what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

[ant]

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of thecommunity of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity

There are many philosophical and historical theories as to how scientific consensus changes over time. Because the history of scientific change is extremely complicated, and because there is a tendency to project "winners" and "losers" onto the past in relation to our current scientific consensus, it is very difficult to come up with accurate and rigorous models for scientific change.[5] This is made exceedingly difficult also in part because each of the various branches of science functions in somewhat different ways with different forms of evidence and experimental approaches.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

There is no unanimity regarding global warming, for instance:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... al_warming

Most bleeding heart environmentalists (although i do not entirely disagree with all their arguments) regularly claim that it is the consensus of science that justifies their belief that global warming is caused by humans.
History says winners and losers in scientifc debates are difficult to untangle.

[Interbane]

Based on what you posted, what is your conclusion regarding the various theories where we find scientific consensus?

[ant]

Here's what Im thinking. Freeman Dyson actually has motivated me consider variables we know little about and those which can not add to our current models because we no nothing about them:

What is the impact of space weather on our climate? Is it a a well enough understood variable yet?

Cosmic dust.

http://m.digitaljournal.com/article/322466

Although its been alleged that the effects of oxygen levels on the climate are not significant enough to dismiss the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis, its admitted that little is known about its effects on climate change models that attempt to esplain warming periods of the past. That variable needs to be taken into account.

How can we be sure of the degree of its significance? I think its premature to claim its of little significance when compared to what humans have contributed to warming.

Here is one interesting article that discusses it briefly without political taint.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... years.html

Are humans also changing oxygen levels , Interbane?

[ant]

Based on what you posted, what is your conclusion regarding the various theories where we find scientific consensus?

Why do you disagree with those scientists that are not in uniform with the consenus?
Can you name a couple of them and tell us all why it is you disagree with their position?

[ant]

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 isrelevant 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.

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton

[LanDroid]

There have been Fellows of the Royal Astronomical Society and the Royal Geographic Society who advocate the Earth is flat.
There are Phd. Cosmologists who believe in YEC, that Yahweh created the entire universe in 144 hours about 6000 years ago.
Therefore we must reserve judgment on these two matters.

[Interbane]

Why do you disagree with those scientists that are not in uniform with the consenus?
Can you name a couple of them and tell us all why it is you disagree with their position?

So... what about the answer to my question? Why would I answer your questions after you ignore mine?

What is your conclusion regarding the various theories where we find scientific consensus?

[ant]

Why do you disagree with those scientists that are not in uniform with the consenus?
Can you name a couple of them and tell us all why it is you disagree with their position?

So... what about the answer to my question? Why would I answer your questions after you ignore mine?

What is your conclusion regarding the various theories where we find scientific consensus?

Consider how a report like this did not get much airtime

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-mode ... ts-1.12810

Look at the record setting year Texas and Oklahoma arr about to record:

http://www.weather.com/forecast/regiona ... ay-ranking

And whats forcasted for CA

http://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-new ... t/47173554

El Nino, La Nina effects are thought to have a greater impact on long term forcasting than atmospheric conditions. .But here's a question also to consider:
If the levels of C02 are higher than ever before (thanks to us) someone esplain to me why a warming pause/cooling trend is even possible at this alleged doomsday point?

Do you intelligent folks even bother to attempt some reasonable sceptical questions?
It's like working out your brain!

[ant]

By the way. My crystal ball says I should move up north ro Oregon because of the impending doomsday mega drought forecast for CA .

I am seriosuly considering it.

[Interbane]

Do you intelligent folks even bother to attempt some reasonable sceptical questions?

Here's a skeptical question for you. If past consensus has turned out to be false in many cases, what is your conclusion regarding current issues where there is consensus?