Re: Is stupidity taught? Reply #25 – 2015-10-04, 02:03:10 Quote from: string on 2015-10-03, 14:05:16Quote from: OakdaleFTLIt somehow hasn't occurred to Bel that "climate change" is something that doesn't require human intervention… Nor, according to some apparently, does pregnancy.But it helps.On that question, I remain both agnostic and (…the main reason for my agnosticism) uninterested. (Also, I've always liked the helping part, myself. ————————————————————————————————————————————————Quote from: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-03, 07:54:13Is that really what you think scientific consensus means? Really? You can't be fucking serious. Now when 97 percent of a scientists in their given fields run tests and experiments independently of each other and come to the same conclusions, and you know how scientists bicker with each other, their might well be something to.I can read your word-salad, Sang, and so can respond to what you meant:Starting with Oreskes and going on through Cook and Lewandowsky's repeated attempts, I've read their papers and analyzed their methodologies… Their claims are not supported by their work.(You have said sociology and psychology are areas where you have some expertise: When I asked you to look at Lewandowsky's work, you demurred. I don't blame you: It's not just shoddy; its dishonest. But you still don't care about that! Because it seems to support something you're committed to, eh? Some people might call that "motivated reasoning"… )Yes, Sang, I'm fucking serious: The so-called 97% consensus is bogus; the so-called "science" that proclaimed it is unworthy of the name.But climatology does continue, as a science! Unfortunately, so does the IPCC's politicized agenda…as a political force!You'll forgive me, if I prefer the former to the latter?