I have seen holes in the "overwhelming scientific consensus," and important questions that have not been answered, or in some cases, even addressed. When I have challenged you with some of them specifically in the past, you usually end up diving out the nearest window. Twice, in the case of the glacier discussion.
The rest of that header is utter bullshit. I have never claimed any sort of a "coverup." "Dissenters," or to be more accurate and less dogmatic, any scientist who has doubts about the "overwhelming scientific consensus," are not oppressed by any "conspiracy," but often run into a lot of difficulty in their field. I have given many specific examples in the past. Henrik Svensmark is typical. It is self-evident that a scientist or researcher, unless he has a very firm standing, is in a much safer position if he doesn't rock the boat and has little to gain by going against the flow.
You spew links from the Guardian, Wikipedia, and whatever news feed you happened to read in the past week, and think you know all there is to know on this subject.
You don't. Not even close.
Flame » in reply to You reject the the overwhelmig scientific consensus, you claim coverup of "the real truth" by scientists, opression of dissenters, all of which requires a vast conspiracy of 10-100's of thousands of…
BS
The whole thread (31 posts)
- You would think...
- re: It would be nice
- See...
- Faith-based science is as immovable as faith-based politics.
- re: You would think...