> I have a decent understanding of how science works in general. <consensus> That's not how science works, that's the opposite of how science works. This is th

> I have a decent understanding of how science works in general. <consensus> That's not how science works, that's the opposite of how science works. This is the first reason we cannot get anywhere in this thread. Science is not some academic claiming everyone agrees with him, some random journalist reporting that as gospel, therefore it's true. That's the pre-scientific approach. Science is a method for arriving at the truth regardless of what people's titles are, and regardless of how popular they are or claim to be. It's about data and theories, not social support, that's why it works. The alternative you're trying to use here is a mishmash of tribal signals combined with strange attempts to do title-based reasoning, like trying to decide whether physicists, hydrologists or climatologists are more "expert" for any given topic. The world doesn't neatly break down that way. > If you say that a fundamental aspect of this consensus is false, that claim is extraordinary and demands extraordinary proof. This is the second reason we can't get anywhere. I've already given you proof of all these claims in the form of data. Even data in the form of peer reviewed studies, by scientists, although that isn't actually necessary for it to be proof. You're rejecting it because you seem to be reasoning purely on the basis of social signals. That's a problem, because for a claim of the form "those people over there are making false claims", no level of proof can ever be accepted if you think that way, no matter how extraordinary. It's a form of circular reasoning: These guys says they're experts and every other expert agrees with them. Those guys says they're also experts and the first group are wrong, but the first guys told me every expert agrees with them, so therefore the others must not be experts, and therefore I must not listen. If you think that way it's just a race to see who can get to you first. The way out is to recognize that it's not really that complicated. You can engage with the science on its own terms quite easily. If the news says extreme weather is getting more common, and charts of extreme weather events show otherwise, the data should win unless you have some reason to believe it's wrong.