posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:40 PM
reply to post by Animal
hey red, why not back your comment up?
Sure. But I might have to quote someone besides the IPCC or the CRU, so you wouldn't accept it.
i have seen the lists of scientists who have signed petitions disputing the anthropogenic link and they tend to be filled with names of those
not suited to be arguing for or against.
Wow, there's that 'agree = smart, disagree = stupid' thingy again...
while there are legitimate dissenting opinions they are far out numbered, thus the deniers claims of 'conspiracy' in the scientific
Actually, I base my opinions (and yes, they are as much opinions as Mr. Hansen himself) on what I know and what I can learn from considering the
published theories. What I have learned so far is that everything I know about science, including advanced science and math courses in public school,
a stint in college studying Engineering, and years of personal study in various disciplines, is apparently wrong now because the IPCC says so.
So I really don't know or care what any 'consensus' is. If I could get enough people to have a 'consensus' that Obama was not the POTUS, would he
not still be the POTUS in spite of that?
Consensus = belief.
Fact = truth.
do you dispute that there is a consensus with in the scientific community regarding an anthropogenic link?
I will admit there seems to be a consensus among scientists who believe in AGW that AGW exists.
The search of science is not for a consensus, but rather for truth. Therefore, consensus is irrelevant unless facts are presented (and independently
verified) to back up claims.
do you also claim that there is not a common trend among the skeptical crowd to cite questionable sources of 'scientific information'. case
in point Dr. Bob who is quoted in the OP.
I don't know Dr. Bob. I don't know many 'deniers' actually, save some who is publish in forums from their posts. I do my own research and make my
own conclusions. So I am not in a position to answer your question absolutely with any accuracy. I will, however, answer with a question of my own:
Do you claim there is not a common trend among those who believe in AGW to discount anyone who disagrees with them on no more stable a basis than they