Global warming?

[Undertoad]

I'm discussing the attitude

Discuss the science.

BTW science doesn't give a shit about consensus. That's not how science works. Science is evidence one way or the other followed by more evidence one way or the other. The truth isn't affected by our human beliefs and there are plenty of times when the 100% "consensus" has turned out to be 100% wrong. That's in recent history too: Stomach ulcers can't possibly be caused by a bacteria. Magnetism can't possibly be important to radiology. The list goes on.

If a post on GW is contains either the words "denier" or "warmist" it is really talking about people and not science. At that point it is just game-playing and can be ignored.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The politics of research is hard to separate from the science, in the results.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The politics of research is hard to separate from the science, in the results.

Hard, maybe sometimes... but eventually it does get separated if/when it makes a real difference.

That doesn't always happen with other approaches... e.g., common sense, religion, etc.

In other words, if your bed is floating it's time to seek higher ground.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Discuss the science.

BTW science doesn't give a shit about consensus. That's not how science works. Science is evidence one way or the other followed by more evidence one way ot the other.

What science doesn't do is certainty. But as evidence mounts up, it generates consensus. A few decades ago, while most studies supported warming, there was enough disagreement that "global cooling" made the headlines. The evidence has built consensus for warming since then.

The truth isn't affected by our human beliefs and there are plenty of times when the 100% "consensus" has turned out to be 100% wrong. That's in recent history too: Stomach ulcers can't possibly be caused by a virus. Magnetism can't possibly be important to radiology. The list goes on.

Sure, but "they also laughed at Bozo the clown". Consensus isn't a guarantee, but it is all we have when we want to use science for public policy.

If a post on GW is contains either the words "denier" or "warmist" it is really talking about people and not science. At that point it is just game-playing and can be ignored.

But global warming isn't just an academic topic. Public policy is involved. You, or I, or anyone, can ignore any aspect of a discussion that doesn't engage us, but politics is a powerful force in this field.