Stents are the current consensus on how best to deal with some blockages


You are making my case

No, they are not consensus. They are a technology. If it is safe to use them, they are. If it is unsafe to use them, then CABG is the alternative. The only determiner of which gets used is the location of the blockage.

There is no gathering of surgeons to determine course of action. It is a very simple location question.

 

[Oddball]

Consensus is how we decide if yiur water is safe to drink

No, physically measuring and determining chemical composition is how water is determined to be safe to drink...Nobody's opinion is involved.

 

[Vegasgiants]

No, they are not consensus. They are a technology. If it is safe to use them, they are. If it is unsafe to use them, then CABG is the alternative. The only determiner of which gets used is the location of the blockage.

There is no gathering of surgeons to determine course of action. It is a very simple location question.

No surgeon would use a stent unless it was backed by the consensus of the medical establishment

And of course there are gatherings of surgeons every year like the American college of surgeons

 

[Vegasgiants]

No, physically measuring and determining chemical composition is how water is determined to be safe to drink...Nobody's opinion is involved.

And that was agreed upon to be the best way thru consensus

 

[Oddball]

And that was agreed upon to be the best way thru consensus

No, it's proven via sensory evidence, not opinions.

 

[westwall]

Consensus is how we decide if yiur water is safe to drink

No it isn't. You analyze the water, provided there are no poisons, or toxic materials it is safe.

No consensus. It is yes/no.

 

[Vegasgiants]

No it isn't. You analyze the water, provided there are no poisons, or toxic materials it is safe.

No consensus. It is yes/no.

How you analyze the water is determined by consensus

 

[BackAgain]

How you analyze the water is determined by consensus

Absolutely ^ not true.

In reality, Science is not governed by majority rule. That includes things like choice of how to conduct analyses and protocols Sometimes there are established protocols. Sometimes, not.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Absolutely ^ not true.

In reality, Science is not governed by majority rule. That includes things like choice of how to conduct analyses.

It is not governed by the MINORITY opinion. It is governed by well established science....also called consensus