Today's poll: Did the heat wave affect your beliefs about global warming?

And not based on the science even yet. The science is more like 97% but I doubt if the public will ever reach that sort of consensus. It moves with no real regard for facts.

I agree. The general public doesn't have time to sift thru all the hype and get to the facts.

Someday we will have real science that has withstood the scientific method and can be relied upon. That day, is not today. The best we have is consensus.

Consensus is not science.

Fun Facts wrote:

I agree. The general public doesn't have time to sift thru all the hype and get to the facts.

Not everyone will take the time to 'sift through the facts' but a number of the public WILL check the science. Of course, a lot of the public will not look to the science and the propaganda wars do not lead to the science.

Fun Facts wrote:

Someday we will have real science that has withstood the scientific method and can be relied upon.

The science is there for anyone that want to look and the science is quite 'real' and reliable.

Fun Facts wrote:

That day, is not today. The best we have is consensus.
Consensus is not science.

The usual distraction from the usual denialist. Consensus forms from convincing proofs and evidence. Consensus is the PROOF that the evidence is consistent and convincing to well educated researchers with the background understandings and knowledge to JUDGE the evidence. The fact that there is a stronger consensus within the climatology research sciences is just evidence that the subject is not one to be judged by the ignorant and the political shills such as yourself.

No consensus is not science. It does not matter what the scientists believe, the only thing that counts is what they can provide evidence for.

Fun Facts wrote:

No consensus is not science. It does not matter what the scientists believe, the only thing that counts is what they can provide evidence for.

Try reading my post instead of generating straw-man arguments.

I pointed out that a consensus of opinion on a complicated matter among those who have the skills to evaluate it, IS evidence.

Evidence that the matter is 'proven' well enough for most natural skeptics to conclude that there is no basis for skepticism. Only a few die-hards keep clinging to the hope that they can FIND some fault.

I am sure that YOU and the other nitwits could not come to consensus on how to pour sand from a boot with the instructions printed on the heel.

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

<quoted text>
Try reading my post instead of generating straw-man arguments.
I pointed out that a consensus of opinion on a complicated matter among those who have the skills to evaluate it, IS evidence.
Evidence that the matter is 'proven' well enough for most natural skeptics to conclude that there is no basis for skepticism. Only a few die-hards keep clinging to the hope that they can FIND some fault.
I am sure that YOU and the other nitwits could not come to consensus on how to pour sand from a boot with the instructions printed on the heel.

so why was it hotter in the Roman era? and the mediaeval period?

DudTenners wrote:

<quoted text>so why was it hotter in the Roman era? and the mediaeval period?

There is no convincing evidence that it was hotter GLOBALLY in either of those periods, so you are setting up a red herring.

There IS convincing evidence of AGW in the modern era.

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

<quoted text>
Try reading my post instead of generating straw-man arguments.
I pointed out that a consensus of opinion on a complicated matter among those who have the skills to evaluate it, IS evidence.
Evidence that the matter is 'proven' well enough for most natural skeptics to conclude that there is no basis for skepticism. Only a few die-hards keep clinging to the hope that they can FIND some fault.
I am sure that YOU and the other nitwits could not come to consensus on how to pour sand from a boot with the instructions printed on the heel.

Consensus is not science. No amount of wishing it was will change that.

Science is about evidence. Evidence is gathered to support an hypothesis. Evidence must be able to be verified and replicated by independent entities. In observational Science a prediction is made with specific variables and the expected condition needs to be observed.


It doesn't matter if 400 scientist believe something, it just takes one to show they are wrong and all the consensus evaporates.

I prefer the predictions and outcomes of the solar physicists. Their predictions have been realized. No consensus, just science done the old fashion way. Experimentation and observation. In this case observational science.

When you have science, you don't need consensus. You woould get it, but it would be unnecessary.