Off-Topic: Explanation of "Consensus"

Grand Lake Topics

(Grand Lake Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

84,091 messages

Updated 11/8/2024 10:28:12 AM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,204 messages

Updated 9/14/2024 10:10:50 AM

Grand Lake Fishing

(Grand Lake Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,172 messages

Updated 9/9/2024 5:04:44 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,262 messages

Updated 11/6/2024 6:43:09 PM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,979 messages

Updated 6/26/2024 5:03:03 AM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Welcome, Guest

Select View Mode: [ classic | beta | recent ]

	Name:	MartiniMan -
	Subject:	Explanation of "Consensus"
	Date:	12/29/2008 10:16:32 PM

What I mean to say is that scientific theories are not proven or disproven by a consensus. The theory is proven through experiment and emperical data. Consensus is not an appropriate method for closing out scientific argument or debate as it is all too often wrong. Some famous examples of scientific consensus we now know to be wrong are the earth at the center of the universe and being flat. Many others exist.

So my main point is that simply because a consensus exists the debate is not over. Especially when you consider the manner in which skeptics are excoriated and threatened simply because they question the orthodoxy of the day about man's influence on global warming.

On another note, my main thrust is about man's influence on global climates. Debating about climate change is silly, climates have always and will always change, either growing cooler or warmer or at times static. There are micro changes from year to year and decade to decade and macro changes over long periods of time (thousands to tens of thousands of years and longer). What is still open to debate is man's influence and I have seen nothing but suspect models using questionable data run by people with a vested interest in promoting our influence on climates. That is wrong and I believe we will one day, maybe soon, see that it is a hoax.