Tippaporn

Well said.

Come on, placeholder. The truth is always relevant. What's more relevant than that? You haven't exploded anything, except you have perhaps in your own mind. Polling has nothing at all to do with the question of whether consensus alone is equal to truth. But you want to argue that science is exempt? Do you really want to risk that? Again, this is why I don't post any data or studies on the climate change issue here. What for? If you guys can't even bring yourselves to accept such a fundamental truth that consensus does not equate to truth then how could anyone believe that you would be willing to accept anything that would be even slightly debatable? To be honest and with sincerity I do hold you to be a very intelligent guy and I respect you. But all of that goes to waste when you willingly abandon any truth which intelligence brings to awareness for the sake of wanting to be right. There's one cure and only one cure for that . . . pure objectivity. As one poster here stated a while back, he doesn't care whether climate change is real or not. He just wants the truth. Once anyone realises they're heavily invested intellectually and emotionally in a given outcome then they've lost any and all objectivity. Don't let that happen to your fine mind. This thread is a joke for this reason. Climate change deniers say white and climate change believers say black. Climate change deniers say black and climate change believers say white. What a frickin' joke. You're not here to debate or to learn. You're here purely to espouse. That ain't debating.

Read my edit. Not that it makes a difference to you. You've got nothing.™

Average humans, yes. Scientific community, no. BS. The scientific community is not exempt from what is truth.

I've said it many times over the years. I absolutely love Wiki on neutral subject matter. Beyond that I wouldn't want to despoil my brain.

It's a simple question requiring only a yes or no answer, placeholder. And you haven't answered. You could have saved yourself the time it took you to write opinions that are completely irrelevant to a yes or no question. So let's have it. Does mere consensus prove a thing to be true or false? Yes or no?

Brilliant, there Bkk Brian. You deserve a gold star for posting a Wiki article defining Scientific Consensus in which nowhere equating consensus as definitive proof that something is true or false. Further on in the article: Perception of whether a scientific consensus exists on a given issue, and how strong that conception is, has been described as a "gateway belief" upon which other beliefs and then action are based. Beliefs? Huh? As to the Wiki link "Scientific Consensus On Climate Change" everyone is more than well aware that Wiki is radically leftist, thus highly biased and not at all objective. I love Wiki. But I use it only for information on subject matter that is neutral and therefore of no interest to the left.

Consensus may be true or it may be false. Only a fool would deny that truth. But I understand. For you the science is settled. Therefore the consensus about climate change is a case where consensus is due to proof, therefore consensus and truth are one and the same. One small factoid which I'll use to throw a monkey wrench in your pristine flow of logic . . . the science has not been settled. Which brings us back to square one. If a thing has not been definitively proven to be true then one cannot use consensus as proof that the thing is true. Now if you call those who disagree with climate change believers Deniers then you can be called a Denier of the science being settled. One other point for you to remember. As there continue to be plentiful opposing arguments and the battle rages you don't get to step into the middle of the fray and declare, as if you have some God given ultimate authority, that your side won. You would get a resounding <self-deleted> as a reply.

You've shown exceptional inspiration this morning, Yellowtail. Another classic truth.

No, you're clinging to a falsity for dear life, still trying to pretend it's true. The chutzpah you're displaying is truly comical.

Again, are you serious, Danderman123, in consistently deny the truth of that statement? I'm not ignoring any truth. And here you're using another logical fallacy. To disagree with a position does not infer that a position is ignored. The conclusion does not follow the premise. Are you saying that logic is abstract?

False. Repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true. So now your shifting from consensus to repetition as a tactic to convince?

Oh my God. You can't be serious posting that as a serious reply.

Now that was absolutely brilliant, Yellowtail. Coincidentally, I had been thinking of digging up some historical examples where almost universal consensus within the scientific community was ultimately shown to be false.

Care to weigh in on the consensus issue I'm raising, @placeholder or will you continue to ignore it? So far you've ignored answering twice; once refusing to address it in my reply to one of your posts and once when you were mentioned by link. It's an important issue to resolve, don't you think? For the false assertion of consensus equating to proof is used in almost every climate change article by climate change proponents. Including the article on which this thread is based.

Consensus may be true or it may be false. But consensus, in and of it self, does not make something true or false. If the truth is not yet established, as the debate still rages about climate changed, then consensus is irrelevant. Therefore, to use consensus when the truth has not been definitively established to assert that consensus makes a position true then that is a deceptive and dishonest practice. Your analogy is another form of fallacy of argument. Per Wiki, once again, on the Argument Of Analogy Fallacy: Argument from analogy or false analogy is a special type of inductive argument, where perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has not been observed yet. Climate change has not been definitively proven. That the earth is not flat has been proven. I'm beginning to think that you have extreme difficulty with processing logical thought. Either that or you understand quite well that if consensus cannot be used to make climate change true then the climate change believers have lost a major tool in their arsenal for convincing the public of what they want the public to believe as true. For that would mean that even the outliers on this issue would have equal standing to the majority. Or, the truth would destroy one aspect of your narrative. Or, all of the above.

I'm posting information from Wiki on long established and accepted fallacies of argument. Consensus being one of them. To say that I'm posting false information is to say that Wiki's page on fallacies of argument is false information since I simply copied and pasted it. So saying that I'm posting false information is patently false. And BOOM!! you immediately post an article on scientific consensus which suggests that consensus makes something true. I mean, what does the above say? Well, it's more than obvious. BTW, neither @Danderman123 nor @placeholder have offered to address this issue. Hmmmm . . . I wonder why?

The reason President Trump doesn’t need to debate in one shot.

This much is established: If you understand that the argumentative use of consensus is a fallacy of relevance, and therefore false, why do you continue to use it to bolster your argument? Would you agree that it's use, being that it's false, is therefore dishonest? And if anyone purposely uses a known falsity then what might one conclude from that?

Wrong!! Absolutely wrong!! They have consensus of opinions!! <sarc>

Jack Smith has opened the door for the 2020 election to be litigated in court. After all, Trump is charged with knowingly spreading false information that it was stolen. Given the corrupt judiciary in the U.S., and the fact that ev erything is in constant flux, there are no guarantees. I and others think the corrupt Jack Smith has unwittingly opened Pandora's box. But we shall see in due time, won't we.

"Do you think the covid epidemic and it's effects on the economy stopped on Jan 20, 2021? Why do you give Trump a pass and not Biden?" Because Trump made the U.S. energy dominant in oil and gas. On Biden's 1st day he made the U.S. energy dependent. But, no, that had nada to do with inflation. It was the war in Ukraine. That's right. It was the bogeyman's fault. Didn't have anything to do with Biden's depletion of the U.S. oil reserves, either. A portion of which went to . . . the CCP.

Even if you take that chart at face value (and assume there won't be any revisions, LOL), and I don't without getting a 2nd, 3rd, 4th opinion, prices haven't come down. Never forget . . . "Inflation is transitory" - Janet Yellen. Sure, everything is . . . eventually. Go ahead and trust gubmint to your hearts content. And at your own peril. It seems you're stuck on MSM's many talking points. From MacroTrends. Quick quiz . . . which of the below years was Trump in office? Which of the below years was Biden in office? Yes, the economy is doing "well" from it's disastrous peak. It's like when gas shot up to almost $10/gal in certain locales, then dropped to $5 and the MSM was cheering about how cheap gas is now. I have no idea how they fool people so well with such twisted logic. U.S. inflation rate for 2022 was 8.00%, a 3.3% increase from 2021. U.S. inflation rate for 2021 was 4.70%, a 3.46% increase from 2020. U.S. inflation rate for 2020 was 1.23%, a 0.58% decline from 2019. U.S. inflation rate for 2019 was 1.81%, a 0.63% decline from 2018.

Was it Trump's fault that Covid happened? Geesh! So many minor details that you seem to leave out. 2019 was one of the best years ever economically for Americans. He created that by building over the previous two years.

Was it Trump's fault that Covid happened? Geesh! So many minor details that you seem to leave out. 2019 was one of the best years ever economically for Americans. He created that by building over the previous two years.