Proof of AGW fraud

[Grumblenuts]

By YOUR consensus definition, consensus doesn't exist, you have been snookered by the pernicious propaganda, which is Politically based.

Oh, you mean "Scientific Consensus" as opposed to simple consensus? Is that why you can't bring yourself to say it? Because THAT doesn't exist,.. even though you can't help appealing to it.. Relying upon it "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism" to feebly attempt arguing against it? I gather one must simply suppose those are Scientific "Peer-Reviewed Papers"? Sure, sure, pull the other one! Shirley you'll fool someone other than your shrinking parade of determined fools..

The 97% figure was from CLIMATE SCIENTISTS worldwide, bonehead. Physicists? Who gives a shit? They're all nuttier than I am!

 

[Sunsettommy]

By YOUR consensus definition, consensus doesn't exist, you have been snookered by the pernicious propaganda, which is Politically based.

Oh, you mean "Scientific Consensus" as opposed to simple consensus? Is that why you can't bring yourself to say it? Because THAT doesn't exist,.. even though you can't help appealing to it.. Relying upon it "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism" to feebly attempt arguing against it? I gather one must simply suppose those are Scientific "Peer-Reviewed Papers"? Sure, sure, pull the other one! Shirley you'll fool someone other than your shrinking parade of determined fools..

It is clear you have no argument left to push, I have posted numerous definitions of the WORD Consensus (which you didn't contest), you apparently will ignore them all. You once again ignore evidence of failed consensus positions, and also that by YOUR consensus definition, you failed that too when I posted links to THOUSANDS of published science papers that doesn't support your consensus delusion.

You lost on all THREE points I brought up, you never have made an actual counter to what I wrote at all, now you are moving the goalpost over whether those thousands of peer reviewed published papers are "scientific", of which YOU must have read in the last 30 minutes, really you can read over 1,500 papers within 30 minutes?

Really.....?

You are obviously an irrational person.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Aww, still can't bring yourself to say "Scientific Consensus"? Poor baby

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Scientific Consensus"

Confirmation Bias....

Your films make it clear that it is CONFIRMATION BIAS as they do not even mention the opposing points of view by real CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. Those scientists who are questioning the hypothesis are ignored by the IPCC group circle jerk.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Consensus doesn't exist anyway as shown here:

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

Eminent Physicists Skeptical of AGW Alarm

248 total papers, 147 on natural contributions to climate change (sun, ocean oscillations, clouds)

There are plenty more....

By YOUR consensus definition, consensus doesn't exist, you have been snookered by the pernicious propaganda, which is Politically based.

This idiot is content to be a dupe.

1. He has presented no science to refute the empirical evidence and points made.
2. He uses circular logic. (Like the tropospheric hot spot that doesn't exist)
3. He uses appeals to authority and logical fallacy.
4. He then resorts to name calling and denigration.

In no instance does he approach the real science of the hypothesis or allow questioning of it. He is a dupe and a political whore. A troll who has no evidence nor does he understand the hypothesis..

 

[Grumblenuts]

Sure sounds like whining to me!...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Aww, still can't bring yourself to say "Scientific Consensus"? Poor baby

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

There is no such DEFINITION of the phrase Scientific Consensus, you got this made up crap from Wikipedia, which doesn't show it to be a real definition either (No link to a dictionary source)

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]

From YOUR Wikipedia link is the very first sentence that shows a link in support, which turns out to be a Green Fact blog where they stated this about Scientific Consensus:

Definition:
The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon at a given time by most scientists specialized in a given field.

Source: GreenFacts

I see that only Wikipedia, Green Facts, and warmist propagandists use this phrase, no one else does.

I posted a few DICTIONARY sources that defined the word Consensus, which you have ignored every time, because you are too deep into the warmist narrative using bogus phrases to promote your lies and propaganda.

You have NO legitimate argument on this, you are an idiot to pursue a proven dead end.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sure sounds like whining to me!...

"We define a logical fallacy as a concept within argumentation that commonly leads to an error in reasoning due to the deceptive nature of its presentation. Logical fallacies can comprise fallacious arguments that contain one or more non-factual errors in their form or deceptive arguments that often lead to fallacious reasoning in their evaluation."

Its called exposing deception...

 

[jc456]

By YOUR consensus definition, consensus doesn't exist, you have been snookered by the pernicious propaganda, which is Politically based.

Oh, you mean "Scientific Consensus" as opposed to simple consensus? Is that why you can't bring yourself to say it? Because THAT doesn't exist,.. even though you can't help appealing to it.. Relying upon it "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism" to feebly attempt arguing against it? I gather one must simply suppose those are Scientific "Peer-Reviewed Papers"? Sure, sure, pull the other one! Shirley you'll fool someone other than your shrinking parade of determined fools..

The 97% figure was from CLIMATE SCIENTISTS worldwide, bonehead. Physicists? Who gives a shit? They're all nuttier than I am!

No it wasn’t completely fake

 

[jc456]

Sure sounds like whining to me!...

"We define a logical fallacy as a concept within argumentation that commonly leads to an error in reasoning due to the deceptive nature of its presentation. Logical fallacies can comprise fallacious arguments that contain one or more non-factual errors in their form or deceptive arguments that often lead to fallacious reasoning in their evaluation."

Its called exposing deception...

Notice they never say what the consensus question was?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Pfft! Hey, why stop the nonsense there? Bet it lagged even more while the Earth was forming! Fact is that was way back then. Apples. This is now. Oranges. Studies show that CO2 change leads temp variation now.

I see that Grumblemumble didn't read the link, which doesn't support his attempted lie.

He claims that CO2 changes leads temperature variation, a lie since that was NEVER concluded in the paper, the ABSTRACT made this clear:

Abstract
Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

bolding mine

You are caught with another lying claim.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Hockey stick graph. How dumb. Everyone knows that's a fraud, people say its so.

It was effectively addressed by the following:

The WEGMAN REPORT

The NORTH REPORT

McIntyre and McKitrick [2003] Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series

McIntyre and McKitrick 2005 The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications

The Hockey Stick paper contradicted DECADES of research in History, Climate History, that showed the MWP and the LIA was real and significant. It was a paper with limited scope and sparse data, since it was NORTHERN Hemisphere only and that the Bristlecone Tree Ring data are based on a tree with a tiny geographical designation and in a rare ecological state.

 

[SSDD]

It is not spontaneous because as soon as all the energy it absorbed from the surroundings us used up the process stops...phosphorescence is no more spontaneous than a flashlight. You reinterpret and modify till even you dont know what the hell you are saying.

It is the science definition. Not my interpretation.
Spontaneous emission of radiation generally decays exponentially. So what? Nobody ever said that it would go on indefinitely. That's absurd.

Spontaneous process - Wikipedia

A spontaneous process is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases free energy and it moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable energy state. ​

You are simply in denial of the physics definition and the science behind it. You desperately want to deny back radiation and will bastardize physics and substitute your own fake physics to rationalize yourself. Let's face it you are a science nihilist.

.

Are you stupid? Or are you just dishonest? Or are you stupid and dishonest? Here is your definition.


A spontaneous process is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases free energy and it moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable energy state.[1][2]

and there is where you stopped..did you stop there because you thought it agreed with you? Did you stop there because you thought you might fool someone? Did you stop because you just didn't want to have to admitting that you were wrong and would rather lie?

Les continue with YOUR DEFINITION right to the end...I will bold it for you when we get there.

The sign convention for free energy follows the general convention for thermodynamicmeasurements, in which a release of free energy from the system corresponds to a negative change in the free energy of the system and a positive change in the free energy of the surroundings.

Depending on the nature of the process, the free energy is determined differently. For example, the Gibbs free energy is used when considering processes that occur under constant pressure and temperature conditions whereas the Helmholtz free energy is used when considering processes that occur under constant volume and temperature conditions.

Because spontaneous processes are characterized by a decrease in the system's free energy, they do not need to be driven by an outside source of energy

Decrease in free energy...it said it right there in the first sentence of YOUR DEFINITION and you didn't even know what the hell it meant or you would rather lie than admit that you did and that it meant that you have been wrong all along...which is it?

Because in a spontaneous process the system is releasing it's own energy, no energy from any other source is required..

Now take your lying wrong ass off somewhere and for Pete's sake, try to learn something before something before you come back.

You did it again. You state the obvious and start a rampage of bitterness.

Your included phrase is simply a further clarification of exactly what I quoted. It is nothing for you to get excited over.

Because spontaneous processes are characterized by a decrease in the system's free energy, they do not need to be driven by an outside source of energy

Just what do you think you are rebuking? You don't understand Gibb's Free Energy.

I said it many times. First there is an energy input to the system which increases the internal energy That is not spontaneous.

Then when there is no further external energy input the system can discharge the energy. That is spontaneous.

When the Gibb's Free energy is depleted the spontaneous process stops. It's really simple. You really don't understand the science at all. Think of the two phases (1) charge a battery. (2) Disconnect the charger and use the (spontaneous) energy from the battery. (3) When the battery is depleted, charge it again.

I think I'm talking to a blank wall. You will never ever understand physics.

.

Sorry guy...if an energy input is required, then it isn't a spontaneous process. Been through it all before..if you must relive your loss, visit any previous incarnation of this same discussion...and don't subject everyone to the tedium again.

 

[SSDD]

Tree dries out like a human

Your point?

Thanks. Brings up an example I've been considering. An old man ("a human") dies. His progeny are to see that his 'remains" are buried in a casket further contained within a concrete vault, all centered in a graveyard plot bearing the family headstone and all purchased long prior for these purposes according to his wishes as stated in the Will.

So the funeral takes place. The casket is lowered into the vault. The vault lid is positioned. Each family member shovels a little dirt on top and they start heading off. Two scientists arrive as the vault handlers pack down the last bits of rough soil. They synchronize their stopwatches and say "Go!" The experiment has now officially begun...

See, unbeknownst to the family, these scientists had checked every detail in advance. They had inspected the hole, the vault, the casket, the body, everything... Only after they were 100% satisfied with the pristine quality, cleanliness, sanctity, caulking.. in short the dry, pure, wholesome, sanitary nature of the entire business, did they finally give the go ahead to the funeral home to bring the body to the gravesite.

One scientist had bet the other $1000 that the body would not rot encased in such an air and water tight shell. He swore repeatedly that without the chemical processes within a living organism, without energy from the surroundings, even if the body were somehow being consumed by organisms, though we had the mortician thoroughly disinfect and double embalm the old fart just to make sure,.. he could not rot and even if he did it simply couldn't be considered spontaneous.

Well, guess what? A month later the peer review panel had the casket exhumed and inspected the remains, the other scientist quietly snickering to herself all the while. And soon after they declared their near immediate unanimous decision, noses all firmly in hand, she laughed all the way to the bank.. and more on her way back home!

The problem with your scenario is that all the air tight perfect seal almost guarantees that a body will turn to sludge. Embalming only provides a temporary halt to the breakdown process and rarely permeates the body well enough to kill all organisms and does nothing about the enzymes our bodies start to release upon our demise that break down cell walls.

Our bodies, unlike plants are made up mostly of liquid filled cells surrounded by membranes that are mostly liquid. Thos membranes break down and we begin to turn to sludge in an environment with no airflow whatsoever. Airflow serves to dry out the cells and rather than burst they tend to mummify.

Eventually microbes and what ever other creatures can get to us will will devour all of us to dust or if conditions are just so, we may mineralize and parts obecome fossils, but the process can take a very long time...

So, despite your earlier reticence, you now agree that a rotting organism well represents a spontaneous process while sternly avoiding explicitly saying so or exhibiting any appreciation for the story telling delivery or injected humor. Tough crowd. Tough crowd indeed.

A body can turn to sludge and dry out on its own with no help from the surroundings...not so with rotting wood...bacteria and fungi are necessary to break down the cells in woody plants.

 

[SSDD]

phosphorescence is no more spontaneous than a flashlight.

True. Both are generally spontaneous. Both produce "a decrease in the system's free energy." Neither need "be driven by an outside source of energy."

Because in a spontaneous process the system is releasing it's own energy, no energy from any other source is required..

Energy from the surroundings is required...there is no "free" energy. If you don't have an input from the outside, you don't have the emission.

 

[SSDD]

"Disposable" battery makers often manufacture their own brand of flashlights because they can't help but love how the obsolescence is designed in so easily. They make sure the batteries fail after a certain period of time, whether chemically spent or not, by:

1) making them non rechargeable.
2) making sure most of those "lasting longer" than designed leak their acidic, electrically conductive crap all over the place.

Now just make sure the on/off switch is positioned perfectly so as to be shorted out by said crap and voila! The flashlight spontaneously turns itself on. The batteries get warmer so then leak enough to short themselves out, hopefully also eating through some of the flashlight's delicate contact material, thereby destroying the flashlight as well... no matter how thoroughly the owner attempts to clean the damned thing upon discovering it dead in its drawer. Now THAT's American capitalism at its finest, baby! Rinse and repeat...

What is ridiculous is that anyone would think anything is "spontaneous" about a flashlight...Imagine that...capitalism can violate the laws of thermodynamics by building planned obsolescence into a flashlight.

 

[SSDD]

I'm a scientist, doofus. I know more about science than you ever will. Consensus is political, not scientific.

Hahaha. Very funny, blowhard. Meanwhile this remains reality:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]

Consensus is achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (of reproducible results by others), scholarly debate,[2][3][4][5] and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists; however, communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the "normal" debates through which science progresses may appear to outsiders as contestation.[6] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing the consensus can be quite straightforward.

Popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but not necessarily controversial within the scientific community may invoke scientific consensus: note such topics as evolution,[7][8] climate change,[9] or the lack of a link between MMR vaccinations and autism.[6]

Try a real DICTIONARY meaning of the word, from Merriam-Webster

con·sen·sus | \ kən-ˈsen(t)-səs \

Definition of consensus

1a : general agreement : unanimity the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border— John Hersey

It is an OPINION based on reports, which means it isn't science research they rely on, it is an OPINION over something a group of people believes in.

REPRODUCIBLE research is what drives science, not a "group opinion" of a people.

There have been MANY Consensus failures over the last few Centuries, which is why good scientists use Reproducible research instead, over a group belief based on a standard, that too often gets overturned by a few or even ONE person.

Recall how Stomach Ulcers were caused by "spicy foods", or "stress" or, "Coffee" and so on, it was a Consensus belief, which was smashed by a single person who discovered that a simple Anti-Biotic treatment made it vanish, but at first he was rebuffed by the.... ahem... the consensus.

From Medicine Net

A peptic ulcer is an area of damage to the inner lining of the stomach, esophagus, or duodenum (the first part of the small intestine). Over 25 million Americans will have a peptic ulcer at some point in their lifetime. People of all ages can suffer from ulcers. Men and women are equally affected.

Peptic ulcers were formerly thought to be caused by stress, coffee consumption, or spicy foods. Now it is clear that about 60% of peptic ulcers are caused by a bacterial infection that can usually be cured. Another 20% are caused by nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as aspirin and ibuprofen (Advil, Nuprin, etc.), and another 20% have miscellaneous causes such as cigarettes or no clear cause.

This one from DISCOVER Magazine

The Doctor Who Drank Infectious Broth, Gave Himself an Ulcer, and Solved a Medical Mystery
The medical elite thought they knew what caused ulcers and stomach cancer. But they were wrong—and didn't want to hear otherwise.

Excerpt:

For years an obscure doctor hailing from Australia’s hardscrabble west coast watched in horror as ulcer patients fell so ill that many had their stomach removed or bled until they died. That physician, an internist named Barry Marshall, was tormented because he knew there was a simple treatment for ulcers, which at that time afflicted 10 percent of all adults. In 1981 Marshall began working with Robin Warren, the Royal Perth Hospital pathologist who, two years earlier, discovered the gut could be overrun by hardy, corkscrew-shaped bacteria called Helicobacter pylori. Biopsying ulcer patients and culturing the organisms in the lab, Marshall traced not just ulcers but also stomach cancer to this gut infection. The cure, he realized, was readily available: antibiotics. But mainstream gastroenterologists were dismissive, holding on to the old idea that ulcers were caused by stress.

red bolding mine

LINK
===========================================================================================
You need to drop this stupid Consensus bullcrap since they have been wrong many times, Alfred Wegener, J. Harlan Bretz, Semmelweis and more tried to correct the group belief in something, but that took years even 50 or more years before the consensus group were wrong and ONE person was right.

If you look at the history of science you will find that the "consensus", especially in budding branches of science like climate have been wrong far more often than they have been right. Even if you know nothing about science whatsoever, you can put the odds heavily in your favor for being right simply by rejecting whatever the consensus believes...

 

[SSDD]

It is an OPINION based on reports, which means it isn't science research they rely on, it is an OPINION over something a group of people believes in.

REPRODUCIBLE research is what drives science, not a "group opinion" of a people.

Okay, calm down... You calm? Now look again at the definition I provided:

Consensus is achieved through {...yada, yada...}, replication (of reproducible results by others), {...yada, yada...}

Got it? That is the main point. Not just "an OPINION based on reports". And I agree with you. There's lots of sucky institutional bias involved. No one suggested otherwise nor that it was perfect. I could write a book of ranting and raving about issues here and driven too much by need to publish there. Opinion? Of course! But the intent is improvement over relative chaos. Best practices. And so here we are. Easy to criticize by bringing up examples of apparent failure. How about the successes? Where would we be now if medicine still relied mainly upon those screaming loudest about having the latest, greatest,most wondrous cure of all time?

Great...so lets see some of those reproducible results...and do make sure that they favor the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. Surely they are out there since you believe in them so fervently. Lets see some. One or two will be fine.

 

[SSDD]

I remember well my mandatory class on human behavior and keeping yourself from becoming a deaf, dumb, and blind scientist. Confirmation Bias is human nature. The average human will group themselves with people who share their same beliefs causing confirmation bias as each will look for approval of those around them for their "findings". Its a death spiral to destruction and its human habit. To bad most of these people will not venture outside of their comfort zone to see the point of view from the other side.

No shit. That's why simple "consensus" has never been the real issue. Scientific consensus, yes! The "scientific" part means checks and balances are built in to try and mitigate the negative effects of confirmation bias. Can you say "Scientific consensus"? I knew you could! Do I expect you to ever begin doing so here? Hell no! Not from what I've witnessed here so far..

So we are back to what the consensus is based on.

There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

There has not been a single paper peer reviewed and published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to greenhouse gasses.

Any of those would seem to be very basic, and absolutely necessary information upon which to base a consensus that mankind is driving the climate with his CO2. Since you can produce nothing which challenges any of the above statements, do say, what exactly is this "consensus" based upon?

 

[SSDD]

It is an OPINION based on reports, which means it isn't science research they rely on, it is an OPINION over something a group of people believes in.

REPRODUCIBLE research is what drives science, not a "group opinion" of a people.

Okay, calm down... You calm? Now look again at the definition I provided:

Consensus is achieved through {...yada, yada...}, replication (of reproducible results by others), {...yada, yada...}

Got it? That is the main point. Not just "an OPINION based on reports". And I agree with you. There's lots of sucky institutional bias involved. No one suggested otherwise nor that it was perfect. I could write a book of ranting and raving about issues here and driven too much by need to publish there. Opinion? Of course! But the intent is improvement over relative chaos. Best practices. And so here we are. Easy to criticize by bringing up examples of apparent failure. How about the successes? Where would we be now if medicine still relied mainly upon those screaming loudest about having the latest, greatest,most wondrous cure of all time?

You used the editable Wikipedia definition, while I used the long standard definition from Merriam Webster, where they made it clear it an OPINION based on "reports" (confirmation bias comes into play here) was their position.

Here is one from CAMBRIDGE Dictionary:

consensus
noun [ S or U ] uk /kənˈsen.səs/ us /kənˈsen.səs/
generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people:

The general consensus in the office is that he can't do his job.
Could we reach a consensus on this matter? Let's take a vote.

Once again it is a collective OPINION, which doesn't really establish true understanding of anything, since Consensus positions can be just as incorrect whether it is done by 2 people or by millions of people, they can still be wrong. That is why Science can't run on consensus positions because it doesn't establish anything, while REPRODUCIBLE research does.

From BUSINESS Dictionary:

Middle ground in decision making, between total assent and total disagreement. Consensus depends on participants having shared values and goals, and on having broad agreement on specific issues and overall direction. Consensus implies that everyone accepts and supports the decision, and understands the reasons for making it. See also collective responsibility.

From Duhaime's Law Dictionary

A decision achieved through negotiation whereby a hybrid resolution is arrived on an issue, dispute or disagreement, comprising typically of concessions made by all parties, and to which all parties then subscribe unanimously as an acceptable resolution.

From Vocabulary.com

agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole
“the lack of consensus reflected differences in theoretical positions”
“those rights and obligations are based on an unstated consensus”

In that link, they also make this statement you should ponder over since there are plenty of evidence that YOUR concept of Consensus doesn't exist anyway:

Ever notice how people disagree about just about everything, from who's the best baseball player to how high taxes should be? Whenever there's disagreement, there's no consensus: consensus means everyone is on the same page. When you're talking about all the people in the world, it's hard to find a consensus on anything. There are just too many opinions. However, in a smaller group, reaching a consensus is possible.

All standard definitions of Consensus doesn't contain the word Reproducible in it, you are being mislead by Wikipedia which can be edited to include such a word.

I notice you completely IGNORED the fact that consensus has been wrong many times over the years, why are you ducking this reality which utterly destroys the usefulness of declaring consensus positions? Wegener versus most the members of

Geology, Bretz versus most of the members of Geology, Marshall versus the field of Gastroenterology and so on, the lone person destroys the consensus position every time, HOW? with better reproducible research showing it was the correct one.

It is clear you don't understand how science research is done and how published papers gets validated over time with reproducible results that supports the initial research or that it gets taken down, when it is shown to be without merit, which happens more often than you realize.

Politicians use consensus, while scientists use Reproducible research, that is the distinction you fail on over and over.

As a group, they do love to edit, and interpret the edited versions don't they...the edit the dictionary, they edit the temperature record, they edit what you say and on and on. Wouldn't it be great if they could just make a case based on actual definitions, actual temporaries and what you actually say?