Mister Moose wrote:rogman wrote:Mister Moose wrote:And just exactly what is a "scientific consensus"?
I don't know, maybe it looks something like this?
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
American Academy of Pediatrics
<SNIP>
So you're going to bolster your argument on what soil scientists, pediatricians, Iranians, Bangladeshians, mechanical engineers, and piano tuners think? There are numerous worthwhile institutions on that list, but the far greater majority takes away from the import of the list. Someone felt the need to stretch. Just exactly how well educated in climate science are pediatricians? Or mechanical engineers? Or zookeepers?
And somehow a consensus that includes them should increase the gravity of their conclusions? That this represents a
scientific consensus?
As per usual Moose is a voice of sanity here. Science is explicitly NOT about consensus of human opinion. You make a claim, another scientist makes a counter claim. We don't count numbers to decide who is correct. We look at data and apply logic. The questions will never be "settled".
For obviously flawed claims such as "the earth is flat." appeals to consensus are NEVER made. We appeal to the data: a photo of earth from space...and the sane among us acknowledge that the current data favors a map where the earth is not flat. Always ready to see new data but the case against a flat earth seems pretty compelling.
As per usual Rogman resorts to an argument from authority.
LOTS of data to look at re climate...anyone that thinks "the science is settled" (meaning that we KNOW that human combustion of hydrocarbons is increasing CO2 which is driving dangerous changes to the climate) is a liar, an idiot or an activist...I suspect most "consensus scientists" fall into the last category (to be generous) but maybe I am being too kind.
Here is a fun post demolishing the argument that ignoring the "97% climate consensus" would be just like ignoring a situation where 97% of doctors told you needed surgery.
The “expert” fallacy: The stark differences between MD’s and PhD’s
Why ignoring doctors isn't like ignoring "climate scientists"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/16/ ... -and-phds/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Money quotes:
1.
A medical doctor is a highly-qualified professional. Medical doctors must successfully complete a medical school, spend 3-7 years in residency actually treating patients, and be licensed by a state medical board composed mostly of proven doctors.
In contrast, anybody can call him- or herself a scientist and speak on behalf of science. There are no licensing or certification requirements. Enviro-activists and certain media personalities have been abusing this freedom for decades. Unfortunately, a terminal degree and affiliation with a formerly prestigious university or institution cannot serve as evidence that a person is a scientist.
2.
A medical doctor is accountable. A doctor would lose patients or be fired if his or her advice
isn’t sound. A doctor can also be sued by a dissatisfied patient. In a number of cases, doctors have been indicted.
A putative climate scientist can hardly even be criticized. Remember how a mere investigation of the misconduct by Michael Mann caused pandemonium. News media shouted about infringement of academic freedom (although the Constitution does not provide for any academic privileges, and the Article I, Section 9 might be interpreted to explicitly prohibit grant of such privileges). Nevertheless, perceived academic immunity is widely abused by con scientists and leftist operatives in universities and research institutions.
3.
Patients have direct bidirectional communication with their doctor. “Direct” means that the patient usually speaks face-to-face with the doctor. “Bi-directional” means the patient can ask the doctor questions and get answers. Very few accept TV personalities’ talk as real medical advice.
The so-called “climate science” is usually communicated to the public in third person point of view like “The scientists say that …”, “Majority of peer-reviewed articles conclude …”, and even “Models show that …” These used to be typical introductory clauses before statements about alleged climate dangers. Recently, climate alarmists dropped those qualifying statements together with any pretense for honesty. They are actors, media personalities, politicians, and other people who are as far from science as one can be. Communication with “climate science communicators” is always one-sided. When faced with non-rehearsed questions they assuredly fail, causing laughs among climate realists.
4.
One takes initiative to seek a doctor, rather than the other way around. Any unsolicited email offering a medical procedure or a wonder pill is sent straight to the spam folder.
But climate alarmism promoters always come unsolicited! That started with James Hansen, who made a front page article in the NY Times in 1981 while the possibility of future harm from carbon dioxide release was being considered by the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee. After that, every time real scientists rejected alarm in scientific proceedings, the environmentalists invited themselves to the media and shouted about impending catastrophe that could only be avoided if we repented and did whatever they told us to do. Then, they chased out most real scientists from climate-related research and declared that there is scientific consensus in favor of alarmism.
5.
Doctors do not demand patients to trust them. They earn their trust.
Climate alarmists demand trust because they have earned mistrust.
How was the ski season in the USA this year? Rumor has it that skiing will soon be a thing of the past...you know that evil global warming gonna shorten the season so much it will disappear!
