Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Consensus Nonsense
Warmists/Alarmists, have a bad habit of making a fool of themselves with their dumb consensus arguments.

When there's a consensus, everyone agrees on something. If you're going to a movie with friends, you need to reach a consensus about which movie everyone wants to see.

Ever notice how people disagree about just about everything, from who's the best baseball player to how high taxes should be? Whenever there's disagreement, there's no consensus: consensus means everyone is on the same page. When you're talking about all the people in the world, it's hard to find a consensus on anything. There are just too many opinions. However, in a smaller group, reaching a consensus is possible.

They go on to Define the word:

Quote:agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole

They have been using this argument for many years now,which actually exposes their profound science illiteracy,since science runs on REPRODUCIBLE research,but warmists do not know what that is, since they never heard of The Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method is generally stated like this:

Quote:The Scientific Method

The Scientific Method is an organized way that helps scientists (or anyone!) answer a question or begin to solve a problem. There are usually six parts to it.

Purpose/Question – What do you want to learn? An example would be, “What doorknob in school has the most germs ?” or “Do girls have faster reflexes than boys?” or “Does the color of a light bulb affect the growth of grass seeds?”

Research – Find out as much as you can. Look for information in books, on the internet, and by talking with teachers to get the most information you can before you start experimenting.

Hypothesis – After doing your research, try to predict the answer to the problem. Another term for hypothesis is ‘educated guess’. This is usually stated like ” If I…(do something) then…(this will occur)”

An example would be, “If I grow grass seeds under green light bulbs, then they will grow faster than plants growing under red light bulbs.”

Experiment – The fun part! Design a test or procedure to find out if your hypothesis is correct. In our example, you would set up grass seeds under a green light bulb and seeds under a red light and observe each for a couple of weeks. You would also set up grass seeds under regular white light so that you can compare it with the others. If you are doing this for a science fair, you will probably have to write down exactly what you did for your experiment step by step.

Analysis – Record what happened during the experiment. Also known as ‘data’.

Conclusion – Review the data and check to see if your hypothesis was correct. If the grass under the green light bulb grew faster, then you proved your hypothesis, if not, your hypothesis was wrong. It is not “bad” if your hypothesis was wrong, because you still discovered something!

LINK to more

But Warmists/Alarmists persist in their consensus silliness,which is commonly a POLITICAL process.Here in the below are examples of their silliness that gets easily torn apart,but first lets us go back to year 2004,when Dr. Oreskes posted her stupid claim,here is a response at The Reference Frame blog

Quote:Naomi Oreskes & her study: errata

claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question (2). What happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain?

These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change" (3).

Oooops,there goes her credibility. It was soon exposed by Benny Peiser here, The Letter Science Magazine Rejected

To this day Warmists/Alarmists still cite her garbage paper as shown here at WUWT,where I have been sparring with a lightweight named James Ardmore:

Quote:" James Ardmore
September 23, 2017 at 4:06 am Edit
There are no peer reviewed papers disputing AGW:"

You can guess what my reply is...........


John Cook posted a consensus paper (Cook 2013) that is so bad that at least NINETY SEVEN papers have been published in debunking it as shown here,

97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"


Quote:Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change


Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

Warmists needs to get off the Consensus bandwagon,since it doesn't support valid science research,that it doesn't prove anything.

There NEVER was a Consensus anyway as shown here,which makes Warmist/Alarmists look stupid:

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)