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

[jc456]

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"​

I quoted from the link I posted

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

If you posted the same link, then the quote remains the same, consensus benefits experts, which makes it political as I said and proves my point

 

[ding]

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.

Again... the conclusions depend upon the datasets that are used. That is the reality.

 

[ding]

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.

If that were the case they would be parading around a crossplot of CO2 versus temperature showing the empirical relationship and proving temperature is a function of CO2 and ending all debate. So crossplot CO2 versus temperature for the past 200 years to show me the empirical real world correlation between CO2 and temperature.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

There is an astoundingly strong, worldwide consensus created by mountains objective evidence in tens of thousands of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies that the Earth is a flat plane at the Center of the Universe suspended on the back of an infinite number or turtles; death to Deniers!

 

[abu afak]

There is an astoundingly strong, worldwide consensus created by mountains objective evidence in tens of thousands of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies that the Earth is a flat plane at the Center of the Universe suspended on the back of an infinite number or turtles; death to Deniers!

No there isn't.
`

 

[jc456]

No there isn't.
`

Are you sure? Are you suggesting no scientist ever said the world was flat? Hmmmm

 

[Crick]

If that were the case they would be parading around a crossplot of CO2 versus temperature showing the empirical relationship and proving temperature is a function of CO2 and ending all debate. So crossplot CO2 versus temperature for the past 200 years to show me the empirical real world correlation between CO2 and temperature.

Done

If that were the case they would be parading around a crossplot of CO2 versus temperature showing the empirical relationship and proving temperature is a function of CO2 and ending all debate. So crossplot CO2 versus temperature for the past 200 years to show me the empirical real world correlation between CO2 and temperature.

Done. See How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change? for a massive Ding failure on this one.

 

[vegas giants]

I quoted from the link I posted

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

If you posted the same link, then the quote remains the same, consensus benefits experts, which makes it political as I said and proves my point

Consensus is how we decide if your water is safe to drink

 

[Crick]

Consensus is how we decide if your water is safe to drink

Hmm... I'm not certain that's an accurate use of consensus. I'm sure tests get done repeatedly, but its not as if every lab in the country gets a sample to test. On the other hand, I am sure it was a consensus that judged whether or not the tests and techniques used in laboratories to test drinking water were the best and most accurate. If that's what you meant, my mistake.

 

[vegas giants]

Hmm... I'm not certain that's an accurate use of consensus. I'm sure tests get done repeatedly, but its not as if every lab in the country gets a sample to test. On the other hand, I am sure it was a consensus that judged whether or not the tests and techniques used in laboratories to test drinking water were the best and most accurate. If that's what you meant, my mistake.

Yes. We agree on those tests based on consensus

Without them we would not know if the water was safe to drink

No worries

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No there isn't.
`

There was, you Kook and they used your EXACT Same "Death to the Denier" methodology

 

[Crick]

There was, you Kook and they used your EXACT Same "Death to the Denier" methodology

What they didn't use was the scientific method you ignorant troll.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What they didn't use was the scientific method you ignorant troll.

Sorry, where in the scientific method does it say, "Trust us, it's all CO2"?

 

[Crick]

Sorry, where in the scientific method does it say, "Trust us, it's all CO2"?

The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries; see the article history of scientific method for additional detail.) It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.
--Wikipedia

 

[ding]

Done

Done. See How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change? for a massive Ding failure on this one.

Except you still haven't posted the correlation of fit for the poor fitting crossplot.

 

[Crick]

Except you still haven't posted the correlation of fit for the poor fitting crossplot.

Who's stopping you? Feel free. Demonstrate your point. I'll be right here.

 

[ding]

Who's stopping you? Feel free. Demonstrate your point. I'll be right here.

No one is stopping me. Who is stopping you?

 

[Crick]

No one is stopping me. Who is stopping you?

As I've told you repeatedly, it's not my job to make your case. It's yours.

 

[ding]

As I've told you repeatedly, it's not my job to make your case. It's yours.

But it your case, right? You believe that temperature is a function of CO2, right? Show that function using empirical data.

 

[Crick]

But it your case, right? You believe that temperature is a function of CO2, right? Show that function using empirical data.

Mainstream science has been doing that for decades. I'm going to take their word for it. If you think they're doing it wrong or that they're lying, show us. That'd be YOUR case. Do YOUR work