Opposing the AGW Consensus are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[abu afak]

If we had a national referendum and the majority of voters dismissed the AGW claim as liberal propaganda, that would be a meaningful consensus.

And yet, consensus still has exactly nothing to do with science.

• Jun 10, 2023

BackAgain- Again.

Consensus plays no role in the scientific method.

Aboob Dumfuk.

But scientific method plays a Giant role IN Consensus.
As I explained in my last..
Consensus takes DECADES of Consistent Experiments and observations by THOUSANDS OF Scientists.
It IS only consensus BECAUSE of a gigantic amount of consistent Scientific Method over decades.

you lose Again BackAgain. the illiterate POS conspiracYst.
Last word away/one-line Scvmbag.

`

`

 

[BackAgain]

• Jun 10, 2023

BackAgain- Again.

But scientific method plays a Giant role IN Consensus.

No. It doesn’t. But even if it were true, so what? Science isn’t governed by consensus. It isn’t the subject of democracy of any vote.

This “consensus” jive is some shit that the agw faither community tries to foist off on the people.

And you know this already. But still you lie.

It’s amazing to watch you scurrying around in your obvious ignorance trying to hard to buttress up the credibility of a phony scientific agenda. I don’t know who you work for, but it’s not for genuine scientists. Maybe you’re a low end lobbyist for the socialist nonsense behind the climate alarmist agenda.

And they put you here? Lol.

They know low quality minions when they see you.

 

[jc456]

No. It doesn’t. But even if it were true, so what? Science isn’t governed by consensus. It isn’t the subject of democracy of any vote.

This “consensus” jive is some shit that the agw faither community tries to foist off on the people.

And you know this already. But still you lie.

It’s amazing to watch you scurrying around in your obvious ignorance trying to hard to buttress up the credibility of a phony scientific agenda. I don’t know who you work for, but it’s not for genuine scientists. Maybe you’re a low end lobbyist for the socialist nonsense behind the climate alarmist agenda.

And they put you here? Lol.

They know low quality minions when they see you.

It’s a demofk mandate

 

[ding]

How many datasets do you think reality supports?

It's not the number it's the type. Low variability versus high variability solar output datasets. And urban versus rural temperature station datasets.

 

[ding]

Ding is frustrating because he gets a thought in his head that he thinks is really significant but he seems to be almost unable to examine it critically - Like EMH and his ice age nonsense. In the case of this bit where scientists come to different conclusions when they look at different data - he believes that the data they are being shown is inaccurate or fraudulent or fabricated, but he doesn't come out and say that any more because, of course, he has no evidence that that's the case. That scientists conclusions depend on the data they examine tells me that scientists are following the data, like they're supposed to. Without his claim of fraud, the bit says nothing else. But I guess he keeps hoping.

Nope. I'm not frustrated at all. I'm incredulous that you believe temperature is a function of CO2 without actually crossplotting CO2 against temperature.

 

[ding]

ding Posting ONE STUDY (or 10) is of course NO answer to the claim of huge Consensus.
Dishonest and non sequitur.
He has none.


This is, OF COURSE, nonsense/idiocy. Your usual.
One can find Dissenters on anything.

The question is how many/What Percent of scientists, what percent of especially climate scientists... and what percent of Science orgs.
and the numbers that agree with AGW are Overwhelming/in the High 90%s, (100% of the Intl orgs), and elaborated in the OP link and many posts within this thread.

You disingenuous and dishonest little POS.
- - - -- - - -

The Huge Consensus Remains untouched by Lost and dishonest-ding-dong.
`

There is no consensus. Just the politicization of science. That's all there is. The sky is not falling.

 

[EMH]

Ding is frustrating because he gets a thought in his head that he thinks is really significant but he seems to be almost unable to examine it critically - Like EMH and his ice age nonsense. In the case of this bit where scientists come to different conclusions when they look at different data - he believes that the data they are being shown is inaccurate or fraudulent or fabricated, but he doesn't come out and say that any more because, of course, he has no evidence that that's the case. That scientists conclusions depend on the data they examine tells me that scientists are following the data, like they're supposed to. Without his claim of fraud, the bit says nothing else. But I guess he keeps hoping.

You cannot explain a map of the Arctic.

Until you can, do not call EMH's theory "nonsense" because IT DOES EXPLAIN THE MAP PERFECTLY...

 

[Crick]

It's not the number it's the type. Low variability versus high variability solar output datasets.

I would ask again, how many datasets do you think reality supports? The question here - the point you seem to be avoiding - is that for this argument to have any meaning, you must believe one set of data is more accurate than another. Why don't you skip ahead and tell us what you think solar output and Earth temperatures are actually doing?

And urban versus rural temperature station datasets.

The temperature data compiled by NASA, NOAA, NWS, Berkeley Earth, Hadley, JWA all contain both urban and rural temperatures. They are not separated as seems was done in the comparison study you've quoted here a dozen times.

 

[Crick]

Nope. I'm not frustrated at all. I'm incredulous that you believe temperature is a function of CO2 without actually crossplotting CO2 against temperature.

I didn't say you were frustrated. I said it is frustrating dealing with you. Your repeated comments about different datasets and crossplotting and variability and our "bipolar glaciated planet" just seem to be your obsessions. You never explain what argument you're actually trying to make when you bring them up. This makes us all pretty certain that that is because you can not.

 

[Crick]

There is no consensus. Just the politicization of science. That's all there is. The sky is not falling.

There is an astoundingly strong, worldwide consensus created by mountains objective evidence in tens of thousands of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies. Claiming that there is not or that it is political in nature are simply lies.

 

[jc456]

There is an astoundingly strong, worldwide consensus created by mountains objective evidence in tens of thousands of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies. Claiming that there is not or that it is political in nature are simply lies.

Nope, science doesn’t use consensus, only political bias does!

 

[jc456]

I would ask again, how many datasets do you think reality supports? The question here - the point you seem to be avoiding - is that for this argument to have any meaning, you must believe one set of data is more accurate than another. Why don't you skip ahead and tell us what you think solar output and Earth temperatures are actually doing?

The temperature data compiled by NASA, NOAA, NWS, Berkeley Earth, Hadley, JWA all contain both urban and rural temperatures. They are not separated as seems was done in the comparison study you've quoted here a dozen times.

Consensus my ass…..

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO₂ increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming

This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages - but no climate scientist has ever made this claim

www.newscientist.com

 

[Crick]

Nope, science doesn’t use consensus, only political bias does!

As you prove to us all, every day in every way, you don't have the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about.

Scientific Consensus: Why Should We Accept It?

Scientific consensus isn't reached only through whipping up votes. It's actually born out of an overwhelming agreement between scientists of varying fields of study regarding a particular issue at hand.

futurism.com

Scientific consensus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here's one that I bet many deniers will think supports their position. But it doesn't

Interests, Bias, and Consensus in Science and Regulation - PMC

Scientists are human. As such, they are prone to bias based on political and economic interests. While conflicts of interest are usually associated with private funding, research funded by public sources is also subject to special interests and ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[jc456]

As you prove to us all, every day in every way, you don't have the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about.

Scientific Consensus: Why Should We Accept It?

Scientific consensus isn't reached only through whipping up votes. It's actually born out of an overwhelming agreement between scientists of varying fields of study regarding a particular issue at hand.

futurism.com

Scientific consensus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here's one that I bet many deniers will think supports their position. But it doesn't

Interests, Bias, and Consensus in Science and Regulation - PMC

Scientists are human. As such, they are prone to bias based on political and economic interests. While conflicts of interest are usually associated with private funding, research funded by public sources is also subject to special interests and ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

All political make believe! How old are those articles?

Interests, Bias, and Consensus in Science and Regulation - PMC

Scientists are human. As such, they are prone to bias based on political and economic interests. While conflicts of interest are usually associated with private funding, research funded by public sources is also subject to special interests and ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[jc456]

All political make believe! How old are those articles?

Interests, Bias, and Consensus in Science and Regulation - PMC

Scientists are human. As such, they are prone to bias based on political and economic interests. While conflicts of interest are usually associated with private funding, research funded by public sources is also subject to special interests and ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Best statement that it’s political is this statement from my link….

If, however, all consensus experts benefit from the results of their consensus, we suggest that specialists from adjacent fields of research should be consulted for policy advice.

 

[Crick]

All political make believe! How old are those articles?

Why? Have you seen recent research altering the definition and value of the term "consensus"

 

[jc456]

Why? Have you seen recent research altering the definition and value of the term "consensus"

Sure I posted one. If consensus experts benefit

 

[Crick]

Sure I posted one. If consensus experts benefit

That was my link dipshit. That you think it helps you is simply the result of your impenetrable ignorance.

 

[jc456]

That was my link dipshit. That you think it helps you is simply the result of your impenetrable ignorance.

The quote I posted was from my link! Again if consensus benefits the experts it’s all for one reason, money, political

 

[Crick]

The quote I posted was from my link! Again if consensus benefits the experts it’s all for one reason, money, political

Liar. But if you want to give my link your vote of approval, I won't complain.

My link: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6557026/#:~:text=Consensus%20is%20not%20an%20argument,scientific%20consensus%20on%20erroneous%20hypotheses.

Your link: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6557026/#:~:text=Consensus%20is%20not%20an%20argument,scientific%20consensus%20on%20erroneous%20hypotheses.

"appealing to scientific consensus is a legitimate tool in public debate"​