Consensus Reality

[flacaltenn]

Except my side has about a gazillion more than your side. And the smarter someone is, the more likely they are to be on my side. That makes me feel way better than it make you feel.

Are you familiar with the history surrounding Galileo?

He too, was dealing with consensus science.

Look it up sometime.

and the church....

Yes the church believed that everything want around the earth and everything want around in perfect circles...

Speaking of Galileo, I've posted this one before and I hope it actually tracks back to him..

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”

Galileo Galilei

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Are you familiar with the history surrounding Galileo?

He too, was dealing with consensus science.

Look it up sometime.

and the church....

Yes the church believed that everything want around the earth and everything want around in perfect circles...

Speaking of Galileo, I've posted this one before and I hope it actually tracks back to him..

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”

Galileo Galilei

Galileo was a "denialist".

 

[ScienceRocks]

and the church....

Yes the church believed that everything want around the earth and everything want around in perfect circles...

Speaking of Galileo, I've posted this one before and I hope it actually tracks back to him..

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”

Galileo Galilei

Galileo was a "denialist".

Same thing happened in geology with plate tectonics up until nearly the mid part of last century. Science is about questioning and I am all for skeptics.

 

[Abraham3]

Read this, all you "skeptics"

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact". Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

— Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

 

[Kosh]

I bet the AGW cultists still believe that 1998 was the hottest year on record.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I bet the AGW cultists still believe that 1998 was the hottest year on record.

Based on satellite= yes
Surface = no

 

[Abraham3]

You'll get your wish soon enough. I am supporting Dr. Ball in Mann's suit against him. We are looking forward to the discovery which Mann has so far been unwilling to deliver..... I wonder why that might be

AND

I suggest you check with your hero, unlike you I actually AM an expert witness. Which means you get bupkus from me till the judgment.

What are we to make of this? If you're prohibited from making comment on the case, you've already violated the rules. If you actually have nothing to do with the case - a state I think we all find most likely - then your comments here, attempting to give us the impression you have some real involvement - border on someone needing some counseling.

 

[flacaltenn]

You'll get your wish soon enough. I am supporting Dr. Ball in Mann's suit against him. We are looking forward to the discovery which Mann has so far been unwilling to deliver..... I wonder why that might be

AND

I suggest you check with your hero, unlike you I actually AM an expert witness. Which means you get bupkus from me till the judgment.

What are we to make of this? If you're prohibited from making comment on the case, you've already violated the rules. If you actually have nothing to do with the case - a state I think we all find most likely - then your comments here, attempting to give us the impression you have some real involvement - border on someone needing some counseling.

If youre so obsessed with this, you need to be patient and wait for trial or dismissal. It aint gettin resolved anytime soon. So dont have a cow man.

 

[westwall]

You'll get your wish soon enough. I am supporting Dr. Ball in Mann's suit against him. We are looking forward to the discovery which Mann has so far been unwilling to deliver..... I wonder why that might be

AND

I suggest you check with your hero, unlike you I actually AM an expert witness. Which means you get bupkus from me till the judgment.

What are we to make of this? If you're prohibited from making comment on the case, you've already violated the rules. If you actually have nothing to do with the case - a state I think we all find most likely - then your comments here, attempting to give us the impression you have some real involvement - border on someone needing some counseling.

As I said, it's none of your business and I am not prohibited from anything but it is common sense not to make comments about legal cases on an open forum.

 

[Abraham3]

If you're not prohibited from saying anything, you are not testifying as an expert witness in the case. And so when you say "we're supporting it" you simply mean that you and the other deniers don't like Michael Mann because he tends to make you all look bad.