97% Consensus Claim Conclusively Debunked

LoL the projection here.

 

So, when you say it must suck, does that refer to your own denial then? As in the denial that science can actually not be a world of consensus?

 

Yeah it's totally obvious when you compare a 100,000 year graph to one that's like 100 years long....and which used 100 year old equipment to get 100 year old results.

Why do you think they throw the ridiculous model predictions in there? To make it look bad.

Again, what is hard to understand about the planet being in the 800-1000 PPM CO2 and being fine that you're struggling with?

You are taking the lowest CO2 concentrations and lowest temps the Earth has ever seen and suggesting that going above that is somehow going to put the Earth into some kind of death spiral.

It's preposterous and one look at the graph makes that evident.

 

The poor fella is having a difficult time focusing on what we post in the threads to make a real conversational styled discussion-based replies instead he wants to inject a lot of unpleasant statements and epithets then gets surprised and upset when we call him on it while we also make counterpoints as well.

Then he comes back with more bile and unctuous baloney while mostly ignoring the counterpoints to his sliver of words that manage to merit a focused reply from us.

I am Free Thinking INDEPENDENT who doesn't like what the two parties are doing and have always accepted that it has been warming since 1979 which I have stated many times to this memory addled fella, yet he keeps calling me and others "denialists" but ignores the replies that the main dispute is over the AGW conjecture which doesn't exist since there is NO "hot spot" and NO sign of Positive Feedback Loop that the long dead AGW depends on it this after 30 YEARS!!!

It is the warmist/alarmists who fall hard on the stupid consensus paradigm because they can't focus the science itself on us because they don't objectively support their Climate Emergency delusions thus the avoidance of honest discussion/debate is the defining mark of a warmist/alarmists the world over.

The man who pushed the absurd 100% Consensus claims has ignored my two posts on page 11 showing that consensus doesn't exist all and has ignored the well-known facts of numerous consensus failures over the many decades of the past.

That is why I stick around it to help those who are fence sitters or have become disillusioned over the media/political climate emergency baloney that doesn't seems to connect with their personal experience.

 

The data are against you.

UAH Global Temperature Update: 2022 was the 7th Warmest of 44-Year Satellite Record
January 3rd, 2023
December of 2022 finished the year with a global tropospheric temperature anomaly of +0.05 deg. C above the 1991-2020 average, which was down from the November value of +0.17 deg. C.


The average anomaly for the year was +0.174 deg. C, making 2022 the 7th warmest year of the 44+ year global satellite record, which started in late 1978. Continuing La Nina conditions in the Pacific Ocean have helped to reduce global-average temperatures for the last two years. The 10 warmest years were:

• #1 2016 +0.389
• #2 2020 +0.358
• #3 1998 +0.347
• #4 2019 +0.304
• #5 2017 +0.267
• #6 2010 +0.193
• #7 2022 +0.174
• #8 2021 +0.138
• #9 2015 +0.138
• #10 2018 +0.090

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 continues at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).

 

But... but.... the iceball earth is the one where super authoritarian fascism they believe in works... It's the goal. So, anything that keeps the iceball from happening, well, that just can't be tolerated....

The truly exceptional thing about these folks is their belief that no one should be able to see through their bullying and blustering... It's amazing and certainly entertaining to watch...

 

Lolz.

Read the charts for understanding.

100,000 years ago, according to your own source, the planet was 4-8C.

Normal cycle. I mean unless you'd like to say neanderthals did it.

 

Anti-fossil-fuel is most definitely NOT the consensus. Not a single word I have written has anything to do with being "anti-fossil-fuel".

You are so utterly confused it's ... beyond words.

 

Reading your pseudoscience again and again would be like Republicans trying to elect a speaker when they control the majority.

What you need to do is very simple: if you can find a STUDY (not a graphic, not a model, not an article from one of your pseudo-science websites, ...), show it, explain what part of the consensus it contradicts, and quote the specific part from the CONCLUSION of the study that states the contradiction.

You have already made it clear that you can't.... so why would you expect me to waste my time any further?

 

It is the claimed 97% consensus, and don't try to deny it.

 

Undue reliance on consensus positions is a sign of science illiteracy since they are meaningless to the field of research that works on the "Scientific Method" and Reproducibility of published research.

Consensus errors are many because they ignored the research, they don't like which is why they stagnate.

 

Please see my #257.

 

No it's not! And I already gave multiple versions of the consensus (including my own) in which no such thing is mentioned.

 

"Consensus" based on opinions most definitely is useless. Consensus based on unanimity (or near-unanimity) of peer-reviewed studies is very relevant in the epistemological evaluation. I explained this in my first post in this thread. And in many posts about scientific topics with the summary phrase "what scientists believe is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what they can PROVE"

 

You have already been refuted. Please see #257.

 

You already made it clear that you refuse to state WHAT in the consensus is refuted by the model (not peer-reviewed study) you rely on.

 

By this post you merely parade your lack of familiarity with the scientific literature and climate science peer-reviewed research. You remain refuted.

 

You gave multiple different claimed consensuses, some of which were correct and others of which were bogus. The correct ones did not imply support for anti-fossil-fuel hysteria. The bogus ones did.

 

Consensus positions doesn't prove anything only Reproducible research does and even with reproducible research it takes a while for the increased understanding to spread through the science community consensus positioning slows it down sometimes stops it through gatekeeping and other blatant efforts to stop the "heretic" from publishing contrary papers.

This is talk by Dr. Crichton that shows how pseudoscience can creep into other areas of science because too many people follow an unverified science parameter that over time destroys the independence of the researcher who now must follow a body of people to be considered legitimate which is one of the reasons why the badly needed independent researcher is vanishing from the science fields the ones who often are the driver of new research fields.

Aliens Cause Global Warming

By Michael Crichton http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/GW-Aliens-Crichton.htm Caltech Michelin Lecture
January 17, 2003

Excerpt:

My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today.

Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science—namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.

I have a special interest in this because of my own upbringing. I was born in the midst of World War II, and passed my formative years at the height of the Cold War. In school drills, I dutifully crawled under my desk in preparation for a nuclear attack.

It was a time of widespread fear and uncertainty, but even as a child I believed that science represented the best and greatest hope for mankind. Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics—a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. In contrast, science held different values— international in scope, forging friendships and working relationships across national boundaries and political systems, encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to fresh knowledge and technology that would benefit all mankind. The world might not be a very good place, but science would make it better. And it did. In my lifetime, science has largely fulfilled its promise. Science has been the great intellectual adventure of our age, and a great hope for our troubled and restless world. But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan, feed the hungry, cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also expected science to banish the evils of human thought—prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan’s memorable phrase, “a candle in a demon haunted world.” And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not benefited from permitting these demons to escape free.

But let’s look at how it came to pass.

Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two-week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:

N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL

[where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet’s life during which the communicating civilizations live.]

This serious-looking equation gave SETI a serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses—just so we’re clear—are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be “informed guesses.” If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice.

LINK

bolding mine

================

The blaring nonsense has grown over the years with virtually no opposition today despite that it is utter nonsense but exist because it enjoys a silent consensus status today while it is clearly pseudoscience crap.

Later in the talk he points out the utter failures of consensus which is long far more that what he brings up here.

===

Page 4 LINK:

At the conference in Washington, during the question period, Ehrlich was reminded that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, scientists were quoted as saying nothing would grow there for 75 years, but in fact melons were growing the next year. So, he was asked, how accurate were these findings now?

Ehrlich answered by saying “I think they are extremely robust. Scientists may have made statements like that, although I cannot imagine what their basis would have been, even with the state of science at that time, but scientists are always making absurd statements, individually, in various places. What we are doing here, however, is presenting a consensus of a very large group of scientists.”

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor—southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result—despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology—until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2 . Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

bolding mine

===

Consensus pablum's is a common mark of developing pseudoscience because research gets stilted into a particular direction to maintain the delusion of a consensus or perish for not being part of the group hence the destruction of the independence of the individual researcher becomes a standard procedure Dr. Ridd is a prime example when he contradicted a flawed consensus position over Corals which over time vindicated him as the consensus was wrong.

This is why I consider Consensus to be a destroyer of free independent science research because they try to control what is accepted in publishing a paper.

 

I submitted none that implied ANYTHING. I just submitted the facts as determined by 100% of scientific peer-reviewed studies. You, on the other hand, talk about debunking the consensus. And then claimed the consensus was correct. And then that it was wrong. And then that it was right. And now... I have no idea. You have never even made an attempt to quote this "consensus" from a reputable source.

 

When I say "consensus" I'm referring to reproducible research that HAS been reproduced thousands and thousands of times and, in the last 20+ years, has not produced a single study (thereby the use of the term "consensus") that contradicts the position that basically says that the Surface of the planet is warming abnormally, and that the abnormal increase is due to human activity. Above I submitted the wording used by several Academies of Science and scientific organizations.

BTW, I do hold a title in Epistemology (equivalent to a BA minor). So I have no use for your lectures.

I don't know who "Dr. Crichton" might. I do know Michael Crichton, who was a great Science Fiction author, but just another science denialist with an undergraduate degree in Biology (I think it was). But nowhere near a "Doctor's" degree, or PhD... or anything of the kind. Was that his son or something? In any case, science denialists are a dime a dozen. We have like 20 in this forum alone.

It is curious how you start your post attempting to lecture us on how strict science should adhere to research, and end with the opinion of a medical school drop out who wrote Jurassic Park (though Andromeda Strain was his masterpiece, IMHO) and then started lecturing against climate change before the large majority of the science research available today had even been published. Do you actually rely on the opinion of a Science Fiction writer for scientific fact?

 

Michael Crichton, that's Dr. Crichton to you, was a Harvard MD and a published researcher in peer-reviewed scientific literature.

 

Those claims are both false.

Can you or can you not read the word, "Claim" in the thread title?

For the nth time: the actual consensus is correct; the claimed 97% consensus is bogus.

You misspelled, "clue."

I identified the different consensus claims that YOU quoted, distinguishing the valid claims from the invalid, which you have persistently failed to do.

 

I suggest then that you be more clear in your case presentation. Explain, if you can how you intend to address CO2 proliferation, for example. Or did you just like to have a cause to whine about?

 

So much for that, "I did my research BS" in the tag line.... It never ever turns out that was the case. I fear that what that tag line really means is that "researched" is a euphemism for spoon fed indoctrination... I have seen no evidence of anything else....