Warmers are Neurotic Basket Cases

[westwall]

How you analyze the water is determined by consensus

No it's not you silly person. Chemicals are either toxic, or they aren't.

 

[Vegasgiants]

No it's not you silly person. Chemicals are either toxic, or they aren't.

The test to confirm that was agreed upon by consensus you silly potato. LOL

 

[BackAgain]

It is not governed by the MINORITY opinion. It is governed by well established science....also called consensus

Nope. It is often determined without anybody else’s input. That’s a very small minority. (Assuming your use of the indefinite pronoun, “it,” refers to procedures for conducting experiments or doing some testing.)

 

[Vegasgiants]

Nope. It is often determined without anybody else’s input. That’s a very small minority. (Assuming your use of the indefinite pronoun, “it,” refers to procedures for conducting experiments or doing some testing.)

Those procedures are agreed upon by consensus

 

[expat_panama]

It is not governed by the MINORITY opinion. It is governed by well established science....also called consensus

There are two different definitions of "science" at play here, one is a method of inquiry and the other (from the all knowing wisdom of wikipedia) is that of "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge". The first is what we can all do and the second requires us to obey the regime.

Don't get me wrong, the regime has a lot on the ball and it's usually right. My point is that eventually we'll find ourselves in a position where we see for ourselves that water is wet and no amount of strutting by the regime is going to change the reality that water is wet.

 

[abu afak]

No it's not you silly person. Chemicals are either toxic, or they aren't.

Vaccines are also a Consensus. About the same in percent as AGW among specialists in the field.
They work.
Their benefit outweighs their side effects and the few anti-vaxxers/deniers.
One CAN find a few articles/studies about the evils of C19 vaccine, but it's a strong consensus they are a positive.

Science works BY consensus.
Scientific Theories are Not proven, they are affirmed by consistent observations over time.
AGW, Atomic theory, Evolution, etc.

And of course Climate scientists are Not "Neurotic basket cases," the Trolling OP.


Pre-Sig: I Post ON TOPIC.
To the degree your post is I thank you.
But I will do my best to embarrass and put down One-line or Insult-only trolls due to the Lack of moderation on USMB. (Home OF the RW trolls.. perhaps 70%)

 

[BackAgain]

Those procedures are agreed upon by consensus

Some procedures are indeed agreed upon. Others may be the subject of disagreement. Consensus doesn’t control the determination. You remain wrong. Stubborn but wrong.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Some procedures are indeed agreed upon. Others may be the subject of disagreement. Consensus doesn’t control the determination. You remain wrong. Stubborn but wrong.

Oh look you are wrong again. LOL

 

[BackAgain]

Oh look you are wrong again. LOL

No. As usual, I’m the one who is correct and you’re left making claims which you can’t support. What else is new?

 

[Vegasgiants]

No. As usual, I’m the one who is correct and you’re left making claims which you can’t support. What else is new?

Yawn

 

[BackAgain]

Yawn

I agree. You are very boring.

 

[Vegasgiants]

I agree. You are very boring.

Climate Change - NASA Science

NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[BackAgain]

Climate Change - NASA Science

NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.

climate.nasa.gov

Richard S. Lindzen: The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics

In The Wall Street Journal, Richard S. Lindzen writes that members of Congress send inquisitorial letters to universities, energy companies, even think tanks.

www.wsj.com

An opinion piece from 7 years ago still makes more sense than vegomatic’s link.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Richard S. Lindzen: The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics

In The Wall Street Journal, Richard S. Lindzen writes that members of Congress send inquisitorial letters to universities, energy companies, even think tanks.

www.wsj.com

An opinion piece from 7 years ago still makes more sense than vegomatic’s link.

Oh look you have an opinion. Its cute. LOL

 

[BackAgain]

Oh look you have an opinion. Its cute. LOL

Oh look. You’re still pointless and boring. Not so cute. But laughable.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Oh look. You’re still pointless and boring. Not so cute. But laughable.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[BackAgain]

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

So a space agency is speculating about a different field of scientific concern. Obviously, vegetable, you didn’t grasp the important lesson which Oddball tried to share with you.

 

[Vegasgiants]

So a space agency is speculating about a different field of scientific concern. Obviously, vegetable, you didn’t grasp the important lesson which Oddball tried to share with you.

Causes - NASA Science

Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results

climate.nasa.gov

 

[westwall]

How you analyze the water is determined by consensus

No, it's not. Where do you come up with this nonsense.

 

[Vegasgiants]

No, it's not. Where do you come up with this nonsense.

Yes it is. They only choose the tests that have large agreement are effective. That is consensus