Glad there's no climate change, if there was, it would cost us some money...

[Hypatia415]

Consensus is a political term, not a scientific one. So you reinforce the fact that you're stupid, as well as tired. And I am 6 years older than you, junior.

For information: Scientific Consensus: What It Means and Why It Matters | The Science Authority

Scientific consensus sits at the center of how knowledge gets translated into policy, medicine, education, and everyday decisions — and it's one of the most misunderstood concepts in public discourse. This page explains what consensus actually means in a scientific context, how it forms, where it applies, and — critically — where it doesn't. The distinction matters more than most people realize.

Definition and scope​

Scientific consensus is not a vote. It isn't a committee decision, a press release, or the loudest voice in a discipline. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine describes it as the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study — a convergence of independent lines of evidence pointing in the same direction.

That last part is the key mechanism. Consensus doesn't emerge because researchers agree with each other. It emerges because separate research teams, using different methodologies, analyzing different datasets, in different countries, keep arriving at the same conclusions. Human-caused climate change, vaccine safety, the age of the universe at approximately 13.8 billion years, the germ theory of disease — these aren't dogmas. They're the current state of accumulated, cross-checked, replicated knowledge.

 

[westwall]

You are entitled to believe the world is flat and that you have herds of blue unicorns grazing every full moon in your garden/yard.

However, such beliefs are entirely irrelevant to known facts.

The day you anti science, religious nutjobs present a fact, will be a historic one!

 

[westwall]

For information: Scientific Consensus: What It Means and Why It Matters | The Science Authority

Scientific consensus sits at the center of how knowledge gets translated into policy, medicine, education, and everyday decisions — and it's one of the most misunderstood concepts in public discourse. This page explains what consensus actually means in a scientific context, how it forms, where it applies, and — critically — where it doesn't. The distinction matters more than most people realize.

Definition and scope​

Scientific consensus is not a vote. It isn't a committee decision, a press release, or the loudest voice in a discipline. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine describes it as the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study — a convergence of independent lines of evidence pointing in the same direction.

That last part is the key mechanism. Consensus doesn't emerge because researchers agree with each other. It emerges because separate research teams, using different methodologies, analyzing different datasets, in different countries, keep arriving at the same conclusions. Human-caused climate change, vaccine safety, the age of the universe at approximately 13.8 billion years, the germ theory of disease — these aren't dogmas. They're the current state of accumulated, cross-checked, replicated knowledge.

So, more opinion. You clowns are all alike.

 

[late]

I over simplify because people like you aren't capable of understanding really technical things.

And no, scientists have been studying it for over a century. I'm a scientist, geologist to be exact. I know far more about the field than you ever will, and yours is the viewpoint of a simpleton.

Long time ago, there was a forum called the Political Asylum. Miss it like crazy.

Unlike this place, it was wall to wall smart guys. One was a climate scientist, and the kooks would run and hide when he dropped by.

You see, kid, I don't claim authority. I let the truly unhinged do that.

Even worse, I don't delude myself that I can rewrite a science.

If it talks like the brainwashed, and walks like the brainwashed, it's prob...

 

[westwall]

Long time ago, there was a forum called the Political Asylum. Miss it like crazy.

Unlike this place, it was wall to wall smart guys. One was a climate scientist, and the kooks would run and hide when he dropped by.

You see, kid, I don't claim authority. I let the truly unhinged do that.

Even worse, I don't delude myself that I can rewrite a science.

If it talks like the brainwashed, and walks like the brainwashed, it's prob...

You appeal to authority all of the time, junior. That is a logic fail. So the brainwashed are you ignorant clods that don't understand the first thing about the scientific method, and why it was created.

 

[Hypatia415]

The day you anti science, religious nutjobs present a fact, will be a historic one!

You are the one who appears to be in denial about known facts.

 

[late]

You appeal to authority all of the time, junior. That is a logic fail. So the brainwashed are you ignorant clods that don't understand the first thing about the scientific method, and why it was created.

Actually, it would be a fail if you could prove they are wrong, and you are right...

Thing is, science is about the work.

Your BS need not apply, no one involved is listening.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You are the one who appears to be in denial about known facts.

When YOU rely on consensus position you are showing your science illiteracy and ignorance too because that is what people like YOU do when you don't know anything.

There have been many consensus errors over the centuries to bad you are too lazy to realize it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You are the one who appears to be in denial about known facts.

What "facts" can they be when your climate cult depends on a bushel load of unverifiable climate models are you really that ignorant.....

 

[Hypatia415]

When YOU rely on consensus position you are showing your science illiteracy and ignorance too because that is what people like YOU do when you don't know anything.

There have been many consensus errors over the centuries to bad you are too lazy to realize it.

I simply provided some background information on the phrase scientific consensus.

What scientific qualifications do you hold that have led to your above comment?

 

[Sunsettommy]

I simply provided some background information on the phrase scientific consensus.

What scientific qualifications do you hold that have led to your above comment?

I have seen that many times because that is what science free fools like you post over and over and over.... it is pathetic!

No that so called definition is for science illiterates like you who fails to realize that REPRODUCIBLE Research is what matters not popular beliefs which is what Politicians does all the time.

You are going to ignore the many instances of scientists moving like a herd on a consensus belief that are profoundly wrong which happened many times.

Not so old or tired, or much of a conspiracy theory. Call it a guild hall or a flock, aversion to outsiders is the key.

“Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share.”
—Gunnar Myrdal

 

[Hypatia415]

What "facts" can they be when your climate cult depends on a bushel load of unverifiable climate models are you really that ignorant.....

You too are entitled to believe the world is flat and that you have herds of unicorn cavorting around your yard/garden every full moon.

Your beliefs have no credence and do not refute known facts.

Nor have you yet revealed what scientific qualifications you hold that have led to your earlier comment.

 

[Hypatia415]

No that so called definition is for science illiterates like you who fails to realize that REPRODUCIBLE Research is what matters not popular beliefs which is what Politicians does all the time.

You are going to ignore the many instances of scientists moving like a herd on a consensus belief that are profoundly wrong which happened many times.

Not so old or tired, or much of a conspiracy theory. Call it a guild hall or a flock, aversion to outsiders is the key.

“Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share.”
—Gunnar Myrdal

Is all the above intended to mean something?

 

[Papageorgio]

Higher housing costs, higher cost to rebuild, higher population density, market caps in some states all push the costs up and requires the insurance to raise rates even in states with low claim ratios and/or cancel altogether because they are not making money and thus have to change their model and rates or go out of business.

The frequency isn’t the issue, it is the growing density of populations in states that have greater odds of being hit with a disaster. Florida, California, Oregon, Washington and Texas, all have higher density populations, add to the price increases in housing and migration to the coast in North and South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, then there is the disaster always waiting in New Orleans where people live in an area that isn’t if the next disaster hits, it just when.

So many factors play into the costs, but the Gulf States have been hit by bad hurricanes year after year after year, and the fires on the west coast rage every year, it has all gone on for decades. Alaska has more acreage burn year in and year out than any other state, but because the population density is so low, it doesn’t cost insurance companies.