trombone: I would suggest that the croaking frog analogy goes...

trombone: I would suggest that the croaking frog analogy goes both ways. This is not a numbers game where we request a division. I know people on siding with this political conservative view of climate science (and neo-liberalist mantra of say no to any government intervention) would have it played as a numbers game. This is nothing more than a dull tactic.

As an avid reader of a large number of science journals myself there would appear to be consensus. In fact the scientific contributors, editors, readers are all croaking in the same way and upset by these apparently publicised tirades from pseudo-scientists that they are in disunity and have no evidence.

Suffice it to say science in itself is a conservative field and I would be satisfied that they have already done their work before publishing their point of view.

This argument about no consensus, like the argument about empirical evidence is getting wheeled out now and becoming very tired.

As my comments before went, this should be and is a principled debate. So call yourself out then, you believe yourself to be a pseudo-climate-scientist selecting this article and that article to paint some fiction of dischord.

A significant majority have evidence and have used it to build consensus (I'm pretty confident they didn't do it the other way around as you seem to be claiming which is in my book the approach the denial game has taken).

If this is as you say a numbers game, guess what, those on the side of climate science have the numbers and they are playing them.

Best get a act of new trickery to feed the people as it would appear the battle front is moving on and this trash talking of the scientific community is failing to be heard.