[Bujin#IM]

99.999% of the world can hold the OPINION and form scientific "consensus" and all it takes is ONE scientific example to PROVE that "consensus" wrong.

Scientific consensus isn't just opinion of scientists...it's based upon a preponderance of scientific data available. The fact that you think that scientific consensus is simply the opinions of scientists, and can be refuted by one piece of data, merely demonstrates your fundamental lack of understanding of the term and what it represents.

Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method. [1]

Note the bolded and underlined section. Consensus is not part of the Scientific Method. Obviously not.

You conveniently missed the "based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method" part. It's not just gut opinions...it's based upon the preponderance of data.

The source glossary for the Wiki entry you cite states:

The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon at a given time by most scientists specialized in a given field.

That is the case with climate change....the vast majority of scientists, in virtually every field related to climate, agree. You can say you don't believe in science, and you can say that your reasoning isn't based upon science, but you can't really give any evidence that supports your view that there isn't scientific consensus on this issue.

It is also clear that no amount of logical reasoning will change your opinion, and it seems doubtful that you will single-handedly change the scientific consensus of the entire world, so further back and forth seems pointless.

[KAM1138]

Yes, I'm sure that all of these organizations, throughout the entire world, are part of a vast left-wing scheme, just to take your money:

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

Regardless of my opinion, the basis of which is demonstrated daily, it isn't really relevant to the Science.
Of course it would be arrogant to believe it is designed to take MY money specifically. That doesn't matter, and I'm sure they don't care whose money they take.

You reference organizations throughout the world, as if their opinion trumps facts--that is that Global Temperatures have declined (somewhat) while CO2 concentrations have continued to rise--disproving the central theory to the entire Global Warming Cabal's argument or "consensus."

That's what propagandists are dedicated to doing--overwhelming facts with the weight of "authority." Well, I'm not a a little sheep taking my marching orders from my overlords. Fact is on my side--I don't need anything else.

Others--well, they need to have the lies these criminals have pushed on them undone, but I can't accomplish that myself.

You can attempt to heap scorn on my views or disagree with my opinion all you want--but the FACTS are people are meeting this very day in an attempt (one of a long series) to take my (and everyone elses) money to engage in a fantasy "solution" to a "problem" that isn't based on fact--but rather uses facts selectively to achieve their desired goals--violating science all along the way.

What people ARE doing isn't dependent on my opinion of why--it is enough to know that they are doing it. I'm not an egotistical type of person--I know my opinion isn't important to others, but the facts should be. Of course, the goal of the propagandists is to hide those facts.

KAM

[KAM1138]

Ummm....scientific consensus actually is formed from evidence. That's the whole point.

Actually that's false too. It MAY Be formed from Evidence, and if you had Ethical Scientists it might very well be. Of course, this is demonstrably (in at least some cases) not true.

If you can provide actual evidence that is accepted by a majority of the experts in the field, then you'll have a point. Until then, I choose to believe the scientific consensus over the conspiracy theorists.

I've already stated this--you just simply won't accept it. Global Temperatures have decreased while CO2 Concentrations have increased (over the last 10 or so years). This DISPROVES the theory that Global Temperatures rise relative to CO2 Concentrations. The Actual Facts are that other contributors can (and have, and are) overwhelming CO2.

Let me state it again, so you cannot misunderstand me. Other factors have led to a REDUCTION in global Temperatures, despite a continuing rise in CO2 Concentrations. CO2 Concentrations are RESPONSIBLE (in your consensus theory) for the rise in temperatures. That is demonstrably false. The best that can be claimed is that CO2 is ONE factor--and one that is overwhelmed (as demonstrated) by others).

That theory is false, yet you ridiculously keep repeating the "consensus" view that it isn't. You are doing an excellent job of demonstrating how "consensus" is in violation of science.

KAM

[Bujin#IM]

You reference organizations throughout the world, as if their opinion trumps facts--that is that Global Temperatures have declined (somewhat) while CO2 concentrations have continued to rise--disproving the central theory to the entire Global Warming Cabal's argument or "consensus."

I've already stated this--you just simply won't accept it. Global Temperatures have decreased while CO2 Concentrations have increased (over the last 10 or so years). This DISPROVES the theory that Global Temperatures rise relative to CO2 Concentrations. The Actual Facts are that other contributors can (and have, and are) overwhelming CO2.

You can state it as if it's fact, but it's not just me that won't accept it. Politifact disagrees with your "fact".. I'll still go with scientific consensus over political ideology every time... and you have the right to ignore science as you see fit. That's what makes America great.

[KAM1138]

Scientific consensus isn't just opinion of scientists...it's based upon a preponderance of scientific data available. The fact that you think that scientific consensus is simply the opinions of scientists, and can be refuted by one piece of data, merely demonstrates your fundamental lack of understanding of the term and what it represents.

Well, it shouldn't be JUST opinion, and should be based on the Data, but as Facts Demonstrate--that isn't the case in terms of Global Warming.

Actually one piece of valid Data IS what refutes a theory. If "consensus" disagrees with this, then that is scientifically invalid. I'm not sure how you can be misunderstanding this--it is very simple.

You conveniently missed the "based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method" part. It's not just gut opinions...it's based upon the preponderance of data.

No, I didn't miss it. I simply understand that When it FAILS To be based on actual scientific facts, Consensus is scientifically meaningless.

That is the case with climate change....the vast majority of scientists, in virtually every field related to climate, agree. You can say you don't believe in science, and you can say that your reasoning isn't based upon science, but you can't really give any evidence that supports your view that there isn't scientific consensus on this issue.

It is also clear that no amount of logical reasoning will change your opinion, and it seems doubtful that you will single-handedly change the scientific consensus of the entire world, so further back and forth seems pointless.

You don't seem to understand that "vast majority" has no bearing on facts. You keep pretending to represent science and then providing examples of opinion which IGNORE facts--and hence are not scientifically acceptable.

This sort of prattle has infected the entire world it seems, but no amount of "consensus" can match one valid scientific fact.

Answer the Questions:
Have CO2 Concentrations increased in the last 10 years?
Have Global Temperatures increased in the last 10 years?

Then is the theory that increased CO2 Concentrations lead to higher temperatures true or false. The answer is false.
OBVIOUSLY a scientist would acknowledge that OTHER factors have a greater influence that at a minimum overwhelm CO2 Concentrations as a factor.

Those are facts, deny them if you wish.

KAM

[KAM1138]

You can state it as if it's fact, but it's not just me that won't accept it. Politifact disagrees with your "fact".. I'll still go with scientific consensus over political ideology every time... and you have the right to ignore science as you see fit. That's what makes America great.

No, you are doing what makes America sad--engaging in distraction in order to ignore facts, while accusing someone else of doing what you are doing.

At any point did the Global Temperature Decrease while CO2 Concentrations increased? If so the theory is proven false. Dance around it, and talk about 5 years means, and overall trends, etc, but that's just changing your tune to attempt to sidestep the issue.

CO2 Concentrations are not the deciding factor in Global Temperatures--other factors overwhelm this. That disproves the core tenant of the "consensus" theory.

You are following the script very well--keep on piling on irrelevant information to get away from the Scientific Demonstration (only one is needed) that disproves the theory.

ONE contrary fact disproves a theory.

You don't seem to understand. I don't need to prove a long term cooling trend, because I'm not out to PROVE anything--I'm only out to disprove that your "consensus" theory is false. That only takes ONE piece of evidence.

The FACT is that (contrary to the theory that CO2 Concentration is the cause of Global Warming) Global Temperatures have decreased at least once while CO2 Concentrations have increased. What this proves is that other factors have an influence that overwhelms CO2 Concentrations.

As such I believe that you and your "consensus" scientists believe a fallacy if you think that you can control global temperature.

Let me put this in simpler terms for you--from the opposite perspective. The consensus theory is simply this: Higher CO2 Concentrations result in higher temperatures. That is demonstrably false. For some years there appears to be a relationship that agrees with this, in others the opposite it true.

The scientific models that predicted that these temperatures would increase are not accurate. Predictions of course aren't facts--but the consensus is largely based on these predictions--which are now proven false, yet for some reason...consensus hasn't changed--funny isn't it.

The modified theory should then be--that CO2 concentrations may have some influence, but they are able to be overwhelmed by other factors.

KAM

[Bujin#IM]

At any point did the Global Temperature Decrease while CO2 Concentrations increased? If so the theory is proven false.

That, of course, is silly. Midnight tonight will likely be colder than noon today....that doesn't prove that the world is cooling, but rather that there are fluctuations over short time periods based upon factors other than CO2 concentrations. You conclusion is based upon flawed science.

Scientists look at periods much longer than 10 years. If you would read the link from PolitiFact, and the source sites contained within, you would get a better sense of why your conclusion isn't supported by the scientific community. PolitiFact also addresses the flaws in your assertion here: Claims on Global Warming disputed by most scientists

You don't seem to understand. I don't need to prove a long term cooling trend, because I'm not out to PROVE anything--I'm only out to disprove that your "consensus" theory is false. That only takes ONE piece of evidence.

I truly don't think you understand how scientific consensus works. All "scientific consensus" means is that it's a preponderance of all evidence available. One additional piece of evidence (even if it's found to have merit) is not taken to automatically disprove the mountains of other data...it merely is an additional piece of evidence, to be judged as part of all available data to make an informed conclusion.

It appears that you are dead set to deny any evidence that conflicts with your ideological opinion....that is your right. You can certainly state that you personally don't believe the science. You can claim that it's all a conspiracy by our overlords. But your rationale certainly isn't supported by scientific opinion and reasoning.

[KAM1138]

That, of course, is silly. Midnight tonight will likely be colder than noon today....that doesn't prove that the world is cooling, but rather that there are fluctuations over short time periods based upon factors other than CO2 concentrations. That "fact" proves absolutely nothing.

Scientists look at periods much longer than 10 years. If you would read the link from PolitiFact, and the source sites contained within, you would understand that. They also address your assertion here: Claims on Global Warming disputed by most scientists




You don't understand how scientific consensus works. Especially since your "evidence" is so deeply flawed.

However, you are dead set to deny any evidence that conflicts with your ideological opinion....that is your right, but please don't confuse that method with anything resembling real evidence.

Oh no, teacher is talking down to me. What exactly is your degree in? I'm not too hung up on this, but I know you are. Education I would expect, but was there a different subject that you studied as prior to that? I'm just trying to judge the level of humor I should see here.

My "evidence" is flawed. Please reiterate what evidence I've claimed and explain how it is flawed. You are making a lot of assumptions and you know what that does.

You still aren't getting it--intentionally trying to talk around it I suspect, but I'm going to keep on coming back to the same simple point. The bar to disprove something is very, very, low and I know you don't want to listen to this, but here it is again.

The Consensus theory is that Global Temperatures will continue to Rise (and I know, many efforts have been made to obscure what the claims were, renaming it to "climate change" and such--I'm not interested in that propaganda). That hasn't happened. The theory isn't that yearly temperatures would level off, or go down, but that they would rise.

The theory that you religiously cling to is incorrect. Accept that and move onto a new (revised) theory, and just be honest about it.

Also--you keep on talking about Scientific "reasoning" and "opinion" as if in science they trump facts and data.

KAM

[Woof]

Sounds like the typical response of someone who doesn't want to face the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion is on one side of this issue. Can you find one reputable national or international organization that disputes the prevailing argument for global warming, or are you just going to try to state that every one of those organizations are biased? One would be a start.

Membership consisting of Kindergarten - 12 teachers is "scientific opinion" ??

[Bujin#IM]

Oh no, teacher is talking down to me. What exactly is your degree in? I'm not too hung up on this, but I know you are. Education I would expect, but was there a different subject that you studied as prior to that? I'm just trying to judge the level of humor I should see here.

You would be wrong. My degree is in Neurobiology.

The Consensus theory is that Global Temperatures will continue to Rise (and I know, many efforts have been made to obscure what the claims were, renaming it to "climate change" and such--I'm not interested in that propaganda). That hasn't happened. The theory isn't that yearly temperatures would level off, or go down, but that they would rise.

No, the theory is that, over time, temperatures would rise. Not every single year, and there may be cycles of warmer / cooler. But taken over long time periods, the trend will be warmer. If you don't understand that simple fundamental idea of global warming, then I understand why you're struggling to understand the concept of scientific consensus.

[Bujin#IM]

Membership consisting of Kindergarten - 12 teachers is "scientific opinion" ??

You clearly chose to ignore the prior posts, indicated the overwhelming number of national and international organizations that support this particular scientific opinion. Your snarkiness is noted, but ultimately rather irrelevant.

[KAM1138]

Hello Everyone,

It is interesting to note again, that CO2 concentrations have a fairly steady rise this Century, but there are long periods--30-40 years according to that chart Bujin posted showing areas that are quite flat.

Obviously, there is no direct relationship that governs temperature, so clearly other factors are more significant. Of course only an ***** would ignore...oh, the SUN as a major factor, but of course many "experts" have done exactly that.

The lesson we're learning here--Science is every bit as inaccurate, and influenced by politics as anything else. These fraud Champions of "science" are...well not. Science is merely a tool to forward whatever it is they want.

People who value liberty or simple truth should be very wary of this. If you want to know why--look at what they are DOING, not what they are CLAIMING.

KAM

[KAM1138]

You would be wrong. My degree is in Neurobiology.

I'm not wrong--I asked a question. Do you not have a degree of some sort in education? Or do you just have a Teachers Certificate or something?

No, the theory is that, over time, temperatures would rise. Not every single year, and there may be cycles of warmer / cooler. But taken over long time periods, the trend will be warmer. If you don't understand that simple fundamental idea of global warming, then I understand why you're struggling to understand the concept of scientific consensus.

Actually, the theory is that they will rise and it is due to man--specifically that it is due to CO2 Concentrations created by man. Now, unfortunately for consensus cultists, this really doesn't hold true. They cling to that, because you need this to justify what your political goals are.

Again--you demonstrate how the story changes, while you never abandon the goals. Its simply about observation of global temperature trends? Please--that is a ridiculous lie. It is about what you want to justify by citing this.

The Consensus group (which includes politicians, and activists as well as "Scientists) likes to ignore the many other factors (which they can't quantify very well, and manipulate data to obscure in some cases) that are causing climate change. When the predictions turn out to be incorrect, well, then they just change their story.

The truth is that there are many factors that influence global temperature, and CO2 might be one of them--one that is overwhelmed by others--contrary to what "experts" previously predicted would happen.

KAM

[Woof]

You clearly chose to ignore the prior posts, indicated the overwhelming number of national and international organizations that support this particular scientific opinion. Your snarkiness is noted, but ultimately rather irrelevant.

Who's doing the ignoring? An organization that allows kindergarten teachers to join is not a scientific organization but an educational group. Since those teachers are not environmental scientists and are not studying data in the field related to global warming. That means that organization is NOT 100% capable of supporting your 'consensus'. One guy saying he agrees or even all the scientists working in that group do not represent the entire organization. As a result you can't say that organization is part of the consensus. Some of it members maybe, but the entire group, no.

And that was only the first group. What are the odds there will be more.

[KAM1138]

Hello Again,

Does anyone notice how the Global Warming...oops I mean Climate Change alarmists never swerve from their goal? Isn't it funny how these "Science" based folks are unfazed by oh...10 years of temperatures CONTRARY to what they predicted. They don't do what a scientist would--when faced with evidence that one of the primary sources of Data had falsified, obscured and hidden information, avoided objective reviews of their work, and engaged in campaigns of intimidation against those who disagreed with them.

One would think that HONEST scientists might question things, and revisit their goals, but not Global Warming Alarmists--they need to keep pushing forward, saying "ignore the man behind the curtain" instead of doing what scientists would do--objectively investigate.

KAM

[Bujin#IM]

I'm not wrong--I asked a question. Do you not have a degree of some sort in education? Or do you just have a Teachers Certificate or something?

You expected that my degree was education, and not science. You were incorrect. I have a degree in Neurobiology, and also in educational leadership. All of which is irrelevant to this discussion.

[KAM1138]

Who's doing the ignoring? An organization that allows kindergarten teachers to join is not a scientific organization but an educational group. Since those teachers are not environmental scientists and are not studying data in the field related to global warming. That means that organization is NOT 100% capable of supporting your 'consensus'. One guy saying he agrees or even all the scientists working in that group do not represent the entire organization. As a result you can't say that organization is part of the consensus. Some of it members maybe, but the entire group, no.

And that was only the first group. What are the odds there will be more.

I think you will find that many if not most of these groups have relatively few scientists involved, and even fewer of those are experts in the fields of Climate.

I'm sure they've done a great job of terrifying and indoctrinating Kindergarteners however. "You don't want to kill the planet little Johnny do you?" Oh, but of course Schools would NEVER engage in such practices.

KAM

[KAM1138]

You expected that my degree was education, and not science. You were incorrect. I have a degree in Neurobiology, and also in educational leadership. All of which is irrelevant to this discussion.

Well, since you seem dedicated to obscuring the context of a comment placed between two questions, what I actually wrote was:
What exactly is your degree in? I'm not too hung up on this, but I know you are. Education I would expect, but was there a different subject that you studied as prior to that?

Ah, so I'm incorrect--you have a degree in Educational LEADERSHIP. Oh my goodness--I apologize profusely. How could I have been so INCORRECT to not guess that difference in my questioning. Perhaps you don't understand what a Question is for--that is to get an answer. Of course, if you have the mindset of these AGW types it is to Match Data to a predetermined Conclusion. Maybe that's why you are having trouble here.

Actually, I'll decide if your answer is relevant to me thanks. As I stated, you've previously relied on Authority to determine relevance, and of course--you defer to a bunch of political organizations wearing a mask of science so that says quite a lot.

To continue this--your degree in Neurobiology. Do you work in that field at all along with your Career in Education? I'm wondering how practiced you are in using science, since you seem to presenting yourself as an authority in it. Or perhaps it is just what you do with all arguments--claim authority as a means of justifying your position.

By the way--I'm still waiting for you to refute the "evidence" you claim I stated.

KAM

[Bujin#IM]

Actually, I'll decide if your answer is relevant to me thanks.

It wasn't relevant to the topic at hand, however. You were just fishing for a reason to invalidate my opinion, of course.

As I stated, you've previously relied on Authority to determine relevance, and of course--you defer to a bunch of political organizations wearing a mask of science so that says quite a lot.

Actually, if you can't even grant that those organizations, which represent virtually every field related to climate change, are scientific organizations, then you demonstrate your absolute unwillingness to engage in any meaningful discussion.

To continue this--your degree in Neurobiology. Do you work in that field at all along with your Career in Education? I'm wondering how practiced you are in using science, since you seem to presenting yourself as an authority in it. Or perhaps it is just what you do with all arguments--claim authority as a means of justifying your position.

I thought you weren't hung up about my background.

As much as you'd like to make this conversation about me (primarily because the science doesn't support you), it really isn't. My background (and prior work in the field before becoming an educator) is only relevant in that my training as a scientist makes me qualified to clear up your obvious misunderstanding about scientific consensus.

By the way--I'm still waiting for you to refute the "evidence" you claim I stated.

You claimed that your "evidence" that warming has occurred over the past 10 years directly refutes the entire theory of global warming. I linked to articles that directly address why you are incorrect in this.

But, then again, it was only refuted with evidence, so you won't believe it anyway.

Does anyone notice how the Global Warming...oops I mean Climate Change alarmists never swerve from their goal? Isn't it funny how these "Science" based folks are unfazed by oh...10 years of temperatures CONTRARY to what they predicted.

The fact that you believe that 10 years gives a complete picture when looking at climate trends is very telling....you've glommed onto that figure, and refuse any logical argument that 10 years doesn't make a trend in the overall climate studies.

You can't believe anything that the science community tells you, and so you can invalidate the thousands of studies in one fell swoop. That leads you to only believe your gut...or FoxNews, perhaps. And it's completely your right as an American to be ignorant of science in decision-making.

[Bujin#IM]

And that was only the first group. What are the odds there will be more.

So can you find one reputable national or international science group that doesn't agree with the prevailing consensus of opinion on this? You seem to be more than willing to try to poke holes in the dozens provided....I'd love to see you come up with a single one.

But it's a waste of time to even ask, because using scientific consensus, or evidence-based data of any kind, never works against pure ideology.

This item seemed particularly relevant: Onion - Nation's Experts Give Up