Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But the scientific consensus about man-made climate change is not a consensus of opinion, but a consensus of evidence.
In other words, it is not that scientists all agree about climate change (although almost all do), it is that hundreds of different lines of scientific evidence, collected independently of each other, looking at completely different phenomena, all point to the same conclusion.
I've never seen any climatologist demand blind acceptance, and your claims that their positions have been compromised by filthy lucre are not supported by the facts. You don't like their results because they contradict Republican talking points, is all.
So you tell someone else that their claims are not supported by facts. Then in the very next sentence you tell that person what their "real" motivations are. In other words, you immediately did the exact thing you accused the other person of doing. Do you really expect to be taken seriously after such obvious hypocrisy?
But the scientific consensus about man-made climate change is not a consensus of opinion, but a consensus of evidence.
In other words, it is not that scientists all agree about climate change (although almost all do), it is that hundreds of different lines of scientific evidence, collected independently of each other, looking at completely different phenomena, all point to the same conclusion.
Indeed...All science is done by consensus of the evidence. If Curry doesn't understand this, then I can only guess what her motivations are.
Only supporters of AGW are allowed in on the consensus. That is NOT science, it's politics.
Exactly. All Curry is asking for is more transparency and acceptance of research that might run counter to the consensus. In other words, healthier, more objective science and she is being marginalized and vilified for it.
I've said so explicitly. Several times. I'll say it again. I am not trying to change denialists' opinions, I'm just showing their claims are not supported by the facts. I expect denialists to continue to lie despite the facts. I'm not interested in debating people who whine and cry about Al Gore when presented with facts that contradict Rush and Sean. As the saying goes, it tires me out and annoys the pig.
The skeptical scientists have the same right to produce evidence to support their hypothesis, so why don't they?
They do, but they are shut out of the peer review process because the entire AGW meme is being handled by GOVERNMENTS! Any independent scientists aren't allowed to even see their data nor participate in the consensus. Again...ALL POLITICS!
They do, but they are shut out of the peer review process because the entire AGW meme is being handled by GOVERNMENTS! Any independent scientists aren't allowed to even see their data nor participate in the consensus. Again...ALL POLITICS!
Hogwash.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
