That really cements the difference, doesn't it?
You found one 'scientist', I post you the links to work that represents thousands of scientists from over 100 countries.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
That really cements the difference, doesn't it?
You do not get itThat really cements the difference, doesn't it?
You found one 'scientist', I post you the links to work that represents thousands of scientists from over 100 countries.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
‘Consensus’ is neither part of the scientific method nor a goal in science. It is a tool used by non-scientists searching for trends in the thinking among scientists. When used as a tool for understanding, it can be harmless. But when it's used to manufacture a false climate of authority, it can be very harmful indeed.
why do you insist on asking questions on what has already been clearly established ?Here you go, here are the conclusions.
These are the findings, the state of the science on climate change.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Do you agree with the science there or are you claiming that you know better then them?
Again, you claim you have a science background but then also claim that you don't accept the findings of scientists.why do you insist on asking questions on what has already been clearly established ?
I have never said they are wrong
I have also never said they are right
and that is driving you mental
I have also never said I know more than the scientists
To be fair I have also never said I do not
What I have said is your conclusion is not absolute
I will also add that your scientific expertise is based upon cut and paste from the internet and your scientific understanding is limited to the propaganda value of your cut and paste routine
Any idiot can do that, so congratulations on reaching the peak of your potential as a slimy propaganda spewer
What is the value to society of someone who's goal is to mislead others and to manufacture a false climate of authority?
Your character assassination attacks of scientists who do not support your position is despicable and requires a complete lack of integrity
Do you not know what that is?Scientific method ?? ...
What you do not get is that it's not about "consensus" but rather thousands of individual scientists reviewing the data and coming to similar conclusions.You do not get it
Funny thing about the graduation ceremony, at no point did anyone say that I was obligated to accept a consensus viewpointAgain, you claim you have a science background but then also claim that you don't accept the findings of scientists.
Again, you do not pay attention or listenWhere the research shows certainty over 90% confidence, you claim that this statement is wrong and you can present no evidence or theory as to why it is wrong.
You should not talk about characterThe only character on trial here is yours, where you try to squirm and say you are undecided while at the same time being very much decided that you don't accept the findings of science.
Oh Boy that is funny!What you do not get is that it's not about "consensus" but rather thousands of individual scientists reviewing the data and coming to similar conclusions.
Definition of consensus
1 a : general agreement : unanimity
the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border —John Hersey
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned the consensus was to go ahead
2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief
I never said that and no true scientist would explicitly and knowingly do such a thingEither you are like K and believe that the masses of scientists are faking their results and somehow suppressing those with contrary results
That is absurdor you have to accept the scientific community strongly supports the concept that human produced CO2 is a significant contributor to current climactic changes.
so don't read itThis thread has gone on for 6 pages.
I have not read any of it cuz it was posted by Canada Man.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-methodDo you not know what that is?
It's a process where conclusions are made based on evidence, not the possibility you ascribe to that maybe evidence will be found later.
nothing about consensus therescientific method
Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
I never said thatnot the possibility you ascribe to that maybe evidence will be found later.
Read the IPCC reports.I have never said it was wrong, nor have I said it was right
In addition to the minuscule time line, additional sceptiscm is growing as I observe how zealot nut-jobs claim their positions is absolute and mistake scientific consensus for the scientific method
You will not accept a conclusion that opposes yours & you will not accept a neutral positionRead the IPCC reports.
They do not talk in 'absolutes' they talk in confidence levels and probability.
This 'absolutes' claim is a straw man argument.
Your position is not neutral.You will not accept a conclusion that opposes yours & you will not accept a neutral position
That only leave one option
That is absolute
zealot nut-jobs claim their positions is absolute and mistake scientific consensus for the scientific method
The "all-knowing" moron Frankfooter is telling me what my position is ??Your position is not neutral.
You have stated you don't accept the science, that's not neutral.
Again playing word games to talk your way out of the fact that you disagree with the vast majority of scientific papers.Oh Boy that is funny!
especialy when one reads the definition of consensus right after your statement
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
...
NopeAgain playing word games to talk your way out of the fact that you disagree with the vast majority of scientific papers.
Speaking of word gamesIt's not about consensus, it's about the weight of scientific papers all concluding that human produced CO2 is playing a significant role in current climactic changes.
1. That is a scientific consensusthe weight of scientific papers all conculding....