I understand that and agree.
Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory. An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis. As the hypothesis gains support the hypotheses are restated as a new theory with supporting evidence. It moves up through more prestigious scientific groups spurring more research. As acceptance grows, the new theory makes it's way into the academies of science, organizations like NASA, the American Society of Physics, American Medical Association, etc. As the New Theory is endorsed by these groups it becomes a tool used to investigate other areas of Science. People may then accept it as fact but the door is always open to competing ideas. To put it in common terms, scientists run their ideas with supporting research up the flagpole to see who salutes.You are saying 95% of all national academies of science, most every national science foundation, 97% of all climate scientists, the vast majority scientists from all disciplines, and ever major scientific organization in the world that studies climate are a cult.
Bwhahahahahaha!!!
What YOU are showing is strong evidence of a POLITICAL behavior, since consensus and authority doesn't advance science research at all, it is REPRODUCIBLE research that matters.
Meanwhile you and another warmists are ignoring the utter failures of the IPPC prediction/projection that have been made since day one in 1990.
SSDD is correct there have been HUNDREDS of new science papers THIS YEAR, that doesn't support the AGW conjecture. Many hundreds last year and the year before that means that over 2,000 papers have been published against the AGW conjecture, in the last few years.
Consensus doesn't publish papers, that is why your argument is dead on arrival.
That people in voids with "man"
Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory. An accepted scientific theory follows the ScientiYou are saying 95% of all national academies of science, most every national science foundation, 97% of all climate scientists, the vast majority scientists from all disciplines, and ever major scientific organization in the world that studies climate are a cult.
Bwhahahahahaha!!!
What YOU are showing is strong evidence of a POLITICAL behavior, since consensus and authority doesn't advance science research at all, it is REPRODUCIBLE research that matters.
Meanwhile you and another warmists are ignoring the utter failures of the IPPC prediction/projection that have been made since day one in 1990.
SSDD is correct there have been HUNDREDS of new science papers THIS YEAR, that doesn't support the AGW conjecture. Many hundreds last year and the year before that means that over 2,000 papers have been published against the AGW conjecture, in the last few years.
Consensus doesn't publish papers, that is why your argument is dead on arrival.fic Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis. As the hypothesis gains support the hypotheses are restated as a new theory with supporting evidence. It moves up through more prestigious scientific groups spurring more research. As acceptance grows, the new theory makes it's way into the academies of science, organizations like NASA, the American Society of Physics, American Medical Association, etc. As the New Theory is endorsed by these groups it becomes a tool used to investigate other areas of Science. People may then accept it as fact but the door is always open to competing ideas. To put it in common terms, scientists run their ideas with supporting research up the flagpole to see who salutes.
So you see, acceptance of new ideas and theories is always about getting a consensus, yet no theory is every written in stone. It will always be a theory subject to change.
Crazy weather happens and it is mans fault.
Pretty ironic that the ones arguing are called 'conservatives', when they couldn't care less about conservation. When they hear the word green the only thing that comes to mind is money.
. For the past 20 years with all the bomb throwing going on about global warming, the world has done close to dick in terms of climate action......the evidence is profound.
