Forget the 97% Consenses on Global Warming

[_subgenius]

For instance, the consensus that normal uninjured human beings have two legs might be overturned if it was found that we had an invisible third leg that the human brain was programmed to ignore. But until then, any sensible person will base their practical decisions on the two-legs hypothesis.

I see you have full commitment to being obtuse, which is admirable and sad at the same time.
Again, the "consensus" is not what gives the 2 leg hypothesis credence. You, like your moronic partner is absurdity have great difficulty in understanding a simple truth - a truth that exists with or without consensus.
The OP proposes that due to a consensus - ehem, a solidarity of belief - something is true. And while you have conceded that at "some time" the consensus was for a flat earth, you seem to struggle with this most simple of concepts. So while your presuppositions have led you astray understand that (upon actual inspection of my posts here) I have not claimed true or false that which the OP claims as truth. No, I simply pointed out the rather absurd notion that using "a consensus" to proclaim something as being true is, well, is rather un-scientific....idiotic even.
This eventually led to a broader criticism for posters who, like in the OP, use ridicule and poor logic to insist that other agree with their position...and to that end simply reinforces my earlier charge of "idiot".

So, while a simpler brain will try to believe that I am dismissing all of modern science because at one time long ago the "consensus" was that the earth was flat...a mature and competent brain will easily discern that my criticism is for the ill-fated thought process that erroneously associates "consensus" with "proof of truth".

[_Chap]

Global warming consensus now exceeds 99.99%. Out of 24,410 peer-reviewed articles by 69,406 authors (some articles are obviously by more than one author), only 5 articles, 4 authors reject man-made global warming. That is as close to unanimous as you can get in science. Global warming is a hoax? That's ignorant, dangerous nonsense!

This is the OP, which says that in face of the pretty well universal agreement amongst qualified professionals, it is ignorant dangerous nonsense to assert that man-made global warming is a hoax.

Subgenius's reply amounts to trying to suggest that the OP is saying something different - that consensus on the truth of a particular proposition is always and everywhere a guarantee of truth, which it clearly is not.

The point of the OP remains: the likelihood that this huge consensus of qualified scientific professionals is the result of a deliberate policy of deception by some group or groups (i.e. a hoax), as asserted here:

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee – I’m in Los Angeles and it’s freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 6, 2013

NBC News just called it the great freeze – coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2014

Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2014

Give me clean, beautiful and healthy air – not the same old climate change (global warming) BS! I am tired of hearing this nonsense. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2014

... is clearly about zero. And given that, and given too the immense importance of action to limit or reverse global warming if that is in fact happening, to assert that it is all a hoax is, as the OP says:

ignorant, dangerous nonsense

[_The CCC]

Consensus in and of itself is meaningless. It is what the consensus is about that is important. IE; You go to your Doctor complaining of chest pain. He tells you you are having a heart-attack. You don't believe him so ask for a 2nd through 10000th opinions. 99.99% of those opinions say "Yes; you are having heart-attack" . One says "No; heart-attacks are just a Chinese hoax". Who you gonna believe?

[_Gunnar]

It's almost impossible to overstate the silliness of subgenius's position. What he is, in effect, saying is that if it can be shown that science has ever been mistaken about anything whatsoever, however far in the distant past, one is justified in rejecting out of hand anything that science claims ....

Here is the point where I call you stupid, because you are. If you examine this thread you will notice that I never dispute AGW, I never claim that AGW is a hoax...in fact I really don't offer a position on AGW...because that was never the point of my criticism. I simply tried to show you that your OP was flawed by using a consensus as a means to make a truth claim. ..kinda your version of 3witnesses.
Anyway, now you have devolved, as usual, into simply attacking the messenger and relying on the choir to tell you what a great sermon you gave...but the pews were empty all along.

See, you say stuff like "what he is really saying" because you can't stop your own self centered view to be muted for one second. ..rather than accept "what he actually said" you feel obliged to translate it into whatever best suits your predetermined narrative. You are a walking example of bad science.
which makes you stupid

You claim you never dispute AGW. Fine, if that is really the case, then maybe you're not as stupid as I thought you were, but you sure seem to be highly critical of any public, especially governmental, acknowledgement of it and its seriousness or any collective action to mitigate and slow it or its consequences. That, in itself, is foolish enough.

Chap, Doc Cam, DarkHelmet CCC and most everyone else in this discussion correctly understand my position on this issue and the reasons for my concerns. You obviously don't even try to. I am not concerned about this only because virtually all scientists agree it is a real problem, but also because I have honestly tried to understand the evidence they presented that points to that conclusion. That should be abundantly clear to you from honestly reading my own posts.
posting.php?mode=quote&f=5&p=1048473

To quote Frank Drebin, BINGO!!!. Agreeing with the consensus is lazy research if that's all anyone is doing. It's important for people to read some of the peer-reviewed research to understand it, and get at least a basic understanding of why there is such an overwhelming consensus. Global warming is actually not as complex an issue as the alt-right wants us to think it is.

I am in full agreement with that. Agreeing with the reality of global warming only because it is the overwhelming consensus of scientists with the relevant expertise, without making any attempt to understand how or why they came to that consensus is indeed lazy. As you said, it is not as difficult to understand the evidence behind that consensus if one makes an honest attempt to study it. Even lazier and stupider, though, is just rejecting that consensus out of hand and refusing to even consider the evidence because one dislikes the conclusions it points to.