Looking in the mirror.
” best to get ahead of the game than to be stuck losing an eyeballs game to intellectually inferiors– ie wuwt”
Games theory is an integral part of science. At least one, probably a lot more Nobel prizes, real ones, [not sorry for the snark].
Games have rules, even ones without rules, Climateball.
I was most interested in the part.
“A consensus is not manufactured, it emerges if all the various lines of evidence suggests a consistent picture. It is true that overturning a consensus can be very difficult, but this is often because doing so requires not only illustrating the strength of the evidence supporting the new position, but also why all the evidence supporting the original consensus is wrong, or has been misinterpreted. Overturning a consensus is not meant to be easy. ”
Turns out that consensus can be wrong?
Who could have guessed.
Perhaps the little line escapes the oversight.
“all the various lines of evidence suggests a consistent picture.”
Herein the problem for people like Steven, and others here, who see one bit of excellent proof, CO2 increase in atmosphere gives a warming atmosphere, while ignoring at least two other facts.
The earth is not a straight test tube with only air and CO2, there are confounding features.
Life is resilient and adaptable.
Ignoring the fact that not all the various lines of evidence support warming to the degree that the textbooks properly say should occur.
Strangely, from this side of the mirror, every argument used suffers from the same flaws in reverse.
“why all the evidence supporting the original consensus is wrong, or has been misinterpreted”
This is wrong. A lot of evidence there, most pointing in one direction.
Only hope for Skeptics is that it has been misinterpreted. History does give a couple of well known examples.