As the scientists never cease to explain, if it’s consensus it isn’t science.
Einstein’s view of group-think was summarized in this comment:
“In order to be a member of a flock of sheep, one must, above all, be a sheep oneself!”
Most importantly, Einstein would have paid close attention to how well the establishment theory of global warming agreed with experiment. He famously stated:
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Lovely how the alarmists are the ones who first descend into personal abuse. Can’t debate. Can’t reason.
Well, I’m glad you’re channeling Einstein now. The little guy would be lost without your help. But maybe allow him a few more words to elaborate on what he meant:
“The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an exorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says “yes” to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says “Maybe,” and in the great majority of cases simply “No.” If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter “Maybe,” and if it does not agree it means “No.” Probably every theory will some day experience its “No” - most theories, soon after conception.”
In other words, as human understanding progresses we see a little more of the reality behind all things, Each theory leads to a line of inquiry which leads to a more accurate theory. From the Bohr model of the atom to quantum physics. Each theory works well enough, until a better one takes over.
But are you really saying experimentation is bunk? Are you saying if 9 doctors tell you you have cancer, and the 10th says the rest are all quacks, you’re going to listen to the 10th?
Don’t bother, this guy is a troll. He has no shame, can’t be proven wrong (in his (sic) head). Honestly just ignore dudes like this. That Einstein quote he trots out is basically blanket permission to be an contrarian in any matter of any kind, where can’t it be employed in one side of an argument? Nothing matters to him except the argument. It’s kinda sic.
I totally agree with Einstein. No problem there.
Nope. Not at all. But perhaps you should just test the difference between your 10 doctors and say, 10 climate alarmists.
The ten doctors have the benefit of tens of thousands of doctors knowledge and experience of cancer. Their profession has the benefit of centuries of study and knowledge. They can observe in real-time the progression of cancers. They can see or read about the benefits of different treatments. Their patients would have recovered or died and each would leave a mark. In short, their skill can be tested against real-world results.
Now try that with ten climate alarmists. Nothing they have ever predicted has come true. Their catastrophic models constantly predict higher temperatures than are subsequently observed. In short, they prove themselves wrong by predicting things that just don’t happen so they’ve taken to predicting things so far in advance that they will be comfortably retired or dead by the time they are proved wrong yet again. Who exactly is qualified to be described as a climate scientist? It hasn’t been studied as that until it became fashionable relatively recently. Forget geologists who studied the NATURAL climate record in rocks showing earth’s warmer and cooler phases. What would they know? They say we are in an icehouse earth phase with permanent ice. Out of the last 550 million years, the earth has had permanent ice caps on one or both poles only nine per cent of the time. Yet somehow we’re catastrophically heating the earth.
According to Paul Ehrlich (Bing Professor of Population Studies of the Department of Biology of Stanford University and president of Stanford’s Center for Conservation Biology), we should all be dead or starving now. Try Al Gore or Michael Mann and his debunked hockey stick.
Amuse yourself with this list of predictions of things caused by (scare quotes) climate change - with links to the idiot authors.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Read a bit wider.
No worries. Our friend from Down Under is what he is. I don’t respond to change his mind. I respond so that if there are any children walking down the alley hearing two old men shouting over the fence at each other, they know what a sane one sounds like (pssss-not him).
Start by doing exactly that. As I said
He’s right. That’s what he is and it annoys you.
The difference between you and me, my friend, might be that I am usually right, but readily admit I can be wrong. Whereas certain gentlemen always need to be right, and never see the wrong in it.
So can I. Just show me where and I’ll admit it.
Back to the topic. Could this be the climate change everybody’s talking about?
Police arrested 183 people for lighting bushfires across Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania in the past few months. NSW police data shows 183 people have been charged or cautioned for bushfire-related offences since November 8, and 24 arrested for deliberately starting bushfires.
Nuclear physicists didn’t exist until 1945. Still, they managed to make one hell of a bang!
Well, don’t drag all that into it, cobber. I mean, you just described a consensus opinion.
And after all,
In order to be a member of a flock of sheep, one must, above all, be a sheep oneself!” If you keep disagreeing with yourself like that you’re going to get dizzy.
After all, didn’t Einstein say, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong.” Right before you said, “Forget geologists who studied the NATURAL climate record in rocks showing earth’s warmer and cooler phases. What would they know?”
How did they study all the rocks, without experimentation? How would they agree on what they found, without consensus?
Sorry, cobber. I’m a little dazed by your dazzling intellectual gymnastics. Think I’ll crack open a Fosters and sit here on this bench awhile…
Ernest Rutherford, 1st Baron Rutherford of Nelson, HFRSE, was a New Zealand-born British physicist who came to be known as the father of nuclear physics. Encyclopædia Britannica considers him to be the greatest experimentalist since Michael Faraday. Born: Aug 30, 1871, Brightwater, Colony of New Zealand. Died: Oct 19, 1937, Cambridge, England.
Perhaps he wasn’t a REAL nuclear physicist. Just an old fuddy-duddy. What would he know?
Nope, again. Didn’t do that. Each and every doctor makes a decision about a patient. He can accept or reject any precedent, experience or knowledge he wishes and prescribe treatment according to his own views. He discusses this with the patient who agrees. The patient can go to the consensus doctor or the patient can go to the sole outlier. His decision.
Try to recall the WRONG medical consensus on stomach ulcers. The radical doctor dosed himself with the bacterium to see if he was right.
In 2005, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discovery that peptic ulcer disease (PUD) was primarily caused by Helicobacter pylori , a bacterium with affinity for acidic environments, such as the stomach. As a result, PUD that is associated with H. pylori is currently treated with antibiotics used to eradicate the infection. For decades prior to their discovery, it was widely believed that PUD was caused by excess acid in the stomach. During this time, acid control was the primary method of treatment for PUD, to only partial success. Among other effects, it is now known that acid suppression alters the stomach milieu to make it less amenable to H. pylori infection.
You can still decide today to go with what was the absolute consensus (until 2005) and get your peptic ulcer treated that way. Just one or two doctors out of a gazillion. Who would you go to?
You seem to be missing the point despite me making it in very simple terms. They don’t have to agree. Do you get it? They don’t come to a consensus at all. They do the tests and publish their findings which may or may not fit the consensus of the day. The science isn’t settled. Geologists might be wrong. The way to prove them wrong is by the scientific method. You can believe whatever geologists you like but you won’t necessarily be right, and I know you try to be right. You told me.
Nobody here drinks Fosters anymore. Have we sent the stale stocks over there?
I think we should debate the flat earth theory next gents.
It’s bound to be nearly as entertaining as this one has been. 
You start. I’ll debunk.
When a thread headed for climate change grows by 25 posts overnight, it’s a sure sign that we’re approaching this intellectual level:
if the world is getting hotter I’m moving back to the hot part of Victoria where the average temp hasnt changed since it has been continuously measured by the same thermometer.
And no experiment has yet to prove anthropogenic climate change wrong, which is why it’s accepted science.
You clearly don’t have a good grasp of science.
Accepted by whom? Anyway, if YOU had a good grasp of science you would know it’s not up to anyone “to prove anthropogenic climate change wrong”. It’s up to the anthropogenic climate change alarmists to prove what part of climate change is natural and within normal variability and then what part of it is unnatural and what causes it. Science starts from the null hypothesis, in this case, that climate changes are natural and within normal variability. Normal natural weather events are not a sign of anthropogenic climate change. Nothing we’ve seen so far in global climate indicates any deviation from previously experienced climatic states in the recorded past and the geological past.
OK. Here’s a fuller quote.
Michael Crichton had this to say:
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."
So show me something that’s come true. Please. Anything.
All of peer reviewed science.
That’s been done.
Wrong.
That’s consensus.
Micheal Crichton apparently understands science as badly as you do.
I already have in previous threads but you just ignore the evidence.