The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up

[MDM4AU 337]

"Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong"

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

[AURaptor 1,137]

But it looks so darn convincing in a headline !

Kinda like when Barry invited all those " doctors " to his O-Care show, on the White House lawn, and had them put on white lab coats. You see, they really had to drive home the point to the dumb-masses that " Hey ! These are really doctors! " .

[AUDub 11,424]

I gotta hand it to Mr. Tol. It takes guts to show up to defend yourself in the comments when your silly editorial is getting eviscerated.

[AUisAll 2]

I's amazing to read the 'confidence' of the believers in the Climate Change hoax. I can imagine these same type people laughing and pointing at Columbus as he sailed off to fall off the edge of the world.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I's amazing to read the 'confidence' of the believers in the Climate Change hoax. I can imagine these same type people laughing and pointing at Columbus as he sailed off to fall off the edge of the world.

That there is write. Thems the same scientest that done new the world was as flat as a pan cake. science = lmao

[AUisAll 2]

I's amazing to read the 'confidence' of the believers in the Climate Change hoax. I can imagine these same type people laughing and pointing at Columbus as he sailed off to fall off the edge of the world.

That there is write. Thems the same scientest that done new the world was as flat as a pan cake. science = lmao

It's awesome to read all your brilliance. What's humorous is, if about half of Obama's supporters knew how to get on the internet, your spelling and grammar would be likely spot on.

[quietfan 233]

"Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong"

This, of course, is absolutely correct. Science is about evidence and fact, not consensus. The most revolutionary discoveries in science were "revolutionary" because they showed--with evidence--that the currently held consensus was wrong. But this is also why the idea of science as some megalithic conspiracy to defend "the company line" makes no sense.

Meanwhile, Tol is no more immune to error or criticism than anyone else:

http://www.gci.uq.ed...rsinTol2014.pdf

24 Critical Errors in Tol (2014)

Reaffirming the 97% consensus on anthropogenic global warming

Whether the percentage is 97% or 80% or 60%, the majority of the evidence still supports AGW. True, it only takes one set of verifiable evidence to reject a hypothesis. But if a large preponderance of medical doctors tell me I have a disease, I'm going to take their opinion very seriously. If the majority of engineers tell me an automobile is unsafe, I'm unlikely to buy that car. If a majority of football coaches tell me my offensive strategy is a losing strategy, I'll certainly examine their arguments closely and likely adjust my tactics based on their arguments. Yes, it only takes a minority of one to disprove an idea with sufficient evidence, assuming said evidence is accurate, convincing, and reproducible. But in no cases, would I simply ignore and laugh off a consensus opinion of such experts as a "hoax" simply because I find their conclusions unappealing or politically different than mine.

P.S. No educated person or scientist in Columbus's day thought the earth was flat or he'd sail off the edge (though perhaps some of the illiterate poor did) . The Greeks established almost two millennia before him that the earth was round. Eratosthenes even measured its circumference in the 3rd century BC. The Ptolemaic model of the solar system--accepted as truth by the Church and authorities in Columbus's day--taught a round earth. The only real question for Columbus or his critics was the size of Asia, i.e., how far did it extend to the east and could he reach the east coast of Asia by sailing west before he ran out of food/water/supplies or lost his ships to other causes (e.g., weather, accident, rot, mutiny, maybe even 'sea monsters') No one, of course, imagined there would be two new continents in between!

[Weegle777 78]

So what if AGW is real? What's the big deal? Just live.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I's amazing to read the 'confidence' of the believers in the Climate Change hoax. I can imagine these same type people laughing and pointing at Columbus as he sailed off to fall off the edge of the world.

That there is write. Thems the same scientest that done new the world was as flat as a pan cake. science = lmao

It's awesome to read all your brilliance. What's humorous is, if about half of Obama's supporters knew how to get on the internet, your spelling and grammar would be likely spot on.

Your write again. Them libtards is to stupid to ever get on the intranet.

[AUisAll 2]

I's amazing to read the 'confidence' of the believers in the Climate Change hoax. I can imagine these same type people laughing and pointing at Columbus as he sailed off to fall off the edge of the world.

That there is write. Thems the same scientest that done new the world was as flat as a pan cake. science = lmao

It's awesome to read all your brilliance. What's humorous is, if about half of Obama's supporters knew how to get on the internet, your spelling and grammar would be likely spot on.

Your write again. Them libtards is to stupid to ever get on the intranet.

Thanks for representing them!

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I's amazing to read the 'confidence' of the believers in the Climate Change hoax. I can imagine these same type people laughing and pointing at Columbus as he sailed off to fall off the edge of the world.

That there is write. Thems the same scientest that done new the world was as flat as a pan cake. science = lmao

It's awesome to read all your brilliance. What's humorous is, if about half of Obama's supporters knew how to get on the internet, your spelling and grammar would be likely spot on.

Your write again. Them libtards is to stupid to ever get on the intranet.

Thanks for representing them!

That is hysterically funny coming from someone who has to beg the mods to delete their ignorance.

[Weegle777 78]

Still don't see the big deal.

[Weegle777 78]

Science also says that aspartame is bad for us, yet no one is taking it off of the market. Let the planet warm! Why should we care?

[TheBlueVue 177]

Science also says that aspartame is bad for us, yet no one is taking it off of the market. Let the planet warm! Why should we care?

We dont. In a recent poll, climate change ranked 14th on a list of 15 most important issues in this election cycle. Its being pushed primarily because Tom Steyer is promising to spend $50 million dollars supporting the politicians on the climate change train.

[AUDub 11,424]

Science also says that aspartame is bad for us, yet no one is taking it off of the market.

Science doesn't say that. Some studies may have indicated that, but there's a lot of misinformation out there concerning aspartame.

Let the planet warm! Why should we care?

The rapidity of the change is the issue. Extremely rapid changes tend to coincide with mass extinctions.

[homersapien 11,812]

I's amazing to read the 'confidence' of the believers in the Climate Change hoax. I can imagine these same type people laughing and pointing at Columbus as he sailed off to fall off the edge of the world.

That there is write. Thems the same scientest that done new the world was as flat as a pan cake. science = lmao

It's awesome to read all your brilliance. What's humorous is, if about half of Obama's supporters knew how to get on the internet, your spelling and grammar would be likely spot on.

Your write again. Them libtards is to stupid to ever get on the intranet.

Thanks for representing them!

Well, he did simply repeat what you said.

[homersapien 11,812]

Science also says that aspartame is bad for us, yet no one is taking it off of the market. Let the planet warm! Why should we care?

Well, to be honest, I don't have kids - so other than a sentimental attraction for the natural world I was born into - I don't.

[AUisAll 2]

I's amazing to read the 'confidence' of the believers in the Climate Change hoax. I can imagine these same type people laughing and pointing at Columbus as he sailed off to fall off the edge of the world.

That there is write. Thems the same scientest that done new the world was as flat as a pan cake. science = lmao

It's awesome to read all your brilliance. What's humorous is, if about half of Obama's supporters knew how to get on the internet, your spelling and grammar would be likely spot on.

Your write again. Them libtards is to stupid to ever get on the intranet.

Thanks for representing them!

That is hysterically funny coming from someone who has to beg the mods to delete their ignorance.

Seriously? LOL! Amazing-not. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit either, huh? RIR made a post or comment in the political forum on a thread about Obama and I made the comment that he is a POS-talking about who the thread was about. Then in AU recruiting and I thank RIR for his efforts. And you bring the political stuff to the Recruiting forum. I asked the mods to delete the political comments and I'm 'begging' the mods? LOL

[Weegle777 78]

Science also says that aspartame is bad for us, yet no one is taking it off of the market.

Science doesn't say that. Some studies may have indicated that, but there's a lot of misinformation out there concerning aspartame.

Let the planet warm! Why should we care?

The rapidity of the change is the issue. Extremely rapid changes tend to coincide with mass extinctions.

When was the last mass extinction?

[Weegle777 78]

Science also says that aspartame is bad for us, yet no one is taking it off of the market.

Science doesn't say that. Some studies may have indicated that, but there's a lot of misinformation out there concerning aspartame.

Let the planet warm! Why should we care?

The rapidity of the change is the issue. Extremely rapid changes tend to coincide with mass extinctions.

When was the last mass extinction?

Oh, and I guess these doctors, researchers, and scientists are all idiots because they don't walk the FDA line right?

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/06/aspartame-most-dangerous-substance-added-to-food.aspx

Go ahead and post 600 articles about how aspartame is perfectly safe.

[AUDub 11,424]

When was the last mass extinction?

The Quaternary extinction event. The last big one was Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event.

Oh, and I guess these doctors, researchers, and scientists are all idiots because they don't walk the FDA line right?

You do realize that you just linked to the website of a known quack, right? It's the equivalent of a tabloid concerning medical news.

Go ahead and post 600 articles about how aspartame is perfectly safe.

I'll just assume this means "no amount of evidence will convince me" and ignore anything else you have to say on the topic.

[Weegle777 78]

66 million years ago, may or may not have been caused by an asteroid impact. Even science hasn't defenitively concluded what caused this. And because it happened that long ago, they can't know for sure. Even they said that it could have been caused by volcanic activity. The earth is much more capable of reversing supposed damage than you are giving it credit for.

And I posted that link to prove a point. Anyone who doesn't walk the "majority" line, is considered a quack. I've seen it happen in every GW thread posted on this site. Someone will post a laundry list of links that fall in the company line, and when someone else posts an opposing link, it's, "Oh, well whoever that guy is, he is a quack."

[AUDub 11,424]

And I posted that link to prove a point. Anyone who doesn't walk the "majority" line, is considered a quack. I've seen it happen in every GW thread posted on this site. Someone will post a laundry list of links that fall in the company line, and when someone else posts an opposing link, it's, "Oh, well whoever that guy is, he is a quack."

Not a good way of proving your point. He's considered a quack because he advocates "alternative" medical treatments that are at best benign and at worst downright dangerous. Being a fear mongering loon doesn't help either.

[AUDub 11,424]

66 million years ago, may or may not have been caused by an asteroid impact. Even science hasn't defenitively concluded what caused this. And because it happened that long ago, they can't know for sure. Even they said that it could have been caused by volcanic activity. The earth is much more capable of reversing supposed damage than you are giving it credit for.

Great. Earth can fix the supposed damage. Have you any idea what said damage would do to us?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Science is stupid. I aint vaxinaten my kids.