This is why there’s been so much extreme rainfall and flooding in the U.S.

[ding]

I agree with both of those remark. Consensus is a formidable challenge to beat though.

And yet science is discovering new things all the time. Like how when the northern hemisphere deglaciates like it is doing today the planets warms.

 

[BULLDOG]

Not if you are going to blindly follow it.

Right. You think a quick romp through the internet will qualify someone to challenge the consensus of most experts. You know that's pretty goofy, right?

 

[BULLDOG]

No you didn’t. Apparently you are ashamed of what you did for a living. As long as it was honest work there’s no shame.

My experience didn't teach me a thing about climate science. That's kinda my point.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I agree with both of those remark. Consensus is a formidable challenge to beat though.

There you go with political baloney as that is what politicians does, consensus doesn't belong in science research thus you again exposed your ignorance.

Reproducible research is what drives science, consensus is politics.

There have been many many consensus errors because they didn't follow the research they followed a crowd.

 

[BULLDOG]

And yet science is discovering new things all the time. Like how when the northern hemisphere deglaciates like it is doing today the planets warms.

Thank you for sharing that.

 

[Sunsettommy]

My experience didn't teach me a thing about climate science. That's kinda my point.

Then why are you here when you have absolutely NOTHING to offer about the topic.

 

[BULLDOG]

There you go with political baloney as that is what politicians does, consensus doesn't belong in science research thus you again exposed your ignorance.

Reproducible research is what drives science, consensus is politics.

There have ben many many consensus errors because they didn't follow the research they followed a crowd.

Consensus isn't important in scientific research? Really?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Consensus isn't important in scientific research? Really?

See what I mean you fell for that propaganda as that isn't how science research is done, here is what the past Consensus failures did because they didn't follow the evidence they stuck to the prevailing orthodoxy that killed many people and generated suffering and science errors that were perpetuated.

========

Aliens Cause Global Warming By Michael Crichton Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

Selected Excerpt:

Ehrlich answered by saying “I think they are extremely robust. Scientists may have made statements like that, although I cannot imagine what their basis would have been, even with the state of science at that time, but scientists are always making absurd statements, individually, in various places. What we are doing here, however, is presenting a consensus of a very large group of scientists.”

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor—southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result—despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology—until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

LINK

 

[EMH]

That's nice.

Left Wing Science Invalid responds "that's nice" to the documentation that CO2 has nothing to do with the amount of ICE on planet Earth....

 

[BULLDOG]

See what I mean you fell for that propaganda as that isn't how science research is done, here is what the past Consensus failures did because they didn't follow the evidence they stuck to the prevailing orthodoxy that killed many people and generated suffering and science errors that were perpetuated.

========

Aliens Cause Global Warming By Michael Crichton Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

Selected Excerpt:

Ehrlich answered by saying “I think they are extremely robust. Scientists may have made statements like that, although I cannot imagine what their basis would have been, even with the state of science at that time, but scientists are always making absurd statements, individually, in various places. What we are doing here, however, is presenting a consensus of a very large group of scientists.”

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor—southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result—despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology—until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

LINK

That could all be pertinent if my choice of who to believe interfered with some scientific research I might be doing. That is not the case. I will never be qualified to discount the work of trained scientists, and I'm not arrogant enough to believe a few sites on the internet will give me those qualifications. I will never do any actual climate research. I suspect that also applies for the instant internet experts here that post charts and figures and other questionable silliness in an effort to support what is an obvious politically driven opinion. The only choice I am left with is which side of the argument I am to believe. Knowing that new, better information might change the conversation at any time, I choose to believe the much larger group. You seem to believe that search engine information can make your opinion equal to that of trained scientists who have studied for years. I don't share that belief.

 

[BULLDOG]

Left Wing Science Invalid responds "that's nice" to the documentation that CO2 has nothing to do with the amount of ICE on planet Earth....

I'm very impressed with your work. Would you care for a donut now?

 

[EMH]

I'm very impressed with your work. Would you care for a donut now?

How do you explain this...

Google Search

www.google.com

 

[BULLDOG]

How do you explain this...

Google Search

www.google.com

I don't try to explain donuts. They have to be experienced.

 

[Sunsettommy]

That could all be pertinent if my choice of who to believe interfered with some scientific research I might be doing. That is not the case. I will never be qualified to discount the work of trained scientists, and I'm not arrogant enough to believe a few sites on the internet will give me those qualifications. I will never do any actual climate research. I suspect that also applies for the instant internet experts here that post charts and figures and other questionable silliness in an effort to support what is an obvious politically driven opinion. The only choice I am left with is which side of the argument I am to believe. Knowing that new, better information might change the conversation at any time, I choose to believe the much larger group. You seem to believe that search engine information can make your opinion equal to that of trained scientists who have studied for years. I don't share that belief.

Then you admit you don't know if they are bullshitting you as YOU admit you don't know anything which is why you are being abused by them, you are an admitted sheep and a fool.

I posted data that comes from the following EMDAT, NOAA, JMA, ACE, NCEI, Rutgers Snow Labs, NASA and many more including access to over 1,000 published science papers yet it gets ignored by leftist democrats because they are stupid and ignorent.

I have posted several people who exceeded scientists of their own field because they are intelligent and free of preconceived beliefs.

I posted a number of examples of consensus errors that were dogmatically held onto by those kind of scientists you hold so dear that greatly slowed science over time because they couldn't allow any outsiders from showing something new.

Clyde Tombaugh did what many professional astronomers failed in finding Pluto despite NO college degree and no experience before he started his search, he did his search very differently which was because he was intelligent as he realized Pluto apparent motion was always going to be very small and would be in a particular area in space thus finds it within 3 months from the start while others spent YEARS and failed.

Lastly there are actually many scientists who doesn't agree with the AGW conjecture and the IPCC reports and they run into the thousands, so your entire justification in following scientists was dead on arrival.

LOL.

 

[BULLDOG]

Then you admit you don't know if they are bullshitting you as YOU admit you don't know anything which is why you are being abused by them, you are an admitted sheep and a fool.

I posted data that comes from the following EMDAT, NOAA, JMA, ACE, NCEI, Rutgers Snow Labs, NASA and many more including access to over 1,000 published science papers yet it gets ignored by leftist democrats because they are stupid and ignorent.

I have posted several people who exceeded scientists of their own field because they are intelligent and free of preconceived beliefs.

I posted a number of examples of consensus errors that were dogmatically held onto by those kind of scientists you hold so dear that greatly slowed science over time because they couldn't allow any outsiders from showing something new.

Clyde Tombaugh did what many professional astronomers failed in finding Pluto despite NO college degree and no experience before he started his search, he did his search very differently which was because he was intelligent as he realized Pluto apparent motion was always going to be very small and would be in a particular area in space thus finds it within 3 months from the start while others spent YEARS and failed.

Lastly there are actually many scientists who doesn't agree with the AGW conjecture and the IPCC reports and they run into the thousands, so your entire justification in following scientists was dead on arrival.

LOL.

Congratulations on your instant internet expert degree. I hope it serves you well. Why don't you just admit that you are a right wing nut job, and right wing nut jobs oppose prevailing science?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Congratulations on your instant internet expert degree. I hope it serves you well. Why don't you just admit that you are a right wing nut job, and right wing nut jobs oppose prevailing science?

LOL, your prejudice is making you stupid as I am a free thinking INDEPENDENT, didn't vote for Trump.

Old Rocks who has a Geology degree can't address Post #58 in another thread, how come could it because he is like YOU wedded to a consensus that is long proven to be wrong thus unable to address it as it is impossible.

This is why I post from OFFICIAL data to expose your people demonstrated profound lack of argument against them you people have long lost the argument years ago as the two cornerstone of the AGW conjecture failed.

Where is the Lower Troposphere "hot Spot", it hasn't showed up after 35 years of waiting.

Where is the Positive Feedback Loop, it hasn't showed up yet.....

 

[EMH]

I don't try to explain donuts. They have to be experienced.

That was two years of homO going SILENT as she "debated" whether or not to prosecute CO2 FRAUD or...

HIDE IT IN THE CLOSET!!!

 

[ding]

Right. You think a quick romp through the internet will qualify someone to challenge the consensus of most experts. You know that's pretty goofy, right?

No. I think a detailed study of the empirical climate evidence of the geologic record does.

 

[ding]

My experience didn't teach me a thing about climate science. That's kinda my point.

You mean like how the landmass distribution on at the poles led to different glaciation thresholds at each pole and determines the extent that glaciation can spread?

Do you even have a high school diploma? Because maybe you aren’t capable of understanding what drives the climate of the planet because it sure isn’t the atmosphere.

 

[ding]

Thank you for sharing that.

If CO2 is so important in driving the climate of the planet then why did the planet cool for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm?