Tippaporn

You can't remember me asking numerous times? You can't recall me beating you over the head about not answering? You think I'm going to believe that you can't remember me asking? I will give you kudos for answering correctly. Give credit when deserved. And healthy criticism when deserved, too. Goes both ways, to be fair. The rest of your post is nonsense, just like your memory lapse is nonsense. Now you're either a serious poster or I will quit beating the dead horses you toss at me. You can then go ahead and keep talking to yourself, aka some of the other posters here.

From the guy who refused to give a straight up yes or no answer to the simplest of questions, "Does consensus equal truth?" BTW, very little gets by me, Bkk Brian. ". . . back up your beliefs . . ." Your evidence is truth. My evidence is belief. So deceptive. So shallow.

Oh my, another dead horse.

Double post.

I don't think there's anything I could abject to. I wouldn't even know how to abject. I will only repeat myself so many times, Danderman123. But at some point I do stop beating a dead horse. “I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it.” ― R. Gaston That's the problem in a nutshell, Danderman123. Everything you wrote is proof of Gaston's quote. Had you understood anything I've written you would never have been able to write the nonsense you did. I'm ready to write you off as a basket case.

First it's proven, then it a hypothesis, and now it's proven again. Danderman123, I don't think you know whether you're coming or going. Accuracy matters. You want accuracy in data, do you not? This is sloppy.

"Never let a good crisis go to waste." - Winston Churchill Famously reprised by Rahm Emanuel during the Obama administration in response to the 2008 financial crisis "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." As I said, I wish we lived in a world where devious people did not exist.

Sorry, Danderman123, but you're not very good at what you do. You're not much of a challenge.

I thought it was fact. The science is settled, isn't it? I thought you got the memo.

Thanks you for that admission, placeholder. Truly. And I am not at all being facetious. Let me ask you this question. Can you name me a single instance in the modern age of science in which there was unanimous or near unanimous consensus of some established scientific fact or evidence which at some point in the future was overturned? Any such instance you can find would serve as a poster child example of why consensus, or agreement, no matter the degree of it, does not make something true. Or false. Only proof can do this. And even then it will always be open to the possibility that one day it may be disproved. That is the true nature of science. Science is not about "Hey, everybody, here's what we found to be true so everybody else shut the f up." That is what we have here on this thread now. Another question. Is that what you want to be part of? The reason I have so focused on consensus is, as I've stated several times, it is used maliciously and deceptively to give the illusion to an ill-informed and thus susceptible public that consensus makes something true. It affords the ability to create studies about this, that, and the other - on any issue someone may wish to benefit from - tout the consensus line that "the majority of scientists agree" and thus God has spoken. Once God has spoken then anyone who speaks against God is a heretic, an idiot - you're well aware of what is done to dissenters so I don't have to make a complete list. And then the policy makers take over to implement exactly what they want to do. And they have "the science" to back them. Now I wish we lived in a world in which devious people did not exist. But ours is not such a world So I do not fool myself in the least and therefore look with a very discerning eye whenever policies are driven and backed by "science." Especially . . . especially when you are not allowed to even question the "science." Now either I'm conspiratorial or I'm just making an accurate assessment of the real world but I have noticed that there are great sums of money involved in all issues. Climate change is most certainly, most definitely one of those issues. Eleftheros gets it. Many others here get it, too. Because the idea of a consensus is used, always, to create some single fixed and sacred unchallengable narrative (as with global warming and many other topics), and is thus the opposite of science.

Hypothesis? Did you just admit it's all hypothesis? It's the closest I've seen you come to any truth thus far, Danderman123. Congratulations! Better late to the party than never.

Eleftheros explains it perfectly. Twist it anyway you like via the creation of categories, or by made up exemptions, or any other rubbish logic you prefer to use for the sole and simple purpose of you being correct, placeholder. Here's the definition of consensus: 1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month. 2. general agreement or concord; harmony. Consensus, or agreement about anything, whether it's on evidence, conclusions, opinions, etc. does not make anything true or false.

Can you pick out which fallacy relates to the use of your example? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Eleftheros, how is it that you understand my posts yet the climate change believers can't seem to? Come on, tell us your secret to understanding plain English and logic.

You forgot the punchline: "So we believe."

Well said as well.

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.