Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

Sure, because real science is about nothing so much as consensus, right?

 

correct, it takes consensus verified by a process of peer review of repeated challenge and successful defense to accept a hypothesis and promote it to the level of Theory(accepted as true)...that you don't even know verifies your scientifically illiterate, so why do you bother debating or questioning something you don't comprehend at even a basic level?

 

Evidence?

 

Yes. Science progresses in incremental steps by many individuals in a never ending accumulation of knowledge. Lines of research backed by countless experiments, observations, and good old fashioned hard work by multiple people working independently has been proven time and time again to move science forward faster. This is the consensus. And it works.

Let me put this another way. You can find evidence to support any viewpoint whether it be a flat Earth, cold fusion, n-rays, or AGW skepticism. But, you still have to weigh that evidence against all of the evidence. And the abundance of evidence overwhelming demonstrates that the Earth is a sphere, cold fusion is not possible, n-rays do not exist, and that AGW is the best theory that explains and predicts the global mean temperature.

 

And you wonder why you have no credibility with the commonsensically inclined.

 

Ahh yes, the "peer review" argument. I guess this study will end up in the trash like all the other studies in climate gate that didn't tow the line.

 

And, being non science backed, it should end up in the trash. I guarantee if conservative guys have cancer, they’ll go for qualified advice backed by peer reviewed treatment and institutional support. That’s why, when it’s personal, everyone is liberal. This bogus study without support....not a chance. Still waiting for some accredited institution that supports the study.

 

Your so called "accredited institution" dismisses all dissenting opinion and throw it in the trash as climate gate showed.

 

Look up the meaning “the scientific method” before you pretend to know what real science involves. You can’t walk around with a cell phone in your pocket, drive an automobile and take a decongestant and then pretend that ligit science has no place determining the relevance of man made climate change.

 

Anything less then consensus with the backing of ligit institutional research is just opinion. You’re entitled to it, just don’t expect to be taken seriously. We have names for people who try to sell ideas and products based upon opinion and not scientific research. They’re called charlatans.

 

We have names for this group of so called scientist that refuses to entertain any dissenting opinions on their failed hypothesis. They are called charlatans.

 

Deniers have little respect for legitimate science until they face a life threatening medical emergency. Then, research by institututes like John’s Hopkins becomes very important. Everyone is liberal when it’s personal.

 

Unless you're the self professed expert, you’ll need them to be taken seriously. Claiming something is self evident is just a way of confessing you’re wrong. My reference(s) is/are, every institute of higher learning in the free world.

 

I understand it a million times better than anyone who thinks consensus is paramount.

That's pretty funny, associating climatology with scientific disciplines which have produced discoveries that lead to actual technological advancements.

Whatever the hell that means.

It's not on me to provide reason to take me seriously, it's on climatologists to provide reason - other than their agreement with each other - to provide reason to be taken seriously by the lay public.

So the Founding Fathers were all charlatans. Who knew?

Medical science has a track record consisting of millions of case studies. How many Earth-like planets have climatologists successfully diagnosed, let alone cured?

 

Sad.

 

Yes, it's very sad indeed that independent, commonsensical thinking leaves you thoroughly nonplussed.

 

Legitimate science doesn't call people who disagree with a hypothesis deniers. Religions do that.

 

Anyone who is in denial of the position of every major corporation, every accredited institute of higher learning and is the official position of every govt. in the free world, can rightfully be referred to as a denier. When it reaches this point of acceptance, “deniers” is an appropriate tittle.

 

" Everyone's saying it so it must be true". LOL Again that's not science.

 

Let's rehash some definitions.

skeptic - A person who accepts the scientific method and most of the available evidence at hand, but believes there is enough supporting evidence to challenge certain secondary and tertiary hypothesis of AGW. Skeptics rarely reject any primary hypothesis of AGW. Judith Curry is an example of a skeptic. She fully acknowledges that 1) the Earth is warming and 2) that humans are probably responsible. What makes her a skeptic is that she believes the warming will be less than the IPCC estimate and will use peer reviewed research to support her position.

denier - A person who rejects any and all evidence favoring AGW. This is usually accompanied by a rejection of all observations, measurements, physical laws, and pretty much all scientific disciplines of science in general including but not limited to quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, statistical processing, etc. Conspiracy theories and claims of fraud are often invoked in an attempt to salvage logically inconsistent arguments.

Many of the posters on this forum and even this thread are deniers all the way.

 

Unfortunately for you, when the scientific consensus is in agreement, that IS in part the definiton of legitimate science. Deniers want to go through life, ignorant of science and then just pick and choose what to believe, purely based upon the wishes of the GOP / Trumpian /Faux News deception.

 

More accurately, it's part of an intellectually bankrupt definition of science - though certainly the geocentrists wouldn't have thought so, centuries ago.

 

We have had this conversation before and most if not all AGW skeptics get labeled as deniers by most if not all of true believers and yes I'm using a religious term here because most if not all those who beat the AGW drum do so with religious zealotry

 

So when given the choice between hundreds of independent repeatable experiments and observations versus the lone dissenting opinion with little or no experimental or observational support you throw your lot in with the later? That's science to you?

 

lol

I double dog dare you to quote me throwing my lot in with anybody at all in a matter of science. I believe what makes sense to me, reject lies when I find them, and suspend judgment on everything else.

That's not science to you?