I still find it a challenge to grasp the emptiness and FEEBLE analysis adopted by the Muppets of (Climate) Denial and excreted on HC threads.
for years, posters such as @zipperlip have noisily and wrongly claimed that the scientific consensus coming from the well-established science of anthropogenic global warming and the climate change it brimgs must be dodgy' and the result of a political fix.
of course the empty vessels that make up this convoy of muppets to nowhere never advance any credible evidence to support their FEEBLE case.
so i was interested to read in The Conversation on April 30 an article by Hassan Vally, associate professor of epidemiology at Deakin University citing four ways to spot a 'dodgy' expert. Here's Dr Vally's take on scientific consensus.
"Despite what those seeking to mislead you would have you believe, scientists only reach consensus when a large body of high-quality evidence points in the same direction."
it looks strongly to me that consensus is relevant across all disciplines, including climate science.
here are the cheadings of the four ways 'dodgy' experts reveal themselves, Vally says.
- 'Dodgy' experts don't acknowledge uncertainty. - The dodgy expert doesn't strive to be objective. - Dodgy experts cherrypick evidence. - Dodgy experts don't change their mind when the evidence changes.
I confess, the FEEBLE mind of the Muppets of Denial is hard to grasp. The more so that they willingly choose ignorance.
