happyjack27 wrote:Diogenes wrote:Maui wrote:
What's even more ironic is that this is so fundamental that we might as well cite 19th century scientists:
Why sure! After all, they were right about the Aether weren't they?
This is awesome logic. (sarcasm, if you can't tell.)
The point here is that "consensus" among scientists doesn't mean a D@mn thing, and that's if we are willing (i'm not) to accept the ridiculous assertion that "97%" of the scientists are in agreement about Global warming.
Years ago I was reading an issue of "Scientific American" in which they had asked 50 scientists to provide their insight on the question of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I noticed a curious thing.
There were a lot of people supporting it, but when I looked at their claimed field of expertise I noticed that virtually all of them were Botanists, Marine Biologists, Anthropologists, Zoologists and so forth.
There were quite a few people not supporting it, and when I looked at their claimed field of expertise I noticed that virtually all of these were Physicists, Chemists and Astrophysicists.
I concluded that people who did not understand the material being discussed believed in it, while those who did understand the material being discussed either didn't believe it, or were not willing to draw any conclusions about it.
That they are "scientists" actually had nothing to do with it. They needed to be a "scientist" in a field that has some relationship to the issue.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —