The Church of Climate Change in these Latter Days

[Hagoth]

Okay, I'm going to act as if you are truly interested in having a discussion about this topic.

What? You created this thread with the thesis and conclusion that:

In the end, all of this bullxxxx about climate change revolves around a single straightforward objective. Depopulating the earth. They plan to indoctrinate people around the world with a universal religion in order to frighten people into not having children. This is the world that we are going to leave behind for our grandchildren. It's a 1000xs more cultish when compared to Mormonism.

I'm just trying to follow THAT logic.

I will offer my very simple argument by teaching basic science and also utilizing parallel arguments to help you see where I am coming from.

I appreciate your attempt to stoop to my level.

But all of this is just a distraction. Your main point was not just about "so-called" science being wrong, It was about an evil global plot. Let's just assume I agree with you about climate change. Please address the original conclusion of your post. To save you from having to scroll up, I'll repeat:

Let's say the Leftists succeed in their devious plot to reduce population growth, so it stabilizes at the current 8-ish billion or maybe even drops to 6 or 7 billion over the next several generations. First of all, why do you think it is so important to them to reduce the population - what do they gain from it, especially since they will all be dead by the time it comes to fruition? Secondly, why do you find it so scary and sinister?

On the other hand, let's imagine the Leftists get outsmarted and the population continues to grow as you believe it should. What do you think would be a praiseworthy rate of growth? Should it be exponential? Geometric? Linear? And what is a respectable non-Leftist-manipulated population that we should be happy with in, say, 50 years from now? 20 billion people? 50 billion? But more importantly, why is it a good thing and a Conservative thing to have the population continue to increase unchecked in perpetuity?

If you are right about this it is very important for us to understand the motivations behind this malicious conspiracy to depopulate the planet, but you have given no argument that makes sense about why such a plot would exist. Just making a blanket statement about the unreliability of science doesn't address your conclusion in any way.

I look forward to your answer. Also about the adrenochrome.

Edited to remove my response to DB's concerns about my penis. I have a fabulous view from my current vantage point, thank you!

[Mayan_Elephant]

So basically, you are asking me to be more like you, and less like me, so you're comfortable reading my threads?

No. I'm just challenging your conspiracy theory proposition, and wondering why you think a post-Mormon support group is the best platform to preach it.

I would enjoy addressing this "wonder" that you are having, Hagoth. If there is an appropriate time and place for that conversation, I would absolutely chime in.

[Hagoth]

So basically, you are asking me to be more like you, and less like me, so you're comfortable reading my threads?

No. I'm just challenging your conspiracy theory proposition, and wondering why you think a post-Mormon support group is the best platform to preach it.

I would enjoy addressing this "wonder" that you are having, Hagoth. If there is an appropriate time and place for that conversation, I would absolutely chime in.

OK, I officially and formally retract that statement. It is an unnecessary diversion. I apologize for creating a rabbit hole of my own. Now, back to our feature presentation.

[Mayan_Elephant]

No. I'm just challenging your conspiracy theory proposition, and wondering why you think a post-Mormon support group is the best platform to preach it.

I would enjoy addressing this "wonder" that you are having, Hagoth. If there is an appropriate time and place for that conversation, I would absolutely chime in.

OK, I officially and formally retract that statement. It is an unnecessary diversion. I apologize for creating a rabbit hole of my own. Now, back to our feature presentation.

I respect that. I do not see it as a rabbit hole. Rather, I see the elephant in the room (pun intended). Apologies are not necessary.

Let the feature resume.

[Cnsl1]

Sounds like someone is selling Pruvit products and gets all their health information from a couple sources.

Sounds like someone also assumes the rest of us are fat and can't see our own euphemisms. I can see my euphemism very well, from frightened turtle to screaming dragon.

I'm saying most health experts agree on a few basic things and that the jury is still out on various diets.

Consensus seems to be moderation in most things, drink lots of water, eat lots of plants, avoid lots of processed food, and exercise. That has served me very well. And I suspect 99% of health scientists would agree on those items.

Similarly, most climate scientists seem to agree on some basic things. It's getting warmer around here and the glaciers are getting smaller. We can argue the why and the how, but the what seems to be pretty much agreed upon.

[Dirty Bird]

Sounds like someone is selling Pruvit products and gets all their health information from a couple sources.

Sounds like someone also assumes the rest of us are fat and can't see our own euphemisms. I can see my euphemism very well, from frightened turtle to screaming dragon.

I'm saying most health experts agree on a few basic things and that the jury is still out on various diets.

Consensus seems to be moderation in most things, drink lots of water, eat lots of plants, avoid lots of processed food, and exercise. That has served me very well. And I suspect 99% of health scientists would agree on those items.

Similarly, most climate scientists seem to agree on some basic things. It's getting warmer around here and the glaciers are getting smaller. We can argue the why and the how, but the what seems to be pretty much agreed upon.

Experts on health are as stupid as experts on climate change. First, what makes health specialists considered experts? Have you noticed the proportion of obese individuals on the streets? That would be like visiting a cattle ranch and observing one hundreds of underweight or sick cows, then labeling the rancher as an experienced rancher despite the fact that the herd isn't well. Scientists, physicians, and other "health experts" have completely let us down by overanalyzing what foods we ought to be consuming. You mention that everyone says you should eat a lot of vegetables, and you understand that's the issue—people follow doctors because, well, they are doctors, and evidently that makes them wise. However, I'm here to tell you that the majority of doctors and scientists don't know the truth about what constitutes a healthy diet, and they're trying to convince people that meat should only be consumed occasionally rather than teaching them that meat should be the main food we eat, followed by eggs, natural raw dairy, fruit, and vegetables.

Identify the teeth in 10,000-year-old skulls that archaeologists discover. They are nearly always properly aligned and shaped. Why? Because their bodies were powered by protein and ketones rather than glucose when our ancestors lived off a natural diet back then. Their teeth had more room since their skulls were larger. Tooth decay was extremely uncommon as their diet was natural and the microorganisms in their mouths were in balance. Our teeth are crooked and decaying because, after the agricultural revolution, humans started eating grains instead of meat, which caused our skulls to shrink and our beneficial bacteria to be replaced by bad bacteria.

Because the slave master kept the meat for the white people, the slaves mostly consumed plants. Slaves only consumed table scraps of meat from their owners' dinners when they consumed meat. Although the slaves knew they would be shot or hanged if they were discovered hunting deer, they occasionally went on covert hunts for meat, targeting squirrels, possums, and raccoons. Nowhere in recorded history has a slave master been seen to eat grains or vegetables while giving his slaves meat.

Although we are carnivores and can get by on grains and vegetables, we start to grow sick and experience various bodily illnesses when we replace our meat intake with other meals. This is merely common sense, the kind that scientists and medical professionals completely ignore. They have an attitude of servitude, from an agreeable, get-along mindset. Meanwhile, the diets they prescribe to their patients are causing physical and psychological harm to us as a nation. Once more, I'm elucidating elementary, fundamental realities.

Please feel free to agree with everyone, but I prefer to know the truth. And because we are carnivores, humans have been surviving on meat for hundreds of thousands of years. We require large amounts of protein together with gobs of fat—juicy, delightful saturated fat. In essence, we require the complete opposite of what scientists and physicians advise. Furthermore, I think that scientists who research nutrition are no more knowledgeable about nutrition than climate scientists who are "experts," are experts in climate change. Both fields are ignorant of the Facts. Facts are facts, and for some reason, medical professionals and scientists prefer to ignore common sense in favor of blatant ignorance.

That's why some people like Hagoth get upset when confronted with the truth and imply people like me are conspiracy theorist and belong to QAnon.

[Hagoth]

Dirty Bird,

Diet concerns aside, let's assume you have convinced us that you know more about climate science than all of the world's climate scientists. Please finish explaining your main point. Why do the Leftists want to depopulate the planet? What is the proper natural population growth? Why is it evil to have the population stabilize at a more sustainable level but praiseworthy to see it grow unchecked? And what about adrenochrome? Or were you just re-vomiting other peoples' talk radio alarmist vomit and you are beginning to realize those people just don't make any damn sense?

[Hagoth]

Sounds like someone is selling Pruvit products and gets all their health information from a couple sources.

Sounds like someone also assumes the rest of us are fat and can't see our own euphemisms. I can see my euphemism very well, from frightened turtle to screaming dragon.

I'm saying most health experts agree on a few basic things and that the jury is still out on various diets.

Consensus seems to be moderation in most things, drink lots of water, eat lots of plants, avoid lots of processed food, and exercise. That has served me very well. And I suspect 99% of health scientists would agree on those items.

I think it's safe to say that DB can't establish that there has ever been a 90% consensus about diet.

Similarly, most climate scientists seem to agree on some basic things. It's getting warmer around here and the glaciers are getting smaller. We can argue the why and the how, but the what seems to be pretty much agreed upon.

The thing conspiracy theorists have in common is that whatever the topic: climate, age of earth, shape of earth, evolution denial... they are all similarly convinced that the scientific consensus on their particular topic is some kind of unfounded religion-like mutual agreement between millions of people who share some sinister intent and they rally behind the 1% who see it their way. They never want to talk about how frequently the scientific consensus was right. They never want to talk about how periods of uncertainty and disagreement were generally resolved once results were universally replicated, or when sufficient evidence was finally obtained to put the matter to rest.

[Mayan_Elephant]

The thing conspiracy theorists have in common is that whatever the topic: climate, age of earth, shape of earth, evolution denial... they are all similarly convinced that the scientific consensus on their particular topic is some kind of unfounded religion-like mutual agreement between millions of people who share some sinister intent and they rally behind the 1% who see it their way. They never want to talk about how frequently the scientific consensus was right. They never want to talk about how periods of uncertainty and disagreement were generally resolved once results were universally replicated, or when sufficient evidence was finally obtained to put the matter to rest.

Maybe we should split this thread into parts and pieces.

I think that some of your concerns or points made above can be split off and discussed as part of a process. You have successfully and succinctly highlighted most of the primary issues I have with this discussion and with others. I think that the approach above, as a process, could be applied to other topics, including January 6th, elections, electric vehicles, Trump, Hunter Biden, and TLC shows about hoarders and fat people.

- - - - Moderators, feel free to edit, split, or hide this conversation - - - -

I want to work backwards on this.

sufficient evidence was finally obtained to put the matter to rest

It does not take a conspiracy theorist or ideology to see that there is actually not enough evidence to put this to rest. Climate science is still relying on models and not empirical evidence. We don't have the benefit of billions of years of evidence. There is still an amount of speculation in the models and in the interpretation of data. The ice in Antarctica is increasing in places, and has a massive growth since 1980. The opposite may be true in the Arctic. There is not a consensus on the interpretation of that data. And yet...on to the next point...

They never want to talk about how periods of uncertainty and disagreement were generally resolved once results were universally replicated

In the case of climate change, the results can't be universally replicated. This reminds me of that awesome Steven Wright joke. "I have a map of the world, it is actual size." This concept does not only apply to climate change. Take the pandemic and vaccines, for example. How in the actual F-ing F, can one universally replicate that bullshit? Start another pandemic and universally replicate the scenario? What you have done is also common in these conversations, and my point is not personal, rather, it is an acknowledgment of what I see as a fact - this is a team sport. They!!!! They, they, they, they, they, they they they they they they. Who is they in this process? Is it me? Is it Dirty Bird? Is it an actual scientist or mathematician who can model data and information? Who is they? And why is it that they have to be marginalized or put in a box for not not being they or being they?

In many cases, the projection that this band of they does not want something, is in fact the exact opposite. The non-they group may want their assumptions or models or data to be accepted as universally resolved without a challenge. This positioning is a halt to the process where the thinking and the science has already been done - even if it ain't.

They never want to talk about how frequently the scientific consensus was right.

This is where the credibility goes completely to hell in this process. This relies on the previously discussed undefined they. It generalizes they as all the same. And, of course it is not plausible that they collectively never want to do anything. But more... it does not matter how often the consensus is right, even if it is a lot. The point is, advancement relies on finding the cases where the consensus is incorrect and addressing that. This team approach to the benefit of doubt where the consensus is mostly right and good enough is not only not interesting to me - it is an abusive and negligent threat to the process.

I would not have drafted and applied and been granted a utility patent that relies on math and science if I thought the consensus was good enough. The US patent office grants almost 6k patents a week to people who are constantly pushing for solutions beyond the consensus. Patents, including patents in science, rely on secrecy where there is not public disclosure. If the frequency of scientific consensus was good enough... we would just now be looking for a Vietnamese restaurant in the yellow pages that is open 7 days closed Monday and maybe we could get a notice on our pagers that our table is ready.

they are all similarly convinced that the scientific consensus on their particular topic is some kind of unfounded religion-like mutual agreement between millions of people who share some sinister intent and they rally behind the 1% who see it their way.

Well. There is a credibility issue here. While it may be slightly different with climate change, the process you are describing and applying is consistent. Teams, ad hominen, stereotype, all that goes into making this about they is right there. Dirty Bird is doing that too, by the way, do not think this is personal. But there is a big problem... those accusing one side of being religion-like, or ideological, are doing exactly that.

It comes down to this, really. If you lie about me, I may not know. If you lie to me, I may not know. If you lie to me about me, I know. This is where this all goes to shit and the reactions and responses become more interesting than the subject matter or facts.

[moksha]

Why do the Leftists want to depopulate the planet?

Do you think those Lefties bought into the ideals of Thanos rather than the QShaman?

[Cnsl1]

DB, when I left out meat in the consensus, I didn't mean to suggest that it's bad. I like to eat meat and I believe it's good for me. But not all agree. Some folks do not eat meat and are very healthy. There are a LOT of professional athletes on vegan diets. But, most nutritionists feel that meat is good. We know more about heart disease now than we did before. I'm not seeing what you're talking about within the heath science research. No one is saying to eat pancakes and processed food but that's what's cheap and easy. People in power have ruined the diets of many indigenous people all over the world. But that's not science, that's politics and economics. Again, good science will move the dial. It takes a while for us to catch up, and old ideas take a while to replace.

I have never heard any nutritional researcher say NOT to eat plants (by plants I mean fruits and vegetables), drink water, or exercise. Or NOT to avoid processed food as much as you can.

Docs that recommend the old food pyramid are not up with the latest research. I agree with you there. My doc would tell you to eat less processed sugar and exercise.

There are more fat people per capita in the US now than there were 20 years ago. I totally agree. And the reason they are fat isn't because heath scientists are dumb. It's because corporations make and market crap that kills us slowly. Ain't no heath scientists telling people to eat more big macs, candy corn, and all you can eat pancakes.

SIMILARLY, I have not heard anyone say the glaciers are NOT getting smaller and the overall temperature is getting higher.

We can argue the why, the how, and the significance, but only a very few would argue the fact. Just like only a very few will argue the earth is flat.

But when someone starts going on and on making straw man arguments and that scientists are dumb I often suspect there's a product in their pocket they're trying to sell. And I definitely suspect that of you, DB. Especially since you didn't deny it. I'm sure you're not trying to sell to us, but your cousins and neighbors have heard this spiel, I bet.

[Dirty Bird]

DB, when I left out meat in the consensus, I didn't mean to suggest that it's bad. I like to eat meat and I believe it's good for me. But not all agree. Some folks do not eat meat and are very healthy. There are a LOT of professional athletes on vegan diets. But, most nutritionists feel that meat is good. We know more about heart disease now than we did before. I'm not seeing what you're talking about within the heath science research. No one is saying to eat pancakes and processed food but that's what's cheap and easy. People in power have ruined the diets of many indigenous people all over the world. But that's not science, that's politics and economics. Again, good science will move the dial. It takes a while for us to catch up, and old ideas take a while to replace.

I have never heard any nutritional researcher say NOT to eat plants (by plants I mean fruits and vegetables), drink water, or exercise. Or NOT to avoid processed food as much as you can.

Docs that recommend the old food pyramid are not up with the latest research. I agree with you there. My doc would tell you to eat less processed sugar and exercise.

There are more fat people per capita in the US now than there were 20 years ago. I totally agree. And the reason they are fat isn't because heath scientists are dumb. It's because corporations make and market crap that kills us slowly. Ain't no heath scientists telling people to eat more big macs, candy corn, and all you can eat pancakes.

SIMILARLY, I have not heard anyone say the glaciers are NOT getting smaller and the overall temperature is getting higher.

We can argue the why, the how, and the significance, but only a very few would argue the fact. Just like only a very few will argue the earth is flat.

But when someone starts going on and on making straw man arguments and that scientists are dumb I often suspect there's a product in their pocket they're trying to sell. And I definitely suspect that of you, DB. Especially since you didn't deny it. I'm sure you're not trying to sell to us, but your cousins and neighbors have heard this spiel, I bet.

For the next few posts, I'm going to stop talking about a western diet and instead talk about Mormonism and how the psychology behind it is quite similar to the psychology underlying "climate change." In the beginning, Mormonism did not go by the name that it is known by today. If my memory serves me well, there were two distinct names that the restored gospel went by before it landed on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For the present climate change movement, the situation is exactly the same. At first, it was referred to as the global cooling, and then it was called the global warming movement. Now, it is referred to as climate change since it encompasses everything that has to do with the weather, and the word climate change can be used to refer to virtually everything that is linked to the weather.

Subsequently, Hagoth is fond of stating that 97 percent of scientists are in agreement that climate change is a truth. Additionally, this is not just a manufactured consensus, but it is also a loaded term that has evolved into our younger generations believing that they are responsible for the swings in the climate, that they are responsible for storms being more intense. They are responsible for the intensification of heat waves. That they are to blame for the process that causes the sea level to increase. During the latter days, Heavenly Father will create gigantic floods, purify the globe with fire, and there will be enormous storms that will cleanse the earth of all the wicked (population control) so that only the righteous are left on the planet.

Over the course of my childhood, I was instructed that I was a warrior in heaven and that I was so faithful that Heavenly Father reserved me for the latter days because I had demonstrated that I was capable of fighting for the gospel in these latter days. That I was obligated to serve a mission to convey the truth to anyone who would listen was something that I thought in accordance with the Mormon consensus, which held that the church was one hundred percent accurate. Today, eco warriors all around the world are embarking on a mission that will last their entire lives: they are spreading the "truth" in an effort to persuade those who deny climate change that the climate change movement is the new global gospel. And they better hurry because the world as we know it is about to end.

Hagoth likes to imply that anyone who does not trust the experts who agree 97% of the time are conspiracy theorists and that they do not comprehend the truth that is contained inside the sacred material that the climate scientists have put forth. In Mormonism, the consensus is that the knowledge that the brethern present is always worth following since they are unable to mislead anyone, and the proof is that they are always in accord with one another. This is an example of a consensus inside a religion that is based on consensus.

Deniers are dealt with quickly in Mormonism, which is one of the many religions that adhere to a consensus. Their name is dragged through the dirt, which makes it less likely that they will be able to convince "consensus believers" that their alternative viewpoint is more truthful than the one that they are currently following. The same thing happens to those who deny climate change and doubt the relevance of the facts that are presented by those who are considered to be experts on the subject. Deniers of climate change are being dragged through the dirt, which has the effect of making their reputation seem like a joke.

Last but not least, the Mormon religion and the climate change movement are of the opinion that the way life is currently lived on earth is set to undergo a significant and unfavorable transformation. It is expected that there will be tremendous storms, fires, and floods that have never been seen before. Mormonism and climate change both promote a doomsday doctrine, which asserts that life as we know it will come to an end in a cruel and terrible way. The Mormon religion and climate change are both based on a structure that does not let individuals to challenge the consensus that is established within the movement. Mormonism and climate change are both based on a narcissistic worldview that are designed to persuade their adherents that they are the most righteous of all the righteous people on the planet. It is the spiritual narcissism that is present within Mormonism that leads Mormons to feel that they are the only people on planet who possess all the knowledge, and that everyone else on earth would be better off if they only knew what they know about the impending doom and gloom that is going to kill the majority of the human race. The narcissism that exists within the climate change consensus is very similar to the narcissism that exists within Mormonism. This is due to the fact that those who are devoted to climate change are aware of the fact that they are one hundred percent correct. On the other hand, those who do not believe the same facts that are found within the climate change consensus are ignorant, stupid, and, in essence, climate apostates who are not worth giving two seconds of time to listen to.



Do you understand that some of the most well-known scientists in the world throughout the course of the last two thousand years have been scientists who have disagreed with the scientific consensus that was prevalent at the time when they were working?

[Hagoth]

Actually, it is much more accurate to compare Mormonism to your type science denial than to the scientific consensus, DB. You entirely overlook the single differentiating element. Mormonism can produce zero evidence to support its claims. Climate science has produced massive bodies of evidence. It is the people who choose to ignore that evidence who are acting religiously, not rationally. That explains why so many science deniers are also fervently religious; they can't seem to understand that science isn't just about believing what is convenient to their belief system.

But your original post was not really about science. Whether you or I are correct about the scientific consensus doesn't address your claim that climate concern is a willful conspiracy for the sole purpose of depopulating the earth. I'm still waiting to hear your reasoning behind that, so let's just assume you have convinced me about climate science and jump straight to the depopulation thing. If you can't address that then kindly direct me to whoever you are getting your opinions from. You were unable to help me locate the Leftists who could explain their desire to depopulate the planet.

So far all you've got is:

1)Some, but not all, scientists in the past have been wrong
2) Some, but not all, scientists who did not agree with the consensus have been right
3) Therefore, we can never trust the scientific consensus

This is a very weak argument because it implies that we should adopt denial of scientific consensus as the best way to find truth. The obvious problem here is that those outside of the consensus are not in agreement. If 90% interpret the same data the same way, that does not mean the remaining 10% are in agreement with each other, or that any of them are right. If I have a life-threatening medical condition I think my outlook is likely to be much better if I go with the 99%, rather than the guy who tells me to forego the antibiotic and put irradiated leeches in my ears.

Then you make the huge leap to:

4) There is a global conspiracy to depopulate the earth.

For the next few posts...

Oh please no. (I'm travelling and probably won't be able to read them anyway).


p.s. Adrenochrome.

[Mayan_Elephant]

Well, i have a different take.

Politicized science is about as legit as that Mormon priesthood authority but at least it weighs less than a stack of gold plates, and, so far, doesn’t appear to be in the underpants business.

If the consensus was real, and the science was legit, I sure as hell wouldn’t need Al, Greta, Joy, Mitt and a bunch of billionaires with private planes to convince me to help them.

I have no clue if temperatures are up. I have shoveled snow three times this year. Seems normal. I also DGAF.

[Mayan_Elephant]

On the other thing, I will bite.

The depopulation thing is not about the environment. Its just a fad among hippies and fancy people. I am cool with it. People who dont like kids or dont care for kids shouldnt have kids. People who think their electric car is better for the environment than my Mom’s car should definitely not have kids. My mom drives a Honda Pilot.

Hagoth, would you trade your kids if it would contribute to cooling Earth? Would the Earth be degrees cooler today if you were childless? Not to put you on the spot or anything. I am just making the point that most likely, you love your son and daughter. Most likely, you would choose to have your family over doing your fair share for the so-called consensus. And, my point is, any argument that puts an ideology or consensus or the great big huge world as a priority over something like having kids - lacks credibility. This depopulation conversation is just noise for noise sakes.

If one of my kids wants to have a family, I will tell them to not consider the ice or the Amazon and to do whatever they want. I would tell them the same thing about whatever the hell crisis CNN and NPR are promoting that day. Meh, ignore it, do whatever you want and skip the propaganda.

[Mayan_Elephant]

Like I said, we cannot sustain endless population growth. We don't have to sterilize anybody. Nature will put itself in balance, and we may not like the way that happens. Maybe we should try to be participants rather than victims.

I agree with you, Hagoth.

It will run its course naturally. And all these trends and conversations right now seem to fit into two silos - trendy and promotional. I would seriously like to hear from someone who is making a personal decision to be childless based on ice or not-ice. I suspect that if we did hear from someone making that argument, we would find more confirmation of DB's points. It would sound more like fast and testimony meeting than a sound and based argument.

[Mayan_Elephant]

https://www.wsj.com/world/billions-in-u ... malertNEWS

“It happened too quickly and ignored the ‘just’ part of the ‘just transition,’ ” said one person involved in the negotiations.

Don't blame me. I am just the messenger. Even if this climate drama is based in science, the grift is egregious and the cynicism is justified. If the actual threats were credible and real, maybe the solutions would be more urgent than the money.

[Dirty Bird]

Hagoth

What I believe to be the most significant distinction between your argument and mine is the manner in which we define scientific consensus. According to my point of view, your notion that there is a consensus in climate science is essentially anti-science. The reason I say this is because the field of climate science is still in its infancy stage and has a very long way to go before it is fully developed. The consensus that you have within the field of climate science has taken a pretty strange and frightening turn, in my opinion. The field of climate science, along with governments, large corporations, the media, and a large number of prominent people, is making an effort to suppress any and all divergent viewpoints that are in disagreement with the "valuable" consensus that exists within the field of climate research.

The falsifiability principle is the most important thing in science. Scientists should always be willing to accept the possibility that the consensus is incorrect. You're arguing the science is settled. Developing, refining, and correcting a consensus regarding the most appropriate explanation for occurrences in light of the evidence that is currently available is the primary objective of the scientific method. However, if you read the post that you made in this topic. I find it unsettling that you are suggesting that the scientific agreement demonstrates that the issue has been resolved. That ALL opinions that don't agree with the consensus should and will be dismissed.

Based on how I am reading your piece, it appears that you are indicating that the consensus within climate science does not need to be fiercely questioned anymore because the evidence is so overwhelming. Furthermore, it appears that anyone who dares to question the data is either a conspiracy theorist or just an idiot who is on the right. Is that your opinion? If so, you are entering the realm of anti-science if you hold such a viewpoint regarding the study of climate science, which is still in its early stages of development. As a matter of fact, any scientist who is deserving of the label would vehemently disagree with the proposition that something ought to be accepted without question because of the widespread agreement. An appeal to authority is a well-known logical error that is used in this situation. Scepticism, questioning assumptions, verifying inferences, and scrutinizing facts are all parts of the training that scientists receive. Why do you want scientists to stop being scientists when it comes to the consensus of climate change? Do have any respect for at least one scientists who disagrees with your precious climate consensus? Because if you don't, and you only respect people who agree with the "consensus," your precious consensus has become anti-science and is on its way to becoming a religion.

[RubinHighlander]

Hagoth

The reason I say this is because the field of climate science is still in its infancy stage and has a very long way to go before it is fully developed.

What is your background and expertise that allow you to make this judgment? What qualifies a science as infantile or developed?

[Dirty Bird]

Hagoth

The reason I say this is because the field of climate science is still in its infancy stage and has a very long way to go before it is fully developed.

What is your background and expertise that allow you to make this judgment? What qualifies a science as infantile or developed?

I have a background using common sense. Is that sufficient, or do I need a PHD or somethin?

The earth is so old we don't actually know just how old it is. There's been five major ice ages over billions of years and we have only studied climate change hardcore for roughly 40 years.

Today is December 6th. Would you trust your local meteorologist 100% if he tells you today it's going to rain at 2pm on December 13th? Yes, meteorology isn't climate science, that's the point, it's way less complicated.

In your personal common sense opinion, would the earth be better off with the atmosphere having a CO2 level of 200 ppm or 800 ppm?