Examining the pretender's meme "Don't trust Scientific Consensus"

There’s never going to be 100% consensus because there is no such thing in science. There is always room left for doubt and modification of current theory. It’s why science has advanced so much further than religion and philosophy that get stuck on unquestionable “truth” then spend centuries arguing over how many angels you can fit on the head of a pin.
Science must not just “work” once then be discussed ad infinitum, it must be consistently demonstrated to function in the real world or it isn’t science.
And as I’ve already posted the science that underlies human forced climate change is the very same science that underlies the transistor electronics that enable “people” like Mike Yohe to participate here.
If Mike Yohe is claiming that the science of climate change doesn’t work - which is all he’s doing over and over with no evidence at all - then he is also claiming that the science that allows him to post here in the first place doesn’t exist.
Let’s just treat him in the same manner, if his position is so illogical it doesn’t even allow the existence of the means to participate here then what is the point in addressing anything he has to offer.
It is all counter to reality as we experience it, having someone post over and over that reality isn’t real isn’t being part of a rational discussion on the nature of reality as informed by that most power of tools we now have to describe reality in objective terms - the scientific method.
Mike Yohe is essentially rejecting the scientific method itself because it clashes with his clear biases. What is more likely, the method of inquiry that has given us an understanding of the universe in ways that have completely revolutionized our understanding of reality is all wrong and not applicable at all to natural phenomena.
Or that someone who is clearly part of a well documented disinformation campaign to deny extremely well supported science doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.
I’m pretty sure it’s the second one.
If Mike Yohe wants to pretend that the most significant informational advances in human history simply don’t exist then let him do so… but that is exactly what climate change denial does. In the end it must deny the existence and clear strength of science itself to describe in functional terms how the universe operates.
We just saw a thread here that attempted to discount science totally because it’s not the “truth”.
If we let people like Mike Yohe define what is real then we are doomed and that is already happening. The province where I live and have spent most of my life is burning up again this summer in a process that will only get worse in coming years entirely because highly irrational people like Mike Yohe have been setting policy for years. This is a growing catastrophe that will hit everyone everywhere.
This is 2017 not 1988 or even the mid 1970s when the US Congress began hearings on human forced climate change. Deniers could claim then with a tiny amount of justification the evidence wasn’t there to support climate change but that is long gone. The science is clear now.
And so deniers should be gone, they play no role now other than cheer leaders for the unfolding Holocaust.

DougC is 100% scientific proof that tax dollars spent on education has been wasted. DougC claim that climate change is created by the tobacco companies and the rich is the same idiotic thinking he has for Trump and the Republicans. DougC communist views will not work in a democratic operating country like America.
Creating your own little world, are we. Do you ever read any of the postings and pick up the ideas that is trying to be communicated? If you understood where the IPCC is today in assembling the science of climate change then you would understand how silly your personal assaults are and that they carry no scientific understanding or backing.
Let me help you out and explain to you what Climate Change is. You obviously don’t know. Climate Change is a sub-category term of Global Warming that is used with measurements and understanding of the man-made Global Warming.
As part of the goals of the Global Warming computer modeling, the Climate Change affect is needed to understand what man-kind can do to help reduce the effects of Climate Change. Right now, the scientists are dealing with data showing the potential effects and forecasting effects of Climate Change.

If Mike Yohe is claiming that the science of climate change doesn't work ...
Please stop wasting my time using me in your little scenarios. Just ask me if I think the science of Climate Change doesn’t work. I will tell you.
DougC is 100% scientific proof that tax dollars spent on education has been wasted. DougC claim that climate change is created by the tobacco companies and the rich is the same idiotic thinking he has for Trump and the Republicans. DougC communist views will not work in a democratic operating country like America. Creating your own little world, are we. Do you ever read any of the postings and pick up the ideas that is trying to be communicated? If you understood where the IPCC is today in assembling the science of climate change then you would understand how silly your personal assaults are and that they carry no scientific understanding or backing. Let me help you out and explain to you what Climate Change is. You obviously don’t know. Climate Change is a sub-category term of Global Warming that is used with measurements and understanding of the man-made Global Warming. As part of the goals of the Global Warming computer modeling, the Climate Change affect is needed to understand what man-kind can do to help reduce the effects of Climate Change. Right now, the scientists are dealing with data showing the potential effects and forecasting effects of Climate Change.
If Mike Yohe is claiming that the science of climate change doesn't work ...
Please stop wasting my time using me in your little scenarios. Just ask me if I think the science of Climate Change doesn’t work. I will tell you.
Just confirmed human forced climate change by using a device entirely reliant on the same science that underlies climate change.

Mike and why don’t you stop being such an evasive jack ass as define “scientific consensus” so we know what you are talking about.
Then perhaps you can also start sharing specific links to these claims you love making on behave of the IPCC !!!
You’ve yet to rise above arm waving, you have no standing to insult other’s scientific understanding\ given how poorly you support all your blah blah.

Yeah, yeah, no name calling - but jez, can’t we expect people to stop ignoring and sidestepping everything of substance that’s been shared with them! >:-(

Mike and why don't you stop being such an evasive jack ass as define "scientific consensus" so we know what you are talking about. Then perhaps you can also start sharing specific links to these claims you love making on behave of the IPCC !!! You've yet to rise above arm waving, you have no standing to insult other's scientific understanding\ given how poorly you support all your blah blah.
go read the evasive post #7 and then tell me what problems of understanding you are having.

{went back to fix a few typos and wound up rewriting bits here an there. Sunday afternoon}

Mike and why don't you stop being such an evasive jack ass and define "scientific consensus" so we know what you are talking about. Then perhaps you can also start sharing specific links to these claims you love making on behave of the IPCC !!! You've yet to rise above arm waving, you have no standing to insult other's scientific understanding given how poorly you support all your blah blah.
go read the evasive post #7 and then tell me what problems of understanding you are having.Now, what the heck is this riddle about? Your evasive comment #7 starts:
Scientific consensus is valid if used in a scientific method. Scientific consensus should not be used when human belief is substituted for science. ...
Climate scientists definitely follow the scientific method - keep in mind we are talking Earth Sciences - complex systems science, not simplistic focused physics experiments. Mike's never managed to offer one real world example of a serious climate scientist publishing in serious peer reviewed literature substituting "human belief" for science. In fact, I know climate scientists have been outrageously conservative and holding back from making any conclusions]. Further, he believes he has a right to shout that slander from every soap box. I think it's malicious and criminal, since he's smart enough to know he's peddling lies. And these lies are helping inflict gross dangers Were we at a local bar, he'd be told to put up or shut up with his malicious trash talk >:-( Provide real examples, or shut up. Lets see what you got!!! Serious specific examples from within the real scientific community! Not from gossip pages. Can he do it? I don't think he can. But if he could I'll certainly look at it and consider what he offers up. That's the difference between us, I can handle, (even enjoy - if in a perverse sort of way), taking a close look at his information and arguments. Here's a scientist explaining what the "consensus" actually means, he also gives us insight into complex Earth sciences (and how it's not amenable to over simplified Popperian notions)
Science & Distortion - Stephen Schneider PhD explains climate science and what systems science means https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_eJdX6y4hM&t 1:40 - " Climate science is Systems Science, like trying to understand your body. ..."
The rest of Mike's comment #7 continues a descent into a confused flailing, sadly again sans references to serious science. Mike makes many nasty charges and claims, but that is all they are, unsupported trash talk. This is the same guy who thinks he can ridicule people who understand, and yes believe in the CO2 theory] and all it's implication]. (The evidence is over whelming, check those two links) Then in comment #7 Mike get's to "scientific consensuses" and attacks a fictitious thing. Notice Mike refuses to define his understanding of "scientific consensus," so who knows what phantoms he's conjuring. We really do not know what his point is. One thing is certain his words show zero understanding of what real scientific "consensus" is about. That would be, the state of the collective understanding. I suspect it's because my pal Mike doesn't have an intellectually honest leg to stand on, so bluster and handwaving is all he can produce for us. Best of all after dismissing the serious collective understanding of the informed experts, Mike steps into the shit and reveals he thinks economic interests are more important than scientific results. In other words, Mike reveals himself to think that economics is supposed to supersede scientific reality. Ironic for someone who writes: Scientific consensus should not be used when human belief is substituted for science.
Mike and why don't you stop being such an evasive jack ass as define "scientific consensus" so we know what you are talking about. Then perhaps you can also start sharing specific links to these claims you love making on behave of the IPCC !!! You've yet to rise above arm waving, you have no standing to insult other's scientific understanding\ given how poorly you support all your blah blah.
go read the evasive post #7 and then tell me what problems of understanding you are having. Once again confirms human forced climate change by demonstrating quantum mechanics underlying both transistors and CO2 absorption of infrared radiation. http://www.pbs.org/transistor/science/info/qmsemi.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EJOO3xAjTk Any time a denier like this uses any transistor based electronics to communicate they are in fact confirming the science they claim doesn't work.
The green movement and the Left wants to tax and regulate now based upon what they are claiming to be consensus science. They are distorting and bending the scientific facts to the point of creating total confusion.
Time and again you have shown yourself incapable of logical debating of the information that's been shared with you since you constantly meander away from the central theme onto time and energy wasting distractions. Oh and you never absorb anything that is shared with you, thus you get sooo dang redundant. Reminds me of talking to a wall.
This scientific consensus being used in Climate Change has all the above and is highly distorted.
You have yet to offer any evidence, let alone proof. You have had the scientific understanding explained many times yet you keep missing it like some record with an awful skipped groove, you keep slipping back into your know-nothing rut and return to repeating pure (demonstrable) nonsense (but you ignore all shared evidence so how would you know?). Or like water against a hydrophobic membrane. Rather than allowing solid scientific information to gain some traction in your mind, you reject it reflexively and with self-certain oblivion, while blundering forward. This is not an ad hominem, it is a description, since time and time again you've demonstrated as much with your devious comments and ignoring challenges.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zk7Xfyv6k4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zk7Xfyv6k4
She's an idiot. Discuss the science, not the con artist's line of handwaving bull shit. Although, I dare you: Pick any point she makes - and lets examine it. Also, you ought to check out some of the links that are shared in the comments, for your edification.
The climate science contrarian community has mobilized the full spectrum of emotional appeals all intended to reject science and shut down critical thinking. From the Alt-right Bannon and his Breitbart absurd fabrications, that the faithful embrace with uncritical passion. To the voices appearing that present themselves as sober clear headed arbiter of scientific validity. One of latter's most misused memes is
"My choice is to choose factual science over consensual science."
Doesn't that sound good. After all isn't consensual science something like consensual sex - all in the eyes of the perpetrator - er, I mean participant? Or is it a red flag warning that we are dealing with a disingenuous deliberate misinformer? :blank: What this little contrarian meme leaves out is that scientific consensus is wholly built upon the body of evidence and facts. It also ignores that the consensus is subordinate to the facts and that the consensus evolves according to the incoming FACTS.
WIKI: "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review.
Although for a better introduction to the topic:
"Scientific Consensus: Why Should We Accept It?" Robert Sanders, September 25, 2016 https://futurism.com/what-is-scientific-consensus/ REACHING A CONSENSUS ON CONSENSUS A scientific consensus, in general, is what most scientists believe to be true about a certain issue based on their interpretation of all of the evidence that we have at our disposal. In other words, it is the collective answer of scientists to a particular question. ... Hence, the birth of a scientific consensus isn’t subject to a majoritarian rule. It actually signifies the fact that a great many scientists from different backgrounds have considered the question at hand and have reached similar conclusions. That doesn’t mean that science is a panacea—it doesn’t mean that science is perfect or always 100% correct. It is important to remember that science is adaption; it’s change. But what it does mean is that we have a pretty good understanding of how things work, and it will take a mammoth amount of evidence to change our current understanding. ... ... In short, a scientific consensus tells us things that we have already learned, and it lets us know when things have stopped being debated in the sciences.
LETTER • OPEN ACCESS • IOPSELECT Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce Published 15 May 2013 • 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 2 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Here's a change for the https://skepticalscience.com detractors to step up with their "facts" (not distracting hot air!) if they want to dispute this paper. So can anyone explain what the gripe with the EXPERT'S COLLECTIVE UNDERSTANDING, that would be their consensus, is?
Here's an example: Experts' Collective Understanding is that the earth is spherical and revolves around the sun. Their understanding is not subject to unsupported claims to the contrary. Lois
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zk7Xfyv6k4
She's an idiot. Discuss the science, not the con artist's line of handwaving bull shit. Although, I dare you: Pick any point she makes - and lets examine it. Also, you ought to check out some of the links that are shared in the comments, for your edification. Dr. Curry is part of your scientific consensus group on climate change. Now you are telling me that your scientific consensus group is a bunch of idiots and perpetrating a con. It looks like we better start with the creditability of your scientists. What was the vetting of the scientists? Were they all required to work in climate field? Dr. Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee. Dr. Curry is stating that the consensus group has over the last couple of decades become politicalized. //www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBjFjSZjv6w

A) you have no clue, or more honestly you do not want to know, about what the scientific consensus is or what it actually means.
B) Judith Curry no part of any scientific consensus! She was once a scientist, but she has aged into a paranoid contrarian hatchet dame -
so don’t use her as any agent of authority.
Why don’t you bring up specifics?
Oh, and she’s the bitch that worked tirelessly to create this politicization,
just like you, doing your little part over here and who knows where else.
It’s not the scientists.
As evidence; you never actually discuss the science or display any aspect of being interested in learning about how our climate machine operates.

A) you have no clue, or more honestly you do not want to know, about what the scientific consensus is or what it actually means. B) Judith Curry no part of any scientific consensus! She was once a scientist, but she has aged into a paranoid contrarian hatchet dame - so don't use her as any agent of authority. Why don't you bring up specifics? Oh, and she's the bitch that worked tirelessly to create this politicization, just like you, doing your little part over here and who knows where else. It's not the scientists. As evidence; you never actually discuss the science or display any aspect of being interested in learning about how our climate machine operates.
Sorry, but you don’t get to make stuff up. Dr. Judith Curry was part of the scientific consensus on climate change. As far as never actually discussing science. I ask you to confirm your agreements and disagreements we have on the science so that I can nail you down and have a real discussion on the science. Of course, you will not. “She was once a scientist". An unbelievable statement! Who was the first person to debate that the Milankovitch Cycles had to be included in Climate Change on this site? I believe that was me, some years ago. Who agreed with me, basically nobody. The same with the sun cycles. Now these items are understood to be a part of the climate science. And you say I have no clue. I would have to guess that you are still a couple of years behind me in understanding climate science. I cannot get you to discuss the science of Lags and Jumps. Or get you to step into the real solutions for Climate Change. You still seem to be pushing CO2 heating. Back in 2011 it was posted - “Our measurements indicate the massive amount of energy this thing gives off is able to travel 93 million miles and reach our planet is as little as eight and a half minutes," said Professor Mitch Kivens, an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology. “While we can’t see them, we’re fairly certain these infrared rays strike Earth’s surface, become trapped by the atmosphere, and just heat everything up like a great big oven." We, settled this six years ago. Well, “we" would not be correct. Most people understood this years ago, but you and Doug seem to see this as a political issue and keep spinning the CO2. You guys are proof of what Dr. Curry is saying about the politicization of Climate Change.

Judith doesn’t get to make up shit either.
But, she does it all the time. That is why she is a totally discredited source.
I notice you won’t stand behind anything in particular she says.
Plus you still refuse to learn and get the most basic shit right.

You still seem to be pushing CO2 heating.
There is no stupid CO2 heating! That isn't how the physics work you silly duck. Buy 'em books and buy 'em books and all they do is eat the covers. :roll: Oh, and what's with your irrelevant Milankovitch dog-chasing tail game? It appears you still refuse to absorb that bit information.

This really belongs under its own heading - but for now this will do.

Oklahoma State University Geology Professor Todd Halihan on Earthquakes Rattling The State https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5_KhqZ2dic#t=19.737043358 at 2:00 and 3:00 (and beyond) he discusses uncertainty, ...
setting up your question in a manner that makes it impossible to answer appropriately (such as tricks Mike uses) and more. Good interview, would like to write more but not tonight
CC, the above post goes with the fist part of your beginning post. The spam would not let me post reply to your post. Sorry.
When that happens, go back and write something at the bottom of your post, such as "spam line". When I do that the post always goes through. CFI's Spam Nazi is easily disarmed. He's overly sensitive and stupid.
CC, the above post goes with the fist part of your beginning post. The spam would not let me post reply to your post. Sorry.
When that happens, go back and write something at the botton of your post, such as "spam line". When I do that the post always goes through. CFI's Spam Nazi is easily disarmed. He's overly sensitive and stupid. Thanks Lois. There are times I can get passed the Spam program and other times I just must give up. Right now, I give up on about half of my reply postings.
This really belongs under its own heading - but for now this will do.
Oklahoma State University Geology Professor Todd Halihan on Earthquakes Rattling The State https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5_KhqZ2dic#t=19.737043358 at 2:00 and 3:00 (and beyond) he discusses uncertainty, ...
setting up your question in a manner that makes it impossible to answer appropriately (such as tricks Mike uses) and more. Good interview, would like to write more but not tonight
Professor Halihan made this statement. I think it also applies to Climate Change. “The whole problem of dealing with earthquakes is by definition problematic to discuss with the public in a way the is effect on both the scientific and public access level. With risks for everybody involved on economy or scientific reputation levels. Because you got to say the statements correctly because you don’t want to panic people but you also don’t want to be overly complaceive. And it is a very fine line."