DIYbanter - View Single Post

Doug Miller

In article m, wrote:
On Mar 6, 12:06 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Bob Schmall
wrote:

...

Pure bull****. You have absolutely no proof for that ridiculous statement.
Scientists agree because the evidence leads them to a conclusion. that's
why they are scientists and not politicians. Case in point: continental
drift. Forty years ago it was not understood and most scientists in the
earth sciences disagreed with it. Now we have overwhelming evidence and
there is a concensus.

Yes, but the consensus on plate tectonics is the direct result of the
overwhelming evidence. In global warming, consensus is used as
a *substitute* for, and mistaken by many *as*, the overwhelming evidence.

The news media, public, and governments _sometimes_ rely upon
consensus within a scientific field as a substitute for "overwhelming"
evidence simply because they do not understand the underlying
theory needed to evaluate the evidence.

Within a scientific field consensus is built when scientists who DO
understand the underlying theory reach similar conclusions from
that evidence. Controversy over the relationship between smoking
and various illnesses was settled within medical researchers decades
before the government and public accepted those conclusions.

Scientists, when considering scientific issues outside of their
area of specialization are not necessarily any better, and indeed
may be worse, than the public as a whole. Cold fusion comes
to mind. Need I mention the DI's list of 'scientists' who 'question'
evolution, most of who are not scientists at all and almost
none of whom are biologists or zoologists? So if you poll
scientists who do not study climatology then you may
well find that they rely on their perception of consensus
within the field of climatology.

Have you any evidence that the _climatologists_ are relying
on consensus instead of evidence?

Yourself, Mr Daneliuk, and Mark or Juanita seem to be
confusing the media's reliance on consensus within the
scientific community with a supposed, and never demonstrated
reliance upon consensus within the field of climatology itself.

I might remind you that of the well-known list of however many thousand
scientists it was who all affirmed the notion of anthropogenic global warming,
only a tiny minority actually are climatologists...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.