How many times do I have to tell you? They’re not my chosen scientistsâ€”they’re the overwhelming majority of all scientists with relevant training.
As we have seen many MANY times in the past, Science is NOT a “majority rules” process…
It doesn’t matter if there is a CONSENSUS or not. Sometimes the “CONSENSUS” is wrong…
Wrong. Galileo’s position was that of the majority of scientists in his day. It was entrenched political interests that kept insisting he was wrong.
So, now we are re-writing history?? :D
According to the denialist spin on the CRU emails, not according to the emails themselves. Just like they pretend that the CRU data is the entire basis for the AGW hypothesis.
I don’t think that anyone has stated that the CRU data is the entire basis for the AGW hypothesis. It is clear to everyone who doesn’t have a vested (IE economical) interest in the AGW theory that gross errors and ethics violations have been committed..
I’m done with you. I’ve given you a coherent argument and you haven’t addressed a single point of it. All you can do is whine that you don’t believe it.
I also don’t believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or Obama’s HOPE and CHANGE..
That’s because there is no clear, unambiguous or objective evidence for any of it.
As I said before, there are really only TWO things that the AGW theory has going for it..
The Peer Review Process
As to the latter, NONE of the computer models have accurately predicted dick… So, why would ANYONE have faith in them??
As to the former… The CRU emails CLEARLY show (to an OBJECTIVE person) that the pro-AGW crowd made a distinct and sincere effort to game the process and make it work to their advantage. Whether they succeeded or not is irrelevant. The fact that they tried shows that they do not have the faith in their science that you apparently have…
Blind faith is even worse in science than it is in religion…
* * item2.1
# # item2.1
Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.