I always find it kind of funny when Bacheous has to go to a site to find out what scientists think. First of all, scientists don't think with one brain.
It seems I remember you being an engineer, but it doesn't matter if you are not a "scientist". I don't know that a degree necessarily makes anyone a scientist. There are clearly people who have degrees in some field of science that don't know as much about science generally as others without that degree. In addition, unfortunately, some "scientists" don't behave or think in a scientific manner. Maybe it is just me, but I really don't care what other scientists think except that it might affect my wallet if they try to use it for politics. Relying on the opinion of others has never been something I could stomach. I have learned that too often those opinions aren't worth anything.
I have decided to become a believer in consensus.
I am going to research what Lady Gaga's view on global warming is, and on the basis that I like a couple of her tracks I will endorse whatever her views are, and follow the Gaga consensus.
EDIT Strike that, I've just watched Bitchin Kitchen and have decided to support Nadia G's viewpoint instead, I mean how can a sexy Canadian Italian chick who can cook be wrong ?
Edit Wow 2 tb's down and all I'm trying to do is follow the warmist methodology. I've seen people on here make decisions based on the credentials of the speaker, I've even seen people say that waves will be soon be lapping over 8 story buildings because it was suggested by someone well qualified (and well paid lol), so it's extremely double standards to tb's down me because I want to take the viewpoint of someone who can dish up a mean pasta.
Irony is lost upon the warmon religion.
Lesson:- don't pay attention to the status and position of the messenger, try examining the message instead.
Here's an interesting example of the use, or rather misuse, of the word "consensus".
The most obvious fraud around the Oregon Petition is that it was disguised to look as though it came from the National Academy of Science. Even so, in 25 years it has been signed by 39 people who claim a climatology background. Of those 39 we don't even know how many still live, how many still believe what they did 25 years ago, how many felt duped, how many have respectable credentials and how many never existed in the first place.
Rather than looking for consensus from a political hack organization that tries to deceive their audience that they are the NAS, just go to the NAS whose specific purpose is to express the consensus of great scientists in the U.S. Those like you who choose to be deceitful promote the Oregon Petition. Those who want to know what the Academy of Science says, go to the Academy of Science.
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoi...
************************
Instead of asking about what scientists believe, why not ask them directly?
"The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), are responsible for most of the climate change currently being observed."
-- The National Academy of Science.
Consensus of opinion has never influenced me, like Jim Z, I prefer to use my own mind when deciding something.
Since the "skeptic argument" (as you misleadingly call the denialist position) is devoid of science, it is invalid and irrelevant
Are you so lazy that you can't even copy-paste something for Part 3 of this little anti-science fake question series of yours that is actually DIFFERENT from Part 2?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
Has Billy conquered the Reptilians and used them to telepathically control Mike?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
======================================...
Since you are repeating the same stupid anti-science trickery and sleight of hand as your previous "questions", I'll repeat my rebuttal:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
The consensus and how it developed is explained in Spence Weart's solid history of the science. I have provided the links a few times before. His book was written over a decade ago (the basic consensus is more than two decades old). [See the links under sources below]
Margaret Thatcher recognized and reflected the consensus:
There is none . Its fake , mostly spread by true believers of the cult .
In this part, I'd like to look at the use and mis-use of the climate change "consensus". To start, let's look at skepticalscience.com:
"The skeptic argument...There is no consensus
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ..."
"What the science says...
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Does that properly address the skeptic argument?
A little later on they state: "The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":"
If you go through the links provided, they all express concern about global warming. But, do they all explicitly state that MOST of the recent warming can be attributed to human activities?
Overall, do you think that skepticalscience.com explanation is an example of the proper use or a complete mis-characterization of the "consensus"?
Do you have any other examples of the proper use or the misleading mis-use of the climate change "consensus"?
