You don't say...lol

[Confounding]

Yeah, now show me where consensus is described anywhere within the scientific method. GO!

It doesn't have to be. It's just a word that can be used when scientists are in general agreement about something. When somebody mentions the consensus they are simply saying that there is a general agreement among scientists when it comes to this issue.

 

[SSDD]

No...I don't

So you think a worldwide science conspiracy is floating on no evidence?

No....I think that climate science is suffering from group think brought on by an error cascade...that is a very different thing from a conspiracy...and it has happened often in science...it isn't as if climate science were the only branch of science this would have happened to .

Do you think a worldwide consensus/group-think is floating on no evidence?

Lets see some actual evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability that is not the product of computer models.

Just say yes. That's what you believe.

Since neither you...nor all of climate science can produce even one piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...what other position is a thinking person to hold?

 

[Weatherman2020]

If the climate scientists had been following the scientific method there would have been no need for a whistle-blower.

It's not whistle-blowing. Scientists sometimes make mistakes and other scientists revise their work.

To erase data and replace it with data that supports the result you want, that’s not an error.

 

[SSDD]

you don't know what the motivation was of the whistle blowing...

It's not whistle-blowing. It's science doing what it's meant to do.

No...in the case of climate science, it was whistle blowing...prove me wrong by providing some examples of climate scientists stepping up to point out that al gore is wrong in most of what he says...which climate scientists point out that the gibberish that hollywood starts spout is hardly science...any examples at all?

Didn't think so. It was whistleblowing..

 

[SSDD]

What did science say a hundred years ago?

I didn't say scientists are never wrong. I said it's absurd to suggest the majority of the most educated minds on Earth have come to a similar conclusion based on no evidence.

It has happened over and over and over...how many examples would you like?

The world is as flat as your head! and it only gets hot on one side at a time and aliens landed in Roswell, and Elvis didn't die from a drug overdose, and Elizabeth Warren is an American Indian, and Bernie Sanders is an Idiot !Okay, that last one is true.

So you believe that the general belief of science on any given topic has never been wrong?

 

[daveman]

there is SCIENTIFIC AND MEASURABLE PROOF!

Yes, that's what caused the consensus. Scientists are in general agreement that the Earth revolves around the Sun. A general agreement is the definition of consensus.

No it is not! Learn English and then come back when you have a basic idea of what you are talking about. A consensus is an agreement based on argument. MEASURABLE proof means ANYONE can measure and come to the same conclusion. It requires NO DISCUSSION!

It seems Confounding believes an idea can only be true if most people believe it.

That means two thousand years ago, the world was flat and the sun revolved around it.

 

[Confounding]

So you believe that the general belief of science on any given topic has never been wrong?

Did I say that? I have actually said several times that qualified skeptics are important because sometimes we're wrong. It's still significant that almost all climate scientists have come to a general agreement. These are the most qualified and educated people in the world. You should take them seriously. Sometimes a consensus gets turned on its head, but sometimes it doesn't too. There are countless things in science that scientists are in general agreement about. Obviously we will learn more and refine our understanding of this and all subjects, because that's what science does.

 

[Confounding]

It seems Confounding believes an idea can only be true if most people believe it.

It seems that many of you get confused very easily.

 

[jc456]

We

What did science say a hundred years ago?

I didn't say scientists are never wrong. I said it's absurd to suggest the majority of the most educated minds on Earth have come to a similar conclusion based on no evidence.

I am very familiar with astronomy via friends who are pros in the field. Here’s rule 1 in astronomy: you conform to current thinking or you don’t get telescope time.

I have zero doubt it’s the same bias being pushed in the climate arena.

Do you think astronomers would come to a consensus without evidence?

know climate scientists do

 

[Confounding]

We know climate scientists do

I stand in awe of your ignorance.

 

[daveman]

The "science" itself has become a partisan issue...science can't be rational and political at the same time..

Science has not become partisan. It doesn't work that way. If there was bullshit floating it would be shot down and buried by other scientists. Scientists the world over are not implicated in a conspiracy to lie to the public. They actually believe this is happening based on what we're capable of understanding so far.

Science has not become partisan.

It is when Democrats call anyone who questions it deniers and morons. As a famous community organizer once said, the science is settled. Or it was until it changed again.

And don't forget when Klimate Kultists want skeptics jailed and executed.

 

[daveman]

It seems Confounding believes an idea can only be true if most people believe it.

It seems that many of you get confused very easily.

No, dood. Your problem is we understand what's going on very well indeed.

You, however, have been told what to believe -- and you lack the wit to question your programming.

 

[Confounding]

you lack the wit to question your programming.

I bet you couldn't even read and comprehend work done by actual climate scientists.

 

[SSDD]

It seems Confounding believes an idea can only be true if most people believe it.

It seems that many of you get confused very easily.

No, dood. Your problem is we understand what's going on very well indeed.

You, however, have been told what to believe -- and you lack the wit to question your programming.

Agreed...I don't understand the mindset of someone who apologizes for a branch of science that can't produce any observed, measured evidence which supports their mainstream hypothesis over natural variability.

How do you support a branch of sceince that doesn't provide sufficient evidence for people who agree with them to support their position?

 

[jc456]

It seems Confounding believes an idea can only be true if most people believe it.

It seems that many of you get confused very easily.

Maybe it’s you

 

[SSDD]

you lack the wit to question your programming.

I bet you couldn't even read and comprehend work done by actual climate scientists.

Most of us skeptics have spent a great deal of time reviewing what passes for science in the field of climatology...it's why we are skeptics. Have the studies which found that skeptics have a better grasp of science than AGW believers escaped you?

 

[jc456]

you lack the wit to question your programming.

I bet you couldn't even read and comprehend work done by actual climate scientists.

Then post one observed piece of data that shows man is causing warming? Go. Since you’re not confused, that should be easy

 

[Confounding]

you lack the wit to question your programming.

I bet you couldn't even read and comprehend work done by actual climate scientists.

Most of us skeptics have spent a great deal of time reviewing what passes for science in the field of climatology...it's why we are skeptics. Have the studies which found that skeptics have a better grasp of science than AGW believers escaped you?

Do you think you have a better understanding of science than climate scientists the world over?

 

[baileyn45]

So you believe that the general belief of science on any given topic has never been wrong?

Did I say that? I have actually said several times that qualified skeptics are important because sometimes we're wrong. It's still significant that almost all climate scientists have come to a general agreement. These are the most qualified and educated people in the world. You should take them seriously. Sometimes a consensus gets turned on its head, but sometimes it doesn't too. There are countless things in science that scientists are in general agreement about. Obviously we will learn more and refine our understanding of this and all subjects, because that's what science does.

"almost all climate scientists have come to a general agreement". Care to prove that statement? And better yet qualify it? Man made emissions must have an effect? Most would agree. Man made emissions are the primary driver? Not so much. Dire consequences? Virtually none.

 

[daveman]

you lack the wit to question your programming.

I bet you couldn't even read and comprehend work done by actual climate scientists.

"Actual" climate scientists...lemme guess. Those who support AGW?

Climate science is, above everything else, statistics.

How many statisticians have been involved in writing the models that analyze the data? For that matter, how many statisticians have been involved in the data "corrections" that happen all the time?

Hint: None. You have unqualified people writing models based on cherry-picked data to arrive at predetermined conclusions -- and you insist we wreck the economies of the entire Western world based on this nonsense? And you claim the scientifically moral high ground here?

I know of no reason I shouldn't laugh in your face.