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/
Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
You found one 'scientist', I post you the links to work that represents thousands of scientists from over 100 countries.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
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
Again, you claim you have a science background but then also claim that you don't accept the findings of scientists.
Where 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.
The 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.
Do 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.
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.
Either you are like K and believe that the masses of scientists are faking their results and somehow suppressing those with contrary results or you have to accept the scientific community strongly supports the concept that human produced CO2 is a significant contributor to current climactic changes.
Funny thing about the graduation ceremony, at no point did anyone say that I was obligated to accept a consensus viewpoint
There were even some hints that challenging the consensus is how science and discovery moves forward
Again, you do not pay attention or listen
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 should not talk about character
You misrepresent yourself groggy / Frankfooter and you try to discredit a scientist based on character assassination rather than her work.
absolutely despicable
Now.... How many times do i have to tell you?
DO NOT tell me what I have or have not decided. You always get it wrong!
‘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.
Oh Boy that is funny!
especialy when one reads the definition of consensus right after your statement
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
I never said that and no true scientist would explicitly and knowingly do such a thing
Activists and zelots on the other hand.......as we witnessed when Frankfooter tried to discredit a scientist, not based upon her work, but attacking her character and that is truly dispicable
That is absurd
When was the law passed stating I have to accept any consensus?
Perhaps I prefer to take my time and evaluate lots of opinions and evidence from both sides before drawing my own conclusion
Perhaps there are significant issues about timelines and questions about the judgement of those attempting to use consensus to manufacture a false climate of authority
Your position is not absolute
that is a fact you should consider accepting
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-method
nothing about consensus there
I never said that
if you incorrectly implied that, then that is your problem
I did say the timeline is minisule relative to the planets history, but nothing about later evidende
Read the IPCC reports.
They do not talk in 'absolutes' they talk in confidence levels and probability.
This 'absolutes' claim is a straw man argument.
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
Your position is not neutral.
You have stated you don't accept the science, that's not neutral.
The "all-knowing" moron Frankfooter is telling me what my position is ??
I do not think so
I get to decide what my position is.
What an obnoxious ass
I did not say I reject the science, nor did I say I accept the science. I am neutral
I also did not take a hard position on the conclusion either. Incremental errors in judgement are inherent in arriving at the conclusion based upon the experiments results
I did say I am skeptical of the timeline and even more skeptical of zealot nut-jobs claiming their position is absolute and mistaking scientific consensus for the scientific method
I also question the judgement / ethics of those attempting to use consensus to manufacture a false climate of authority
Your position is not absolute
that is a fact you should consider accepting
Again playing word games to talk your way out of the fact that you disagree with the vast majority of scientific papers.
It'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.
Nope
Again the vast majority means a concensous
Speaking of word games
1. That is a scientific consensus
2. not all scientific papers concluded the same
3. The scientific method requires a hypothesis be proved based upon the experimental data, not a poll of opinions
I am skeptical of zealot nut-jobs claiming their position is absolute and mistaking scientific consensus for the scientific method
