>>>>Consensus rules in science.  THe lawof gravity as you suggest is in fact   
   >>>>now known to be a local factor only; as einstein showed and observation   
   >>>>confirms.   
   >>>   
   >>>And the consensus changed. The original consensus was wrong.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>The old model of gravity and its consensus gave way to the new   
   >>>>understanding of its limited application   
   >>>> and a new consensus in the new model.   
   >>>   
   >>>And yet you argue in favour of the infalibility of science by   
   >>>concensus.   
   >>Quite the contrary, the history of science is that the current concensus is   
   >>contingent upon absence of new data or more powerful ways to analyze   
   >>the data.   
   >>   
   >>Newton's "law" of gravity prsisted as long as new data tc was absent.   
   >>Einstein provided the more powerful way to analyze observations ala gravity   
   >>and newton's "law" took its proper place as a local obsrvational condition   
   >>only.   
   >>Using your term, the scientific "vote" changed as above because the new   
   >>model fit the observations better in a more powerful inclusive manner and   
   >>universal manner..   
   >   
   >But the concensus did not define the 'right' way to think about   
   >gravity. It merely was that it became the accepted way to think about   
   >gravity _after_ Newton arrived at his theory. That concensus did not   
   >exist at the time Newton did his work. If as you say there is a   
   >concensus now about the working of the earth's climate there is   
   >nothing more certain than that it will be demolished.   
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>The vast majority of climate scientists agree that human activity is   
   >>>>involved in the current climate change toward higher temperatures and   
   >>>>related effects that come thereof.   
   >>>   
   >>>Quite true. But their opinions are by no mean all the ame. Nor do they   
   >>>all support the same concerns arising. The attempt to claim that 97%   
   >>>are singing the same song in plain chant is conspicuously wrong (at   
   >>>least it can be seen to be wrong if you study climate matters).   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Just as with gravity and how it is now considered differently then did   
   >>>>newton, the body of evidence caused the formation of the new model to   
   >>>>account for the current climate changes.   
   >>>   
   >>>And yet you argue in favour of the infalibility of science by   
   >>concensus.   
   >>>   
   >   
   >>As above.   
   >   
   >Ditto.   
   >   
   >>>>Those who deny are in a shrinkig minority and do so based on questions only   
   >>>>without the evidence to support it.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>If andwhen those who deny can come up with the evidence to move the   
   >>>>consensus in another direction, the current consensus based on current   
   >>>>gathered evidence will persist.  That is the standard process in science.   
   >>>   
   >>>That's what is happening now. Many are coming up come up with the   
   >>>evidence to move the consensus in another direction, but the   
   >>>established consensus based on the analysis of the IPCC continues to   
   >>>persist. I expect it will change.   
   >   
   >>Shrug, then the now overwhelming majority consensus should start to swing   
   >>if those who deny can come up with better evidence.  A question or doubt or   
   >>a desired alternative outcome is not evidence.   
   >   
   >A question of doubt or the relevance of new evidence certainly is   
   >evidence. And there is plenty of that. Did you watch the Willy Soon   
   >video?   
      
   Sorry, that is not evidence.>   
      
   >>Again I urge you to read this little book;   
   >   
   >>'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas S. Kuhn'   
   >>>>   
   >I read it years ago: but it is not science it is metascience and of no   
   >direct relevance to climate change.   
      
   Smile, it describes the process of science, one consensus giving way to a   
   new one based on new evidence or a better way to understand it.   
      
   Nay, it is 1000 percent relevant to understand the now new consensus and   
   the failure of the deniers to find any traction.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)