The hypocrisy of the "climate change leaders"

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

Yup. There's that "consensus" word again. The one note liberal Samba.

Woody

Sure, sport, sure. That was from the Abstract of a paper written by 10 people with more PhDs and Doctorates than you could shake a stick at. But, you know, facts. When they mean nothing to you, you can say the idiotic stuff you say.

John Cook, PhD in Cognitive Science from the University of Western Australia.
Naomi Oarekes, PhD degree in Geological Research from Stanford.
Peter Doran, Ph.D. is Professor of Geology and Geophysics at Louisiana State University.
Bart Verheggen, MSc in environmental sciences from Wageningen University (Netherlands) and a PhD in Atmospheric Chemistry from York University (Canada).

And on and on...if you had at least a room temp IQ, you would be embarrassed at your own ignorance.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

Consensus (or, lack of) is a core concept in science. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand science. Here's a starter: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_meaning_of_consensus_in_science.

It's like trying to teach calculus to monkeys. They just screech and throw their poo.

 

[YukonGlocker]

"virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics"
http://www.csicop.org/news/show/deniers_are_not_skeptics

 

[gerhard1]

Consensus (or, lack of) is a core concept in science. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand science. Here's a starter: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_meaning_of_consensus_in_science.

Are those who don't subscribe to the current consensus wrong then?

 

[YukonGlocker]

Are those who don't subscribe to the current consensus wrong then?

That's a question that can be answered via the scientific method, and totally orthogonal to the concept of percent/probability-based consensus from a descriptive perspective.

 

[doctorjj]

Consensus (or, lack of) is a core concept in science. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand science. Here's a starter: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_meaning_of_consensus_in_science.

Did you even read the link you posted? It's several examples of consensus being dead wrong. What would have been considered "settled science" gets put on its head by later discoveries. You're confusing the practical application to an individual's life or core beliefs that they may rely on a "consensus" of science vs a "consensus" having any bearing on the validity of any given concept. In other words, it's reasonable to accept certain scientific positions and incorporate them into your belief system but to say that a consensus proves a certain position as right or wrong is completely foolish, as was proven by the link you posted. If there's no n constant in science, it's that consensus positions get completely debunked from time to time.

 

[doctorjj]

"virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics"
http://www.csicop.org/news/show/deniers_are_not_skeptics

Linking an opinion piece. Yeah, that's helpful.

 

[YukonGlocker]

Linking an opinion piece. Yeah, that's helpful.

It's the opinion of these people...some of the most well-trained scientific skeptics in the world, so I'm sure they'll welcome you're rebuttal:
Mark Boslough, Physicist
David Morrison, Director of the Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe, at the SETI Institute
Bill Nye, CEO the Planetary Society
Ann Druyan, Writer/producer; CEO, Cosmos Studios
Ken Frazier, Editor, Skeptical Inquirer
Barry Karr, Exec Director, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Amardeo Sarma, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Executive Council, Chairman GWUP (Germany)
Sir Harold Kroto, Nobel Prize in Chemistry
Ronald A. Lindsay, President & CEO Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and Center for Inquiry
Kenneth R. Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University
Christopher C. French, Dept of Psychology, Goldsmiths University of London
Daniel C. Dennett, Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University
Massimo Pigliucci, Professor of Philosophy at CUNY-City College
Douglas Hofstadter, Director, The Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University
Stephen Barrett, Co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and the webmaster of Quackwatch
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Professor, Department of Psychology, Emory University
Terence Hines, Dept of Psychology, Pace University
James Randi, President James Randi Educational Foundation
Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer and Director of the Center for SETI Research
Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Henri Broch, Physicist, Emeritus, University Nice Sophia Antipolis, France
Eugenie C. Scott, Chair, Advisory Council, National Center for Science Education
Edzard Ernst, Professor of Medicine, Emeritus, University of Exeter, UK
Indre Viskontas, Cognitive Neuroscientist, Host Inquiring Minds Podcast
David J. Helfand, Professor of Astronomy, Columbia University
Mario Mendez-Acosta, Journalist, Science Writer, Mexico City
Cornelis de Jager, Astrophysicist, Past President, International Council for Science
Sanal Edamaruku, President, Rationalist International
Loren Pankratz, Psychologist, Portland VA Medical Center, Retired
Sandra Blakeslee, Science Writer
Benjamin Radford, Deputy Editor of the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine
David Thomas, Physicist and Mathematician
Stuart D. Jordan, NASA Astrophysicist, Emeritus
David H. Gorski, Cancer Surgeon, Wayne State University School of Medicine
Anthony R. Pratkanis, Professor of Psychology, UC @Santa Cruz
Jan Willem Nienhuys, Mathematician, Waalre, The Netherlands
Susan Blackmore, Psychologist, Visiting Professor at the University of Plymouth
Ken Feder, Anthropology, Central Connecticut State University
Jill Tarter, Bernard M. Oliver Chair, SETI Institute
Richard Saunders, JREF Million Dollar Challenge Committee, Producer - The Skeptic Zone Podcast
Jay Pasachoff, Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy, Williams College
Lawrence M. Krauss, Director, The ASU Origins Project, Arizona State University
Barbara Forrest, Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University
Kimball Atwood, Physician, Newton, MA
James Alcock, Psychologist, Glendon College, York University, Toronto, Canada
Massimo Polidoro, Science writer, author, Executive Director CICAP, Italy
E.C. Krupp, Director, Griffith Observatory
Dick Smith, Film Producer, Publisher, Australia
Thomas R. Casten, Chair, Recycled Energy Development, LLC
Willem Betz, MD, Professor of Medicine, Univ. of Brussels
Steven Novella, MD, assistant professor of neurology, Yale Univ. School of Medicine
Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University emeritus
Stephan Lewandowsky, cognitive psychologist at the School of Experimental Psychology at the University of Bristol
Naomi Oreskes, geologist turned historian of science at Harvard University
James Powell, geochemist and executive Director at the National Physical Science Consortium
Stuart Vyse, psychologist and author
Donald Prothero, paleontologist and geologist associated with the National History Museum of Los Angeles
John Cook, Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, Australia
Cornelis de Jager, Dutch Astronomer, Royal Inst. Sea Research, Texel
Luis Alfonso Gámez, journalist, the Magonia blog, Spain
Felix Ares de Blas, Professor of Computer Science, Univ. of Basque, Spain
John R. Mashey, computer scientist/executive at Bell Labs
Julia Offe, neurobiologist and science journalist

 

[YukonGlocker]

Did you even read the link you posted? It's several examples of consensus being dead wrong. What would have been considered "settled science" gets put on its head by later discoveries. You're confusing the practical application to an individual's life or core beliefs that they may rely on a "consensus" of science vs a "consensus" having any bearing on the validity of any given concept. In other words, it's reasonable to accept certain scientific positions and incorporate them into your belief system but to say that a consensus proves a certain position as right or wrong is completely foolish, as was proven by the link you posted. If there's no n constant in science, it's that consensus positions get completely debunked from time to time.

Of course consensus is sometimes wrong. Literally nobody has argued otherwise. I'm glad you're now admitting to the important role of consensus in science.

 

[Mr.357Sig]

The last refuge of the denier.

"Global warming is BS"

After overwhelming proof that the earth is warming...

"Yeah, the earth is heating up, but it's just natural"

After overwhelming proof that man is contributing to the warming...

"Consensus has no place in science"

Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf would be proud.

There was once consensus that the Earth was flat.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk