Re: Why are some people still skeptical about climate change?
Before you have consensus you need to produce empirical data, none of which you are able to present. You don't get to skip the most critical step of the scientific method then still claim you are representing science.
[...]
Yeah, everyone knows empirical data is meaningless in science.
This is simply false.
Serious question coming.
I got my degree in computer science so I don't do much research. But I think I know about 30 to 35 people working in research currently or having worked in research in the last 10 years. From numerous background: Chemistry, Photonic, Quantum Physics and 3 in "soft science" such as psychology.
I don't know anyone working like that. Science isn't all about empirical data at all contrary to what you think... Have you ever talked to someone working as a scientific? Actually making some research?
Lets review scientific method:
Hmm... looks like you are skipping the most critical step which is where the actual evidence comes from and substituting more theories instead.
You don't get scientific knowledge thru osmosis (look it up), so mentioning you know people who do research is meaningless. Every statement you make gives me ever more examples of your total inability to comprehend science and scientific method.