You're trying really hard but no matter how you spin it you can't use a positive to justify a clearly erroneous method of reasoning, I think it's time you let go of this and admit that wasn't the smartest thing one could have said.
I wasn't trying at all, just a casual observation that "scientific consensus" is in fact "scientific consensus"
What
@the54thvoid posted is in fact logically sound -- as you noted, your argument, if I'm reading correctly, doesn't even contest
@the54thvoid's claim.
There are a lot of cases in history where there was overwhelming evidence and majority support for theories which were later proved to be wrong.
This is a guilt by association fallacy/ad hom. The "scientists" studying ether are not the scientists studying climate change.
In fact, a lot of people don't realize this but most theories to have ever existed were wrong/inaccurate for various reasons. Most research that is done in any field is largely irrelevant, inconsequential or plain wrong with few breakthroughs in between and wrong conclusions often propagate like wildfire. You know why ? Because people are more interested in gaining cred points from their peers rather than seeking the truth and the best way to do that is to adhere to the majority consensus.
Please read Thomas Kuhn. Yes, breakthroughs often break our conceptions of what is true, but not because of scientists scoring "cred points." Any serious scientist is a sceptic -- that's why their hypotheses, which aren't "true," are peer reviewed and tested before accepted as a legitimate hypothesis, which is to say that it is the best idea that research can verify to explain some phenomenon. Peer review is key in this, as Kuhn points out -- those scientists studying ether (and generations after) were looking for an explanation for the universe (Universal capital T Truth, like Hawking and Einstein searching for an equation to explain the whole universe), not localized phenomena that may or may not be reproducible universally (studying localized phenomena to develop explanations for the universe, small t truth).
What does this mean? When climate science says that the consensus is that human CO2 emissions have effected climate change it's not because they're trying to prove that the climate changes, but because all observations show that the humans have had an effect on a process of observed climate change.
What I am trying to say is that there is too much arrogance and confidence when talking about this subject and that can only have negative consequences.
This I totally agree with -- it's unfortunate that the language has become so partisan.
You guys like evidence, right ? Well there is evidence a lot of research in various fields can and has been wrong, that's all I am saying. Skepticism can be useful but the "I wont be open to any ideas until there is evidence for it" attitude can't, it's just an elaborate way of saying I cannot contribute to anything in any way.
When you say things like "humans aren't the
only contributor to climate change" you are correct, and it is a nuance that is underappreciated in the discourse around climate change. That's good science -- the majority of evidence suggests that humans have an impact on climate change, but they are not the only contributor, we are in a warming cycle, a dozen other externalities, etc.
Still, the goal of a hypothesis is not to establish truth, which is why the consensus agrees with the premise that humans aren't the only contributor to climate change.
Good, because I never said anything about that. Just that humans are not responsible exclusively for it, the climate changes irrespective of what we do.
This is where it becomes problematic -- you are right, humans are not responsible exclusively for it, but all evidence suggests that the climate changes with respect to what we do...
Again, that doesn't mean that's the only causation, but it is in fact scientific consensus.
Here's a good read from a friend if you actually like logic:
The cornerstone argument of climate change deniers is that our current warming is just a natural cycle, and this claim is usually accompanied by the statement, “the planet has warmed naturally befo…
thelogicofscience.com
Edit: Another good one:
The climate is changing, and we are the primary cause. These are simple facts that are supported by a vast body of evidence and agreed upon by virtually allcr experts. Nevertheless, many people con…
thelogicofscience.com
Edit 2: A previous version of this post gave the wrong user credit for @the54thvoid’s comment — my apologies!