5 ms·

Actually it would help if there was more focus on evidence and less on "consensus". I don't get why this consensus thing is pushed so much, in my eyes it just c

Actually it would help if there was more focus on evidence and less on "consensus". I don't get why this consensus thing is pushed so much, in my eyes it just cheapens and weakens the argument.

lutorm 11y ago
I'm not sure what you mean. Evidence, by its very nature, can only be gathered for events that have occurred. There is plenty of discussions about evidence. The real consequences, however, are in the future, and for those there can be nothing more than predictions. In that context, "consensus" means "within a very wide range of models and predictions, this is what will happen". It doesn't mean that it will happen, but it does mean that a bunch of people, using different methods and different data, agree on the conclusions. How does that weaken the argument?
Daishiman 11y ago
You can check any of the climate science journals, the IPCC reports which summarize the loads of different, independent lines of evidence, the explanations of the physical models that describe the process of warming and how that maps out to different geographic areas of the world, along with all the predictions that leads to in timeframes that span over a century for now. But no, I guess complaining to people who actually bother to at least get the fundamental explanations is a much more productive use of denialists' time rather than becoming informed.
- talmand 11y ago
  Does this include the science journals that have a history of squashing papers they disagree with on a political or emotional level?
  - Daishiman 11y ago
    By all means, why don't you cite said journals and papers and then we can see if they really stack up to the level of quality research demanded by peer review?
    - talmand 11y ago
      Why bother? I'm sure any journal I cite won't meet your expectations of peer review. No true Scotsman and all. But I'm sure if you search for the topic, science journal review bias, you'll find plenty of examples. I'm not even talking about just on papers concerning climate change. It's been in the news off and on over the past few years, it's not like I'm making this up.

Actually it would help if there was more focus on evidence and less on "consensus". I don't get why this consensus thing is pushed so much, in my eyes it just cheapens and weakens the argument.

lutorm 11y ago

I'm not sure what you mean. Evidence, by its very nature, can only be gathered for events that have occurred. There is plenty of discussions about evidence. The real consequences, however, are in the future, and for those there can be nothing more than predictions. In that context, "consensus" means "within a very wide range of models and predictions, this is what will happen". It doesn't mean that it will happen, but it does mean that a bunch of people, using different methods and different data, agree on the conclusions. How does that weaken the argument?

Daishiman 11y ago

You can check any of the climate science journals, the IPCC reports which summarize the loads of different, independent lines of evidence, the explanations of the physical models that describe the process of warming and how that maps out to different geographic areas of the world, along with all the predictions that leads to in timeframes that span over a century for now. But no, I guess complaining to people who actually bother to at least get the fundamental explanations is a much more productive use of denialists' time rather than becoming informed.

talmand 11y ago
Does this include the science journals that have a history of squashing papers they disagree with on a political or emotional level?
- Daishiman 11y ago
  By all means, why don't you cite said journals and papers and then we can see if they really stack up to the level of quality research demanded by peer review?
  - talmand 11y ago
    Why bother? I'm sure any journal I cite won't meet your expectations of peer review. No true Scotsman and all. But I'm sure if you search for the topic, science journal review bias, you'll find plenty of examples. I'm not even talking about just on papers concerning climate change. It's been in the news off and on over the past few years, it's not like I'm making this up.